Lords Sitting of 11 July 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD TERRINGTON on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester

LEGAL EDUCATION IN EAST AFRICA
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that adequate facilities are provided for legal education in East Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and the East African Governments regard the provision of facilities for legal education as an important aspect of the wider problem of increasing the facilities for higher education in East Africa. A Working Party under the Chairmanship of Dr. J. F. Lockwood, the Master of Birkbeck College and then Vice Chancellor of London University, recommended, among other things, after a visit to East Africa in 1958, that plans should be made to establish an inter-territorial University College in Tanganyika, which should have a faculty of law. The outline of their recommenda-
2
tions has been accepted by the East African Governments and, although no undertaking has been given, I know of no reason to expect that they will reject a proposal by the University authorities concerned to provide facilities for training in the law.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the detailed Answer which he has given, may I ask him whether he is aware that in January last the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and his Committee made recommendations to the Government that such training facilities should be established in East Africa, and also whether he is aware that it is most urgent that this should be proceeded with as soon as possible, and should not wait until a University is set up at some distant future? Could they, in the meantime, attach a school of law to Makerere?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think there are two questions there. On the first, the Conference which sat under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, at the end of 1959 and the beginning of 1960, recommended that a Committee should be set up to ensure that members of local Bars in Africa possessed the necessary legal knowledge and experience for their positions. In connection with that, I understand that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has agreed that such a Committee should be set up, and its composition, and so forth, is being considered at this very moment. As to the second question, whether in the meantime, before anything is done with a Univisity College in Tanganyika, something

3
similar should be set up at Makerere, I think that that proposal is a little premature. It really is for the University authorities in that area, in East Africa, to decide whether they would rather a school was set up in Tanganyika or at Makerere. All I know is that they are, in principle, anxious that something should be established.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government say whether at the moment there is any shortage of lawyers in that part of the world?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I do know that no fewer than 150 law students from the four East African territories are at this very moment studying law over here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the position of British nationals in the Congo at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

AGRICULTURE (THRESHERS AND BALERS) REGULATIONS, 1960
2.40 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, when I spoke this time last year on the Agriculture Stationary Machinery Regulations I said that threshers, hullers, balers and trussers needed special treatment and would be dealt with separately. The Regulations now before your Lordships provide for the guarding and safe operation of threshers and balers which are designed or permanently converted for stationary use only. They follow the general principles adopted in the Stationary Machinery Regulations. I should perhaps mention that when these Draft Regulations were considered by the Special Orders Committee a number of points were discussed (one particular drafting point was, I believe, discussed at some length), but I understand that they were disposed of to the general satisfaction of that Committee.
4
My Lords, to go very briefly through these Regulations, they provide that guards of sufficient strength must be provided for components such as shafting, pulleys, belts and flywheels,et cetera, unless, in the case of threshers and balers permanently fixed in one position, these components are safely situated out of the way of workers. Means must be provided of quickly stopping threshers and balers, and there must be adequate light. Machines, including the belts and guards, must be properly maintained.
In addition to these measures—which, of course, already apply to stationary machinery generally—there are provisions peculiar to threshers and balers. These are as follows. Drum feeding mouths must be specially guarded to prevent serious accidents which have been caused in the past by workers' stepping or falling into the drum feeding mouth and injuring themselves on the high-speed drum; no worker may stand on a platform which slopes down directly into the drum feeding mouth when the drum is rotating; and no worker under the age of 18 may feed produce into the drum feeding mouth. If there is a risk of a fall of more than five feet, the deck of a thresher must have a guard rail. This height was agreed after discussions with all interested organisations, and is in fact already incorporated in the Agriculture (Safeguarding of Workplaces) Regulations, 1959.
The next point is that many serious hand injuries have been caused through the use of hooks which are too sharp; and the use of sharply pointed hooks and spikes for the attachment of sacks to threshers is therefore prohibited. However, in administering this provision we shall regard hooks and spikes as being satisfactory if they are no sharper than a matchhead. That will avoid injuries, we feel, while preserving the usefulness of the hooks. So much for the threshers. As for balers and trussers, they must be fitted with guards to protect workers from injuring themselves on the ram or discharge arms. And, to prevent a particularly dangerous practice, no worker may be on top of a baler when it is being operated.
Employers are responsible for seeing that these provisions are observed, and they will be allowed twelve months to fit the necessary guards to their machines. Workers must make full use of the guards

5
and report any damage. For the purpose of these Regulations an agricultural contractor will be deemed to be the employer, and therefore, under Regulation 6, responsible for seeing that they are observed, where the threshing or baling is carried out in his machine. In all other cases the occupier of the farm on which the threshing or baling is taking place will be responsible.
The Regulations will apply to Great Britain. When they come into force on August 1, 1961, they will supersede, in England and Wales, the Threshing Machines Act, 1878. The repeal of this Act, which does not extend to Scotland, will take effect on the same day by virtue of an Order to be made by my right honourable friend under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956.
We have reached a broad measure of agreement on the draft Regulations with interested organisations and we propose, as we have done before, to use all available means to inform people concerned of their responsibilities. The Regulations are a necessary addition to the existing safety measures, and they will complete the Regulations which cover stationary machinery. Consultations are in progress on proposals for Regulations to cover the other broad group of machines—namely those which operate while travelling over the ground.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture (Threshers and Balers) Regulations, 1960, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Threshers and Balers) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, on this side of the House we welcome these Regulations. They are comprehensive and well set out in the document which is before us. I understand from the noble Earl that full consultation has taken place with the organisations which may be concerned with carrying out the Regulations. I think that it is all to the good that consultation should take place before Regulations are brought to us for our approval.
These Regulations confer benefits on both employers and employees. They direct the employer on the provisions he has to make to protect his workers from accident, and they do so in a
6
friendly and inoffensive way, which I think will meet with the approval of the industry. They impress on the employer that he has a liability under the 1956 Act to safeguard his employees and must not neglect to carry out his obligations, while they give the employee an assurance that the Government are concerned to introduce provisions for his safety and that they must Abe carried out. The provisions, however, must also be carried out by the employee, who must play his part and take proper precautions for his own safety.
In his opening speech, the noble Earl mentioned guards on machines. It is important that guards on all kinds of agricultural machines should be properly used. I have seen guards lying about where work is being carried on and not attached to the machines. The Regulations are good in themselves and they also contain instructions on the proper use and maintenance of machinery. Maintenance is an important point, particularly at the present time. The older generation of farm workers have not had experience of mechanically operated machines and are not mechanically minded, but the new generation of agriculture workers are a generation of technicians and will become skilled mechanics. As new machines are introduced, their working movement will be more appreciated and understood by the new generation. Maintenance is a problem, by reason of the lack of knowledge and facilities for the upkeep of machines, but this will become easier in the years ahead, and the requirements covered by these Regulations will undoubtedly be met in the new machinery which manufacturers will introduce. I hope that by these means the repair bills, which are now very heavy in agriculture, will grow less.
I want to make two points in regard to the Regulations. The first deals with hooks. The noble Earl said that although no pointed hook or spike shall be used, according to the Regulations, it might be possible to allow a hook or spike which was not sharper than a matchhead. I am rather perturbed about this, because I understand that most accidents with threshing machinery arise not from the rollers of the drum but from the hooks to which the sacks are attached. I believe that it is now possible for clips to be used which would

7
meet the position, and I should much prefer the introduction of the use of clips than a continuation of the use of spikes.
The Regulations come into operation on August 1, 1961, but I hope that the agricultural industry will endeavour to put them into effect in regard to their own machinery before that date. It would be a tragedy if accidents were to happen in the meantime which could be avoided if the industry had already made endeavours to bring their machinery into line with what is required under the Regulations. I think we should endeavour not only to avoid accidents on the roads, in the mines and in factories, but also in agriculture. That is what these Regulations seek to do, and I commend them to your Lordships.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, in replying to the two specific points raised by the noble Lord, first, on the question of hooks and clips, this matter has been gone into and has been carefully considered, and it was thought that, provided the hook is not filed to a sharp point, we shall not get this damage. These needle-sharp pointed hooks are a menace, and on my own machines I have often taken a file and filed them down. If they are blunt it is possible to force a sack over them, and they need not be razor-sharp. From August, 1961, it will be illegal to have them razor-sharp. But I do not think we can go so far as to take the sacks off the hooks altogether, because it is much simpler to fix the sack on with a hook than with a clip. With regard to the fact that the Regulations will not come into force until August, 1961, the noble Lord will appreciate that we are now in the middle of the harvesting period, and it would therefore be difficult to bring them into operation at this time. But I have no doubt that the publicity which the debates in the other place and in your Lordships' House will receive in the farming Press will lead farmers to take some of these precautions in good time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, there is one small point that I should like to put as a question. The Regulations refer to the use of threshers which are not stationary originally but are converted to be stationary. I am not quite clear what type of thresher that is. We do, of
8
course, find that at times the usual standard combine can be put stationary and threshing can be done by it. I do not know of any special dangers, unless somebody is foolish enough to stand on the platform that goes up from the ground towards the underpart of the drum, which is covered with spikes. May we take it that a combine used as a stationary thresher is not dealt with in these Regulations?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I speak again with your Lordships' permission. That is so, of course. Consultations are now going on about the mobile combine and the mobile baler. These Regulations, as I pointed out, concern only threshers and balers which are designed or permanently converted for stationary use. Such machines are not mobile machines that are just being used stationary at the time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the only point that occurred to me was that there might be danger on the feed if they are putting in any sheaves. Some people re-thresh and pass through the combine again and they stand on top of the machine and pour it into the drum.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the fact is that these Regulations will not cover anything but a permanently stationary machine.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1960
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1960
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, that the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
OFFICES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES) BILL
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Bill may seem to your Lordships a comparatively modest measure, consisting as it does of only two substantive clauses, but I am sure that any measure will be sympathetically considered by your Lordships which has as its object a reduction in the fearful toll of deaths on the road. Your Lordships will see from the Title of the Bill that it deals with the driving of motor cycles, and I would remind you that the motor cycle is relatively the most dangerous vehicle on the road: for a given mileage it is liable to have three times the number of accidents that a private car has. I hope to show your Lordships that, although this Bill is short in length, it can make a significant contribution towards solving the problem.
It is a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by Admiral Hughes Hallett, the Member for Croydon, North-East, and I might mention that my honourable and gallant friend not only had a distinguished career at sea but is himself also a highly skilled motor cyclist. My own qualifications, unfortunately, are restricted to a short period during the war when I had a motor cycle on loan from the War Office. But those few months were sufficient to convince me, even painfully, of the dangerous nature of the beast. The
10
Bill was originally devised to implement some of the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety which reported in July, 1957, on the minimum age for motor cyclists. But before going into the recommendations made by this Committee, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to define the different types of motor cycle to which I shall be referring.
May I start from the bottom and work up?—that is to say, from the least powerful machine. The first is the moped—and I apologise to your Lordships for using a term that has not yet reached the Oxford English Dictionary, but there is no other convenient term to describe this type of vehicle. It is really an ordinary pedal cycle strengthened and adapted to hold a small motor the cylinder capacity of which does not exceed 50 c.c., and its speed therefore is limited to a maximum of 25 m.p.h. The second class, going up the scale, is the light motor cycle, which, for present purposes, is defined as a motor cycle with an engine capacity of less than 250 c.c., and therefore with a maximum speed of about 65 m.p.h.; and into this class, of course, falls the ever increasingly popular motor scooter. Finally, there is the heavy motor cycle of over 250 c.c., which is capable of very high speeds—in fact, speeds of over 100 m.p.h. I would remind your Lord-ships that under present legislation the minimum age for driving all types of motor cycle is sixteen. All drivers are subject to a driving test before the issue of a full licence, but anyone on reaching the age of sixteen can acquire a temporary licence and can go on the roads.
If I may revert to the Report of the Committee on Road Safety, with your Lordships' permission I should like to quote the first three recommendations of that Committee. They say:

"(1) No justification is seen on present evidence for raising generally the minimum age of sixteen years for riding motor cycles.

(2) Surveys should be undertaken to obtain further data on accident rates for motor cyclists of different ages.

(3) In order to encourage young persons to start riding on the smaller types of machines, the minimum age limit should be reduced to fifteen years for mopeds…and increased to seventeen years for motor cycles…of over 250 c.c."

The underlying reasoning of this last recommendation, which also underlies

11
this Bill and to which I shall be referring again later, was that young riders should learn to ride on the less powerful types of machine and graduate slowly to the more powerful and heavier types.
As a result of the Committee's second recommendation, that surveys should be undertaken, the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research commissioned a survey by the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information Their report took two years to prepare, and covers some 10,000 motor cyclists of all ages and some 5,000 accidents to motor cyclists under the age of 21. If I may have your Lordships' permission again to quote, I should like to read from some of their findings. They say:
"The older the rider the lower the accident rate, but in every case the difference can be accounted for entirely in terms of riding experience and size of machine. Thus there is no evidence that age as such has any effect.
"Motor cyclists with less than six months' experience have about twice as many accidents, both per head and per mile, as those with over six-months' experience. After six months there is no appreciable sign of a continuing fall in the accident rate.
"The more powerful the machine, the higher the accident rate.
"On this basis, light motor cycles have six times the accident rate of mopeds, and the largest motor cycles have twice the rate of the light motor cycles.
"If accidents involving only slight injury are excluded, the above conclusions are virtually unaffected except that the advantage in favour of mopeds becomes even more marked. It is already known from accident statistics that for the heavier machine a higher proportion of accidents are serious or fatal."
Thus the Survey has established three main points: first, that experience is more important than age as a factor affecting the accident rate; secondly, that the first six months of riding a motor cycle are the most dangerous, and, thirdly, that the lighter the machine the less liability to accident and the less serious the accident is. It is these principles that the Bill seeks to apply. It seeks to establish a gradual progression from the less powerful machine to the more powerful, so that in practice the progression might work out something as follows. Under the age of fifteen a young person would be riding perhaps a bicycle. At the age of fifteen, if the present Bill becomes law and if the Minister of Transport were to make the
12
necessary regulations following the passing of the Bill, the young person could ride one of these mopeds which, I repeat, are merely powered bicycles with a top speed of 25 miles per hour. Then at the age of sixteen he could acquire a light motor cycle under 250 c.c.; but not until he had passed his test on that light motor cycle could he acquire one of the heavy motor cycles capable of really high speeds. In practice, the period before which these people take their test is approximately six months, which takes in very neatly the findings of the survey, so that for the dangerous six-months' period the young rider is restricted to the lighter type of motor cycle.
To put this graduated scale into effect, two steps are required. The first is to lower the present minimum age for driving a moped to fifteen, and the second is to restrict the issue of a provisional licence to motor cycles of under 250 c.c. These are the two provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 empowers the Minister of Transport, by regulation, to reduce the minimum age for driving motor cycles of any class or description to fifteen years. I am sure that your Lordships will find that this clause in its present form gives too wide powers to the Minister of Transport. It was never intended by the Minister to reduce the age for driving any motor cycle to fifteen, with the exception of mopeds. In order to make this completely clear, I shall be moving an Amendment on the Committee stage restricting his power to reduce the age to fifteen to mopeds only. Also, of course, this clause only empowers the Minister of Transport to take this action by regulation, and does not compel him to do so. I understand that the Minister does not intend to take this action immediately, but requires to make further investigations before doing so. But I expect that my noble friend Lord Chesham, who is speaking for Her Majesty's Government, will explain this in greater detail.
Clause 2 of the Bill restricts the issue of a provisional licence to the driving of a motor cycle of under 250 c.c. This is a simply applied provision and one which I think will help to reduce the number of accidents occurring in the present dangerous period of the first six months. It would mean, if enacted, that from July 1, 1961, no one will be able

13
to ride a heavy motor cycle with "L" plates, and no one completely inexperienced will be able to ride these enormously powerful and dangerous machines.
This is the extent of this small but, I think, important Bill, and I hope that your Lordships, who have always shown such an interest in road safety matters, will view it with favour, especially as it deals with accidents to young people. These have been shown by several surveys to occur particularly to inexperienced riders, and the whole import of the Bill is to ensure that a young rider gains experience gradually on less powerful machines before attempting to drive a heavy motor cycle. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give this Bill a sympathetic reception. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
3.10 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, it may be convenient if at this stage I give you Lordships the Government views on this Bill, and I do not think I need take up a great deal of your Lordships time in doing so. In short, and generally, we welcome this Bill as having a certain contribution to make to road safety; and naturally anything which is likely to make a contribution to road safety is to be welcomed. Having, I am quite frankly happy to say, a little more experience of motor cycling in my life than the noble Lord who so eloquently explained the Bill, I have often wondered whether his statement that the motor cycle was a "dangerous beast" of itself was entirely correct, because I have often wondered whether it was not something to do with the chap on the top, which seems to me a very important element.
As the noble Lord said, our view must be very much coloured by the findings of the Committee to which he referred, and particularly to the, as I think, very important point that experience is more important than age. The first six months, we know, are especially dangerous, and that is obviously the time on which to concentrate. The recommendation was that there should
14
be progression from smaller to larger machines in the process of gaining experience, and it seems clear, in fact, that the heavier machines are more dangerous. Possibly this is because, the machines being faster, accidents which occur are more serious and secondly, perhaps, because they tend to cover a greater mileage. Therefore, it would seem that the lighter machines are safer and that, as the noble Lord suggested, the moped, because its maximum engine capacity is only 50 c.c., plus the fact that it usually has pedals to help to propel it in certain circumstances, is safer. There does seem to be some claim that the moped enjoys a safer record than other sorts of machines, and I think perhaps there is a case, in view of the findings of the Committee, that lowering the age limit to fifteen would act as an inducement for young riders to go about gaining their experience in the way the Committee suggests.
We do not feel finally convinced, however, about the safety of the lighter motor cycles, and we do not quite feel convinced that all the arguments are valid in one way only. And if this Bill passes into law my right honourable friend has no intention of using this power at the present time, and he would not use it until such time as he was quite convinced that it was the right thing to do and that it would be an addition to road safety, rather than the opposite. Clause 2, on the other hand, is, we think, a valuable contribution and a good way of doing it. For those reasons, in general we support the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said it had only two substantive clauses. That is quite right. One is worthy of commendation. The other I condemn out of hand without any equivocation whatsoever. I cannot understand the logic, at a time such as this, in wanting to reduce to fifteen the age at which it is permissible for children to ride motor cycles. I can only address myself to what is in the Bill. I noticed that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill—and may I say pleasantly, with courtesy, although not himself wholly convinced—said that if so-and-so happened, if the Minister does that, this will be the effect. The effect of this Bill is to make it legal for a boy

15
of fifteen years of age to ride a motor cycle of 250 c.c. capacity. The noble Lord said that the lightweight machine of 250 c.c. capacity has a maximum speed of 65 m.p.h. May I tell him that the average 250 c.c. capacity machine in this country, the average production model, has a speed of 75 m.p.h., and in the 250 c.c. class in the T.T. race in the Isle of Man the average speed was 93½m.p.h. and the maximum about 95?
All the way through his speech in commendation the noble Lord talked about the moped. The moped is a pedal assisted bicycle of about 50 c.c. capacity and with a speed about 30 m.p.h. But it was at the Government's insistence that that was taken out of this Bill. The Government would not have anything to do with this Bill until that was taken out, and that was why protests went up from certain Members of another place that the Second Reading endorsed a principle, and that, through Government intervention, the whole principle of the Bill was altered when it went through the Committee stage. That was the complaint. But as the Minister knows as well as I do, it was his colleague, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who insisted that the Government would not be tied to any specific capacity when they wanted to reduce to fifteen the age at which one could have a licence.
What is the merit in the moped? What is the merit in fifteen? You can do all the noble Lord has said about gradations, with which I agree, by leaving the irreducible limit of sixteen which appears in the 1960 Road Traffic Act at the present time. After all, let us be honest about this: the moped at the present time is a means of locomotion of ageing and elderly ladies and gentlemen who find it far too fatiguing to pedal. I had intended to put down an Amendment, "That this Bill be read a second time six months hence", but I think that the second clause has considerable merit. However, on the Committee stage I shall put down an Amendment to delete Clause 1. The Minister himself has said that the Minister of Transport does not intend to implement this provision for some considerable time. But it is in this Bill. I do not think it right for a Bill to be brought before Parliament in unmistakable terms and
16
for the Minister then to say, "Well, of course, we do not intend to implement this for some considerable time ahead."
I hope I have not been guilty of exaggeration, but I would say that the first clause of this Bill is an affront to the public conscience of this country. Here are we, grappling with a road accident problem the like of which we have never had in our lives before; and here we come to the excuse that a boy aged fifteen and serving an apprenticeship should be allowed to ride a moped. A great many statistics and Reports of Committees, which to me are quite unimpressive, have all been quoted—they were quoted in another place and the noble Lord quoted them here. I will quote him a statistic which I think is just as valuable and rather more impressive than those. There appeared last Sunday in a reputable Sunday paper, the Observer, this passage:
"Records were broken in the United States during the Independence Day celebrations, Provisional figures of deaths in road accidents over the three-day week-end were 418, with more expected when final reports come in. The previous highest figure was for the 4th July week-end of 1955, when 407 people were killed. In England and Wales over the four-day Whitsun holiday at least 74 people died. With 68 million vehicles on the roads the United States had a figure of 6·14 deaths per million vehicles. England and Wales with only 8 million vehicles had a comparable figure of 9·25. So the death rate on the roads of this country, measured as per million vehicles licensed, is 50 per cent. more than that in America."
The noble Lord speaks of age and experience. I quite agree that an apprenticeship is a good thing. But what goes for fifteen also goes for sixteen. Why not start your gradations of apprenticeship at the age of sixteen? The Minister has plenty of power to do this under the 1960 Road Traffic Act: he has all the power in the world. He can graduate the size of the motor cycle and its power. The noble Lord and the sponsors of this Bill say "Why we say moped is because we think the learner should have only a small 50 c.c. machine to start with." That would apply to everybody between the ages of fifteen and fifty. No provisional licence would ever be granted unless the driver were to start off with the lowest type of machine. Then we jump from 50 c.cs. to the scooter. The normal scooter can be anything from about 60 c.c. to 250 c.c.—the average is about 150 c.c. So we jump from that and go up to 200 c.c.

17
I think it is a step forward to say, as would be the case if Clause 1 were eliminated, that the first machine for anybody to ride should be one of 250 c.c. But if you are going to do this, and if the noble Lord's idea of gradations is speed of machine equal to the size of the machine, he has a grave problem, because in my view we shall get motor cycles of small engine capacity which are capable of high speeds; and on we shall go. In my view—this is quite a personal view, but I have had same experience of the motor industry—the moped is going out; and before the time arrives when the Amendment of the noble Lord, which he has threatened to move on the Committee stage, comes into operation I think it will be off the road. Then what does he do? I do not know whether I am entitled to ask the Minister a question—perhaps I had better ask it on Committee. He did not say, after listening to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, whether or not the Amendment which the noble Lord said he was going to move on Committee stage commended itself to Her Majesty's Government. That is the very thing which Her Majesty's Government all through the passage of this Bill in another place refused to accept at any cost. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to answer that on the Committee stage.
Knowing the Minister a little, I feel that he is most unhappy about Clause 1, as I am. I think Clause 2 is possible, but I should like to give the Minister a free hand to be able to operate under the Road Traffic Act. Clause 2 of this Bill only repeats what is already in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I do not mind the Bill going through, if the sponsors do not think it worth while to withdraw it, provided the Minister will give an undertaking that he will proceed with his thinking on the lines already laid down in the Road Traffic Act, and clearly set out, I think, in Section 204. He has all the powers there that Clause 2 gives him. But I sincerely hope that at this period in our time, when the Ministry of Transport are fighting an uphill battle to reduce accidents on the road, we shall never affront the public by agreeing to bring clown the age at which young boys and girls of school age can ride a mechanically propelled vehicle. The age was put up from fourteen to sixteen, and I hope that sixteen will remain the irreducible limit.
3.27 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps it might be well if I were to add a comment about this question of the moped. The question of accepting it on Committee is one that I suppose I ought really to leave to the Committee stage; but I think it must be indicative that, as I have already said, if the power is granted it is not intended to use it. I think that is quite indicative as to what would colour one's views about the acceptance of such an Amendment. I think that, for the sake of the Record, I must make it clear to the noble Lord that the insistence, as he put it, in another place on taking out the word "moped" was, as I understand it, due entirely to difficulties of drafting and definition, and not for any of the more powerful reasons that I thought the noble Lord rather insinuated—that it widens the power at our request. That was not so; it was because of drafting and definition, and no more.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if I may speak again with the leave of the House, my understanding was that the Minister said that the Government did not want their hands tied to any specific definition—those are almost his exact words—because "moped" was a definition.
LORD REA: My Lords, might I put before the noble Lord something which is a little disturbing to some of us? He said that the powers, if granted, would not be used. Surely one's normal reactions to that would be that they should not be granted until they are to be used.
3.30 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, admit that when I first saw this Bill I was inclined to describe it as a piece of stark, staring lunacy—or rather (since one must not use such terms nowadays) may I say that it displayed to me every symptom of severe mental illness. As I saw that it was standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I knew that it could not be severely abnormal, so I was forced to the conclusion that it must be psychopathic. But after having listened to him I realise that the case is not quite so severe as perhaps it might appear, though I feel

19
that a good deal remains to be said about this Bill.
First, on Clause 1—this matter of age —experience on the road can be gained very well on an ordinary pedal cycle. I gained a lot of experience of traffic conditions by riding round London on a bicycle when I was a boy, and I think that prepared me for the driving of a car. One has to realise what are the two chief dangers with motor cycles. One is instability. Somebody once said that the motor cycle was chiefly dangerous because it had the speed of a car without its stability. And that is so. No motor cyclist wants to pull up to a relatively slow speed, because the lower his speed the less his stability. Therefore he wants to keep moving; and that applies just as much to a moped as it does to the largest of all motor cycles. The only point is that the moped cannot go quite so fast. On the other hand, it can go a great deal faster than an ordinary bicycle; and anybody who has seen riders of bicycles do the absolutely inane things which they do will realise that it is just as possible to do such things on a moped. When one has seen a cyclist swoop out of a side street, right into the middle of a main road in front of a motor car, forcing one to tread on the brakes to avoid hitting him, one realises that there are many young people who have very little sense of responsibility or knowledge of traffic conditions.
I believe that to lower the age limit below sixteen years would be a very dangerous experiment indeed. My noble friend Lord Chesham says that this provision is only giving powers, and that it is not intended that they shall be used. On the other hand, the powers are there, and we all know the great ability of the right honourable gentleman the Minister at finding new ideas. Next month this might be one of them. Who is to know? I do not think he should be given those powers. Personally I think we should keep the age as it is, at sixteen, but in relation to Clause 1, I would go further and say that until the age of eighteen no licence shall be granted for anything except a moped. Then, at eighteen, a rider should have to pass a further test before gaining a licence for a high-powered vehicle.
On Clause 2, I believe that the maximum of 250 c.c. is much too high, and
20
that this provision also should be limited to mopeds, because a learner does not want the power which a 250 c.c. motor cycle will give, enabling him to think he can always squeeze in between two other vehicles when probably he cannot. While, therefore, I feel that this Bill is not quite so bad as I originally thought it, I consider that it goes much too far. My view is that we should be much more strict in seeing that young motor cyclists are taught on machines of very limited power, and that they have to pass a further test at the age of eighteen before qualifying for a high-powered machine.

THE CONGO
3.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I tell your Lordships the answer to a Private Notice Question which is being given by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister in another place. The Question dealt with two subjects: the position of British subjects in the Congo, and the approaches which have been made by the Province of Katanga to Her Majesty's Government for assistance. The Prime Minister said:
"I share the anxiety of the House for the safety of British subjects. I am therefore glad to be able to say that there are no reports whatever of injury to British subjects or indeed to any Commonwealth citizens.
"Communications have naturally been difficult but the Foreign Office have been able to maintain contact with our Ambassador in Leopoldville and our Consul in Elisabethville. In Leopoldville most wives and children of British subjects had crossed out of the Congo to Brazzaville by the 8th of July. Since then the situation in Leopoldville has improved. As regards the Katanga Province, Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville broadcast on the evening of the 8th of July advising British subjects to leave for the Federation. All British subjects from Elisabethville have now left and it is believed that most of those elsewhere in Katanga Province who wished to leave have made their way

21
into Northern Rhodesia. Our Honorary Consul at Stanleyville reported on the 9th July that all was quiet there.
All British subjects at Albertville have been evacuated across Lake Tanganyika except for two who are expected to cross today. So much for the position of British subjects.
"As regards approaches to Her Majesty's Government, a request for military assistance was made yesterday by Mr. Tshombe, the Prime Minister of the Provincial Government of Katanga, to our Consul at Elisabethville. Mr. Tshombe has been informed that, in the circumstances of the case, it would not be possible for troops to be sent in at the request of an authority other than the lawfully constituted Central Government. Sir Roy Welensky has made a statement which follows the same lines.
"Mr. Tshombe has today asked for police assistance for the Provincial Government of Katanga Province. We have replied that we fully realise the importance of maintaining law and order and are carefully watching the situation from the point of view of the safety of British subjects and property. We are communicating with the Central Government of the Congo on this subject and will consider the situation in all its aspects in the light of the views of that Government.
"All these matters are naturally the subject of the closest consultation between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Federal Government. We have also been in close touch with the Belgian Government."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are very much obliged Ito the noble Earl for giving us that statement which has been made in another place. I think there has been considerable anxiety in the public mind as to what was the situation of British subjects in these Congo districts. Do I understand from what the noble Earl has said that there are now no British subjects at all—missionaries for example—left in these areas, and have the missionary societies made any approach to Her Majesty's Government to see whether proper protection can be given if there are any attacks upon them?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in a confused situation it is always difficult to say that no one is left, but so far as we know there are no British subjects left in these Territories. We have had no communication from missionary societies.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is it clear that the last word on the sending of British troops rests with London?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, yes; we have said that there is no intention of sending troops until we have been in the closest touch with the Congo Government and that at all times we will keep in close consultation with the Federal Government. So the answer to the noble Viscount's question is, I think, really contained in the main statement.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, since the United Nations have recognised the new Congo Republic, they have made any comment upon the happenings there and whether they are going to take any steps that may be necessary to restore order in the Congo?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that the task of restoring order must be first of all for the Congo Government, the Central Government of the Congo, and there are Belgian troops assisting in that matter. I have no knowledge of any United Nations statement on this subject, nor of any proposal that the United Nations should intervene in any form. Perhaps it would be better to wait and see how far the Central Government of the Congo are successful in restoring order.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I revert to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate? Should the Congo Government request military aid from the Federation, would that matter be referred to London before being decided?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, on every matter of this kind, affecting external affairs and defence, we are always in daily contact with the Federal Government; but I should think it very unlikely that any such request would come.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the question was rather: Who is the

23
final authority? Of course we are in contact with the Rhodesian Government, but who has the final word?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the answer is that we take joint decisions on these matters.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, then it would be competent for the Federal authority to send troops and then consult London?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think I could answer that question. The only thing is this: if there were any question of sending troops from the Federation, of course Sir Roy Welensky would consult us, and we should consult him if there were any question of sending troops from here. Any action of this kind is always taken as a joint decision.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether that is correct? As I understand it, the Federation is not responsible either for defence or for external affairs. Any incursion into the Congo would be very much a matter of foreign affairs. Would it not be solely the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the movement out there of Federal troops, and therefore the use of Federal troops, is a matter for the Federal Government; but they would not be used outside the Federation without the ordinary consultation which always goes on with us. In all these matters concerning Federal troops we always consult before decisions are taken.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember a speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, when it was suggested that the Air Force might possibly be used by them in their own behalf? And is it really possible that, even after consultation with us, they could go into another country to carry on a policy, or are we the supreme authority outside the Federation?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Viscount. Lord Malvern, has said many things in his day, and I should have to refresh my memory as to the exact context in which he said that—I think it may have been in answer to a
24
rather provocative speech by the noble Viscount. But the fact remains—I am not going into the constitutional position in any great detail; I should have to do that in answer to a Question put on the Paper—that these are matters for joint decision between us and the Federal Government.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not interested in going any further into the constitutional position—they are quite proper questions—but I am concerned to know (which I think is now clear) that whatever happens we shall be constantly on our watch to give protection to British lives. That is the essential thing, and I am quite sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the House would agree with me.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Viscount said. We are constantly on the alert to watch that British lives are not in danger here.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES) BILL
3.45 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a moment or two, because all that I should have liked to say against Clause 1 of this Bill has already been very adequately said by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Somers. I came prepared to curse this Bill, and I still do not feel prepared to stay and bless it; but I think I am for going into that on the Committee stage when Clause I will no doubt be adequately dealt with. There is no need for me to go into the principles, because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—and I agree with what he said—has fully stated them. But surely in this time of road congestion, even apart from these principles, it is noteworthy that there is no adequate justification for adding another age group to those who are congesting the roads; and it is also, surely, no hardship to retain the limit of sixteen years of age for anybody who wishes to use a motor bicycle.
In relation to Clause 2, and this restriction that a holder of a provisional licence to drive a motor cycle shall not

25
use a machine with an engine capacity in excess of 250 cubic centimetres, I have no doubt that that is all right so far as it goes, but the statistical figures would not induce one to believe that that will lead, in itself, to any great reduction in the accident figures. Perhaps a more substantial contribution to road safety would be the imposition of a safety limit, say, of 50 miles an hour, on the holders of provisional licences. They can quite easily be identified by "L" plates, and a rule of this kind would probably not add very much to the responsibilities of the police.
I do not wish to say any more, except heartily to agree with those noble Lords who have said that Clause 1 is not acceptable in its present form and that Clause 2 is in itself innocuous. I listened to the noble Lord who introduced the Bill when I came here. Having merely read the Bill, I had quite a false impression of what it really meant. When I listened to the noble Lord who introduced it I found that he threw a very different light on it; and, after listening to my noble friend Lord Chesham, I realised that everything which ought to be in the Bill is not in it, and the powers are not going to be used. So I finished in a state of complete confusion as to what, really, Clause 1 was doing in the Bill at all: and until the Committee stage I shall postpone any further comments on it.
3.48 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the criticism of the Bill has centred itself on Clause 1. I should like to repeat that this clause arose from a recommendation of the Committee on Road Safety, which consists of representatives of Government Departments, representatives of the police, and representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and other bodies concerned with road safety. The object, I think I explained sufficiently, is to get this graduated scale. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, rightly says, this graduated scale can be put into operation by the regulations of the Minister of Transport, at the moment starting from the floor of sixteen.
It was suggested by the Committee on Road Safety that as a result of further studies which are being made now by the Minister of Transport,
26
it might be desirable, and it might lead to more experience being gained by younger motor cyclists, if this basic age were to be reduced to fifteen. I hope that your Lordships will see it a little more kindly in the Committee stage, when we shall have another chance to look at it again. But I should think that the moped is not really as dangerous a vehicle as some of your Lordships have tended to make it out to be. My noble friend Lord Somers made play with his bicycling experience, but I rather doubt, really, whether a young person is much safer on our roads on a bicycle than he is on a moped. A moped, after all, is only a powered bicycle; and we have seen bicyclists swerving in and out of the traffic, or racing with their heads down, and we have seen the average moped rider chugging along quite safely on the left-hand side of the road.
The hope behind the sponsors of this Bill is that if these two clauses are passed, it will produce a graduated scale of experience derived, first of all, from the 15-year-old riding the moped. But, as has been said by the noble Lord who spoke for the Government, this clause requires further study. I hope that in saying that it was not going to be put into effect he did not imply that it will never be put into effect but merely that it would not be put into effect until further studies had been made, and on that basis I hope that your Lordships will agree to accept it.
I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will have an opportunity of reading the social survey which was made, which very much points the lesson that it is experience that really counts and that experience is more effective than age. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, suggested an age of 18 as a minimum, but this, I suggest, is not borne out by the conclusions of the survey, which show that the older person is no safer than the younger. It is merely a question of experience; and the survey points especially to the dangers of the first six months of riding a motor cycle. Most of your Lordships have been kind enough to accept Clause 2, which is aimed at the same thing—to ensure that a rider has some experience of a lighter type of motor cycle before graduating to

27
a heavier one. I hope that your Lordships will consider this matter sympathetically when we reach the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) BILL
3.52 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Admission of public to meetings of local authorities and other bodies]:
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved to add to the clause:
"( ) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords opposite for not moving their Amendments, because I think it will save time. All three Amendments—the one in my name, on which I propose to speak, and the two Amendments set down by the noble Lords opposite—are all designed towards the same end. The problem is well known to your Lordships. The Bill seeks to give the public rights of admission to the meetings of the bodies concerned. It goes about this first by referring in several places, and particularly in Clause 1 (1), to meetings being "open to the public". It then seeks to put the public's rights in more definite terms by using, in Clause 1 (4) (c), the words:
"…while the meeting is open to the public, the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting.…"
Those very definite words which I have just quoted have given rise to the anxiety that they may take away from the body or its chairman the power to control disorder or misbehaviour in the public gallery. As I said during the Committee stage, the Government's advisers have given most careful thought to this, and their conclusion is that these words in the Bill do not have that effect.
The object of the Bill is to enable the public to come in to watch and listen to the proceedings: it is not the object to enable them to frustrate those proceedings by throwing things, by shouting or
28
by otherwise misbehaving. We are confident that if the matter came before the courts—and it would have to be taken to the courts by someone who had been excluded from a meeting—the courts would so interpret the Bill. We are sure that they would not come to the conclusion that Parliament, in giving the public these rights to be present, had thereby intended to make it possible for unruly elements to frustrate the body in carrying out the duties which Parliament had, under other Acts of Parliament, imposed upon it. But, be that as it may, this Bill will have to be interpreted and operated by the chairmen and clerks of the very many local authorities and other public bodies to which it applies. They should not be left in any doubt that it is possible to require the removal of unruly elements from the public gallery or to clear the gallery, if necessary, to prevent disorder—and as it is clearly your Lordships' desire and wish that this should be made clear in the Bill, we have to find the best way of doing it.
Perhaps it would be fair if I explained why we are glad that the two other Amendments have been withdrawn. If I may, I will give what in our view are their shortcomings, and then I will come to my own Amendment. As to the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, the anxiety has arisen around the words in Clause 1 (4) (c), "the body shall not have power to exclude." So it seems at first sight attractive and straightforward to deal with the problem simply by leaving those words out; but I could not have advised that to be done, and I cannot do it myself, because I am advised that, if those words are omitted, the rights of the public will rest solely on the words in Clause 1 (1), that the meeting "shall be open to the public". Now these words are not sufficiently precise and determinate to secure for the public the rights of admission which the Bill seeks to give them. There could be argument about what those words require. Would it, for instance, be sufficient for the body to admit one selected member of the public, and to say that that was sufficient to open the meeting to the public and so comply with the Act? I quote that as the sort of argument that might arise. The words at the beginning of Clause 1 (4) (c) are put in to give the members of the public their definite

29
and specific right of admission, and I have to advise your Lordships that, if those words are omitted, the rights of the public which the Bill seeks to give would become subject to some possible doubt and legal argument.
The alternative course, if those words are to stay, as I have suggested they should, is to include some general saving provision. The Amendments in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, both seek to do this in different words. The difficulty with a saving provision of this kind is to draft it so that it does not itself unintentionally restrict the powers which it seeks to preserve. The situations which have to be dealt with are of various kinds. There is physical obstruction; there is interruption of a meeting by shouting and throwing things; there is the dropping of leaflets from the gallery; there is smoking, playing cards and waving banners—any number of things. For instance, there is the tape recorder, which is dealt with in Clause 1 (7). I am advised that, taking all those things into consideration, the words of the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would have been too restricted, because they refer only to obstruction.
We have examined all possible ways of dealing with this matter, and the words of the Amendment in my name are, we think, the best that can be devised. They are sufficiently wide to preserve the powers to deal with disorder, interruption or other misbehaviour without encroaching on the rights of the members of the public—providing they behave themselves—to attend and listen to the proceedings. I am sorry to have wearied your Lordships with that long explanation, but I thought it only fair, as those other Amendments had been put down, to set out the reasons why we felt they were not in themselves quite sufficient. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, it would not be profitable to discuss any further whether the Amendment which I put down is a good or a bad one. I simply say that I do not agree with what the noble Earl has said about it. But I was very happy not to
30
move it in view of the Amendment which has been put down by the noble Earl, which adequately safeguards what we are anxious about. I am informed that it is agreeable to the associations of local authorities, and I am therefore sure that it is wise to put this provision in.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth asked me to say how sorry he is that he could not be here to-day not to move his Amendment. The Government Amendment fully meets the point he has in mind and covers other kinds of obstruction or difficulty that may arise, and my noble friend has asked me to thank the Government.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Earl for the Amendment which has been drafted. It helps to clarify the situation and does so without any restriction of the Common Law rights under which all public meetings are held. I think it is a good Amendment, and I gladly accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

NOISE ABATEMENT BILL
4.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Conesford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Restriction of operation on highways, etc., of loudspeakers
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a loudspeaker in a street shall not be operated—

(a) between the hours of nine in the evening and eight in the following morning, for any purpose;

(b) at any other time, for the purpose of advertising any entertainment, trade or business;

(3) Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the operation of a loudspeaker if the loudspeaker—

(a) is fixed to a vehicle which is being used for the conveyance of a perishable commodity for human consumption; and

(b) is operated solely for informing members of the public (otherwise than by means of words) that the commodity is on sale from the vehicle; and

(c) is so operated as not to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in the vicinity.

LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Bill, reading the first lines of the Long Title, is described as:
"An Act to make new provisions in respect of the control of noise and vibration with a view to their abatement."
But, as I see it, Clause 2 (3) has nothing to do with the abatement of noise: it is opening the door to a licensed increase of it. Long before the Noise Abatement Bill became a possibility, complaints had been received all over the land by local authorities about the use of chimes and gongs and other similar mechanical instruments by itinerant ice-cream vendors, and by other kinds of travelling salesmen. These chimes are used to indicate to the neighbourhood that the salesman is in the vicinity, and no doubt helps to advertise the goods he wishes to sell.
Some local authorities have obtained provisions in local Acts which are very similar to Clause 2 of the present Bill, but I understand that in most, if not all, there is no exemption in favour of travelling salesmen similar to that which is contained in this subsection (3). Examples are the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1949; the Wolverhampton Corporation Act, 1950; the Nottingham County Council Act, 1951; the Swindon Corporation Act, 1951; the Glamorgan County Council Act, 1952; the Preston Corporation Act, 1952, and the Winchester Corporation Act, 1952. Other local authorities have found it possible to control the use of these chimes by making by-laws for the good rule and government of the borough under Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933. The decision of the provincial court in Raymond v. Cook, 1958, 3 All England Reports 407, shows that effective enforcement action can be taken under these by-laws, though in
32
future it would clearly be better for matters of the control of noise to be dealt with under the Noise Abatement Bill.
Surely, therefore, it is regrettable that it has been found necessary to include in the Bill an exemption of this nature. I am informed that the chimes are audible for anything up to half or three-quarters of a mile, and that when more than one ice-cream salesman is operating, the noise tends to be almost continuous. As I have mentioned, many local authorities already possess powers to control this nuisance, and I suggest that it would be clearly a retrograde step for local authorities to find their existing powers weakened by a Bill which purports to be strengthening existing legislation.
Furthermore, it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that the Minister may secure the repeal of existing local Acts under Clause 3 of the present Bill, a matter to which the local authorities concerned would certainly take great exception. I have received many letters from boroughs all over the country who are extremely alarmed by this subsection, and who foresee that their powers of controlling noise are going to be undermined by it. Perhaps I may quote from one letter from the borough where I live, Maidenhead. The letter says:
"In Maidenhead much has been done, with the co-operation of the Principal companies selling ice cream in the area, to mitigate noise and nuisance from vans, but if the existing control contained in the by-laws for good rule and government were weakened, as is now proposed in the Noise Abatement Bill, my Council would certainly find it difficult to do so in future."
There is the reason why I feel that this subsection has no place in a Bill the purport of which is stated in the long title, which I have already read. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Milverton.)
EARL ATTLEE: I desire to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite. My own district does not seem to be infested with these instruments of cruelty, but representations have been made to me by the Borough Council of Greenwich, who are

33
seriously concerned at this exemption, which they think tends to defeat the purpose of the Bill.
LORD BURDEN: I regret that in this instance, while recognising the strong case put forward by my noble friend Lord Milverton, and also that the Association of Municipal Corporations support the Amendment, I feel that the Amendment goes a little too far and leaves out consideration of what is in the clause about nuisance. As your Lordships are aware, the ice cream industry is carried on under strict supervision by statutory rules and orders given effect to by the local authorities in order to ensure that the product is both pure and wholesome. I think we must realise that the ice cream vendor is a necessary part of the industry and renders a useful service—and I am putting on one side for the moment any question of nuisance or anything of that kind. I would call attention to the fact that, while chimes are permitted in the Bill, if the chimes were operated so as to cause a nuisance to the public, it would be an actionable offence and the offender or offenders would be liable to prosecution. I venture to suggest that this is a reasonable and realistic approach to a way of life in the ice cream industry which has grown up over a number of years. Incidentally, if this Amendment were carried a number of men would probably be deprived of a livelihood—though on that point I would not be dogmatic.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in moving the Amendment in the very reasonable way we have come to expect from him, mentioned that in Maidenhead there was co-operation between the industry and the local council. That is an important point. I would suggest that if, when this Bill becomes law, there were any increase in nuisance, there is always a way—in addition to the powers which the Bill will give to the local authorities to take action—of dealing with these people; and that is to report them to the federations. The federations are fairly well organised, and I feel sure that they will take every step to abate the nuisance. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that in another place this clause and the subsection which the noble Lord seeks to delete were accepted after full consideration. I hope that it
34
will be accepted as a reasonable compromise; and I commend it to your Lordships.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Milverton, to the utmost of my ability. This noise, of which I have had personal experience, constitutes a real abuse. When I say "I have had personal experience", I am thinking of the time when my children were young enough to have to go to bed early and were constantly disturbed by the noises of these ice cream vendors. And this does not apply only to children. I am speaking now largely because of experience in the Royal Borough of Kensington, which is mainly a residential area, and, in particular, North Kensington, where there are a large number of shift workers—and this argument should appeal to noble Lords opposite—who have to get their sleep during the day. These ice cream vendors do make (if your Lordships will excuse the phrase) a most infernal noise, and do keep children awake. I freely admit that my children have now got beyond that stage, but I can say the same about my grandchildren who have got to the stage where they have to sleep. They should not be deprived of their sleep any more than the shift workers should be deprived of theirs; and they are being deprived of their sleep during the day. I earnestly hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD REA: I, too, should like to support this Amendment. This matter, of course, is in no sense a Party matter, and I hope that noble Lords will feel free to take any line which they feel they ought to take. The matter was discussed in another place (your Lordships may have read about it, or may have been there, as I was), and it there sums to have been left in the air. My particular objection is one of principle. I do not see why one type of tradesman should be given an exception that others do not have. What is behind this? How is it that the ice cream people have managed to get inserted into a Bill in Parliament something to protect their own industry which is not given to any other industry? Why should not a man who is selling mouse-traps or old clothes advertise the fact with a bell? What about the detergent people? They make the most frightful noises in my ears

35
on the television. Why should they not be excepted? Can we not expect them to come round and ask for a special clause to be put in the Bill? I object to this exception on a matter of pure principle: that I do not think one person should get what others do not have. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will test the opinion of the Committee by taking this Amendment to a Division.
LORD AMULREE: I, too, should like to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and to say that I entirely agree with every word my noble friend Lord Rea, the Leader of the Liberal Party here, has had to say on this matter. I have had representations made to me by local authorities. The Council of Cardiff, for example, are very worried about this clause. Cardiff is a town with a great many shift workers, where people have to try to sleep by day, as well as by night. I cannot see why this particular clause has been inserted, and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will test the opinion of your Lordships. In that case, I shall be pleased to follow him into the Division Lobby.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I really have nothing to add except the name of a new witness. Others have spoken about a town and about Kensington and so on: I am speaking on behalf of the ancient borough of Maldon, in Essex. They write to me to say that the children cannot sleep at night for this noise, and the shiftworkers (because the people there work in shifts) cannot get their rest. They further say that the matter is quite adequately dealt with—they have never had a prosecution or any trouble—under the by-law. Therefore it seems to me that this subsection, which is an extraordinary thing in itself, should have no place in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: This is a non-Party measure and therefore one on which I am justified in saying a word. I have two questions to ask, one of which has already been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Why should one business be preferred over another in regard to the making of noise? I hope my noble friend will answer that question. The other question is a simpler one. These ice cream vendors make a very
36
deafening noise, and my second question is: Why should one infernal noise be preferred over another? I hope that that question, too, may be answered.
4.18 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I have to answer a formidable barrage of questions. I hope to satisfy the Committee that some of them are based on a misapprehension of the effect of the Bill, both as it stands and as it will stand, if the later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Taylor, and myself is adopted. Let me say at once, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that as a result of the passage of this Bill into law, even without the subsequent Amendment which I hope will be adopted, nobody is going to be any worse off: no noise at present prohibited will be permitted. Let me repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate: that the subsection we are now discussing is the only matter on which there was an important difference of opinion in another place and on which it is clear there is some difference of opinion here. With a great deal of what has been said about this particular noise. I think I should find myself with the majority. Nevertheless, I wish to put before the Committee certain reasons for thinking that between the two views—first, that there should be total prohibition of these chimes and, secondly, that there should be limitation—the second view is that which we should be wise to adopt.
Let me put three main considerations before the Committee. As the Committee are aware, the general scheme of this Bill is to enact in an improved form, and for the benefit of the whole country, what is already in force in many districts under local Acts. The exemption which my noble friend Lord Milverton would delete is to be found in a number of local Acts, in clauses on the lines of Clause 2 of this Bill. It has, in fact, appeared in all such clauses since the year 1954. In that year a Brighton Corporation Bill came before Parliament. As a result of a Petition on Mast Bill, the matter was considered by the Committee before whom that Bill came, and musical chimes were played in Old Palace Yard so that the Committee should have the benefit of actual experience. The Committee, after hearing the evidence, decided that there were reasonable grounds for exempting them. The Home Office

37
who advise these Committees on these matters concerning noise had previously always left the question to the Committee. Since that date, the Home Office have taken no departmental view, but have drawn attention to the decision on the Brighton Corporation Bill. Since that date, as I have said, this particular exception has been put in all such clauses. That then is the decision of Parliament in a number of Bills, and it is the general scheme of the present Bill to make universal in improved form what already exists in so many local Acts.
Now let me come from what Parliament has previously done to the point which I know is in the minds of all noble Lords who have spoken—that is, the merits of this particular exemption. Let me invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that rather different considerations apply in urban areas, where these chimes have in the past given rise to a great many complaints, and in rural areas where in many cases people find it quite useful to know when the travelling shop or the ice-cream seller is in the area. The fact that there is that difference in the views of the public in urban areas and rural areas does not mean, of course, that it is undesirable to control these noises. But it does mean that by-law control, area by area, is more appropriate than universal prohibition. Many noble Lords have imagined that satisfactory by-law control is going to be adversely affected by the passage of this Bill into law. That is not so. If noble Lords will look at Clause 4, they will see that the by-law making power is completely preserved. No by-law against noise will be adversely affected by the passage of this measure, nor will it be at all impossible, after this measure is passed, for a local authority to ask for and obtain a by-law with the approval of the confirming authority that goes further in its prohibition than this Bill.
There are such by-laws in force, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned. These by-laws are quite unaffected; and if the Bill, as I advocate it, becomes law, while there will be some universal limitation by the terms of the clause. there will be nothing adversely to affect an existing by-law, and nothing to prevent a by-law from being made in any area where a by-law does not at present exist.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, my point was merely this. This borough wrote to me and said that they had secured all their ends by means of a by-law. In that case, why make an Act?
LORD CONESFORD: I will come to that later, but that is a totally different point from that which was put to me by every other noble Lord. Every other noble Lord has said that this exemption is making things worse. I am pointing out to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that people who have a satisfactory by-law will still have that by-law, and it will be quite unaffected by the provision we are now discussing.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that since 1954 none of these by-laws have in fact been allowed by the Parliamentary Committee? Did I understand him to say that?
LORD CONESFORD: No. I was not dealing with by-laws there at all; I was dealing with clauses in Bills.
LORD CHORLEY: The bylaws are passed as a result of the clauses in the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD: No. A by-law is passed under a totally different and much earlier Statute, which I mentioned on Second Reading. The main Statute is the Local Government Act, 1933. I set out all the provisions in my speech on Second Reading, and I did not wish to weary the Committee by repeating them. If I might resume, the by-law-making power is wholly unaffected. The existing by-laws stand, and new by-laws more stringent than the provisions we are now discussing can be made.
There was one point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Milverton which was, I confess, the only point which had troubled me about the possible effect of this Bill. As my noble friend has said, there are some local authorities—I think there are about six—which obtained total prohibition before the Brighton Corporation Act to which I referred. Their total prohibition will not be abrogated by the passage of this Bill. Nevertheless, I did consider—and it is only fair that I should tell my noble friend Lord Milverton, because I drew his attention to Clause 3 of the Bill—whether there was any risk, after the passage of this Bill into law, that any of these local authorities which had

39
obtained a total prohibition would have that total prohibition repealed as unnecessary by the Minister under Clause 3. Frankly, I regard that as the most remote possible risk, because I do not think that such a repeal is politically practicable. Clause 3 says:
"The Minister may, after consultation with any local authority appearing to him to be concerned, by order made by statutory instrument repeal any provision of any local Act which appears to him to be unnecessary having regard to the provisions of this Act. …"
Considering that this clause is only permissive, and that he has to consult the local authority, I thought there was not the remotest risk of a repeal of any of these clauses cited by my noble friend Lord Milverton under that clause. Nevertheless I did inquire, and I can give an assurance that the Minister would not take the view that local Act provisions prohibiting chimes altogether should be repealed as unnecessary under Clause 3, and I have no doubt that the Government spokesman will, if asked, confirm that undertaking. But in any event, as I say, it is, in my view, the remotest possible contingency.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: Would the noble Lord forgive me? One of the Private Acts which has been referred to is concerned with the ancient City of Winchester, and that is why I ventured to take part in this discussion. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider putting down on Report stage an Amendment to Clause 3 which will provide for the assurance he has just given.
LORD CONESFORD: Needless to say, that request coming from the source that it does, I will undertake to give it the most careful consideration. I agree with my noble and learned friend that, if it were desirable to deal with that matter in this Bill, it is by amendment of Clause 3 that we should deal with it. I cannot give an undertaking that it will be done, for this reason (I want to be quite candid with my noble and learned friend): Clause 3 as it stands has so much precedent in other Statutes that I am not certain how far the legal authorities advising the Government will think it appropriate to vary the form in this particular Bill. Nevertheless, I shall certainly consider that. As I say, I think the de facto risk is non-existent.
40
I have dealt with what has been done in previous Statutes. I have dealt with the reason why, in my submission, it is more appropriate to deal with this matter by by-law control than by complete prohibition, which would be the effect of passing this Amendment. Now I would come, if I may, to what I regard as the most important point of all. That is what happened in another place on this particular Bill. Here noble Lords in all quarters will realise that this is not a matter for which I or any other noble Lord here has any sort of responsibility, but the facts are most relevant to our decision on this Amendment.
On May 27 of this year this matter was considered in another place on the Report stage, and it came before them on two Amendments, one by Sir Leslie Plummer, who desired the deletion of the subsection, exactly as the present Amendment proposes, the other by the promoter Mr. Rupert Speir, who wished for a further limitation of hours, though not precisely the same limitation of hours for which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I are going to plead in a later Amendment. There was considerable discussion on those two Amendments. As a result of that discussion both Amendments were withdrawn on Mr. Speir's undertaking to look further into the question and to seek to bridge the opposing views. He was going to seek a compromise reasonably satisfactory to all. That has been done, and that compromise is embodied in the Amendment which will later be moved, if the Committee adopt my advice and reject the present Amendment, or, bolter still, if my noble friend thinks fit not to press it.
LORD REA: If I may intervene, would the noble Lord explain what he means by "acceptable to all"? I gather that it was left in the other place, with a very thin House, very few Members present; and it was said "After all, the matter will be sorted out in their Lordships' House".
LORD CONESFORD: I am sorry. If I said, "Acceptable to all", it was, I agree, a careless phrase. It is quite obvious that we cannot get anything universally approved. But I thought the Committee followed me to this extent: it is quite clear that the next Amendment will be agreeable to those in the other

41
House who took the view that is to-day put forward by my noble friend Lord Milverton. If the Amendment at present before the House is not pressed, or is negatived, and the subsequent Amend-meta of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor and myself, is accepted, there is, in my submission, no doubt whatever that another place will accept that later Amendment. I can give no assurance at all to the Committee that, if the present Amendment were adopted, that would be agreeable to the majority in another place.
If this matter came before the Committee in May, I should not take this point. But the Committee will realise that at this date in the Session—and, of course, we have not yet had the Report stage and Third Reading—if the Bill had not only to return to another place but, on possible rejection of the present Amendment should it be adopted by this House, had to come back to this House, then cannot conceal from the Committee the fact that this Bill would be very likely to be lost. I ask noble Lords, whatever their view on the merits of this particular Amendment—and I do not deny for one moment that I have myself some sympathy with the idea that there is a lot to be said for stopping some of these things altogether—to believe that the general balance of argument which commended itself to another place, and which I hope will commend itself to this House, should lead us to seek the maximum consent we can if this Bill is to pass into law.
I ask noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, to consider whether it is worth while to place in jeopardy all the gains of this Bill, not only Clause 1 but even the gains in this matter of control of the ice cream seller. In this particular matter nobody is going to be worse off as a result of the Bill, but the whole of the country will have, even under the Bill as it stands, a great many hours in which the chimes cannot be used and by the Amendment to be moved later they will have a great many more hours still. My noble and learned friend Lord Simonds asked why I think a particular trade should be exempted. Well, we have been mainly talking about ice cream, but it is not limited to that trade. The words are.
"conveyance of a perishable commodity for human consumption".
42
Any trade that falls within those words will have the benefit of this. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, asked me about particular noises. There I think he has more experience than I have, because I cannot say that I am familiar with them. But I ask him to notice the words of subsection (3) (c) stating the limitation that the loudspeaker must be
"so operated as not to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in the vicinity."
For all those reasons, because the scheme of the Bill is to embody provisions already made by Parliament under private Acts in the case of various local authorities, and this exemption has been granted in many cases, because the matter can be more suitably dealt with by by-laws, and can continue to be so dealt with after this Bill is passed into law; and finally, because of what took place in the House of Commons, and the fact that we should be endangering the Bill altogether if this Amendment were carried, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment, and in any event that the Committee will not accept it.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord who has just spoken would have made his case very much better if he had left out the third argument—namely, that we should not exercise our judgment in this House, which we are charged to do, because of something that happened in another place or because of the timetable. I am really shocked. This is something about which I have complained over and over again: that we get a Bill here so late that we have to take it and swallow it as it stands or run the risk of its not being passed into law. For myself, I refuse to be blackmailed into accepting a position of that kind. I do not think it is even true. I think the other place can compromise just as we can. If they want the Bill they can accept our Amendment, and the shoe fits just as much there as it does here. Moreover, this Bill need not go through by July. There would still be time if it were passed after we come back from our holidays.
I listened most carefully to the legalistic legal explanation of the noble Lord, and for the life of me I cannot understand what is the point of having this clause in the Bill at all. It will

43
still be open to local authorities to make by-laws if they want to. But it should not be an open invitation to people. The noble Lord says that it does not necessarily refer to ice cream merchants; but I should like to ask any child of six to read these words and to guess to whom they refer. Any child with an "I.Q." of at least 70 would get the right result. The position would be that if this clause were not in the Bill at all, local authorities could still make by-laws to regulate noise and to set out the times of the day when noise if you must have it, would be permitted and when it would not be permitted. This distinction between an urban district and a rural district is highly artificial. It is just as much a nuisance to people living in the country who like to have a little rest on a Sunday afternoon as it is to people living in towns. This distinction is entirely fallacious. I hope that the noble Lord will "stick to his guns" and show the independence of this House, so that we can stand up to this ice-cream menace.
4.44 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: I think that this is the most extraordinary debate that I have ever listened to. First of all, almost none of the noble Lords who have been attacking this Bill were here on Second Reading, and noble Lords do not know what the story is. They do not, or at least they may not, know, or they have not shown any evidence of knowing, that the Government have set up a Committee to investigate noise —and a very good thing, too! One of the least objectionable noises which the Government are investigating, and which this Bill is dealing with, are these ice-cream bells. There are millions and millions of people under the age of fifteen who are in favour of ice-cream bells. My children are in favour of ice-cream bells, and so, I should think, are the majority of children all over Britain. I personally am in favour of street criers. I think it is a great tragedy that they have gone. I think we are behaving like a lot of old fogies in trying to get rid of ice-cream bells.
But there is a legitimate grouse about these bells—namely, the need for rest of the shift worker. The shift worker has a reasonable cause for grumbling if he is woken up by these bells in the morn-
44
ing To deal with this, and if the Committee do not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, an Amendment will be moved quite shortly to limit the sound which ice-cream bells make during the morning. Indeed, it will cut out the ringing of ice-cream bells during the morning, which is the time when most shift workers are sleeping. I think that that is a most reasonable sort of Amendment, and I suggest that it would provide a reasonable compromise. I am sure that the next Amendment will be acceptable both to another place and to the local authorities, because I, too, have had letters from local authorities saying that they would like to support the Amendments both of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton and myself—regardless of the fact that they are mutually contradictory. I do not think that they have really studied the matter carefully. I think your Lordships will find that the subsequent Amendment really makes this into quite a useful Bill because we can get rid of all sorts of unpleasant noises, and it meets in a compromise manner the needs of a reasonable trade reasonably carried out, and the needs of the shift worker as well.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will stick to his Amendment. Having listened most carefully to the reply by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I feel that if the subsequent Amendment is accepted it will not deal with two points which have been raised this afternoon, first of all with the sleep of the shift workers. These people sleep at all times of the day, and not necessarily between early morning and midmorning. Night nurses and such people have to sleep when they can get it. That Amendment does not meet that point. Neither does it meet the point, in spite of what the noble Lord said, that this is a one industry Bill. Special laws are being made for the ice-cream industry, and there is really no reason for them. The noble Lord said that it referred to other foodstuffs. I hope very much that this will not cause a precedent and that we shall have itinerant meat vans or barrow boys going round with a horn such as some motorists have—horribles things making a noise like a bull. There is no end to what can be done now in this respect.

45
The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to London cries. I remember very well as a boy the London cries. But the noble Lord has to remember that they were not amplified. It is the amplification that now makes them so objectionable. I do not quarrel with amplification; if it were not for amplification I personally should not be able to hear the pearls of wisdom that drop from your Lordships' lips. But we do not want to have cries in the London streets, amplified in their present form. I greatly hope that the noble Lord will stick to his Amendment, because I am sure that the subsequent Amendment does not meet the case.
LORD ADDINGTON: I want to intervene for but a few moments, to say that I support this Amendment. I do not at this stage want to go into the details of all the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. They need most careful examination, and I should like time to consider them and to think them over. I trust that the views of local authorities will receive full consideration from those in charge of this Bill.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MILVERTON: I must confess myself quite impenitent and unconvinced by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who said that nobody would be worse off by this clause to which he is so attached. Let me leave, that aside for the moment. Who will be better off? Why should somebody be selected to be better off? That is what it comes to. I could not possibly agree with him that nobody will be worse off. As for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who said that local authorities viewed his Amendment with the same enthusiasm as they viewed mine, that is merely on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. But I am suggesting that the thing to offer is the whole loaf, and not to stint people of what they really want. The principle has been well defined. I believe that underneath all the superficiality with which one can deal with this subject there is a principle at stake, and I propose to stand by it.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dowding, L.

Morrison, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Dudley, E.

Newall, L.

Airedale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Haddington, E.

Rea, L.

Attlee, E.

Hampton, L.

Silkin, L.

Auckland, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Simonds, V.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lambert, V.

Sinha, L.

Boston, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Somers, L.

Chorley, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Soulbury, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Stansgate, V.

Crook, L.

Meston, L.

Terrington, L.

Derwent, L.

Milverton, L. [Teller.]

Torrington, V.

Woolton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Onslow, E.

Amwell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gosford, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bird wood, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Oswald, L.

Bossom, L.

Henderson, L.

Salisbury, M.

Burden, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Spens, L.

Chesham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Taylor, L. [Teller.]

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Dalton, L.

Latham, L.

Williams, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lawson, L.

Winster, L.

Dundee, E.

Lucan, E.

Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

ADOPTION BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the object of this very small Bill is to put right an anomaly which arises from the passing of the Legitimacy Act, 1959, and its operation. Your Lordships will remember that under that Act the child of parents, one of whom was married to a third person at the time when the child in question was born but who subsequently marry, is legitimated by the operation of the Act. Before the passing of the Act (as I dare say your Lordships will know) it had become pretty common for parents in that situation to adopt the child under the provisions of the Adoption Act, 1958, or, earlier still, of the Adoption Acts which were then current.
The general rule about adoption orders, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is a very proper one, is that when they have once been made they are final and irrevocable; and this rule applies to adoption orders of the kind I have just been mentioning to your Lordships—that is to say, to these joint cases of adoption by both parents. There is an exception to the rule under Section 26 of the Adoption Act, 1958, which enables an order made in favour of a father or mother—and I stress the alternative—alone to be revoked if the child becomes legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents. That was put into the Act at that time because the arrangements subsequently made by the Legitimacy Act, 1959, were not in operation. But it does not enable a revocation to take place in the case of the adoption order made by the joint parents, and in a number of cases since the Legitimacy Act was passed the parents in this situation, having got the joint adoption order, are anxious that they also should have the opportunity, so to speak, of aligning themselves with the other type of parents and be able to make an application to the court which made the adoption order to have it revoked, because the child will now be legitimated as a result of the general operation of the law.
I am sure your Lordships will agree part of parents in this situation. That that that is a reasonable desire on the
48
view of the matter appealed in another place and has the support of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure that your Lordships will feel that we ought to take the same view here. Your Lordships will see that there are two subsections, and they are really consequential on the first clause. They deal with the position under intestacy and under property dispositions; and they are there, really, just to prevent the disturbance of vested property rights and to protect the trustees of wills which might otherwise be upset by the arrangements which will come into force if your Lordships accept the principle which is proposed to be enacted in Clause 1. I hope I have said enough to explain the objects of this Bill, and that your Lord-ships will approve of them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Chorley.)
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has explained his Bill most fully and most carefully, and it only remains for me to commend the Bill to your Lordships and to advise that it be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL
5.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 30:
Appeal to Minister against enforcement notice
30.—(1) A person on whom an enforcement notice is served under section twenty-three of the Act of 1947. or any other person having an interest in the land, may at any time within the period specified in the enforcement notice as the period at the expiration of which it is to take effect, appeal to the Minister against the enforcement notice on any of the following grounds, that is to say—
(g) that the period specified in the enforcement notice as the period within which any steps required by the enforcement notice are to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.
(5) On an appeal under this section the Minister may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice if he is satisfied that the informality, defect or error is not a material one.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (1):
"and, if the person on whom an enforcement notice has been served proves to the satisfaction of the Minister that the grounds contained in (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of this section apply, the Minister shall not confirm the enforcement notice."
The noble Lord said: We are now embarking on Part II of this Bill, which provides the new procedure for enforcement. I must say, speaking for myself, that I regret the passing of the magistrate in this connection and that all appeals will now have to go to the Minister. My Amendment, however, does not deal with that point, and I have accepted it because I realise that the new machinery will be speedier than the old; and, particularly in questions of enforcement, speed is important.
Clause 30 provides a number of grounds upon which an appeal may be made to the Minister against the enforcement order. In the case of most of these grounds the person against whom the enforcement order has been made will have a statutory right to carry on what he is doing, and I find it difficult to understand what is the purpose of stating that these are grounds upon which he can appeal. For instance, take subsection 1 (b), which refers to the ground:
"that permission has been granted under the said Part for the development to which the enforcement notice relates".
In such a case the person is entitled to carry on and has not to ask permission; he has already been given permission. The same applies to subsection (1) (c) which says:
"that no permission was required under the said Part III".
And the same also applies to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of subsection (1). In all these cases the person against whom the enforcement order has been made has a right to carry on.
It may be that the intention of this clause is that a person should be put on
50
proof. It may be that the idea is to say to the person: "You say you have had permission to carry on", or, "You say that four years have expired, and that therefore subsection (1) of Section 23 is no longer applicable—prove it." I can understand it if that is the intention of this clause, although I find it a little difficult to visualise a case in which a person who has received planning permission should be required to prove that he has had it, and in which a local authority would go so far as to serve an enforcement notice on him even though he has had planning permission. But I will accept all that for the purpose of my argument, and I will assume that there has been some doubt as to whether he has had planning permission or whether he has, in fact, gone beyond the planning permission, and so on.
Let us take, for example, paragraph (b). Suppose the man establishes that he has had planning permission; that the Minister has held an inquiry; that he has come along and said "Here is my planning permission", and that the Minister is quite satisfied. My Amendment is directed simply to the point that, if the Minister is satisfied then the enforcement notice must be withdrawn. There is nothing in this clause which provides that. It says merely that a person may appeal on certain grounds—and it then sets out those grounds. But if he satisfies the Minister on the grounds on which he has appealed, as the clause is drawn the Minister may still confirm the enforcement notice. I do not know whether or not that is the intention. If it is, I think that is utterly wrong. If that is not the intention, then I think that some such words as my Amendment are required in order to make it quite clear that if a person does satisfy the Minister on these particular points—(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)—then the Minister should not confirm the enforcement notice. I hope that I have made my point clear, and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say in reply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to require the Minister to quash an enforcement notice on appeal under

51
Clause 30 if he finds in the appellant's favour on any of the grounds contained in paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (1). I am bound to say that I am advised (and I know the noble Lord will forgive me when I say this) that the drafting of the Amendment is not altogether apt for that purpose, although I anticipate what the noble Lord will say: that, if that is the only trouble, we can get together on drafting it correctly. But I must point out that it should not apply, I am advised, to the grounds of appeal in paragraph (f)—that the requirements of the enforcement notice are excessive—since if the Minister were to find in favour of an appellant in this respect (and there were no other grounds for quashing the enforcement notice) his proper course would be to vary the terms of the notice under subsection (6) of Clause 30. But the noble Lord does not wish me to take that point.
LORD SILKIN: No; I realise that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Further, the Minister will not, strictly speaking, "confirm" an enforcement notice.
LORD SILKIN: Is it subclause (5)?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It is subsection (6) of Clause 30:
"On the determination of an appeal under this section the Minister shall"—
note the word "shall"—
"give directions for giving effect to his determination, including where appropriate directions for quashing the enforcement notice or for varying the terms of the enforcement notice in favour of the appellant."
So much for that.
As to the other point the noble Lord made, the Minister will not, strictly speaking, "confirm" an enforcement notice. If he were to dismiss an appeal, the enforcement notice would stand without any confirmation. It is a question of an appeal. In any case, however, the Government are advised that an Amendment for this purpose is unnecessary, in view of the terms of subsection (6) of Clause 30, for this places a duty—I refer again to the word "shall"—upon the Minister to give directions for giving effect to his determination of an appeal, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the enforcement notice. If the Minister were to determine an appeal in favour of an appellant on any of the
52
grounds set out in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e), he would be bound to give effect to his determination by quashing the enforcement notice. If an appellant comes to the Minister and says that the enforcement notice is invalid, under paragraph (b), because he has been granted his permission already, or some such point under these five headings, we think it inconceivable that the Minister would dismiss an appeal notwithstanding the fact that he had accepted the submission by the appellant that the enforcement notice was invalid for any of the reasons given from (b) to (e). If he were to do so, his decision would be subject to appeal to the High Court under Clause 31, the next ensuing clause, as the noble Lord will see. I will not quote the whole clause, but the rubric to Clause 1 is:
"Appeal from Minister to High Court on questions of law"
On those grounds—that we believe the insertion of these words to be unnecessary, and in any case not in their present form aptly drawn—I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I will not press the Amendment because the wording is stated to be defective, and I should like to have another look at it; but I do not think the noble Earl has really met the case. This clause says that a person may appeal to the Minister on any of the grounds set out. But it does not say what the Minister is required to do if he accepts the grounds. The noble Earl may say that the Minister is most unlikely to do it, and that if he does it a person may appeal; but I want to make quite sure that if a person succeeds on any of these grounds then that is an end of the matter. I hope that the noble Earl, having heard my explanation, will be prepared to give further consideration to this point. For my part, I will have another look at it and will see if I can produce a more watertight Amendment, which I very much doubt. But, on that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: As the noble Lord fully understands, I can give no undertakings on this matter, but I will, of course, before Report stage, consider the argument that he has advanced. If, when the noble Lord has considered my argument, such as it is, and has read

53
in the OFFICIAL. REPORT the words that I have used, he still wishes to raise this matter on Report stage, he can, of course, do so.
LORD SILKIN: We are in agreement as to the purpose. The noble Earl says that it is not necessary, and I say that I think that it is necessary; but that is all. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "he is satisfied that". The noble Viscount said: Under the old enforcement procedure, an enforcement notice could be challenged in the magistrates' court. In the course of time, a not inconsiderable amount of Case Law grew up on the technicalities of the wording of enforcement notices and it became an extremely difficult matter to draft a correct enforcement notice in cases of difficult development. It is now being remedied by Her Majesty's Government in this Bill by allowing the Minister to correct, on appeal, any informality, error or defect in the enforcement notice if he is satisfied that it is not material. From the decision of the Minister on appeal there is a further appeal under Clause 31 to the High Court on a point of law, but apart from that it is provided in Clause 30 (8) that matters of appeal under paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of this clause shall not be dealt with on any point of law.
It may well be that these four paragraphs cover the majority of cases in which a point of law is going to arise about the validity of the form of enforcement notice, but the fact remains that there are almost certain to be other points not covered by these four paragraphs. If that is so, it will be possible not only to raise them on appeal to the Minister but also to raise them under Section 24 of the 1947 Act at the moment when the local planning authority try to enforce their enforcement notice in the magistrates' court. In that case, the person on whom it was served, presumably having failed to raise the point to the Minister, raises it in the magistrates' court. And once more case law will emerge on whether it is an important defect such as
54
will completely invalidate the enforcement notice.
As I see it, there are going to be two streams of decisions on the validity of enforcement notices, one going up to the Minister and the other going to the magistrates' courts at the later stage. As the Bill now stands, the Minister's power to correct is not susceptible, I think, of being taken up to the High Court, because he has only to say that he is satisfied that the defect is not material and there is no point which can be taken up. If that is so, it may well be that the answer is that we must trust the Minister; but I cannot say that I like it very much, and I have moved this Amendment in order if possible to make the corrections, errors and defects justiciable.
Although lawyers have had a great deal of fun with it in the past, none the less an enforcement notice is a legal document which affects the rights of the person on whom it is served, and I think it not unfair to say that that person should expect it to be accurate and valid. If it is not, he should be able to take the matter to court, because it is a legal document. I do not think that his road to court should be blacked by the Minister correcting an error and then saying that he was satisfied that it was not material. If your Lordships agree with my Amendment I hope that I have succeeded in allowing such a point of correction to be made on appeal to the High Court, wherein the two streams about which I was talking can be co-ordinated in one collection of Case Law, so that no one will then be in doubt, I hope, about what is material or not in an enforcement notice. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships' attention and beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("he is satisfied that").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My noble friend, who is a lawyer, has put his point clearly and well, but I hope that it will not have convinced your Lordships, because it certainly has not convinced me. I see exactly his point as a lawyer. He would like to have as much as he can to be made what he called "justiciable" and as little as possible left to the discretion of Ministers. This is an important paint and your Lordships will forgive me

55
for going in some detail into the purpose of Clause 30 (5) as now drafted. I hope to be able to convince your Lordships that it is necessary and desirable to leave in the words which my noble friend seeks to take out.
Subsection (5) enables the Minister on appeal to correct a minor defect in an enforcement notice which may affect, technically speaking, the validity of such a notice, if he is satisfied that it is not a material defect. For example, there may be an error in the person's address or in the description of the land, or in a date, which would in no way affect the sense of the notice or mislead the appellant. It is desirable that the Minister should have this power in order to avoid, so far as possible, cases of litigation on purely technical grounds which do not affect the merits of the enforcement notice—indeed, the sort of points that might be taken by an unscrupulous developer who was determined to press forward by whatever methods he could use and delay enforcement action for as long as possible. Given that the Minister is to have power to correct minor technical defects in an enforcement notice I think it is right to make that power effective. His decision should be final and the enforcement notice, as corrected, should not be subject to further challenge on minor technicalities. This Amendment would have it otherwise. Its apparent purpose is that the Minister's decision to correct an enforcement notice should not be final and should be subject to review in the High Court or some other court of law.
I am advised that it is doubtful whether the omission of these words "he is satisfied that" would make the Minister's decision subject to right of appeal to the High Court under Clause 31 of the Bill. The question of whether a defect is a material one is not in itself a question of law, and I do not think it could be taken to the High Court. It is only as regards a question of law that Clause 31 provides for an appeal from the decision of the Minister to the High Court. The Amendment would clearly leave it open to an appellant to challenge the action of the Minister in correcting an enforcement notice, in some collateral action for a declaratory judgment, as I understand it is called.
56
I am in some difficulty all the way through this series of Amendments, because owing to the fact that this Committee had to be extended to to-day, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who would have taken part in the discussion of these highly technical legal matters, is not able to be present. But this kind of collateral declaratory judgment is just the kind of proceeding which it is the whole purpose of Part II of this Bill to preclude. We should be bringing back a number of "streams" which the noble Viscount mentioned and which we think we have largely got rid of by the procedure under Part II. If we agreed to this Amendment we should be subject to all the appeals and collateral actions going on in the courts. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will not seek to press the Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: Surely by this Amendment, as it stands, the Minister will still have this power to make any correction provided that it is not material. The judgment as to whether or not it is material must rest in the hands of the person on whom the notice is served. But if it is merely a question, as the noble Earl suggests, of correction of an address or something like that I hardly think that anybody would question it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: If I may say so, that is the whole point. If you put in the words, "The Minister is satisfied that this is not material" there is nothing about which to go to the court. But if the words, "he is satisfied that" are taken out, then the clause reads:
"On an appeal under this section the Minister may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice if the informality, defect or error is not a material one"
There is no question of opinion. It is open to the obstructive developer to go to the court and say: "Please rule whether this was informal and whether the defect was material or not." Meanwhile, the Minister's decision has to stand over until the court has decided whether it was material or not. The person who goes to the court for such a judgment may be well aware that he will lose his case, but he is playing for time; and that is just the kind of point we are trying to get over by the new provisions for enforcement in Part II of the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I have great sympathy with the Amendment, but having swallowed the principle that there is to be no appeal to the magistrates, I think we are rather straining at a gnat over this. We are not giving the Minister very great powers here, but merely powers to correct something which is a defect or error of a kind which is not material. I know that it could be justiciable, but I think it would be in the interests of all parties that, in the circumstances, it should not be so. I cannot imagine that the Minister, on the advice that he gets, would correct a notice which is seriously wrong and which would do an injustice to the person on whom the enforcement notice was served. Since the whole object here is Ito devise a more speedy machinery for dealing with enforcement notices, I think it would be a pity to frustrate it, as we should be doing by refusing to the Minister the right to correct errors which are not material and have not prejudiced the person on whom the notice was served.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In the first place, I owe an apology to the Committee, in that this is indeed a declaration, as my noble friend has said. But I think he has to some degree pinpointed the difficulty himself. If one takes these matters of appeal to the Minister it is going to be necessary in each case to argue whether or not the error is material, because the Minister's decision is not a precedent; whereas, supposing it were to go to the court on a declaration, it would soon be established that a mere error of name or the address to which the notice was sent was not something on which one would get a declaration at all. Consequently, I cannot see that a great deal of harm would be done, in the long run, even if there were a few trial cases.
The other point, which my noble friend has not answered, is: what is going to be the situation where the cunning developer does not take this point to appeal, but reserves it until the enforcement notice is enforced against hint in the magistrates' court? He then challenges its validity, and in exactly the same way as heretofore the matter will have to be decided by the courts, and thus you are going to have two separate lines of decision on exactly the same point. I wonder whether my noble friend could answer that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think I understand what my noble friend means. We cannot force a man to appeal in order that the Minister can give a decision and clear the matter up, and if at some later date he goes to the court, that is something which, I would say offhand, we have to risk. My noble friend really is asking that there should be some machinery which would make the man appeal so that we could get a decision.
LORD SILKIN: Or, alternatively, if a person has failed to take advantage of his right to appeal, he should in those circumstances be able to go to the magistrates. I thought subsection (8) was intended to provide for that; but if it does not, perhaps the noble Earl might look at that paragraph again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Subsection (8) only prevents an appeal in certain cases. Admittedly they would be a large proportion, but I do not think they would be all. However, in the circumstances, as I have no support from the Cross Benches, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Repeated operation of enforcement notices]:
5.39 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, any requirement in an enforcement notice for the discontinuance of any use of land shall operate as a requirement for the permanent discontinuance of the use to the extent that the use is in contravention of Part Ill of the Act of 1947, and accordingly the resumption of the use at any time after its discontinuance in compliance with the enforcement notice shall to that extent be in contravention of the enforcement notice")
The noble Earl said: We now come to a series of Amendments standing in my name. They all hang together, and although I cannot move them together I think it would be convenient if your Lordships would allow me to speak to them at the same time. This series of Amendments runs from No. 33 to No. 38. The Government have given further consideration to the terms of Clause 37, in the light of the considerable discussion that took place in another place, and

59
have come to the conclusion that certain Amendments are desirable for the sake of clarity and to remove certain defects that might arise in the operation of this clause as it now stands. Clause 37 is concerned with the continued operation of enforcement notices which either require buildings or works to be demolished or altered, or require uses of land to be discontinued. Your Lordships may be familiar with a case (I think it was Postill v. East Riding County Council) in which it was held that a notice once complied with was spent. That is really the origin of the whole of Clause 37, to ensure that, if there has been an enforcement notice, the would-be developer will not be able, to put it in ordinary language, "to do it again". The enforcement notice is not automatically spent.
The first words of Clause 37 are
"Compliance with an enforcement notice, whether as respects—

(a) the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works, or

(b) the discontinuance of any use of land, or as respects any other requirements in the enforcement notice, shall not discharge the enforcement notice."

Amendment No. 33 is designed to make it clear that an enforcement notice will continue to apply to a use of land which is resumed after being discontinued in compliance with the notice. Amendment No. 34, which seeks to insert the words: "Subject to the provisions of this section", merely paves the way for the next Amendment, No. 35. This Amendment substitutes a new subsection for the present subsection (3) of Clause 37. This is concerned not with uses of land, but with the reinstatement of buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice.
It will be seen that subsection (4) of this clause imposes a penalty on the person responsible for carrying out the reinstatement of the buildings or works to which the enforcement notice relates. In view of this, there is no real need to apply Clause 33 of the Bill, which makes the owner of the land liable for failure to secure that the enforcement notice is complied with. All that is necessary is to ensure that if the buildings or works have been reinstated in contravention of
60
an enforcement notice, the local authority can, if need be, exercise their power, which they already have under Section 24 (1) of the 1947 Act, to go in and remove or dismantle the buildings or works themselves, and recover the cost from the owner. (Under Section 24 (2) of the 1947 Act the owner, in turn, can recover his expenses from the person responsible for carrying out the development.) But for this purpose, we think that the local authority should give reasonable notice to the owner and occupier of the land of their intention to act, so as to give them an opportunity of taking the necessary steps themselves once they know that it is the intention of the local authority to act. That is what is provided for in this new subsection.
If your Lordships will go forward to Amendment No. 36, you will find that that simply paves the way for Amendment No. 38. So I must go back to Amendment No. 37, which is on page 25, line 25. That is to meet the point that a person who undertakes the reinstatement of buildings or works subject to an enforcement notice should not be guilty of an offence under subsection (4) if he has obtained planning permission to do so. We have to put that in to ensure that this should not happen. This corresponds with the provision now made by subsection (1) of Clause 35, which is in lieu of the earlier provision in Section 24 (3) of the 1947 Act, which is repealed by Clause 33 (3).
The final Amendment in this group, No. 38, introduces an express provision to make it clear that Clause 33—that is, the owner's liability—will not operate. It clearly should not operate because subsection (4) of Clause 37 has penalised the person who is actually at fault. He is liable for a criminal offence, and there is a penalty on him. In addition, under the new subsection (3) the local authority can "enter and do". I hope that I have made this matter—though I do not pretend it is simple—fairly clear to your Lordships. If there are any points of course I will try to answer them; otherwise I should suggest that we discuss the matter now as a whole, and I will move the Amendments more or less formally as we come to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, at end insert the said new sub sect ion.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 16, after first ("and") insert ("subject to the provisions of this section").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("( ) If at any time after an enforcement notice takes effect any development is carried out on land by way of reinstating or restoring buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with the enforcement notice, the local planning authority shall, not less than twenty-eight days before, under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1947, taking any steps required by the enforcement notice for the demolition or alteration of the buildings or works in consequence of the reinstatement or restoration, serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice of their intention to take those steps.")—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 25.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, after ("who") insert "(without the grant of permission in that behalf under Part 111 of the Act of 1947").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move Amendment No. 38.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 29, at end insert ("and no person shall be liable under section thirty-three of this Act for failure to take any steps required to be taken by an enforcement notice by way of demolition or alteration of what has been so reinstated or restored").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
5.48 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:
Planning registers
". The Minister shall make regulations for the maintenance by planning authorities of a fully informative register of planning decisions with identification of plans and planning applications to which such decisions respectively relate, such registers to be available for public inspection."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. In my view, the grant of a planning permission to-day is of importance not only to the parties concerned but also to the general public. When I refer to "planning permission", I include the plan upon which the permitted development is specifically shown. That is always most important. I understand that at the present time applicants for town planning permission frequently send duplicate plans with their application and require one copy to be returned identified by the local authority as the plan referred to in the application. Some, but not all, local authorities comply with that request, and they return and identify the plan. I further understand that in 1959 the Minister sent a circular to local authorities suggesting that the provision of factual information about existing permissions should present no problems to local authorities. To put the matter in a nutshell, I believe that the Minister and many local authorities do all they can to help in this matter, but I am asking for something much more definite.
Suppose, for example, that the man who lives next door to me and whose land entirely surrounds my garden, obtains permission for building on that land. That fact may never come to my notice. It is not my immediate business, and it may be said that I have no right to take any interest in the matter. But from the selfish point -of view it is a matter of great importance. Therefore, I submit that any member of the public should be able to go to the headquarters of the planning authority, say in the county town, and see there a register of planning permissions with plans attached thereto indicating exactly the nature of the proposed development. I believe that it is a matter of very general interest, and I submit that we should not be satisfied with what the Minister and planning authorities have already done, although they have done it in a very helpful way,

63
but should ask that something very much more concrete be inserted into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Meston.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Section 14 (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, requires every local planning authority to keep a register of planning applications, including information as to the manner in which such applications have been dealt with. Every planning authority is required to make that register available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours. As your Lordships will know, Article 12 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1950, prescribes that the register shall include the decisions of the local planning authority and the Minister on any such applications. From the point of view of planning applications, the Amendment is, therefore, I think, unnecessary.
The noble Lord makes the point that he wants actual plans in the registers. I hope that he is not referring to elevations of buildings and so on. Surely it would hardly be practicable to include the actual plans. It would involve voluminous files of plans and much extra expense, and surely h should not be necessary for the register to include the plans in order to indicate the sites of the development. They can be identified in other ways. And it would of course be quite impracticable for the register to include copies of all the architect's drawings and elevations of buildings, and so on. If the new clause is aimed at informing the public before final decisions are taken, it would not, in any case, work as drafted, since it requires only a register of decisions, and the existing registers are registers of applications with details of decisions added subsequently. So in a sense I think we already have more than the noble Lord is putting forward.
The noble Lord's point, that as many people as possible should be aware of what is going on in this planning matter, is, of course, a valid one. My right honourable friend is considering closely the question of more publicity for planning decisions, and he has it in mind to give further guidance to the
64
local authorities. We have to-day dealt with one of the stages of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Bill. My right honourable friend has had it very much in mind, when that Bill becomes law, to issue more advice to local authorities about publicity in general. Because, after all, that is the purpose of that Bill—that the work of public authorities should be more readily available to the public. I think that would be the time to go into the detail of how the words fully informative" should be met. I sympathise with that desire, and my right honourable friend sympathises with it. These registers should be fully informative, and we hope we shall be able to deal with it in that way. I hope the noble Lord, therefore, will not press this particular Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded by my noble friend, because I do not believe that what he is proposing is very practicable. I think that the sort of information he would get would not give him all that he required. So many planning applications arrive at the planning authorities in the form of an application for permission to develop in outline, and the consent on those lines is often given with the added condition that, in due course, the details, the elevations, will require the consent of the authority. I think that at present the public have access to all the decisions that have been given in outline, but I do not know whether that is exactly what the noble Lord wants or whether it would correspond to his description of "fully informative". I have often sympathised with the desire of the public to be more informed about what their neighbours are doing. In fact it is possible for a planning authority to cause inquiries among the applicant's neighbours to see what their reactions would be and the authority is compelled by law to do so in respect of certain forms of development. It is always possible for a sympathetic authority to make further inquiries. I have no doubt that it would be quite possible for the Minister, with his code of conduct to get the less sympathetic authorities working on the same lines.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I wonder if my noble friend would make something a little clearer to me. He said that his

65
right honourable friend was considering whether further publicity could be given to planning decisions. What we want, I think, is further publicity for applications for planning permission. I thought the right honourable gentleman in another place was considering whether notice should be given to neighbouring proprietors that planning permission had been requested, because if they have to wait until the planning decision has been made it does not help them very much, whereas if they are notified beforehand they can take some steps in their own interest about it.
LORD SILKIN: There is the point that in Section 37 of the 1959 Act there is an obligation on the applicant, in a good many cases, to give notice of his application. I do not think it goes far enough; it could be extended. But this Amendment does not deal with applications; it seeks to supply a register of decisions. I think the noble Earl is quite right there is already provision for that. The difference, as I see it, between the noble Earl and the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, is that the Amendment seeks to include in the facilities to be open to any person a sight of the plans. The noble Earl says that would not be practicable and that they would not be contained in the register. I agree that the register would become a very unwieldy kind of document if one had to include plans, which are often quite voluminous.
I agree also with the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, that quite often—I would say almost generally in the case of large-scale development— the decision is in the form of a general decision in outline and is subject to the submission of detailed plans. But I can see no reason why some machinery should not be devised by which the local authority should be under an obligation to produce the plans if anyone so desired. The plans need not be with the register. After all, the objection is a very small one—namely, that the register would become unwieldy or bulky, and that it would cause administrative difficulties. With great respect to the noble Earl, I am getting a little tired of hearing about the administrative difficulties of doing the right thing. If it is right that the public should have access to the planning decisions, and if it transpires that the
66
planning decision is meaningless without seeing the plans, then surely the local authority must be under an obligation to produce the plans in order to make the planning decision intelligible to the inquirer. Although this Amendment is probably badly worded, as is every Amendment—
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Except Government Amendments.
LORD SILKIN: Except Government Amendments—nevertheless, I should have thought that the noble Earl would have been prepared to accept the principle here. That is, to incorporate something by way of amendment of the Development Order of 1950, so as to ensure that when a person makes inquiry about the planning decisions the actual plans are also available to him.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin for the reasonable and helpful way he has spoken on this matter. I must say that I foresee great difficulty if we are to have plans for applicants. A great volume of plans is going to be there, and I must reaffirm what I said: that my right honourable friend already has it in mind to examine how better publicity can be given to decisions. But I am not clear—I must certainly consult my right honourable friend about this, and I will do so—how far we can go to meet the wishes of your Lordships in this matter for giving publicity at an earlier stage.
LORD SILKIN: May I just put to the noble Earl (I am sorry that I did not do so in my speech) that it is at times most important for the general public to know that permission has been given in outline form: but unless they see the plans and what this outline form means, they have no way of making representations. I think it should be possible for the local authority to produce the plans relating to, say, a permission in outline before it is too late.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I was really agreeing with the noble Lord. I was saying that I will examine that suggestion with great sympathy to see whether we can help your Lordships. I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston will agree that this particular Amendment does not meet the point, because it is concerned only with decisions, and he was asking

67
for something more: that planning permission, with outline plans, might, under some arrangement, be made available. I have to resist any idea that that plan should be part of the register. I think your Lordships will agree with me in resisting the suggestion that, before any permission has been given, an application should be made available. I think that that would largely be redundant, because the public do not want to know a great many things that have been turned down and are therefore not to be proceeded with.
It is all very fine of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to say that he is getting tired of hearing that it would be administratively difficult. It is not only administratively difficult. We do not want to lay upon ourselves the burden of doing things which are enormously expensive and are not really needed, because one is only accused of "Parkinson's Law" and the question is asked, "Why have we so many civil servants?" We must be most careful to provide the kinds of things which are expensive to provide, in labour, time and money, only if they are really necessary. If the noble Lord, Lord Meston, could see his way to withdraw this Amendment, I will certainly look at it again and bring what has been said to the notice of my right honourable friend. Then, if necessary, and if the noble Lord so desires, we can discuss it again on the Report stage.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I just put to the noble Earl that it is not much good knowing that a decision has been taken if you do not know beforehand that an application has been lodged? It is no good knowing a thing after it has been decided; we want to know before that. Would the noble Earl put that point to his right honourable friend?
LORD MESTON: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his reply and also to noble Lords who have assisted me, sometimes in a somewhat modified form. For what it is worth, I am informed that the register of town planning decisions is required to contain only the most meagre description of the subject matter, and the local authority can refuse to supply any further information on inquiry. They can certainly refuse to produce the plans mentioned in the application, or the permission, or the refusal. I want to make
68
it quite clear that no one is asking the planning authority to send copies of voluminous documents to any member of the public, because it should be the duty of the member of the public to go to the register, and no doubt pay a small fee, and then examine the permission coupled with the plan which is laid before him.
I am most grateful to the Minister for proposing to give guidance to local authorities to give more publicity to planning decisions. The only weak point about that is that, in the course of time, some local authorities might become rather slack in the matter and forget all about the excellent guidance that they have been given in the past. But I am grateful to the noble Earl for considering the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Additional powers of entry for purposes of control of development]:
6.8 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that I may take this Amendment shortly. It seems to me self-explanatory, and I had not proposed to say anything in support of it. But I find that my Amendment was defectively drawn, and the noble Earl has put down certain Amendments to my Amendment. I think they probably improve my Amendment and I am glad to accept them. Therefore, I shall move my Amendment, but in due course will accept the Amendments to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) This section shall apply in relation to an enforcement notice served before the commencement of this Act as well as in relation to one served after the commencement of this Act.")—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out "an enforcement notice served" and insert "a notice or order served or made". The noble Earl said: In moving the first Amendment to the Amendment, perhaps I may speak to them both, and also reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. We must take all three together, because Clause 40 extends the powers of entry conferred by Section 103 of the 1947 Act so as to enable officers of the local

69
planning authority to enter upon land for the purpose of ascertaining whether the notice or order has been complied with. It is clearly desirable that this power of entry should apply to notices served before, as well as after, the commencement of this Bill, as this Amendment proposes. Therefore, I am happy to accept the Amendment in principle.
My advice, however, is that we should no; confine this Amendment to enforcement notices, because Clause 40 refers to other notices or orders under Part Ill of the 1947 Act including, for example, orders under Section 26 of that Act—discontinuance orders. The two Amendments; to the Amendment are simply to add the necessary additions to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The whole Amendment will then read:
"This section shall apply in relation to a notice or order served or made"—
we have to use the two words there—
"before the commencement of this Act as well as in relation to one served or made after the commencement of this Act."
Subject to what may be said by the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, I should like now to accept Amendment No. 40 and to move Amendments Nos. 40A and 40B.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I will put Amendment No. 40A as an Amendment to the Amendment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move Amendment No. 40A.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 1, leave out ("an enforcement notice served") and insert ("a notice or order served or made").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move Amendment No. 40B.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 3, after ("served") insert ("or made"). (Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Application of Part II to special powers of control]:
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl
70
said: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with the new clause (Amendment No. 42) and with the new Schedule (Amendment No. 58). In another place there was some criticism of Clause 41 (1) of the Bill, which provided for the application of the new procedure relating to enforcement notices in Clauses 30 to 37 of this Bill to notices served under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 (which relates to the protection of buildings of special interest), and to notices under Section 33 of that Act (which relates to maintenance of waste land).
Clause 41 (1) as drafted leaves it to the Minister to apply the provisions of this Bill to these notices, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. Now these regulations will, in part, supersede the present regulations made by the Minister under Section 30 (8) and Section 33 (2) of the 1947 Act. It was suggested in another place that provision should be made in the Bill itself, rather than by ministerial regulations, for applying these enforcement provisions (including the new provisions in this Bill) to notices under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1947 Act. These Amendments are merely to give effect to the suggestion that enforcement should not be by ministerial regulation but should be part of a Statute. Accordingly the Amendment I now move would leave out Clause 41 (1), and the following new clause (which is the next Amendment I wish to move) would take its place. That new clause introduces the Schedule which is necessary (Schedule 58). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 40, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41 insert the following new Clause—
Notices under sections 30 and 33 of Act of 1947
".—(1) The Schedule (Enforcement of sections 30 and 33 of Act of 1947) to this Act shall have effect as regards notices under subsection (8) of section thirty and notices under section thirty-three of the Act of 1947 (which relate to buildings of special interest, and to

71
the proper maintenance of waste land) and sections twenty-three and twenty-four of the Act of 1947 shall not apply to such notices.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to a notice served before the commencement of this Act."—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 46 agreed to.
First Schedule:
Cases where a Caravan Site Licence is not required
Use by a person travelling with a caravan for one or two nights
2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site by a person travelling with a caravan who brings the caravan on to the land for a period which includes not more than two nights—
(a) if during that period no other caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation on that land or any adjoining land in the same occupation, and
Use of holdings of five acres or more in certain circumstances
3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which comprises, together with any adjoining land which is in the same occupation and has not been built on, not less than five acres—
(a) if in the period of twelve months ending with the day on which the land is used as a caravan site the number of days on which a caravan was stationed anywhere on that land or on the said adjoining land for the purposes of human habitation did not exceed twenty-eight, and
(3) The Minister may make different orders under this paragraph as respects different areas, and an order under this paragraph may be varied by a subsequent order made thereunder.
(4) An order under this paragraph shall come into force on such date as may be specified in the order, being a date not less than three months after the order is made; and the Minister shall publish notice of the order in a local newspaper circulating in the locality affected by the order and in such other ways as appear to him to be expedient for the purpose of drawing the attention of the public to the order.
Sites occupied and supervised by exempted organizations
4. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which is occupied by an organisation which holds for the time being a certificate of exemption granted under paragraph 12 of this Schedule (hereinafter referred to as an "exempted organisation") if the use is for purposes of recreation and is under the supervision of the organisation.
Sites approved by exempted organizations
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land as respects which there is in force a certificate issued under this paragraph by an exempted organisation if not more than five caravans are at the time stationed for the purposes of human habitation on the land to which the certificate relates.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members.
(3) The certificate shall be issued to the occupier of the land to which it relates, and the organisation shall send particulars to the Minister of all certificates issued by the organisation under this paragraph.
(4) A certificate issued by an exempted organisation under this paragraph shall specify the date on which it is to come into force and the period for which it is to continue in force being a period not exceeding one year.
THE EARL, OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL, OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "two" and insert "three" [nights]. The noble Earl said: We all accept that if this Act is to have effect, the individual caravanner has to submit to a good many restrictions. My purpose in moving this Amendment is to give the opportunity to the House of deciding whether such very stringent restrictions on the individual caravan camp are really necessary. I believe it is reckoned that 2 million more people take annual holidays to-day than was the case before the war. There would not have been room for them to take those holidays had it not been for the opportunity provided by the caravan. We ought, therefore, to be grateful to the caravan as providing a means of happy, healthy family holidays for great numbers of families who would not otherwise have been able to take holidays, or would have been reduced to the necessity of seaside lodgings which, in the case of a family with young children, are subject to well known and disagreeable factors.
It is intended that the person travelling with a caravan should go either to a licensed site or a site of five acres where, under paragraph 3 (1) (a) of this Schedule he may stay for 28 days; or should join a caravan club and take advantage of the sites which will be permitted to that club as an accepted organisation. But, in the first place, there is not nearly enough room on licensed sites for all the caravan

73
holidaymakers who want to go there; great numbers are turned away every year. It will take time to get the licence and establish the caravan sites contemplated in paragraph 3—the five-acre sites; and there are many people who are opposed to joining even so good an organisation as the Caravan Club, and it is contrary to public policy to use compulsion on individuals to join any organisation.
What, then, can the individual caravanner do? The only thing he can do is to stay for two nights at some site which he has been lucky enough to find. After those two nights he must set out again on the road. As I ventured to say on Second Reading, we do not want him on the road more than is absolutely necessary. I therefore ask the Committee to say that a man who has found a site and gained permission from the owner to stop there and has brought his caravan there should be allowed to stay three days rather than two. I would suggest that the danger to public health arising from a stay of three days is not material, especially if it is by one caravan; and we may very reasonably make this concession to the family man who is seeking an open-air holiday.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 12, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of lddesleigh.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has put up a very good case, if I may say so. One of the great advantages of the caravan holiday should be that one can get away from a crowd of people. Yet, if one can get away on an isolated site and stay there for only two nights it does not seem to me to be long enough. I think that much more latitude should be allowed to the individual caravanner who wishes to stay for a longer period, if he is able to make arrangements with the owner of the land concerned. I hope that this Amendment will receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have great sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have said. We do not want in any way unnecessarily to restrict the liberties of people who are touring and recreational caravanners. But I do not think it is really correct to say
74
that there is not enough room on licensed sites. It is surely rather early to say that, because no sites have been licensed by the Bill yet. I would put also to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that this is not the only exemption from licensing, and this is not by any means the only place that the caravanner can go to for two nights.
I have had a table made out for my own convenience, because it is somewhat difficult to follow what all these exemptions are in this part of the Schedule. This is the exemption which exempts from licensing the touring caravanner—this is for one caravan—who may stay anywhere for two nights without licence and without planning permission, providecl, of course, that he is not trespassing and the person whose land he is on gives him permission. We think that this exemption in paragraph 2 of the Schedule should be confined to two nights. We must draw the line somewhere. I think that this exemption started as one night—I am not sure about that, but I think it did—and then it became two nights. I do not think that we can take this on to three nights, because then somebody will say, "Why not a week?". The answer is that there are the other exemptions in the Schedule by which you can have a caravan somewhere for 28 days.
For instance, the occupier of five acres or more can have (now I must refer to my table) three caravans, unlicensed and unplanned, on his site for 28 days in any one year. Then there are, under paragraph 4 of the Schedule, the sites occupied and supervised by the exempted organisations. They can be of any size and hold any number of caravans. Then there are the sites approved by the exempted organisations. I think that there must be only five caravans on them at any one time, but there is no day restriction; you can be there for as long as you like. I go into this question in detail on the first Amendment concerning the exemptions because I think they may not have been clear to all your Lordships, any more than they were to me until I applied my mind to them, using a wet towel, to see what all the exemptions were. Then I must mention the exemption for the man "within the curtilage". That deals with the noncommercial caravan and the man who

75
does not pay. He has come to you and your spare room is occupied and you let your friend take his caravan into the garden, without payment, and he may stay there for as long as he likes.
But we do not think we can agree that this two-night exemption for the touring caravan should be extended. I do not think it is necessary. We shall begin to get into trouble. It will be difficult to police these things. The local authority will want to know under which paragraph of the exemptions the caravan is there. If we give the caravanner two nights, instead of the one we originally had in mind, I think we have done all that he can fairly ask for, when there are the other exemptions he can claim, and the other sites—the other small sites —that will be available for him to go to. I hope that the Committee will not press this Amendment, because I believe we shall be getting our foot in the door, and we must draw the line somewhere.
BARONESS HORSIBRUGH: May I ask for a further explanation from the noble Earl? If somebody invites a friend to stay with him and, because he has not got a spare room, suggests that he occupies a caravan in the garden, I take it that he may stay there for as long as he likes. Suppose that a friend arrives at your house and says, "Here I am. I cannot get on to-night and I want you to give me permission to bring my caravan here." So long as he does not pay, can he also stay for as long as you are willing to have him?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule says:
"A site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment as such of a dwellinghouse within the curtilage of which the land is situated."
The noble Baroness will see that that provision is there. This is for the use of land as a caravan site. I would suggest that, under that provision, more than one caravan could be there that is, in your own garden. There is no restriction on that at all. That, I think, was the question which the noble Baroness asked me.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: On your own land? It need not necessarily be in your garden by the side of your house, need it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Baroness must not ask me to define a legal term. The phrase is "a dwellinghouse within the curtilage". From memory, I think that that is the same phrase as is used in the Public Health Act, which this Act supersedes and which deals with tents. I may be wrong there, but it is a well-known legal description. The noble and learned Viscount could tell us about that. I think that is permissible —as many caravans as you like within the curtilage, provided they are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling-house.
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether I am strictly in order, but our discussion seems to have developed rather beyond the particular Amendment. What I want to refer to is something on the same lines as the point raised by the noble Baroness who has just asked the question: that is, the position of a person who is having a house built on his own land and wants to watch the building going up. He may be building it himself with his own hands or with the help of members of his family, or he may have a builder on the site and desire to supervise him and see what is happening. If he is putting a caravan within the curtilage of his own land, may he live there indefinitely, or until the house is built? This question was raised in another place, and I believe that the Minister said he would consider it, but I see no Amendment down. It is a relatively common occurrence for people to want to have a caravan on a site where a building is going up, and it seems to me that no harm would be done if it were permitted. I should be grateful to have a reply on that point.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not think it would be permissible under paragraph 1 as it now stands. I will certainly have a look at it. But I wonder if the Lord Chairman of Committees would like us to take the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, before we go on to these other things.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: That is what I was going to suggest, if it is permissible to speak again. The debate on my Amendment has ranged wide, and we seem to have discussed a number of other points which are not strictly relevant to what I am asking the noble Earl to

77
accept. My arguments have been met by the statement that we need not assume that there will be any lack of room on licensed sites. I can only say that all the site owners I know or have met who are at present operating holiday caravan sites tell me that they have to turn away a great many caravanners who apply to them. They tell me that they start getting applications for the summer in the previous autumn, and that by Christmas they cannot take any more caravans; and as we are now, through the model standard provisions, as I suppose and hope, going to decrease the number of caravans on the sites, the likelihood that the licensed sites will prove quite insufficient appears to me very great indeed. Another point which has been made is that my Amendment will make enforcement more difficult. How can it make enforcement more difficult? It is much more easy to enforce a reasonable provision than it is to enforce an unreasonable one.
Finally, I would point out that my period of three nights is not "putting a foot in the door". This is no occasion to "put a foot in the door". I am putting it forward as a reasonable and proper period of time (which would, incidentally, cover a Bank Holiday week-end, or even a normal week-end) in the case of a man whose chosen site is near his work and who does not have to work on Saturdays. I have put forward substantial arguments in favour of three nights, and I am very disappointed that Her Majesty's Government do not feel able to accept so reasonable a provision. I am not satisfied that the ordinary caravan user who does not belong to the Caravan Club (whose subscription, incidentally, amounts to two guineas a year) is getting a fair deal.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment, if he is going to, may I ask the noble Earl who is replying for the Government one point on something he raised which I did not really understand? The argument which he developed I took to mean that, because there were many sites available, there was no reason why the individual caravanner should stay for more than two nights on an isolated site. In other words, you have to camp with a whole crowd of people, or for two nights only by yourself. That does not seem to me a valid argument at all in the case of the
78
caravanner who wishes to get away from a crowd of people and to enjoy the country in isolation, which seems to be one of the most important and attractive aspects of caravanning. He also raised a question of the local authorities and of the police—which, if I understood the noble Earl aright, I thought should cause considerable disquiet. What harm is an individual caravanner doing on a site where he has arranged to camp with the permission of the owner of the land? Why on earth should police officers come round asking him what lie is doing, and so on? It seems to me a most disgraceful infringement of liberty.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Can my noble friend explain to me how you are to be sure that this fellow is alone? I am deeply puzzled by this. In asking the question, may I say that if there were a Division I would tend to support my noble friend, though I am not wholly convinced of the great merit of two nights as opposed to three. There may be many noble Lords who have not had the experience I have had, of living in the Lake District, where my constituency was. There, the caravan is a great blessing to the person who has it, but, if taken to excess, can at: the same time become a blot on the neighbourhood. It is so easy for two to become three, for twelve to become fifteen and for a hundred to become a thousand, and before you know where you are one is planting little Blackpools and little Morecambes in beautiful parts of the country, such as the Lake District and Lake Windermere.
Now Blackpool and Morecambe have their place—and, indeed, no one could know better than I how important were the 20,000 voters of Morecambe who voted for me—but we do not want them spreading. Your Lordships may think it is a far-fetched story, but it is not. They spread as germs multiply in an appropriate medium, and if you have not got some strict control you get beautiful countryside spoiled for the benefit of a few. It is therefore desirable that those who are going to stay in a place should stay in a registered place, or in an approved place, and that those who are going to move on should stay for only a short time. I am not prepared to say whether two nights or three nights is right; but this Bill has come from another place, and it would seem very

79
argumentative to change it now. May I ask the noble Earl how we are going to know that this man is alone? Suppose another fellow turns up. Are both breaking the law?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was frightened by the question of the use of police, but I did not say "police"; I said "policing", a word I used for seeing that the regulations were carried out, presumably by an inspector of the local authority.
LORD STRABOLGI: A euphemism, in other words.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, a euphemism. The noble Lord asked: why should a man not stay on a site for more than two days, if he has permission? He can do so, provided the occupier is an occupier of five acres or more; then he can stay for 28 days. But once we go for longer than that, surely we are moving into the area of permanent sites which ought to be licensed so that they can have sanitary arrangements and so on. This particular exemption is to deal with the two-night stop and there is no acreage limit. If a caravanner warns to stay for more than two nights, he can make private arrangements with any occupier of five acres and more. And in a subsequent Amendment it is going to be suggested that we might reduce this to three acres. I do not know what your Lordships are going to do when we come to this Amendment, but I think it would be much better to deal with it in this way rather than to increase the two nights. I am not sure that I follow the point of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale about how we can know if a caravanner is alone.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: The Schedule says it is right for two nights, if alone, and it is probably not right at all if you are not alone. A caravanner arrives on a bit of land for only two nights, but he arrives at nine o'clock and finds another man there. Has he to go away?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think that he has.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I think that is unreasonable.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It is not unreasonable. On this small site, where there are no licensed facilities and planning permission, the occupier should not allow a caravan on it for more than two nights and should not allow more than one caravan. If the occupier has a larger site, five acres or more, then the caravanner can stay for 28 days. And I have given the noble Earl a hint about what may happen to his suggestion, if your Lordships wish, to make that three acres. But if the caravanner wants to stay for a year, then we say that the occupier must go and get a site licence, because that is not temporary recreational caravanning. But we are being kind to these caravanners. We say that if they are members of one of the certificated associations, they may use sites which are already earmarked and which are permanently supervised and can stay there for so long as they like. But all these sites will be approved by organisations such as the Caravan Club, though that will not be the only one. Even here the caravanners can stay only five at a time because they are small, unlicensed sites.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl did not deal with a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, which I thought impressive. In regard to people who take long week-ends—Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday night—he suggested that three nights would be a convenience to them, if they wanted to stay in one place for the whole week-end. There may be a good answer to that and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would deal with this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Earl would look at the plan of the Schedule, I think that the answer is to be found there. First of all, a site licence will not be required for the use of land as a caravan site if the use is incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house. That is to say, you can ask your friends to stay with their caravan on your land, a point which the noble Baroness elucidated a short time ago. Lord Fraser of Lonsdale's second traveller would be all right, if he was a friend. Then there is the position which is out of friendship and in the commercial use of sites. In this exemption, we are anxious to cover the

81
person who is travelling and not the person going to a site which is the end of his journey. As my noble friend Lord Waldegrave pointed out, originally the idea was to limit this to one night. Then it was thought that a traveller might want a day's shopping or a day looking at sights, and it was made two nights. That is the answer to the noble Earl's point, which was underwritten, if I may so say it, by the noble Lord, Lord Silk in. We are not dealing in this exception with the person who wants to stay put.
As regards the second caravanner of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, he should not really ask for permission to stay at a private site because the occupier should not give it. It would be a breach of the exemption. But as soon as we get beyond that, we get into the numerous other exemptions to which my noble friend Lord Waldegrave has referred. The Schedule deals with numerous other possible situations. For the week-ender, for the people who have come to the end of their journey, we ought to come to another exemption, or otherwise we are getting into exactly the difficulty we are trying to avoid by this Bill, of having commercial sites which are made for the hard case (here I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi), and of transforming by the hard case a site for travellers into a site for end-of-journey caravanning.
If I may, my Lord Chairman, go slightly wide, I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will see that there is a provision for building and engineering sites in paragraph (9). What is referred to there is the case where the use is required for the accommodation of a person or persons employed in connection with the said operations. That is looking at it from a rather different angle from the noble Lord. He was thinking of the building owner as doing some slight supervision, and at any rate wanting to see how the building gat on, and I should like to have a look at that point. I once gave a judgment in a rating appeal on temporary structures, and, having done that. I should not like to give an opinion, if I may so call it, off the cuff without looking into the matter further. But I will certainly do that before the next stage.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: If my noble friends who have supported me
82
have no objection, I will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after paragraph 2 to insert:
"( ) The Minister may by order contained in a statutory instrument provide that, in any such area and for such period of time as may be specified in the order,

(a) head (a) of the foregoing sub-paragraph shall not have effect, and

(b) the number of days on which a caravan is or caravans are stationed on land in accordance with the provisions of the order shall not be taken into account for the purposes of head (b) of the foregoing subparagraph."

The noble Viscount said: I hope that this may be a helpful Amendment. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave has already referred to the difficulties of policing the operation of the restrictions on these caravan sites, and I envisage the time, if it has not already arrived—for instance, at such periods as Whitsun and August Bank Holiday—when the flood of traffic and caravans going out into the country will be such that not even all the exemptions in this First Schedule will provide enough sites to deal with them. Moreover—and this is perhaps even worse—that will be exactly the time when the local authority inspector is also enjoying his Bank Holiday. I therefore move an Amendment which would allow the Minister to exempt from the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Schedule such periods as hank holidays, so that during those special times a particularly small and unsuitable site may be used to get the caravans off the road, even, if need be, unhitched from the car, thereby helping the traffic problem. I know that this is a problem which has arisen very much in the Lake District, and I have no doubt that it also arises during these particular short periods in many other parts of the country. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment may prove acceptable and helpful to deal with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The reasons I am not attracted by this Amendment, although it has been cogently argued by

83
the noble Viscount, are very much the reasons I adduced when I resisted the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. I am not at all sure that one wishes to see an uncontrolled influx of caravans into areas of special beauty, even at Bank Holiday times. It may be convenient for the caravanners, but there are other people besides the caravanners who will have gone to the beauty spot to enjoy its beauty. If we are to make this exemption to this carefully drawn Schedule, so that the Minister has power to make this relaxation at what may be the all-important time, I can certainly see the advantage to the caravanners; but I rather think that the disadvantage to the non-caravanner, that is to say, the other person in the area of natural beauty, outweighs it. As I said to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, on his Amendment, there are these other exempted sites—the 28-day sites, the 3 caravans on the 5-acre site and so on—which will all be arranged and which do not need the widening of this particular exemption in this way. I hope that the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw this Amendment, because we do not feel that, with the other facilities the Bill affords for the holiday caravanner, we ought to extend this exemption in the manner proposed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I quite see his point. But I wonder if he can explain a little further how he thinks the local authorities are going to be able to enforce these restrictions, not only on this paragraph but on the other paragraphs, during such periods as Bank Holidays.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not know whether what I think about how the local authorities are going to carry out their duties comes to be discussed under this Amendment, but I am sure that those duties will be within the powers of the local authorities; and it will be to the advantage of everybody, when this Bill becomes law, that there should be control of caravan sites, with the proper exemptions for the travelling and holidaying caravanner that we put in. As I said on the previous occasions, I beg your Lordships not to be pessimistic and to assume that we are putting into the hands of the local authorities machinery
84
which will prove too burdensome, and which they will not be able to work; because I do not think that is so. My straight answer to the noble Viscount is that I think the local authorities will be able to see that these regulations and exemptions are carried out; and I sincerely hope so.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I share the noble Earl's hope.
LORD BOSTON: We have heard the legal argument of what should happen, but I should like to point out what actually happens. When these caravans have been in a field for, say, 27 days they then move into the next field where they can stay for another 27 days; and so far as I know, the local authority can do nothing about them. That has been the whole trouble: that the local councils cannot enforce the 28 days because these people move from one field to the next.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Lord realises that they cannot do that unless they go into a field that is in another occupation. There are areas of the country where the land is divided up into very small holdings, but it will be seldom that each field will be in a separate ownership. There are only these statutory limits of caravans, three on five acres, in land within a single occupation. And unless the occupier or owner specifically gets a licence, or has an authorised site from one of these certificated organisations, even if he owns (I think I am right in saying) 1,000 acres or more of contiguous land, he must only have the number of caravans and the duration of time permitted for five acres (or it may be three acres) and so on. It is not right to say that when this Bill has become an Act the caravanner would be able just to move into the next field: the land must be in separate occupation. I am advised that it will not be possible to take a five-acre or ten-acre field and divide it up into small units for this unless they are legally separate occupations and I suggest that to make separate legal occupations would hardly be worth the candle.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: This Amendment seeks to alter five acres to three acres as the minimum size for the type of unlicensed site which may be used for 28 days by three caravans. It seems to me that five acres is an enormous area on which to stand three caravans, and that three acres would be much more reasonable and a less restrictive area. I remain very concerned to know whether the holiday caravanner is going to find enough room. If he does not find room where he can legally enjoy his caravan holiday, I believe that he will be driven on to the verges of the road or to practices which contravene the law. On those grounds, I am anxious to make it as easy as possible for sites to be established. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 25, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My noble friend indicated that of the two Amendments to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, he preferred this one. I should have preferred the noble Earl's first Amendment. Why was this Bill ever introduced? It was introduced because for years the site operators had been driving coaches-and-fours right through the whole structure of the legislation dealing with caravans. If everybody was reasonable, there would be no reason for the Bill at all. We have to deal with people who are out to evade laws automatically. I am not referring so much to caravanners as to people who own these caravan sites, which are valuable things.
If any owner of land wants to go in for caravans, there is absolutely no reason why he should not go through the procedure of applying for a site licence and planning consent. But in this particular case I would ask: how are local authorities going to control these unplanned caravan sites? The local authorities do not go round with measuring appliances, and I have no doubt whatever that, whatever the law says, there will be caravans stationed on less than five acres. I think it is easier to see whether the law is being contravened in an area of five acres than in an area of three acres. If the Government are concerned with trying to make concessions on these matters, I hope they
86
will at least consult the associations of authorities with whom already a considerable amount of consultation has taken place. At least I should like to feel that their responsibility had been properly considered before agreement is made on a matter of this sort.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: AS the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said, it was in my mind, if your Lordships wished it, that we should amend the Bill in the manner proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. But I hold no strong views about this. At the moment I have two views: the view of the mover and the view of the opposer. My own view is that, on the whole, this would give a rather wider measure of freedom to the touring caravanner, and that a maximum of three caravans on a site of three acres or more need not be regarded as excessive. I should be prepared, if it is your Lordships' wish, to accept this Amendment; but I would certainly not urge its acceptance if your Lordships were reluctant to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment. The noble Viscount gave us one reason why this Bill was being introduced, but I understand there is another reason, and that is that, side by side with the desire to enforce the planning law as regards caravans, we also want to provide greater facilities for caravanners. We have to recognise that caravanning today is an accepted way of life; that large numbers of people want caravans, both for the purpose of permanent residences and also for recreation. As a democratic nation, we ought to accept that position and not create difficulties in the way of people doing what they wish.
Therefore, I should have thought that any concession which can properly be made to caravanners to enable this increasing demand to be met should be made. Furthermore, the more we provide lawful facilities for caravanners, the less likely we are to have breaches of the law. On reading the Bill, I felt that one caravan to five acres was not very generous in those circumstances, and not really meeting what is this increasing demand. I was glad to hear the noble Earl hinting on the earlier Amendment that he was prepared to consider this Amendment favourably. I hope he will

87
not be seduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, to depart from this generous impulse.
LORD CHORLEY: I find myself strongly on the side of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, in regard to this matter. It is, of course, quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, that a large number of people are anxious to use these caravans for recreational purposes, but they are doing so at the expense of a much larger number of people who wish to visit the lovely parts of the country like the Lake District. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, he does not know the Lake District as well as I do. The problem of these caravans in that area is a very difficult one indeed.
LORD SILKIN: But this Bill is not confined to the Lake District—it applies to the whole country.
LORD CHORLEY: The Lake District is not the only beautiful part of the country. But this matter in fact applies to many areas all over the country which are exceptionally beautiful. There are many people who are in the business for letting these small sites for caravans which are going to litter the countryside. It seems to me obvious that the larger you keep the area—within reason—the more you have it under control. The more you allow small, isolated bits of land to be bought up by these people, many of whom are in this business in a speculative way, the more you allow the matter to get out of control. The whole object of the Bill is to keep this problem under control. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is quite right in his approach.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: There can be no question of buying up land for speculative purposes, because under this paragraph the maximum amount of time for which caravans can remain on the site is 28 days. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question of speculators buying up the land. Nobody would buy a site in order to keep caravans on it for 28 days in a year.
LORD CHORLEY: I can assure the noble Earl that these sites are let at very good prices indeed, and it is one of the matters which a man has in view in
88
buying a small area of land which comes into the market in a part of the country, from which he can get a good income.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I think it is true that people buy land with this in mind. They then sell the caravanners milk and butter and cheese and so on. There is no limit to the number of days you can have. You can have 3 periods in May, 3 in June and 3 in July.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No; it is 28 days in the year.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I beg your pardon.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The noble Earl has not given much away so far, and I am rather surprised that this is practically the first Amendment he is giving away. I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I think we should have a little more time to consider this point. Could the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, defer it until Report stage, so that we could think again on this matter? I do not feel prepared to say "Yes" at this moment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
LORD SILKIN: Do we really want a Division? I think the noble Earl would be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment and have it considered on Report.
LORD CHORLEY: I quite agree with Lord Dudley's proposal that it might be a good thing to look at it again.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: If it is in order, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to paragraph 4:
"Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in relation to land allocated for Green Belt purposes in a development plan approved under the Act of 1947 or desienated a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty or scientific interest under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, unless any planning permission required under the Act of 1947 has been granted by the local planning authority on consideration of an application in that behalf or by the Minister on appeal or is deemed to have been granted under section sixteen of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the Caravan Club. I am in no sense critical of the Caravan Club; in fact, I would pay a tribute to what they have done to raise standards of caravanning. I am quite ready to agree that any caravan sites supervised by them would be completely in order. I am not asking that they should be subjected to licensing control. What I am asking is that on the particular sites where great efforts have been made to preserve amenities and a great deal of money spent on that object—the Green Belts and National Parks and areas of high landscape value—they should be subject to ordinary planning control. I understand that although they are not given exemption in the Bill, it is the Minister's intention to provide in the General Development Order that they shall not be subject to ordinary planning control.
What is puzzling me and puzzling the County Councils Association, which, after all, represents the large bulk of planning authorities that look after caravans, is why this particular exemption should be given to the Caravan Club. Why should the Caravan Club be put in this exceptional position? After all, it has been found necessary to put agricultural buildings over a certain size under planning control, after the short experiment in freedom. I do not think that the Caravan Club need feel anything invidious about this. Even the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who was quoted as champion despoiler of rural areas when he was Minister of Power, had to consult: planning authorities. I do not necessarily say that he paid a great deal of attention to what was said. Let me just quote an area I know very well, the South Downs. There, before the 1947 Act was ever thought of, we contributed money and paid compensation to establish the amenities, the rural nature of the South Downs. I think it would be legally possible—I do not say probable—for us to wake up one morning and find on top of the South Downs a large caravan site of which nobody had any previous warning.
When this point was referred to in another place the Minister, in effect, said "You will see in paragraph 12 of this Schedule that I can cancel my certificate of exemption at any time if I am satisfied
90
on complaint from a local authority that the Caravan Club has been abusing its position. I will certainly see that it will not happen again. And you will also understand that the Caravan Club, with this threat of removal of exemption hanging over their heads, will, in fact, always consult you." In other words, "Let it happen first and then leave it to the Minister." It does seem rather a tortuous way of going about things. If the Minister really intends, as I think he does, that the Caravan Club should consult the local authorities, a more direct way of doing it would be to indicate that they should, in these special areas, apply for planning consent. It seems to me the simplest way of doing it. If the Minister thinks local authorities are likely to be unduly prejudiced against the Caravan Club, he can always call in a particular application or call in all applications. The principle we stand out for, and I think it is reasonable, is that there should be prior consultation before the Caravan Club establish these sites, and we do not see why they should be in this exceptional position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CHORLEY: I hope that the Government will be able to see their way to accept the Amendment. This particular problem has given some concern to the amenities societies. My noble and learned friend, Lord Birkett, was anxious to be here. Unfortunately, the traffic chaos to-day has prevented his being here, but I have had a special message asking me to do my best to fill the gap. I should have been speaking in support of the noble Viscount in any case.
I do not want anything I say to be taken as casting any sort of reflection on the Caravan Club. I have had a close and happy association with them, as have all the amenities societies, and we have great confidence in their judgment in these things. In actual fact, in some of the National Parks there exist the closest relations between the Caravan Club and the planning authority, and working together they have succeeded in establishing a number of very good caravan sites. But that has been by working together, and the first impressions of the Caravan Club have by no means always been found in the end, after consultation

91
with the planning authorities, to be those best required in the district. I could mention two or three cases in the Peak District where that has been very much so. In a way it would be very much better, as the noble Viscount is proposing, to leave it on that basis. I am quite sure that the Caravan Club themselves would work happily, as they have in fact been doing in the past, in consultation with the planning authorities, and I hope that the Government will be able to see their way to preserve that situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I shall be able to show to your Lordships that the suggestions which the Government have in mind will secure the object of this Amendment. I am afraid I must deploy them at a little length, and I should like noble Lords who have spoken to do me the honour of considering these suggestions perhaps a little further. As your Lordships see, this Amendment refers to the exemption in paragraph 4 of the First Schedule for caravan sites which are occupied and managed by organisations which hold certificates of exemption from the Minister under paragraph 12. The effect of the Amendment would be to make the exemption in the case of such a site in the Green Belt or a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty or scientific interest, conditional upon the site having planning permission for the caravan use granted on an application.
I should like to say again what my noble friend and I have said several times before: that we appreciate the purpose of the Amendment and we recognise that the siting of caravans in the areas to which it refers calls for special care. But this exemption is in no way intended to dispense with the need for special care on the part of the exempted organisations in the choice of their site. It is the terms of the Amendment which we think are unnecessary, and I will come now to the reasons. The First Schedule to the Bill is concerned only with the exemptions from the licensing requirements under Part I of the Bill: it is not concerned with planning control. There is nothing in the Schedule itself which will exempt caravan sites from the normal planning requirements. This is where I want my noble friend Lord Gage to think again. I suggest that the proper instrument for
92
providing exemptions from the planning control or, to be more accurate, for giving a general blanket permission for particular types of development, is the General Development Order made by the Minister under Section 13 of the 1947 Act.
Therefore, let us look at the position under the General Development Order. Clause 1 of the General Development Order for 1950 already gives a general permission of this kind for uses of land for the purpose of recreation, and this would cover holiday caravan sites run by certain organisations approved by the Minister. I am not going to jump on to the other Amendment, but my noble friend Lord Gage will see that, subject to a matter of arrangement, there is substantial agreement between us. I say that only in parenthesis. But there are other provisions in the General Development Order at present which cover temporary uses of land, including use by caravans which is carried on for not more than 28 days in a year. When the Bill becomes law it is proposed to amend the General Development Order so as to bring these provisions, in so far as they affect caravans, broadly into line with the exemptions from licensing under the Bill; and that accords with the general policy of Part I of the Bill that the only licensing system should be co-ordinated with planning controls. But if it were desired to do so, the amending Order could quite well be framed in such a way as to leave certain types of caravan sites subject to specific planning control, although exempt from licensing under the Bill. That is a matter which would be perfectly possible.
Whether or not specific planning permission should be required for the types of site to which this Amendment refers is, therefore, a matter which should be more properly considered in connection with the Order to amend the General Development Order than in the context of the Schedule to the Bill. But, in practice, the Minister would expect any organisation to which he gives certificates under paragraph 13 of the Schedule, to collaborate with the local planning authority over the location of any caravan sites they propose to establish. There will be no misunderstanding about this; it is already the practice of the Caravan Club to obtain the agreement of the planning authority before themselves opening a caravan site.

93
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley said: that they often came to different conclusions. That seams to me to be absolutely right and wise. But the point I am making at the moment is that the Minister will expect them, and any other organisation that may apply for a certificate of exemption, to obtain the agreement of the planning authority as regards any new sites that may be established under paragraph 4 of the Schedule. By that method the object of the Amendment will be secured. In my submission to your Lordships that is the logical way of doing it. My noble friend Lord Gage asked, "Well, why not do it now?" But surely for once the onus is on my noble friend. If he is going to try to introduce into a licensing part of the Bill matters that affect planning permission, that is a most heavy onus to assume, because it is an illogical way of dealing with the matter. Surely one ought Ito deal with it under the changes in the General Order to which I have referred.
I use the other point to which my noble friend Lord Gage referred only as a make-weight in this matter; but it is a considerable make-weight, because if any further safeguard should be needed it will be found in paragraph 13 of the Schedule, which enables the Minister, on the application of the local planning authority, to withdraw the exemption in a particular area. Further, it will be noted that under paragraph 12 of the Schedule the organisation's certificate of exemption may itself be withdrawn at any time. Therefore there is no doubt that there will be ample safeguards against any possible abuse of the exemption; and I think I have demonstrated that they are real safeguards which exist positively. But I should like my noble friend to consider the argument that I have deployed on the planning permission. If he is still not satisfied, if he or the organisation of which he is a notable member and supporter will point out where the worry exists, I shall be very pleased, with my noble friend Lord Waldegrave and those who are helping us, to consider it again. But at the moment I am not putting forward the argument that the purpose is wrong: I am saying that the object of the Amendment will be secured by the method I have put before the House. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will
94
at any rate reconsider the matter and will not press his Amendment to-day.
VISCOUNT GAGE: We seem to run a rather irregular track in this debate. So often have I been told by the Government that they entirely agree with some object which other noble Lords or I have put forward, but that we are trying to do something in the wrong words or in the wrong place. In this case it is probably both—the wrong words and the wrong place. I apologise for that. It may be that those who advise me on this matter have overlooked that the proper place to amend this is in the General Development Order; although I do not know whether we could amend that Order.
As I have explained to my noble and learned friend—and it is a simple point—we feel that a caravan club ought to apply for planning consent. My noble and learned friend says he agrees with that, too. I then say that we should enact that they should do so. He says that it should be done in a different way, and I invite a suggestion on how it should be done. My noble and learned friend then says, "Why do you want to make such a bother about it?" And I may be told that in the long run it will all come right. I have no doubt that it will, but it seems a long way round. We have to wait until something happens again, upon which we make a complaint, and then action will be taken. It is difficult for the layman to understand why that elaboration should have to be gone through, but this is hardly the occasion for a battle with the Government and I must, of course, do as my noble and learned friend suggests. I do not think it is possible for Members of this House to suggest amendments to the General Development Order; I may be wrong. I am not satisfied with the position as my noble and learned friend has described it but I will reconsider the matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half past eight o'clock.]
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out paragraph 5. The noble Viscount said: Before the adjournment, the Committee were discussing, in

95
general terms, paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and I think that much of what was said applies also to paragraph 5. Under paragraph 5, an exempted organisation, whatever it may be, is able to remove from a site both planning and site-licensing control and may thereby enable the site to be used, as this Bill stands at the moment, for any sort of caravan for the twelve months of the year. I think, if I may anticipate slightly, that the addition which my noble friend Lord Waldegrave may move later on will do a lot to dispel any doubt about the use of the site for other than recreational purposes all the year round. However, the fact remains that, as this Schedule stands, any exempted organisation may certificate any number of sites all over the country and thereby remove from them all the controls of the local planning authorities and everybody else. We have no idea how many exempted organisations there are going to be; nor how many sites each of them is going to certificate. Nor have we any idea on what grounds they are going to choose to issue their certificate. Nor, further, is there anything in the paragraph which makes them supervise in any way the sites they have thus exempted. I do not think it is even clear, as the paragraph stands at present, that the sites so exempted are to be used only by their members. I think it is an arguable point. The second part of the paragraph looks to me as though it provides that a certificate may say that the land is to be used only by the members or that it has been approved for such use. I still do not think that that necessarily excludes those caravanners who are not members of the exempted organisation from using it.
Therefore I think the situation created by this paragraph is to free almost any number of sites all over the country from any control by the local authorities, and to free them also from any control by the exempted organisation itself, so that they may be used by any caravanner who comes along; although it is true that only five caravans at a time may be stationed on the site. The only sanctions that there are for this state of affairs, if anything should go wrong on one particular site, are either that the Minister should refuse, when it comes round to the annual review, his certificate
96
for the whole organisation—which is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—or else he may, under paragraph 11 of this Schedule, arrange that the total exemption of paragraph 5 shall cease to apply to any particular area. And that, as I read it, means not only that the offending organisation will not be allowed to certificate in that area, but also that all other organisations will be precluded from doing so. And such being the case, I cannot see but that this goes much too far in allowing the whole trust and the whole reliance to be placed upon the good faith of the exempted organisation.
If this paragraph contained some such provision as that the exempted organisation must have some sort of supervision, even if it were only through the person who owned the land and who was appointed as their agent; and if it were laid down that only the members of the organisation might use the site; and if, moreover, under sub-paragraph (3), not only the Minister but also the local authorities and, I think, the public (possibly at a price), could get hold of the lists of these exempted sites, then the control might be strengthened. But, as it is, I feel that this paragraph goes much too far. Moreover, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just told us of a change that is to come in the General Development Order. I do not exactly know what this is going to entail, and I should be grateful if he would explain a little further what he had in mind. But, as it is, I suggest to your Lordships that this paragraph requires considerable amendment if it is not going to pass into law and leave a situation which will become entirely unenforceable and uncontrollable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 20, leave out paragraph 5.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This Amendment would remove the exemption in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule for sites approved and certified by organisations holding certificates of exemption from the Minister under paragraph 12 of the Schedule. This exemption serves, of course, an entirely different purpose from the exemption in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, which covers only sites directly occupied and managed by an

97
exempted organisation. There are very few such sites in existence at present, and I do not anticipate that there will ever be a very large number of them. But paragraph 5 is intended to cover a much larger number of smaller sites which are certified by an exempted organisation as being suitable for the use of its members while touring with their caravans.
The Caravan Club has for many years been operating a system of approved sites of this kind; and, like certain other recreational organisations, the club has held a certificate of exemption from the Minister under Section 269 of the Public Health Act, 1936. In consequence, these sites have hitherto enjoyed exemption from the licensing requirements of the Public Health Act, and they have also been exempt from the need to obtain specific planning permission by virtue of the Town and Country General Development Order, 1950. These exemptions have occasioned little or no complaint in the past, and the Government consider it only reasonable to provide for a corresponding exemption, subject to the necessary safeguards, in this Bill.
The exemption is not intended to benefit only the Caravan Club. Any other responsible recreational organisation which is prepared to exercise proper care in the choice of its sites, and to take steps to see that they are properly conducted, will also be able to apply for a certificate of exemption, and I think the noble Viscount who sits behind me can be quite satisfied that it will be only members of the certificated organisation who will be entitled to use these sites. I think the clause is conditional, and I shall be interested to hear whether it could be construed otherwise. There are ample safeguards in the fact that the certificates of approval under paragraph 5 will be renewable. They will be renewable from year to year: and that, surely, should be a guarantee of good conduct for each site. It is not a long-term certificate. It is renewable year by year; and my right honourable friend will be furnished with particulars of all the certificates issued, and he will know the number of sites to which exemption applies at any given time.
As for the Minister's power of control, the exemption in paragraph 5 is entirely dependent on the organisation itself holding a certificate from the Minister,
98
under paragraph 12; and such a certificate, of course, could be withdrawn at any time. Further, it is worth nothing that the Minister will have power, under paragraph 13, to withdraw this exemption in particular areas by order on the application of the local authorities. Therefore there will be effective means of controlling the use made of the exemption and of curtailing it if that should prove necessary in the light of experience. That being so we think that it would be unreasonable to condemn it at this stage on the ground that it will be too widely used, or used in some objectionable way. I hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Is the noble Earl not disposed to consider the suggestions I made towards modifying this? I apologise if I misled him. First of all, there should be some supervision by the exempted organisation on every site; and secondly, not only the Minister but also local authorities should have copies of these site lists.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: On the noble Viscount's second point, that local authorities should have copies of the list of sites, I certainly will consider that, because the associations will publish lists for the use of their members. But whether the Minister has to send these to the local authorities, or whether the local authorities will themselves take care to get these lists from the exempted organisations, is a matter to be looked into. On the point of supervision, I do not think I am prepared to consider requiring organisations to supervise these sites because that brings them into paragraph (4). These sites will be small; they will be chosen in agreement with the local authorities and, obviously, with the owners of the land; and they will have only an annual exemption. I should have thought that these organisations would see that their members used these sites reasonably and properly, because, if they become a nuisance, the local authority will press the Minister not to give an exemption the following year. I think that that is as far as we should go without putting too onerous a burden on the organisations whose sites we shall exempt.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us a little more about the requirement that

99
they should co-operate with the local authority in acquiring these sites. This is the first I have heard of this as regards paragraph 5, although I understand that this is the case as regards paragraph 4.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not know what the noble Viscount means by co-operation with the local authority. The organisations will choose these sites and issue a list of them in their magazine, or whatever means they have of telling their members. If I gave the noble Viscount the impression that they have to go to the local authority before they choose these sites, I am sorry, because I do not think that that is so.
LORD BOSTON: Can the local authority be made responsible for seeing that members of these clubs do not let their friends go there or sub-let their caravans on these sites? I feel that the exemption ought to be restricted to members.
8.45 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I will certainly take care to look at that point. But these sites are really approved for the organisation, and the organisation is the corpus of its members. I cannot see why the organisation would want to bring in people other than its members. After all, other people are not going to pay the subscription to become members of the organisation. It will be remembered that there is a limit of five caravans on these sites—they are not big sites —and I should have thought that the organisation concerned would want the members to get the maximum benefit from membership of the organisation and from the exemptions that the organisation had got for its members, and one would expect the organisation on these small sites of five caravans only to restrict this privilege very much to its members.
VISCOUNT GAGE: For the sake of clarity, could my noble friend inform me where it states that the exempted sites are reserved for members of that organisation? If that is true, it seems to me that my next Amendment, on which the Government have a similar point to make, is unnecessary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems to me that in paragraph 5 (2) the condition is the certificate. It says:
100
"For the purposes of this sub-paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members."
It is on that certificate that the exemption works. I confess that it had not seemed to me that the organisation could issue a certificate which applied to people outside its own organisation. My noble friend and I will willingly have another look at that point, if my noble friend Lord Gage is in any doubt about it. I should not have thought that it affected the point covered by his next three Amendments and our Amendment No. 56. I am always anxious to satisfy my noble friend and I will willingly have another look at this, in case I have misread it.
LORD SILKIN: Broadly speaking, I support the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in not accepting this Amendment, But the noble Viscount has expressed some fear that an individual site may not be well conducted, and obviously there cannot be individual supervision of each site by the exempted organisation. But is not the answer that, if such a thing should happen, when they come up again for their licence attention could be drawn to the fact that a particular site was not properly conducted, and either the licence in respect of that site could be withdrawn or the Minister could take any other action he thought fit? It seems to me that that is a complete safeguard against the inadvertent negligence, if that is not a contradiction in terms, of a responsible organisation.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think the noble Lord has put it very clearly and fairly, and I entirely agree with what he said. May I say one more word upon this exemption and about members? Looking at sub-paragraph (2) I should have doubted—although my noble and learned friend has said in his usual generous way that he will look at this point again—whether there can be any two meanings of it. I will quote what it says:
"For the purposes of this paragraph an exempted organisation may issue as respects any land a certificate stating that the land has been approved by the exempted organisation for use by its members."
I should have thought that that was as clear as could be.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:I am grateful to my noble friends in front of me, and I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for saying that he will look at this point again. I am not quite satisfied that the "use by its members" does not apply only to the approval and not to use of the land. If it is in fact the intention of Her Majesty's Government that this should be so, and that the site should be used only by the members, at least that is one difficulty which has been removed. Furthermore, I am delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, say that the local authority will have, by one means or another, a full list of all its sites. As regards the supervision, I am not at all in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it would be beyond the ability of an exempted organisation to see that somebody, even if only the landowner in his own interests, supervised this property. However, this matter has been clarified, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in paragraph 5 (1), after "caravan site" to insert "for purposes of recreation". The noble Viscount said: This and the next Amendment deal with the same principle my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has already raised: that is, the real effect of these exemptions by the Caravan Club of sites for which it is not definitely responsible for supervision. What the County Councils Association fear is that a farmer who has on his property a site exempted by the Caravan Club may permit (I am sure, contrary to the intention of the Caravan Club) a caravan of an entirely different description from that contemplated by the licence. That is to say, he may permit a permanent caravan. It is contrary to the terms of the licence, but your Lordships will see that if that farmer is attacked by the local authority for having on his land an unlicensed permanent caravan for which no licence or planning consent has been given, all he has to do is to produce a certificate of exemption and he can quite clearly show that he is outside the control of the local authorities.
I think the Government accept that point, because they have introduced an Amendment dealing with it, but dealing
102
with it in rather a different way. That is what is slightly confusing me about the interpretation placed on this clause by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I have no doubt that technically it is quite correct that this exemption is supposed to apply only in favour of members of that organisation, but it is difficult to ensure that that is so. We in the County Councils Association think that if we can see that a man is abusing his position and the terms of this exemption by permitting permanent caravans, we should have power to prosecute him.
I do not know if I am in order in referring to the Government Amendment a little later on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend will do so, because obviously the Amendments all cover the same subject. They will have to be put separately, but it will be convenient to us if he will discuss them together.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am much obliged. The Government take this point that there may be abuse, and they agree that it ought to be rectified. They agree that these sites ought to be kept for recreational caravans and for the members of those organisations that cater only for recreational caravans. But their argument seems to be that again it is a matter for complaint to the Caravan Club who will take up the matter. If I may say so, we seem to be going about things in a rather roundabout way. The local authority see the stationary caravan; they complain to the Minister about it; the Minister complains to the Caravan Club; the Caravan Club complains to the farmer. And after everybody has complained to everybody else, the offending farmer finds that his site is on longer exempted by the Caravan Club certificate, and he is then open to prosecution by the local authority. We feel that it would not be unreasonable to make it quite clear to the farmer that if he permits his site to be used for the purpose of permanent caravans—in other words, if he allows his site to be occupied after a certain date in the year —he is liable to prosecution, and we cannot see anything difficult or unreasonable about it. I have not heard the Government's reasons for their Amendment: I am only pointing out that they

103
themselves acknowledge that this privilege can be abused. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, after ("caravan site") insert ("for purposes of recreation").—(Viscount Gage.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think it will be most convenient, if your Lordships will permit me, if I speak to my Amendment No. 56, because this Amendment, as the noble Viscount says, is dealing with the same point. We put this Amendment forward as an alternative to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule provides an exemption for caravan sites approved for the use of its members by an organisation holding a certificate of exemption from the Minister under paragraph 12 of the Schedule. If we turn to paragraph 12 of the Schedule, it will be seen that the Minister may grant certificates of exemption only to organisations whose "objects include the encouragement or promotion of recreational activities". It is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the exemption in paragraph 5 should cover only sites used for recreational purposes, as distinct from permanent residential, commercial sites.
It may be thought desirable—and the noble Viscount probably does think it desirable—that we should clarify this and make it clearer than it seems to me to be already. The insertion of the words, "for the purposes of recreation". in paragraph 5 (1), which is the noble Viscount's Amendment, would be open to certain objections. The effect would be to place the onus of compliance upon the occupier of the land, who will usually be a farmer. He would be responsible for seeing that the caravans on the land were, in fact, used only for the purpose of recreation, and for no other purpose; and he would be at risk of prosecution under Clause I of the Bill for allowing his site to be used as a caravan site without a licence if he failed to do so. It would hardly seem right to put this burden on the occupier of the land, and in practice it would not make for very effective control.
We think that the purpose would be much better secured by inserting at the end of paragraph 5 (2) the words "for
104
the purposes of recreation." That would put the responsibility where it should properly belong— namely, on the organisation which approved the sites in the first place; and they would be able to approve sites for recreational uses only. The effect would be to give the exemption as a whole the right "recreational flavour", if that is the right way to put it. If it is suggested by anybody that this does not really go far enough, and that a site approved for recreation may still be used for some other purpose, the answer lies in the fact that under paragraph 5 (4), the exemption will again depend on the annual certificate for each site. If it were ever found that one of these sites was being used for some purpose other than recreation—which would be made so much clearer if my Amendment is accepted—that could be brought to the notice of the organisation concerned, and the site would clearly be in danger of not having its certificate renewed. I ask your Lordships to consider very carefully whether this Amendment No. 56 that we are proposing does not cover the point better than the two Amendments to which the noble Viscount was speaking a moment ago.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I have but few comments to make on what my noble friend has said. The first is that he knows sufficient about farmers—more than I do—to know that they are not quite such simple folk as he, in his local capacity, as opposed to his agricultural capacity, would have us believe. I think they are perfectly capable of knowing when they have done wrong in permitting a site which was licensed for recreation to be used as a permanent caravan site. I do not think there would be any trouble about that. It is hardly a matter for which one would go to the stake. It seems to me that in this matter the Government delight in going about things in the most roundabout possible way. They get to the same point as the County Councils Association wish them to get to, but by a most devious route. However, it is no use my pressing this point. I think that we in the County Councils Association are probably right. I shall just have to leave it there. I am grateful that the Government have gone as far as they have done, because they do recognise that once an owner has an exemption, it is

105
no use the local authority trying to proceed against him at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given notice of his intention to move to add to subparagraph (1):
"Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in relation to land allocated for Green Belt purposes in a development plan approved under the Act of 1947 or designated a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty or scientific interest under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, unless any planning permission required under the Act of 1947 has been granted by the local planning authority on consideration of an application in that behalf or by the Minister on appeal or is deemed to have been granted under section sixteen of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: This is an adaptation of a previous Amendment that I moved on caravan sites in the Green Belt and National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. That Amendment was concerned with the larger sites of the Caravan Club, not only licensed but taken full responsibility for. This is an adaptation of that principle in regard to smaller unsupervised sites. The County Councils Association think that these sites, even more if they do not have the immediate supervision of the Caravan Club, ought to be subject to planning control. But I have agreed to withdraw on the other point, and it would be only correct, therefore, that I should withdraw on this subsequent point, on the understanding that we may have some further conversation about it. I do not move this Amendment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 29, at end insert ("for the purposes of recreation").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out paragraph 11. The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It raises the question whether a local authority owning and managing a caravan site should be required to hold a licence. I concede straight away that there is something anomalous in a local authority, who are themselves a licensing authority, having to grant a licence to themselves. On the other hand, as the noble Earl knows from his experience of local
106
authorities, in practice it is not really an anomaly. There will be a committee which is concerned with the granting of licences and they will consider the application of the authority in the same way as any other; and there would be the advantage that the licensing committee of the council would be in a position to ensure that the standards of the local authority were at least as good as those they required of other people.
I believe that most local authorities would rather not be exempt. It puts them in the difficult position of being placed above the law; and in my view it is a bad piece of public relations if it can be suggested that everyone else has to get a licence but not the local authority themselves. And there is a danger of the local authority being more generous to themselves than they would be to other people. If it should be suggested that there would be any difficulty about the local authority's having to grant a licence to themselves, I may say that I do not myself visualise that difficulty. I was for a great many years—almost a whole generation— a member of a large local authority and I was well aware (and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me here) that committees of large authorities, and of smaller ones, act independently. There is no reason at all to believe that a committee of a council which made recommendations to the council on the suitability of a particular site would not act perfectly judicially, exercise careful discretion and make their recommendation in a perfectly bona fide manner.
There is the other point: that whereas the ordinary site developer will have to exhibit a licence on the site, the local authority will not have to do so, because they will not have a licence. Obviously if the principle of my argument is accepted this paragraph will have to go, and something might be put in its place. might even suggest that if the Committee accept the principle that a local authority must have a licence, like anybody else, in their case the licensing authority might be some other authority, like the county council; although, frankly, I see some difficulty in the case of a county borough. We certainly could not expect a county borough to go to the county council for a licence. But I should be perfectly prepared to trust the county borough and the rural district

107
council, or whoever are the appropriate authority responsible for caravan licences. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be received with sympathy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 30, leave out paragraph 11.—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The Amendment is certainly received with sympathy, and I want to look at it very carefully. I do not think I can quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who said he did not think that the position of the licensing authority and the issuing authority being one would be anomalous. I believe that, as the noble Lord indicated, there would be certain anomalies. If we can get round the difficulty he is in, in any other way, I should much prefer it, because we could get into a rather extraordinary position if we had the local authority issuing a licence to itself and appealing against it, and so on, even though it might be two committees in the local authority which deal with that. The noble Lord said two committees; but, of course, it might be that it would Abe the same committee of the local authority which would be managing the sites and issuing the licences.
Be that as it may, I was more impressed with the noble Lord's argument to the effect that, whereas private site operators will be required by Clause 4 (4) of the Bill to display copies of their licences, since the local authority does not have a licence of course it cannot display it, and there will be no corresponding obligation on the local authority and there should be at least something to indicate to the caravanners on a site what equipment and facilities they are entitled to. I appreciate that point of the noble Lord, and I am grateful to him for having raised it. I do not think it is really necessary—otherwise we should have put it in the Bill originally —because when providing their own sites local authorities will be required, by Clause 21 (2), to have regard to the model standards just as when licensing other people's sites. I think it is worth remembering that in the Arton Wilson Report, paragraph 134, Sir Arton Wilson said:
"The local authority sites are well above average as regards the scale and quality of
108
their basic facilities. And it appears that some of the new local authority sites which are now being developed are being planned for a high standard of long-term amenity as well."
I do not think we need have fears on this score, therefore, but I agree that if we could do something to help the noble Lord here it would be good. The model standards will be published, and any caravanner will be able to get a copy if he wishes; and if he thought the equipment on his site was in some way falling short of the model standards he would be perfectly entitled to ask the local authority for an explanation.
But the chief purpose of the requirement in Clause 4 (4) is that people should know that the site is a licensed site, so that they can bring their caravans on to it without fear of finding the site closed down later. I think this is a good point that we must take into consideration. If no notice were displayed the sites might conceivably be suspect in the eyes of the caravanner. I should like to look at this point again. I do not think that we shall have to come back with any words to put in the Bill to deal with it. I would put it to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we can deal with this point shortly by my right honourable friend bringing to the notice of the local authorities, in the circular which he will be issuing about this Bill, the points which we have just been making in this discussion; that it would be right for them to put up some notice to say, "This is a local authority site. The standards are according to the model standards", so that the caravanner going on to the site will find some sort of notice, which he has been accustomed to find on privately operated sites. If the noble Lord will leave it at that for the moment, I would rather deal with the matter in that way than leave out paragraph 11, as he suggests.
LORD SILKIN: I will certainly withdraw the Amendment, but I should be grateful if, when the noble Earl is considering this matter, he would consider also not only the point about the exhibition of something equivalent to a licence, but the fact that, whereas other people who apply for a licence may have conditions imposed upon them apart altogether from having to comply with the model standards, a local authority need not. In that sense, the conditions which they permit themselves, even though they

109
might comply with the general model laid down by the Ministry, may be lower than those of private developers. In any case, they ought not to be allowed to judge for themselves. I do not want to develop this matter at any length, but I am sure the noble Earl understands my point. A requirement in the licence may relate to something about planting trees, and that sort of thing. We had some argument about that last week. The local authority can impose that kind of condition on others: it may be equally desirable that it should obtain in the case of a local authority site. If the noble Earl would look at the whole thing from that angle, I should be very willing to withdraw the Amendment, and perhaps we could consider the subject again on Report stage.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I shall be very happy to do so.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
9.17 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, after the First. Schedule to insert the following new Schedule—

FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS RELATING TO COMMONS
Duty to consult conservators
1. Before making an order under section (Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons) of this Act with respect to land which is or forms part of a common of which conservators have been appointed under any local Act, or under any order made under an Act of Parliament, the rural district council shall consult with the conservators.
Procedure for making orders imposing prohibitions
2. Before making any order under the said section (Power of rural district council to prohibit caravans on commons) other than an order the sole effect of which is to revoke or vary a previous order under that section, the rural district council shall publish in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated a notice—

(a) stating the general effect of the order;

(b) specifying a place in the said locality where a copy of the draft order may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours during a period of twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication of the notice; and

(c) stating that, within the said period, any person may by notice to the council object to the making of the order.

3.—(1) Not later than the date on which the said notice is first published the rural district council shall serve a copy thereof on every person entitled as lord of the manor or otherwise to the soil of the land:
Provided that where the persons entitled to the soil of the land are numerous or cannot after diligent inquiry he ascertained, the Minister may dispense with the service of notices under this sub-paragraph.
(2) A notice under the foregoing subparagraph may be served on any person by sending it in a registered letter addressed to him at his usual or last known address.
4.—(1) If before the expiration of the period of twenty-eight clays beginning with the date of the first publication of a notice under paragraph 2 of this Schedule an objection to the making of the order to which the notice relates is duly made to the rural district council by any person entitled to the soil of the land, and the notice is not subsequently withdrawn, the rural district council shall not proceed with the making of the order.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the council may, at any time within one year after the expiration of the said period, make an order in the terms of the draft order; but if any objection to the making of the order was duly made within the said period by a person who was not entitled to the soil of the land, and the objection has not been withdrawn at the date on which the order is made, the order shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the Minister.
(3) Where the council submit an order to the Minister for his confirmation, they shall send to the Minister a copy of every such objection as is referred to in the last foregoing sub-paragraph; and the Minister, after considering every such objection and causing if he thinks fit a local inquiry to be held, may confirm or refuse to confirm the order and, if he confirms it, may do so subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think desirable.
Notice to lord of manor of other orders
5. Where the sole effect of an order under section (Power of rural district councils to prohibit caravans on commons) of this Act is to revoke or vary a previous order under that section (so that paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Schedule do not apply with respect to the making of the order) the rural district council shall serve such notices, and take such other steps, as appear to them to be appropriate for informing the persons entitled to the soil of the land of the effect of the order.
Crown land
6.—(1) Where it is proposed to make an order of the kind described in paragraph 2 of this Schedule with respect to land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest, and the nature of that interest is such that, but for this paragraph, the person to whom the interest belongs would be entitled under paragraph 3 of this Schedule to a copy of the notice referred to in that paragraph,—

(a) the said paragraph 3 shall have effect as if it required the copy to be served instead on the appropriate authority; and

111

(b) sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule shall not apply in relation to the order, but the council shall not make the order unless and until they have obtained the consent in writing thereto of the appropriate authority.

(2) In this paragraph "Crown or Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, or belonging to a government department, or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department; and "the appropriate authority"—

(a) in relation to land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown and forming part of the Crown Estate, means the Crown Estate Commissioners, and, in relation to any other land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, means the government department having the management of that land;

(b) in relation to land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, means the Chancellor of the Duchy;

(c) in relation to land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, means such person as the Duke of Cornwall, or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall, appoints; and

(d) in relation to land belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department, means that department;

and if any question arises as to what authority is the appropriate authority in relation to any land, that question shall be referred to the Treasury, whose decision shall be final."
The noble Earl said: This is the Schedule which prescribes the procedure for making orders under the new clause relating to caravans on common land. I do not think I need go into it in any great detail. The effect of the Schedule is that, before making an order, the local authority must in the first place consult any statutory conservators of the common. Then, they must give public notice of the proposed order in a local newspaper or newspapers; and they must also notify the lord of the manor or other owner of the land. The Minister may. however, dispense with the latter requirement—that is, the notification of any other owner of the land—if the owners of the common are numerous or cannot be ascertained after diligent inquiry. All noble Lords know what diligence may be needed with regard to commons.
If an owner objects to the proposal to make an order, and so long as the objection is not withdrawn, the council may not proceed with the order. The owner, therefore, has a power of veto. This accords with the lord of the manor's
112
power of veto as regards schemes of regulation under the Commons Act, 1899, and it is considered reasonable in this context also. In practice, it seems unlikely that the lord of the manor or other owner of the common will often wish to object to the making of an order; and, if he does, it is likely that he will himself have some control over caravans on the common. He may even be the occupier for the purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill. If objections to the proposed order are made by anyone other than the owner, the order must be referred to the Minister and he may, after considering the objections, confirm it, vary it so as to make it less restrictive, or refuse to confirm it. The Schedule, as your Lordships will see, contains further provisions in regard to the procedure for varying orders and in regard to orders which affect Crown lands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the First Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, after the First Schedule to insert the fallowing new Schedule:

ENFORCEMENT OF NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 30 AND 33 OF ACT OF 1947
  PART I

    NOTICES RELATING TO LISTED BUILDINGS
    Preliminary
    1. In this Part of this Schedule the expression "notice" means a notice under subsection (8) of section thirty of the Act of 1947.
    2. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, a notice shall take effect at the expiration of such period (not being less than twenty-eight days after the service thereof) as may be specified therein.
    Right of Appeal
    3.—(1) A person on whom a notice is served, or any other person having an interest in the building to which the notice relates, may at any time within the period specified in the notice as the period at the expiration of which it is to take effect, anneal to the Minister against the notice on any of the following grounds, that is to say—

    (a) that the works to which the notice relates were not, or were not wholly, works in contravention of subsection (6) of section thirty of the Act of 1947, or

    (b) that the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary for restoring the building to its condition before the works to which the notice relates were carried out, or

    113

    (c) that the period specified in the notice as the period within which any steps required by the notice are to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed, or

    (d) that any of the steps required by the notice to be taken would not serve the purpose of restoring the character of the building to what it was before the works to which the notice relates were carried out, and that if and so far as those works constituted the carrying out of development in contravention of Part III of the Act of 1947, permission ought to be granted for the retention of those works.

    (2) On an appeal under this paragraph Part III of the Act of 1947 shall have effect as if an application for permission for the development, if any, involved in the works to which the notice relates had been duly made under the said Part III and referred to the Minister under section fifteen of that Act.
    The provisions of this sub-paragraph shall not he taken as applying sections thirty-six and thirty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959.
    (3) If an appeal is brought under this paragraph the notice shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
    (4) An appeal under this paragraph shall be made to the Minister by a written notice which shall indicate the grounds on which the appeal is brought: and on an appeal under this paragraph the Minister shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
    (5) On an appeal under this paragraph the Minister may correct any informality, defect or error in the notice if he is satisfied that the informality, defect or error is not a material one.
    (6) On the determination of an appeal under this paragraph the Minister shall give directions for giving effect to his determination, including where appropriate directions for quashing the notice or for varying the terms of the notice in favour of the appellant.
    (7) Subsection (5) of section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall apply in relation to any proceedings before the Minister on an appeal under this paragraph as if those proceedings were an inquiry held by the Minister under the said section two hundred and ninety.
    (8) The validity of a notice which has been served under subsection (8) of the said section thirty on the owner and occupier of the building shall not be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever on the grounds specified in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph except by way of an appeal under this paragraph.
    4.—(l) Where the Minister gives any decision in proceedings on art appeal under this Part of this Schedule against a notice the appellant or the local planning authority or any person (other than the appellant) on whom the notice was served may appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law.
    (2) The Minister may, at any stage of the proceedings on an appeal under this Part of this Schedule against a notice, state any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings in the form of a special case for the decision of the High Court, and a decision of the High Court on a case stated by virtue of this sub-paragraph shall be deemed to be a judgment of the court within the meaning of section twenty-seven of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 (which relates to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine appeals from any judgment of the High Court).
    (3) In relation to any proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Appeal brought by virtue of this paragraph the power to make rules of court shall include power to make rules

    (a) prescribing the powers of the High Court or the Court of Appeal with respect to the remitting of the matter with the opinion or direction of the court for re-hearing and determination by the Minister, and

    (b) providing for the Minister, either generally or in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the rules, to be treated as a party to any such proceedings and to be entitled to appear and to be heard accordingly.

    (4) Rules of court relating to such proceedings as aforesaid may provide for excluding so much of subsection (1) of section sixty-three of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act. 1925, as requires appeals to the High Court to be heard and determined by a Divisional Court, but no appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be brought by virtue of this section except with the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
    (5) Where any person has appealed to the Minister against a notice under this Part of this Schedule neither that person nor any other shall be entitled to claim in any proceedings, being proceedings instituted after the making of the appeal, that the notice was not served in accordance with the provisions of section one hundred and five of the Act of 1947 on the person who appealed.
    Power of local planning authority to act under notice in case of default
    6.—(1) If within the period specified in a notice, or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow, any steps required by the notice to be taken have not been taken, the local planning authority may enter the building and the land held with the building and take those steps, and may recover as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction from the person who is then the owner of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by them in that behalf.
    (2) Any expenses incurred by the owner or occupier of any building for the purpose of complying with a notice, and, any sums paid by the owner of any building under the foregoing sub-paragraph in respect of expenses of the local planning authority in taking steps required to be taken by a notice, shall be deemed to be incurred or paid for the use and at the request of the person who carried out the works to which the notice relates.
    Supplemental regulations
    7. Subsection (5) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1947 as amended by this Act shall apply as if any reference in that subsection, or in the provisions of this Act amending that subsection, to an enforcement notice included a reference to a notice as defined in this Part of this Schedule.

  PART II

    NOTICES RELATING TO WASTE LAND, ETC.
    Preliminary
    8. In this Part of this Schedule the expression "notice" means a notice under section thirty-three of the Act of 1947.
    9. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Schedule, a notice shall take effect at the expiration of such period (not being less than twenty-eight days after the service thereof) as may be specified therein.
    Right of appeal
    10.—(1) A person on whom a notice is served, or any other person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates, may at any time within the period specified in the notice as the period at the expiration of which it is to take effect, appeal to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which the land is situated against the notice on any of the following grounds, that is to say—

    (a) that the condition of the land to which the notice relates does not seriously injure the amenity of any part of the area of the local planning authority who served the notice, or of any adjoining area, or

    (b) that the condition of the land to which the notice relates is attributable to, and such as results in the ordinary course of events from, the carrying on of operations or a use of land which is not in contravention of Part III of the Act of 1947, or

    (c) that the land to which the notice relates does not constitute a garden, vacant site or other open land in the area of the local planning authority who served the notice, or

    (d) that the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary for preventing the condition of the land from seriously injuring the amenity of any part of the area of the said local planning authority, or of any adjoining area, or

    (e) that the period specified in the notice as the period within which any steps required by the notice are to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.

    (2) If an appeal is brought under this paragraph the notice shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
    (3) On an appeal under this paragraph the magistrates' court may correct any informality, defect or error in the notice if satisfied that the informality, defect or error is not a material one.
    (4) On the determination of an appeal under this paragraph the magistrates' court shall give directions for giving effect to their determination. including where appropriate directions for quashing the notice or for varying the terms of the notice in favour of the appellant.
    (5) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 14 of this Schedule, the validity of a notice which has been served under the said section thirty-three on the owner and occupier of the land shall not be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph except by way of an appeal under this paragraph.
    11. An appeal against the decision of a magistrates' court under this Part of this Schedule may be brought to a court of quarter sessions by the appellant or the local planning authority.
    12. Where any person has appealed against a notice under this Part of this Schedule neither that person nor any other shall be entitled to claim in any proceedings, being proceedings instituted after the making of the appeal, that the notice was not served in accordance with the provisions of section one hundred and five of the Act of 1947 on the person who appealed.
    Power of local planning authority to act under notice in case of default
    13.—(1) If within the period specified in a notice, or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow, any steps required by the notice to be taken have not been taken, the local planning authority may enter the land and take those steps, and may recover as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction from the person who is then the owner of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by them in that behalf.
    (2) Any expenses incurred by the owner or occupier of the land for the purpose of complying with a notice, and any sums paid by the owner of any land under the foregoing subparagraph in respect of expenses of the local planning authority in taking steps required to be taken by a notice, shall be deemed to be incurred or paid for the use and at the request of the person who caused or permitted the land to come to be in the condition in which it was when the notice was served.
    Criminal liability for failure to comply with notice
    14.—(1) If, at any time after the expiration of the period within which the steps required by the notice are to be taken any of those steps have not been taken, any person does anything which has the effect of continuing or aggravating the injury caused by the condition of the land to which the notice relates, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
    (2) Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 10 of this Schedule shall not apply to proceedings brought under this paragraph against a person on whom the notice was not served but who has held an interest in the land since before the notice was served on the owner and occupier of the land if he did not appeal against the notice under this Part of this Schedule.
    Supplemental regulations
    15. Subsection (5) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1947 as amended by this Act shall apply as if any reference in that subsecton,

    117
    or in the provisions of this Act amending that subsection, to an enforcement notice included a reference to a notice as defined in this Part of this Schedule."
    The noble Earl said: This Schedule. which is introduced by the new clause which we inserted by Amendment No. 42, gives effect to the suggestion made in another place that provision should be made in the Bill itself to apply the provisions of Clauses 30 to 37 of the Bill to notices served under Sections 30 and 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and that this matter should not be left to ministerial regulations, as Clause 41 (1) at present envisages—that is, in the present consideration, because we have already agreed to Amendment No. 42.
    Part I of the Schedule deals with the notices which may be served by the local planning authority under subsection (8) of Section 30 of the 1947 Act where alterations have been made to a building of special architectural or historical interest in contravention of the terms of that section. Part I make provision in regard to such notices corresponding to the provisions of the Bill relating to enforcement notices in so far as these are applicable. Paragraph 3 sets out the grounds on which appeals may be made against such notices and follows generally the form of the provision for appeals in Clause 30 of the Bill.
    Paragraph 4 provides for appeals to the High Court on points of law arising from a decision of the Minister, and enables the Minister to state a case for the decision of the High Court in the course of an appeal against a notice. It accords with Clause 31 of the Bill. Para graph 5 corresponds to Clause 32 (1) Paragraph 6 makes provision, as in Section 24 of the 1947 Act, to enable the local planning authority to take the steps required by a notice where necessary, and about the incidence of expenses incurred in complying with a notice. Paragraph 7 enables the provisions of Section 24 (5) of the 1947 Act, which confers minor powers as to the sale of materials. licences to enter, et cetera, to apply to notices under Section 30.
    Part II contains similar provisions in regard to notices served under Section 33 of the 1947 Act—that is, notices which may be served by the local planning authority where the condition of
    118
    any garden, vacant site or other open land is injurious to amenity. There is, however, one important difference. Paragraph 10 of the Schedule preserves the present right of appeal against such notices to the magistrates' courts, instead of bringing the appeals to the Minister, like appeals under Clause 30 of the Bill. This is considered appropriate, since the questions which may arise on a notice under Section 33 will depend very largely on the circumstances and will never involve issues of planning policy such as may arise on an appeal against a notice under subsection (8) of Section 30. The grounds of appeal to the magistrates' courts are set out in paragraph 10 of the Schedule. They are somewhat wider than the grounds of appeal allowed by the present regulations under Section 33 and will meet criticisms of the present regulations in this respect that were voiced in another place. The remaining paragraphs of the Schedule reproduce, with appropriate adaptations, other provisions in Pant II of the Bill and Section 24 of the 1947 Act in so far as they are applicable to notices under Section 33 I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    After the First Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
    LORD SILKIN: I should like to welcome this Amendment, which I think is a considerable improvement to the Bill. I would also express my gratitude to the noble Earl, and to the noble and learned Viscount (on this occasion to a lesser extent, because he has not been here all the time), for the great courtesy and ability with which they have conducted this Bill and, may I say, for the great fortitude which the noble Earl has shown in being here throughout and handling the majority of the Amendments.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Second Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
    EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 32, line 37, column 3, leave out from ("words") to end of line 39 and insert ("from and in relation to the end of the subsection").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    EARL WALDEGRAVE: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 32, line 40, column 3, leave out from ("thirty-three") to the end of line 44 and insert ("in subsection (1) the words in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act' and subsection (2)").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 32, line 46, column 3, at end insert ("and subsection (5)").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    House resumed.

    UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
    OFFICES BILL
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
    SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]

    BUDE-STRATTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past nine o'clock.