Lords Sitting of 17 May 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell
The Earl of Ilchester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE COMMON MARKET
2.35 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their apparent presumption that entry of this country into the Common Market would be detrimental to the Commonwealth has been submitted to the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London; and, if so, with what result.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for postponing this Question for a week or so. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot go beyond the terms of the communiqué which was issued by the Prime Ministers on Friday last. In that communiqué they expressed concern at the prospect of any economic division in Europe and its possible political implications. They also expressed the hope that these problems could be speedily and satisfactorily resolved with due regard to the interests of countries outside Europe.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that comprehensive Answer. May I take it that this concern will be before Her Majesty's Government, so that they will take the earliest opportunity of trying to bridge the gulf between the Six and the Seven?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it is difficult to foresee what form any agreement between the Six and the Seven might take. The Commonwealth is a very large trading organisation, as the noble Lord appreciates, and we must be certain that in any arrangements that are made the Commonwealth does not suffer. We will, however, keep these matters very much in mind.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider publishing a White Paper of a factual and historical kind which will make this complicated subject clearer to ordinary people?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am not sure that even a White Paper could make it clear. I will take that into account and see what documents there are on the subject.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House, whom we are very glad to see back after his few days' absence, whether he will keep in mind that we did have a principle at one time: this country first, the Commonwealth second and then the best we can do for everyone else.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that is a principle, I hope, that still holds. The point is that it is in the direct interests of the Commonwealth that there should not be an economic division in Europe leading to a political division. We have all suffered from that much too much in the past. Therefore, we all try to combine the interests of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth with the cohesion of Europe.

PAY OF GURKHA BRIGADES
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend at an early date to review and advance the pay and allowances of members of the Brigades of Gurkhas now stationed within the Commonwealth.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the rules for pay are different from those for allowances. Gurkhas may be

853
recruited into the Indian Army or the British Army, and to avoid competition in recruitment it was agreed in the treaty of 1947 that Gurkhas in either Army should be paid the same; that is, the Indian rate of pay. We are unable, therefore, to make an independent increase. We do, however, make an allowance in addition to pay according to the country in which a Gurkha is serving, and a further allowance if he is accompanied by his family. The rate of these allowances is now under review.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I impress upon him the need for speed in this review, because I think the Minister will agree that it is an injustice to this fine body of soldiers serving in Malaya that they should be at a disadvantage in the matter of pay in relation to the Malayan regiments.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as I have said, the review is now on and I am sure it will be carried out with all possible speed.

THE NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION AND THE PRICE REVIEW
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that 43 county branches of the National Farmers' Union have passed resolutions protesting against the recent price review and that, in particular, the Executive Committee of the Somerset N.F.U. have endorsed a resolution calling for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "in the interests of all farmers in the country".]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): Yes, my Lords, I am aware of resolutions of this kind.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Earl encourage his right honourable friend in resisting such demands, on the grounds that the whole Government are responsible for the present agricultural policy? Would he also take note of the analysis by the Oxford University Agricultural Research Group of expenditure on food, which shows that the entire increase in the United Kingdom consumption between 1950 and 1958 was represented by an increase in food imports? Would he have regard to that, as it may well be the cause of the farmers' quite righteous annoyance?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, although at all times I endeavour to encourage my right honourable friend, I do not think that he needs my encouragement in this particular matter. I do not think that the second supplementary question arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that practically all the farmers in the country have not protested for nothing, and that it should be his duty and that of his right honourable friend to find the basic cause? If all the increase in food consumption comes entirely from increased food imports, surely that is a matter which is relevant to the Question and one which the Government should investigate.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, all that I think can properly and fairly be deduced from these resolutions is that they presumably reflect the opinions, which I do not necessarily share, of those who pass the resolutions.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not a fact that the lavish guaranteed prices and subsidies have resulted in the price of agricultural land rising to extravagant and unprecedented heights? And are there not some taxpayers who are a little tired of having their pockets searched for this purpose?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I know that the Rules of your Lordships' House are very wide, but to suggest that the alleged rise in the price of land can arise out of a Question about resolutions of branches of the National Farmers' Union is, I think, going a little too wide.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
2.42 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I think it is my duty to say a few words to your Lordships about this Bill. Under Clause 5 it is proposed to take from the Newcastle Town Moor, the total area of which is 1,100 acres, an area of just over 8 acres for the purposes of the extension of the Royal Victoria Infirmary. The clause further provides that the Corporation shall acquire another area not far away of just over 7 acres, which will be included in the Town Moor in compensation. Clause 6 takes a further 7 acres of the Town Moor for car-parking purposes. In both cases the rights of herbage and rights of way may be affected and taken away.
This Bill has already passed through all its stages in another place. There has been no opposition to these clauses in either House. There are no Petitions against these clauses, and therefore I do not think the matter is one which need detain your Lordships at all. But in view of the fact that I know that the House is always interested in clauses which seek to take away public open spaces, I thought it right to mention this fact. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

SAINT STEPHEN BRISTOL (BURIAL GROUNDS, ETC.) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to further amend section thirteen of the Education Act, 1944, and to require the Minister of Education in certain circumstances to hold
856
a public inquiry before approving proposals to cease aid to a voluntary school. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Burden.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CORPORATE BODIES' CONTRACTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME, 1960
2.46 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE rose to move, That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will deal with the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme at the same time as the Scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We propose to make the 1960 Schemes in similar terms to the 1959 Schemes, subject to the necessary advancement of dates. We have given much thought to the matter in this, as in previous years, and have concluded that the Schemes continue to serve a useful purpose.
Expenditure during the financial year ended 31st March was £9·37 million, compared with £9·19 million the year before that. Ploughings were affected by the prolonged drought last year, though to a lesser extent than in the previous year when the wet season caused a marked fall. There has been a considerable improvement since the autumn, so that ploughings under the 1959–60 Scheme are expected to reach about 1,250,000 acres, which is almost as high as in 1957–58. Expenditure in the current financial year is expected to approach the £10 million mark once more. Despite a setback due to two abnormal seasons—one wet and one dry—the Scheme continues to operate at a high level.
It is far from the truth to suggest—as has been done in another place—that we renew these schemes automatically from year to year without consideration of their purpose or usefulness in present conditions. As I have previously informed your Lordships, we have in recent years carried out two major reviews of the ploughing grants and we shall continue to keep them under review. This year we are paying special attention to the administrative provisions of the Scheme. We shall seek to improve the administration of the Scheme by checking, each ploughing grant application against previous payments that may have been made under the Cereal Deficiency Payments Scheme. This will be a considerable operation, but there may be a small number of incorrect and sometimes fraudulent claims—and this cross-checking will be the best method of bringing them to light. As a matter of fact, the check which has been made in Scotland during the last year has revealed incorrect and/or fraudulent claims amounting to about one-half of one per cent. of all claims. Our investigations for England and Wales are not yet complete.
Your Lordships will have noted the statement in this year's Annual Review White Paper, in which it is said that there should be, within the framework of general policy,
"continuing emphasis on the better production and use of grass as a means towards reducing costs of production. In general, this will call for the maintenance or increase in the area of rotation grass."
In this, ploughing grants play a useful part. There has been an increase of 1 million acres of rotation grass in the United Kingdom since the grants were reintroduced in 1952, of which about 800,000 acres are in England and Wales. But we think that there is still room for expansion, especially in England and Wales, where the area of rotation grass is still very much smaller in relation to both tillage and permanent grass than it is in Scotland.
The main emphasis in the passage I have quoted is on rotation grass as a means towards reducing costs of production. We are satisfied that the ploughing grants do make a direct contribution to good husbandry, and they are an integral part of the total assistance available to farmers. They are not at all rigid in their effects and
858
grassland of all ages over 3 years is ploughed up under the Scheme. In fact, figures which we have recently obtained in respect of applications since last autumn in England and Wales show that nearly 40 per cent. of the grass ploughed up is 5 to 7 years old, while over 40 per cent. is 10 years old or older. Farmers therefore evidently do not plough up their leys every 3 or 4 years simply to mine the subsidy or to get the grant, as has sometimes been suggested.
While the grants are paid for work carried out, wherever this is done and whatever the size of the farm—and we think it right that this should be so—roughly half the applications at present are in respect of farms of less than 100 acres and two-thirds in respect of farms of less than 150 acres. The grants are of particular assistance to the smaller farmer and they are closely linked with the operation of the Small Farmer Scheme.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, be approved.
Moved, That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1960, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, I rise not in any opposition to the passing of this particular Order but to obtain some further information, if possible, from the Minister in regard to it. I understand that it has been said that the time has come when these ploughing grant payments should cease. I personally do not hold that view, however. Perhaps selfishly, I think that if £10 million were lost to the agricultural industry by the cessation of these grants it is not quite certain where we should pick it up in compensation. There are several questions I wish to put to the Minister and I will refer to the paragraph in each case.
With regard to paragraph 3 the expression "in special circumstances" is mentioned, whereby the ploughing up of land can be postponed for a time, with the consent of the Minister. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us anything of the nature of the special circumstances, other than possibly the question of the spring ploughing of the land and getting it ready for future cultivations. The year 1962 is mentioned in that paragraph, and I should like to be informed

859
by the noble Earl, if possible, whether there is any significance in that year, whether ploughing grants will cease then; because in a later paragraph in Part III the latest date for receiving applications is put at July 31, 1961. It may be that 1962 is mentioned in order to allow for late ploughing, but I should be glad if the Minister could say something on that point.
The Minister has mentioned the administration which is outlined for the future checking of applications made. Part I of the Order, however, does not suggest that any application may be made to the Minister before ploughing takes place; notification has to be given to the Minister within 21 days after ploughing. Part II of the Order suggests that applications should be made before the commencement of ploughing; so that one part deals with notifications after the ploughing and the other part with applications before ploughing. If the Minister is going to check the applications, would it not be better for the applications all to be made before ploughing takes place? He could then check the application with the grants which had been made for the particular farm in the past. I suggest that, though it might not be so easy for the farmer, it would be easier for the administration if the applications were made at the same time.
The Minister has mentioned the figure of 1,250,000 acres as the area likely to be ploughed up under the 1959–60 grants. I wonder whether he can break that figure up to tell the House how many acres will be granted under Part I, the short annual ploughing, if I may put it in that way, and Part II, which is the ploughing of old pastures. I notice that £10 million is likely to be the amount paid by way of grants for that particular year. It may be that the total is divided: two thirds under Part I, and one-third under Part II. I should like to know, as a matter of interest, whether the actual figures can be given.
In regard to the £12 grant under Part II of the Order, I wonder whether it would be possible to make that a little flexible. I notice that under the Order the Minister has the right to withhold a portion of the payment and need not necessarily expend the whole of the £12 per acre. But in the case of small
860
farmers the cost per acre may be very much more than that of the large farmers. It seems to me that if the amount of the grant could be flexible in some way, either up or down—it is certainly flexible down, but if it could be flexible up—there might be a reduction in the amount paid to the large farmers, whose costs are less and possibly more paid to the small farmers.
I understand that since the Ploughing Grants Schemes came into operation in 1952 the sum of £61 million has been paid out by the Exchequer in these grants. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether the grants for the old pastures have been in excess of the grants for the new lands. I should also like to know, if it is possible, in that connection whether any areas of any particular farms have received more than one grant in the particular period. It may be that one grant has been paid in respect of one field, but it may also be that two, or even three, grants may have been given in that time for the ploughing up of the same field. If the Minister could help us in that direction I should be obliged. I raise these points only as a matter of interest to those who are interested in agriculture generally.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a number of interesting points, and I will see if I can answer them; and if I do not answer them completely I shall be happy to communicate with him afterwards. The first point he made was: "What are special circumstances?" I think special circumstances are special circumstances—rather like the definition of ploughing. This really means no more and no less than it says. There are, of course, special circumstances such as occasionally fallowing and things of that kind which have to be taken into consideration.
With regard to the dates, we are in the same trouble that the noble Lord and I had last year. We have simply moved this whole Order forward one year; there are no other alterations at all. You will find in this Order 1962 where 1961 appeared last time, and 1961 where 1960 appeared, and so on. It is no more than that. The noble Lord must not be suspicious and think that he has ferreted out something in regard to 1962, because what we have done is to advance the dates one year, as we have done in previous years.

861
As for checking, we have got to keep a balance here. It will be quite a considerable operation to do this check, but it is right that we should do it in case there is a waste of public money. The noble Lord said that it might be not so good for the farmers, and that it would be easier for administration if we did something else—that is to say, if we demanded to have the applications before any of the ploughing was done. Surely that is a most dangerous philosophy: that ease of administration should take precedence over the object of policy. The policy is to encourage good farming, and it would really stultify farming tremendously if, before anybody ploughed up, he had not only to put in his application but have all the checking and examination done. We should really be in great trouble. I do not think it would be at all right to suggest that ease of administration ought to be allowed to cause such a disadvantage to good farming.
As to the figures, there is some difficulty about the figures, because I am bound to say—the noble Lord has obviously been reading the Caine Report—that the statistics that we have obtained under the scheme are of two kinds: there were operational statistics and statistics for policy purposes, and it is perfectly true that we are going to try to get some more statistics now. I think I could give the answers to some of the questions, if I have them down aright—such as what proportion of this was for old lays and what proportion for new leys. But I will give the noble Lord this assurance; that to enable us to answer just those sort of questions we are collecting more statistics—statistics which have not been necessarily collected or collated before. Some of them may be in our divisional offices and some in the headquarters office, and I should prefer—and no doubt your Lordships would also—that, instead of going into those figures, which I have not looked up specifically (because no notice was given), to communicate with the noble Lord afterwards in regard to the figures, and to give an assurance to the House now that those kinds of statistics are very much in our minds and that we propose to have them available.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1960
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1960, be approved.
Moved, That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1960, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, in the debate on the Address on October 29 my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated that we intended to increase our contribution to United Nations funds for the purpose of helping with the development of underdeveloped countries; and he stated that work was then proceeding in Washington on the formation of an International Development Association to promote projects which were internationally desirable but which could not satisfy the more rigid criteria which are usually applied by the International Bank. The Lord Chancellor went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 219 (No. 5), col. 233]:
"This has our support, and if agreement is secured between the countries concerned my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be prepared to ask Parliament to put £50 million into the new Association."
Two months ago, on March 9, the White Paper on the International Development Association was presented to Parliament, describing the Articles of Agreement which had been drawn up by the representatives of the different countries who belong to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Association is to be affiliated to the International Bank—that is to say, it will share the staff of the Bank, which will be not only a great economy in personnel but a great advantage, since the Association will enjoy the long

863
experience of the Bank's officials in judging which projects submitted for loans under the powers of the Association are likely to justify a favourable response being given to the applicant. It is proposed that the loans which the new Association shall issue will be flexible in character. They may allow long periods for repayment or considerable periods of grace before payment begins; they also provide for waiving of interest in certain circumstances.
Subscriptions to be made by each member of the Association are to be proportionate to that member's subscription to the capital stock of the Bank, and the total amount of subscriptions is calculated to produce a sum of 1,000 million dollars—your Lordships will find the amount applicable to each member of the Bank in the Schedule on the last page of the White Paper. The subscription of the United States of America, which is the largest, would be 320 million dollars; our subscription would be 131 million dollars, which is equivalent to just under £47 million. It is provided in the Articles of Agreement, in Article XI, that the Association shall come into being when it has been adhered to by countries whose initial subscriptions amount to 65 per cent. of the total sum aimed at—that is to say, 650 million dollars. It is probable that this will happen before September, which is the earliest date at which the Association can come into being. The United States and Japan have already introduced legislation to provide for the adherence of their countries to the Agreement. I understand that there is no question that enough of the other countries will do the same in good time, and this Bill is the legislation which is necessary to enable our own country to joint the Association.
Clause 1 of the Bill defines what is meant by the Articles of the Agreement and the Association. Clause 2 makes the necessary financial provisions as laid down in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section 2 of Article II of the Agreement, which relates to the initial subscriptions of members. The effect of that is that, of our initial subscription of £47 million, £11 million approximately will be payable within 30 days of our adherence to the Association, and the remainder will be paid in four annual instalments of
864
approximately £9 million each for the next four years. Provision is also made for additional sums to be paid in the event of the value of our currency deteriorating and the third clause gives power to Her Majesty to issue Orders which are subject to Affirmative Resolution, to grant the necessary diplomatic privileges and immunities to officials of the new Association, either here, which of course is not very likely, or in British Colonies in which it is quite likely that some officials of the new Association may have a certain amount to do.
This Bill, of course, is only part of a general effort, both international and individual, to give assistance to the more undeveloped countries of the Free World. Our own activities in that direction are partly multilateral—that is, through the agency of the United Nations—and partly bilateral, by direct action between ourselves and the country concerned; and are carried out partly by the Government and partly by private investment. I believe everybody is agreed that it is desirable that private investment and Government loans or grants should, as far as possible, be co-ordinated and be complementary to each other.
The other White Paper with which I believe your Lordships are familiar (Command 974), Assistance from the United Kingdom for Overseas Development, gives analyses of the figures of estimates for the present year. So far as private investment is concerned, it is difficult to get the exact figure, but your Lordships may remember that the estimate given in the White Paper of the amount representing private investment in underdeveloped countries was £100 million. I understand that that is a cautious estimate and that the true figure is probably more; and it is a net figure since there is virtually no investment in this country from under-developed countries.
With regard to the Government sector, the White Paper estimates that the total amount of bilateral aid, in the form of loans or grants from the Government, would amount to £117 million, almost all of which goes to our own Commonwealth. Your Lordships may remember that when we discussed the Export Guarantees Bill last July, I mentioned one or two particular loans to India for either general or specific purposes. I am glad

865
to say that since then another loan has been authorised to India, under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act, amounting to £19 million, and there has been a very substantial loan—£15 million—to Nigeria, the Agreement on which, I understand, has been initialled only today. Of that sum, £3 million only goes to Nigeria as a Colony. The balance of £12 million will be issued after October next when Nigeria becomes independent.
To the figure of £117 million contained in the White Paper we must add a further £21 million which represents the amount given multilaterally through the agency of the International Bank or other agencies of the United Nations, making a total estimated figure of Government aid of about £138 million, which gives US a total estimated figure of £240 million going from the United Kingdom for overseas development. There has been some discussion as to exactly what percentage of our national income that represents. The White Paper estimates the percentage at lit. Speaking for myself, it has always seemed to me to be, perhaps, a little unscientific to measure a contribution of that kind in relation to our national income, because much of our national income consists in things which could not possibly be used for assistance to these under-developed countries overseas. Possibly a slightly more scientific standard of measurement would be to take the figure as a percentage of our exports, and if that is done it works out at about 7 per cent.
I believe we all appreciate that if we want to increase this figure of aid to under-developed countries, we can do so only either by reducing our own consumption or by earning a larger balance from our export trade—which is what we all hope to do. That, of course, is one of the many reasons why we all try in our economic policy to put the first emphasis on exports. The Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers who have just concluded their work expressed their approval both of measures of Commonwealth aid and measures of multilateral aid. Their communiqué states, in paragraph 9, that
"The Commonwealth Ministers reviewed the economic development of Commonwealth countries in Africa which have recently attained, or are approaching, independence. They agreed that consideration should be given to the possibility of co-operative action among
866
members of the Commonwealth in assisting the economic development of these countries. This possibility will be studied in the first instance by officials of the Commonwealth Governments, and the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council will examine it at its next meeting."
Earlier in the communiqué the Commonwealth Prime Ministers said:
"They … recognised the urgent need to maintain and, where possible, increase the flow of economic assistance to the less developed countries. They welcomed the decision to establish an International Development Association"—
with which this Bill is concerned and which it seeks to do, although it is not a great proportion of the whole picture. It increases our contribution to that part of our aid to under-developed countries which is given multilaterally through the agency of the United Nations or the International Bank. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.7 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, time waits for no man, and time is not on our side. These are hardly inspiring words with which to commence one's spech, but I am using them deliberately, for I am sure that all Members of this House must be conscious that the political and economic divisions that exist in the world to-day grow more acute and more dangerous with the passage of time. We have watched helpless, and with alarm, the events in Paris. We have divisions in Europe; we have divisions in this country and we have divisions in this House. We sit on opposite sides, but I feel bound to say that to-day we are all united in a prayer that the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister, will not lose his courage or his tenacity in trying to save the Conference in Paris this week.
We have the political divisions, but we are also aware of the very grave economic divisions that divide the world. We have on one side the great economic growth of the Western Powers, with all its effect upon our society; and yet we have, on the other, squalor, misery and starvation. And as we look at figures, and as some of us may travel the world, we cannot help but feel that the divisions are growing deeper. The difference between the Western Powers and the countries of Asia and South America is

867
growing wider with the passing of time, in spite of all the treasure that has been put out, particularly by the United States and this country. There is a grave food shortage in India; there is land that is disappearing from agriculture. And although there is water in the dams—dams built by money provided by the World Bank—yet that water cannot be distributed because of lack of finance for the building of canals. There are in Singapore thousands of young, healthy, intelligent boys and girls leaving the schools with no hope of employment—purely because of a lack of finance.
My Lords, these divisions exist, and I believe that they represent a great threat to the peace of the world. We have had presented to us this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, a Bill to make it possible for the British Government to sign the Agreement for the formation of the International Development Association, and I would wish to thank the noble Earl for the manner in which he has put this Bill before us. So far as my noble friends are concerned, we fully support the Bill. We welcome the Government's initiative in co-operating with a United Nations organization, an organisation which consists of 69 States, members of the World Bank. We on this side of the House have always preferred the use of United Nations organisations in this work. We believe that they are free from the accusation of political strength. We shall speed this Bill on its way.
It is, however, my duty to express some regret and one reservation, with which I will deal in a few moments. We on these Benches, with all noble Lords, take great pride in our association with the World Bank, and I should like, on behalf of my noble friends, to pay a tribute to that great internationalist, Paul Hoffman, and to his executive directors, of whom one is a Member of your Lordships' House. The World Bank has played a very notable part, a key part, in the reconstruction after the war. I think it is well to record that the majority of the money that has been invested by the World Bank has been invested in Europe, and we all hope that the Bank will now turn its attention to Asia and to Africa. I think it is well to recognise the limitations of the World Bank. The World Bank is
868
forced to make its loans on a bankers' system: it must earn a profit; it must earn an interest. Therefore, the World Bank has been forced to turn away applications for the building of schools, the building of hospitals and other services, which obviously could not result in a profit. It was always called upon to make a fair bankers' interest and the countries receiving loans were forced, or will be forced, to pay back their loans in hard currency.
We have a new idea in the International Development Association. In Article I, under the heading "Purposes", they use the words:
"… to meet their important developmental requirements on terms which are more flexible and bear less heavily on the balance of payments than those of conventional loans".
And the Article ends with the words:
"The Association shall be guided in all its decisions by the provisions of this Article."
My Lords, we welcome this spirit. We hope that the directors of this Association will go forward and use the capital that is being provided to the maximum advantage. We have one regret: that the amount that is going to be contributed by all the nations is limited to 1,000 million dollars. I am sure that the noble Earl will remember that Paul Hoffman (I think it was last year) said that the target for the Western Powers regarding aid to, and development of, the under-developed countries should be to raise the income per head by 2 per cent. per annum over ten years. This may sound extremely ambitious, but even if we had attained this 2 per cent. increase it would have meant that the average income of these people would be only £57 per year, as against the average income in this country of £350. To attain that increase of 2 per cent. would have meant investment of 55 billion dollars over ten years—a very considerable sum of money—and today it is unfortunate that we are nowhere near achieving even half that target figure. Therefore I am sure all noble Lords would agree in regretting that the target of 1,000 million dollars has been set.
Nevertheless, I think the noble Earl will agree that the nations are not limited in the contributions they are called upon to make. It is possible for any country, if it wishes, to increase its contribution. If that is the case—and, as I say, I believe

869
it is—I would earnestly ask the Government if they will set an example to some of the other countries who are on this list by increasing their contribution. If your Lordships will look at the list you will find that the contribution of Germany, which is probably one of the richest of the industrial Powers in Europe to-day, is only 52·96 million dollars as against our contribution of 131 million dollars. France's contribution is the same figure. I feel that these two countries which I have mentioned could make a greater contribution, and I believe that if the Government were to set an example—and I believe it is within our economic capacity to increase our contribution—we might be able to persuade these two Powers, and some of the others, to increase their contribution to the Association.
The other regret or reservation is the fact that the Agreement stipulates that the contributions shall be interest-bearing. I have read the purposes of this Association. We hope that it will be possible for the Association to make loans for the building of schools, hospitals and services; and these, of course, particularly in the early days, will earn no money. If we ask the Association to pay interest on its money, then obviously the directors will have to put the major part of their money into profitable enterprises. I do not feel that this type of aid should be governed by the interest it can earn. I believe that we should use this as a sort of sword, to go into the worst areas where private capital is unable, and obviously unwilling, to go. If it is necessary for interest to be charged, I should hope that here again the Government would make a gesture, and that the interest earned will be ploughed back into the Association, and renewed over and over again. My Lords, there is more business to be done this afternoon. I conclude, therefore, by saying that my noble friends on this side fully support this Bill, and we wish it and the Association all possible success in the difficult task ahead.
3.31 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this Bill, and appreciate the very clear way in which it has been explained to us by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. As he has said, the Bill—or, at least, the International De-
870
velopment Association which gives rise to the Bill—is an attempt to fill a recognised gap in international finance. The loans made by the International Bank always had various deficiencies such as have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. One he did not mention was that usually they had to be serviced in hard currencies, which made it very difficult for people who had not got hard currencies to provide them for that purpose. Therefore, for some time past there has been a movement to support and supplement the work of the Bank by such an Association as the International Development Association; and, happily, we are to-day rejoicing in the fact that in the Bill before us there is reference to such an Association, and that Her Majesty's Government are lending their full support to it.
Whether or not the amount of 1,000 million dollars is the right one is not for me to say, but I imagine, from experience in other fields, that they will have a good deal of difficulty in spending even that much—I say that for reasons which I will give in a moment. If it is necessary to have more, then I am quite sure that the various member countries will be willing in due course to provide more capital for this Association. One point which I personally am very pleased to support is the fact that they are not going to build a new empire. About a year ago, when we were discussing this project in this House, I suggested to your Lordships that, whatever happened, we should try to persuade the international organisation not to set up an enormous new party in Washington, with new offices, new staff, new research departments and all the rest of it. That they have not done. In fact, the Bank is going to control this organisation, and it is going to use a lot of the facilities of the Bank, at any rate to begin with.
My Lords, special facilities are to be made available to the people who attempt to borrow; loans are not to be made exclusively to Governments; they are not to be tied in any way; there are lenient terms for repayment—and here should like to question something which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. He said that the loans had to be made subject to interest payments. My understanding is that not only can the loans be serviced in foreign currencies, as I have already indicated, but they can in certain

871
circumstances be made either free of interest or at a low rate of interest. Perhaps the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, can clear up that point, because it is a very important one.
One other point that I should like to mention is that the noble Earl said in the course of his speech (at least, I gathered that he said it; I may have been wrong; I was listening hard, but it is not always easy to pick these things up) that member Governments could get out only what they put in. Perhaps I was wrong, but that is what I gathered he said.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No.
LORD OGMORE: I understand that he did not mean that. I am glad, because, in fact, as I understand it, there are two separate types of member so far as the Association is concerned. There is the one type of member whom one might describe as the developed country—such as the United States, ourselves and others—and then there are the under-developed ones: and it is, I believe, a provision of this scheme that the developed countries can, if they wish, make a contribution, so to speak, for some of the under-developed ones; in other words, they can enhance the contribution of the under-developed territory. The United States has already indicated that it might do this; because, as we know, the United States has a very large amount of foreign currency which it has earned in various countries and which it sometimes cannot take home again. It has indicated that it might offer to I.D.A. some of its holdings of foreign currencies through sales of services, commodities and the like; and this would, I gather, credit the underdeveloped country with that amount of foreign currency, although it would not mean any additional voting rights to the member. This is an important point, and perhaps the noble Earl, if he is prepared for it, could make the position quite clear.
Now the reason I had some doubt whether a large sum of money could be spent is this: that it has been my experience in the last few years that one of the greatest shortages in underdeveloped territories is the shortage of management. In other words, it is not enough merely to lend a large sum of
872
money to a country, or even to make it a grant. The difficulty arises when you try to make the best use of that money; and in most of the under-developed countries, short as they are of almost everything—except, usually, population—they are most short of people who are experienced in management techniques. And it is not only in management techniques; they are most short, too, of people with experience in technical fields, both professional and artisan, and this can affect a scheme very much.
I remember the head of the U.N.R.R.A. Mission to China telling me, just after the war, that one of the failures of the U.N.R.R.A. Mission, so far as it did fail, was in the agricultural field in China. And that was due to the fact that no one had realised that in the remote villages in China there were no blacksmiths' shops. Consequently, when ploughs, bulldozers and so on, were poured into China under the U.N.R.R.A. scheme, in quite a short time, with inexperienced people handling them and with the rather difficult ground, they began to go wrong: quite simple things began to go wrong, and there was just no one to put them right. One would not even think of it in a developed country: one would not think that such a thing would be necessary. One would assume that there would be these facilities. But the fact is they are not there, and the result is that very often things go wrong in that way.
I am very glad that Her Majesty's Government have realised the importance of technical training for apprentices; and in a statement made recently the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, indicated that we in this country are having training schemes for boys, particularly in small firms. I asked him whether he could extend that to the Commonwealth, and we have had some correspondence since in which he has been good enough to indicate the difficulties of extending this particular scheme to the Commonwealth—although, no doubt, something similar might be applied in the Commonwealth, and also in other countries where similar conditions prevail.
I should like to see in all these countries, particularly in the small ones, quite small schemes being developed. It is not so difficult to spend a lot of money, and even get schemes going, in big

873
countries like Nigeria, Malaya and Kenya, but how does one get schemes going in countries like the Seychelles and St. Helena? It means that we must have management on a much smaller scale than we contemplate at the present moment. This is a question which is going to face us closely, because the present policy of the Government, which has general support, is to bring most of the countries in the Commonwealth and Colonies to independence. There will be a hard core of small countries who will be difficult to deal with and the Government will have to take a particular responsibility for those little territories. I am wondering how they propose to tackle this difficult problem under this plan of an International Development Association. It means lending Mohammed Ali £1,000 to put a new engine in his fishing boat or Sharif Ali £500 to erect a bus shelter, and that sort of thing. I think that the only way of doing this is by developing local development corporations. We have to remember that in a small community, a little scheme of the kind I mention can make as big an impact as a large scheme in a big territory.
The problem of under-development is one which not only this country but also the whole of Western world is considering. It was referred to several times in the Report of the Prime Ministers' Conference, not only in the extract read by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to-day but also in other passages, and I for one was very pleased to see this. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that instead of becoming less, as we hoped, the gap between the Western countries and the under-developed countries is becoming wider. Unless we all apply ourselves to making the gap smaller, we are going to have a good deal of trouble in the days to come.
3.43 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think it is appropriate that Her Majesty's Government should receive some support from these Benches, and therefore I have great pleasure in joining my voice to those o noble Lords opposite in welcoming this Bill and in thanking Her Majesty's Government for fulfilling the promises made by them at the beginning of this Parliament in regard to an International Development Association. Apropos the remarks made by the noble
874
Lord, Lord Shepherd, this additional contribution to international funds raises our overall subscription to those funds by something like 50 per cent. At the moment we are running at slightly over £20 million a year, which is approximately one-seventh of our overall aid to overseas territories, and adding some £9 or £10 million will make our overall contribution to overseas territories through international means nearly one-quarter of our whole overseas contributions. In view of our heavy Commonwealth and Colonial commitments, I do not think that that is at all discreditable.
There are one or two brief comments I would make and one or two points I wish to put to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. He did not know precisely how many countries have yet agreed to enter into this scheme, although there seems no doubt that a sufficient number will be represented by September of this year, when it is due to come into operation. I should like it made clear whether I am right in supposing that, if some of the countries which are named in Parts I and II of Schedule A do not enter into this agreement, they will not be entitled to development assistance from the subscriptions. I take it that they have to become members in order to do so.
In regard to interest on payments, I hope that the noble Earl will clarify that matter, which has been raised by both previous speakers. I had not fully realised that the initial subscriptions were merely loans to the Association, which is going to pay interest on them. I take it that that is the case and that that is what is referred to in the Bill we are considering, in Clause 2 (3), dealing with payments into the Exchequer. This raises the whole question of procedure. I wonder whether the noble Earl could tell us by what method the Association is going to make loans to our Colonial territories. Do they have to be made through Her Majesty's Government, and will the Government have the final say in recommending Colonial requirements to the Association, or can the Association deal direct with Colonial Governments? That is a matter of some interest and importance.
On pages 6 and 7 of the Command Paper No. 965, upon which this Bill is

875
based, in paragraph 14 of the Report of the executive directors of the International Bank, it says:
"… the Association is authorised to finance any project which is of high development priority, that is, which will make an important contribution to the development of the area or areas concerned, whether or not the project is revenue-producing or directly productive".
And then the Report mentions water supply, sanitation and pilot housing. That is rather a strange phrase. It follows on by saying:
"although it is expected that a major part of the Association's financing is likely to be for projects of the type financed by the Bank."
That seems contradictory to the purposes laid down in Article I, which says that the job of the Association is to provide in particular
"… finance to meet … important developmental requirements on terms which are more flexible and bear less heavily on the balance of payments than those of conventional loans, …"
Again, on page 13, under "Operations," Article V (c) says:
"The Association shall not provide financing if in its opinion such financing is available from private sources on terms which are reasonable for the recipient or could be provided by a loan of the type made by the Bank."
In other words, the whole purpose is to go into rather uneconomic projects. In that case, I do not understand the phrase:
"… a major part of the Association's financing is likely to be for projects of the type financed by the Bank."
There seems to be a slight contradiction there which, if not clarified, might lead to a certain amount of misunderstanding by the countries claiming funds for development.
One of the most important points, I think, is in paragraph 17 of the Report, where it says
"that the Association may provide financing not only to Governments"—
and that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—
"but to public or private entities in the territories of a member or members …".
That is most interesting, because it enables municipalities which are looking towards developing to make direct applications to the Association. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that, because quite recently I have had correspondence with such a municipality in one of our Colonies which
876
feels very frustrated because it cannot get finance for development which it knows to be necessary and desirable. It seems that there is a way out for such entities under this new Association, and that is to be very much welcomed.
There is an important section under the Articles on page 15, where it says that all political activity is prohibited. That may perhaps only be repeating an Article of the World Bank, but it is put specifically here, and we know that on the back of the Schedule there are countries which are dictatorships on the right or on the left and yet they are to be able to benefit from the funds of this Association. I think that that is quite right. Finally, there is one question which I should like to put to the noble Earl. In Section 11 of Article VI on page 19, under the heading "Publication and Reports and Provision of Information", it says that the Association is going to publish an annual report and make it available to the members. I should like to know whether the Government will make it available to Parliament. I very much hope that that will be so, because I feel sure that we all want to follow the future of this Association in which so many people put such great hope. I cordially support the introduction of this Bill.
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am glad to have the support of all your Lordships for this Bill, and I am equally glad that the questions which your Lordships have asked have been both few in number and, as I think, helpful in purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had only one regret and one reservation. He regretted that the total amount of the proposed initial subscriptions to the International Development Association was not greater than 1,000 million dollars. I think that that is quite a reasonable regret, because obviously there is a great deal more to be done than can be done with that amount of money. What I think we shall all agree is that we ought to pay our share of it with the greatest willingness.
The noble Lord pointed out that Germany was paying a much smaller subscription than Great Britain and suggested that Germany might be able to increase her subscription. I do not know how far that is the case. The subscriptions are fixed in relation to the present amount of subscriptions to the stock of

877
the International Bank. One thing that we ought to bear in mind, of course, is that Germany has not got nearly such a long tradition of foreign investment as we have in this country; they are not so accustomed to doing it as we have been, anyhow for the past century and a half. With regard to the possibility of increasing our own subscriptions, I would say that this is only one of the many ways in which we are endeavouring to help under-developed countries, and the extent to which we can increase our activities in that direction must obviously depend on the balance of payments position. We all want to give more, but before we can do so we have got to earn the means with which to do it.
The noble Lord asked about interest. His reservation was that he was afraid that sometimes a good purpose might be frustrated by the necessity of paying interest. It is provided that the Association may, if it thinks right, waive the interest in certain cases, and I have no doubt that that will apply to such projects as are mentioned in paragraph 14—water s apply, sanitation, pilot housing and the like, which are all eligible for financing, and which were also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hastings. The other point concerning interest was whether it was necessary for interest to be paid to the subscribers on what they put in. The answer to that is, No. It is true that the Association is empowered to pay interest to subscribers, and that power is reflected in Clause 2 of the Bill, but it is not bound to do so, and it is not expected that the principal contributors, such as Great Britain, who pay subscriptions will receive interest upon them from the Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was, I think, correct in all the observations he made about the servicing of the loans. They can be paid in any currency which is convenient to the under-developed country receiving assistance. The only point upon which the noble Lord seemed to be under a slight misunderstanding was when he suggested that I might have meant to imply that countries should only get out of this Association what they put into it. That is very far from the position. What I said was that the
878
initial subscriptions provided for in the Articles were in proportion to the existing subscriptions paid by all the members to the stock of the International Bank. That was the criterion taken for fixing the amounts of these subscriptions.
I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for emphasising the importance of technical aid. That is mentioned in paragraph 19 of the White Paper, and it is indeed most important. One of the powers conferred upon the Association by Article V is the power to provide technical assistance and advisory services at the request of the member, and such assistance may, in the discretion of the Association, be provided with or without reimbursements.
My noble friend Lord Hastings asked whether you have got to become a member to derive benefit from the Association. You have got to become a member, but your Lordships will see that the suggested contributions from the under-developed countries in Part II of Schedule A are very small, and I do not think it is necessary that they should pay the whole of these contributions; they are merely the target put down initially. With regard to aid given by the Association to British Colonies, that would be given direct and not to the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom Government would have the power to object but, of course, our aim would be to help and not to hinder the provision of such assistance.
I will certainly consider what my noble friend said about making the reports from the Association available to Parliament. I do not know whether that happens automatically or not. It seems a very reasonable request, and the Government will certainly bear it in mind. I shall be glad to give any more detailed information in writing to any of your Lordships who want it. Meanwhile, may I again thank your Lordships for the general support which you have given to the Bill and for the very helpful suggestions which have been made in the discussion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL
4.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"() Any reference in this Act to the particulars required by subsection (5) of section two thereof shall be construed as including a reference to the particulars required by that subsection as modified by the provisions of the Schedule to this Act, or by those provisions together with any provisions of an order made under that section which are applicable to the payment in question."
The noble Earl said: The six Amendments standing in my name are all complementary and their combined effect is to carry out an undertaking given on the Report stage in another place by Amy right honourable friend the Minister of Labour. Your Lordships will remember that the Schedule to this Bill requires that, at the time payment of wages is made, the employer shall furnish to the employed person a written statement showing his gross wages and the amount of any deductions and the net amount payable. As I explained to your Lordships on Second Reading, the Schedule is intended to cover a great many different methods of paying wages, and of making such statements, which are customary in different trades.
Your Lordships will also remember that in Clause 4 provision is made for payment of wages to people who are absent for one reason or another. The purpose of this Amendment is to apply the provisions of the Schedule to cases of absentee wage recipients under Clause 4 of the Bill without being too rigid. This avoids the need to fill in any unalterable kind of form. Perhaps I could best explain the point by quoting what my right honourable friend said on
880
Report in another place. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 620 col. 1385]:
"It would be reasonable that where an employer is using a system which fits in with the Schedule—in other words, meets the requirements under the Schedule—it should be in order for him when making a payment under Clause 4 to make the normal pay statement which would be made for the week—that is the logical way of dealing with it—and he should not interrupt the rhythm of the process to produce anything more. On the other hand, if the employer is not using a system which is acceptable under the Schedule, he should provide a full statement if he is taking advantage of the provisions of Clause 4.
"If my honourable friend is willing to accept my assurance, we will endeavour to find a form of words—I think we have one—which we could put down in another place, so that when Clause 4 is used that would be the position."
That form of words is introduced by these six Amendments. The substantive one is Amendment No. 2, which removes the limitation of the Schedule to Clause 1. The other Amendments are all drafting or consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule [Fixed deductions from wages]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move the remaining Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 5, leave out from "Where") to ("a") in line 6.
Page 11, line 6, after ("wages") insert ("or a part of wages")
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("in connection with that payment") and insert ("at or before the time when that payment is made")
Page 11, line 11, leave out from ("person") to ("and") in line 12.
Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("in") to second ("as") in line 46 and insert ("Part I of this Schedule to the requirements of paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of section two of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to the requirements of that paragraph as modified by Part II of this Schedule or by the last preceding paragraph")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

GAME LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL
4.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of licensing authority, and restriction of unlicensed flying]:
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "furthering" and insert:
"exercising their functions under this Act in such a manner as to further".
The noble Earl said: If I am in order, I think your Lordships would like me to say how pleased we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, in his place to-day, and to add that we missed him on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will be surprised probably that the first Amendment I move takes into account the very point which he himself raised on Second Reading. I should tell the two noble Lords opposite that it is not necessarily to be taken as an omen for the remainder of the Amendments they will be moving, but, if they will have a little patience, in a while I may be able to do something which will please them also.
During the debate on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, put the view [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 223 (No. 77), col. 606] that the Air Transport Licensing Board ought not to have the general duty of furthering development of British civil aviation, because this was the duty of the Minister. In replying, my noble friend Lord Mills said that in his view the duty placed on the Board did not absolve the Minister from carrying out his duty to further the development of British civil aviation, and that the Air Transport Licensing Board would
882
in fact help the Minister to carry out his responsibilities in this matter as his agent.
In view of Lord Ogmore's ideas, further thought has been given to the matter, and to avoid any possibility of doubt as to the proper boundaries of the duties of the Board the Amendment has been put down on the Order Paper. The effect of this Amendment is that it will now be the duty of the Board to exercise their functions under this Act in such manner as to further the development of British Civil Aviation. Those words more closely reflect the ideas expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, as accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I bee to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("furthering") and insert—
("exercising their functions under this Act in such a manner as to further").—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD OGMORE: The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has asked me whether I am surprised to hear this. I am always surprised when the Government gives way to the Opposition, but I must say it is one of the few poor pleasures that we in Opposition have, that occasionally some of our ideas are found to be acceptable and make their way into a Bill. I am grateful to the Government for listening to the argument that I put up on Second Reading; it was very late at night and there was hardly anyone here, but it seems that someone noticed what I said. We have these new words, and I think they are much better. I entirely agree with the words proposed by the Government. They certainly enhance the Bill and will make it quite clear what the function of the authority is, and that in fact it does not derogate from the very important duties which the Minister must retain.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think I should advise my noble friends to vote against this Amendment. I can only hope that the promise of good things to come, which was implicit in the noble Lord's speech, produces concessions on more substantial matters than this. But, on the whole, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a worthwhile improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Air service licences
2.—(1) Any application to the Board for the grant of an air service licence shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed; and, subject to the provisions of this section and of any relevant regulations under section five of this Act, the Board may at their discretion, after consulting with such persons, if any, as may be prescribed, either refuse the application or grant the applicant an air service licence for any air transport service or other purpose specified in the licence (being a service or other purpose proposed in the application with such modifications, if any, as the Board may think fit) for such term and subject to such conditions, if any, of the prescribed descriptions as may be so specified.
(2) In exercising their functions under this section the Board shall consider in particular—
(f) the extent to which any air transport service proposed would be likely to result in wasteful duplication of, or in material diversion of traffic from, any air transport service which is being, or is about to be, provided under any air service licence already granted;
4.13 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), after the first "prescribed" to insert:
"and in particular shall give details of the route and character of the services which the applicant proposes to run;"
The noble Lord said: I would certainly join with my noble friends in congratulating the Government on accepting some useful advice that is given from the Opposition, in particular in regard to this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Earl was offering a threat when he said that we were not to expect too much, but he then put a bit of sugar around the pill by saying that we might get some satisfaction.
I beg to move the second Amendment. I do not pretend that this is a very important Amendment. The noble Earl, no doubt, will say that the facts which I am asking should appear in an application would normally be expected by the Board when looking at an application; but we feel that when an application is being made by some company for the operation of an air service it should state in greatest detail the route on which it is going to fly and the character of the service. As we well know, on air lines there are to-day many different types of service. There is the charter service, both for passenger and for freight: there is also the scheduled service. We feel that
884
when an application is made it should be made for a specific flight, a specific service. In other words, if a company is applying for a licence to fly from London to Hong Kong for charter of freight the application should be for freight, and if it is to operate a scheduled service—that is to say, a weekly or fortnightly service—that again should be in the application.
What we do not want to see is a company obtaining a licence to operate, again, shall we say, between London and Hong Kong, and then being free, in competition with the established air line, British Overseas Airways Corporation, be able to fly out, for instance, troops on charter and then use that service to bring back fare-paying passengers, or, conversely, take out passengers and brine back freight on one particular licence. If it wishes to do that, it should obtain a specific licence for that specific job. Therefore I would ask the Government, if they think fit, to accept this Amendment. I do not pretend that it is an important one, but it does call for specific details when a company is making its application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14 after ("prescribed") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he introduced his Amendment, said that in his opinion it was not a very important Amendment, but I assure him that that is quite contrary to the opinion of my right honourable friend, and in fact it is because of the importance of the subject matter which the noble Lord has been describing to your Lordships that I cannot accept his Amendment. By calling for details of the route, as the noble Lord did, he goes too far, because sometimes the Board may want to issue a general licence for non-scheduled operations, such as chartering in certain areas of the world, and there may be no reference at all to a specific route between two points. Similarly the reference he made to the "character" of the services does not go nearly far enough for my right honourable friend. This phrase "character" is too vague. My right honourable friend intends to prescribe in regulations that he will make later on under Clause 5 or the provisions that are in that clause, many additional details which must be included in an application for licence. One knows

885
the number of details that one must fill out in a driving licence.
One can well imagine the number of details that would be necessary in an application for licence for operating aircraft of the sort about which the noble Lord has been talking. I assure him that these details would be far too comprehensive to describe in a Bill such as this, and that is the reason why there must be regulations. They will include such matters as frequency, period of the year, class of service and fares. Those are just some of the details my right honourable friend believes as important as those the noble Lord mentioned. Moreover, it may be necessary from time to time to change the particulars that have to be supplied, and this calls for a flexible approach to the matter. We can then proceed, in my right honourable friend's view, by making arrangements for these matters to be dealt with under the regulations I have mentioned under Clause 5. I should explain that my right honourable friend proposes to place a draft of these regulations—and I understand there may be many pages of these—in the Libraries of the two Houses of Parliament at the same time as he consults with the various interested bodies. This will enable criticisms to be considered and taken into account before the final text of the regulations is made and formally laid before the House. When it is laid it will, of course, be open to Parliament to debate the regulations, which are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say, in view of the noble Earl's reply, that the purpose of moving my Amendment has been amply served. There was only one disquieting point, which was his reference to the granting to an aircraft operator of a wide licence. That, I agree, we can discuss when the regulations are put before the House. I was indeed pleased to hear that the regulations will be quite tight and will cover all the points that we should expect them to cover. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.21 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() The Board shall not grant an air service licence if the proposed service would be likely to result in wasteful duplication of,
886
or in material diversion of traffic from, or significantly prejudice the financial results or potential earning capacity of, any air transport service which is being, or is about to be, provided under any air service licence already granted."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, the purpose of which is to tell the Government how they can do what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, when we debated this matter on Second Reading, said he did not see how they could do.
Your Lordships will recall that some doubts were expressed about the effect of this Bill on the success of the two great Corporations. British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation. We had assurances from the Government, which we fully accept, that their intention is to continue to develop and to use these two Corporations as the main agents for carrying the flag of British civil aviation. We fully accept that that is the intention, but the fact remains, of course, that the undertakings and promises of Ministers, and the belief we may have in them, do not bind future Governments. I am sure your Lordships will agree that if we are not satisfied that the Bill protects the position of those two great undertakings which belong to the community, then we ought to consider whether some further protection is necessary.
I would again remind your Lordships of something with which you are all very familiar: that we have an enormous national investment in British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation. It is not long ago that we increased their borrowing powers so that in due course there may be anything up to £2 million or £3 million of national, community money invested in these two Corporations, who are using it particularly in order to buy new aircraft. It is of great importance that these Corporations (the same might well apply to some of the independent operators who have already been granted licences) should be able to look well ahead with a certainty that in this highly competitive field, where they are competing very heavily against foreign companies—some of which are heavily subsidised in an indirect way—they should be reasonably confident that not only this Government but future Governments are on their side and in particular, that the new Board that is set up

887
has a clear direction as to the sort of conditions it ought to consider and the sort of conditions it must observe in the granting of licences.
Clause 2 (2) is largely discretionary. I do not quarrel with most of the matters which the Board has to consider in the granting of a licence; but there is one aspect, and there is one paragraph which, in a strengthened form, we should like to elevate to a subsection and to make mandatory. As the Bill is at present drafted, the Board, in reaching its decision on the application for the granting of an air service licence, is obliged only to "consider" the various matters set out in Clause 2; and in regard to subsection (2) (f), they are obliged only to "consider" such factors as whether a proposed new service would be likely to result in material diversion of traffic from an existing service. Thus, even though the Board considered that to grant an application would result in material diversion of traffic from the services of one of the Corporations—or, for that matter, of an independent operator—nevertheless the Board could grant a licence, entirely disregarding the question of material diversion of traffic. This gives no surefire protection to the Corporations, and therefore to the community, who have, in fact, to take decisions of a most serious kind involving heavy expenditure in which they will be liable to be at the mercy, not of ordinary competition, but of the action of a Board which might, for reasons that might seem good to it at the time, consider it suitable to encourage certain additional operators. As a result that might lead to a position in which the Corporations were seriously threatened.
This financial investment in the Corporations is based on expanding traffic, and aircraft have been ordered with this in mind. Therefore we are moving an Amendment to provide a mandatory direction to the Board not to grant licences which, in the Board's opinion would be likely to result in the material diversion of traffic from an established operator; and further, that the Board should not grant a licence where the new service would significantly prejudice the potential earning capacity of an established service. If any of your Lordships thinks that in some sense this
888
is an interference with the natural functioning of competition, I would remind him that what we are trying to do is to protect existing operators against an arbitrary action by the Board. I think it would be much more comfortable and easy for the Board if this particular provision is strengthened, in the way we have suggested, by being elevated to a subsection and made mandatory.
I hope that the Government, who have given clear promises and indications of their intentions with regard to this Bill, will see this as, in a sense, a test of their good faith in the matter. If they accept this Amendment they will not materially weaken in any way the main purposes which they seek to serve by this Bill, but will provide a guarantee for which the community is entitled to ask. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert the new subsection.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as usual, has put his case in a most persuasive form, and we have listened to it with great interest. Yet I, for one, am not convinced. I feel that the Government are right, and that these matters, among others, are some of the considerations which the Board should consider when considering a licence. It is no more than that. If one puts them into the Bill in the way the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wishes, then I feel that they will become, as indeed he wants them to become, mandatory on the Board. We know what Boards are. We know how these things get more and more solidified as time goes on, and the result will be that, very soon, there will be a hard-and-fast rule. We shall find that nothing will be able to shake them: that the requirement is there, and must be taken into account; and there will be an enormous barrier which any new operator or new vehicle will have to surmount.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has rather treated this provision as if it referred only to B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and charter companies. But, as I indicated on the Second Reading of the Bill, I can foresee the time, very shortly, when the Board will have a large number of applications involving quite new types of aircraft—if one can call them aircraft—or

889
vehicles which can fly, such as at present no Board has to contemplate. I understand that outside this Palace to-day the Hovercraft was going up and down the Thames. I was not fortunate enough to see it, though I have seen it on other occasions. We also have the jet-propelled wingless vehicle which in its young and immature stage was called the "flying bedstead". In a few years' time undoubtedly all these vehicles will completely revolutionise travel in this country. Already, in relation to the wingless jet propelled vehicle they are talking of speeds greater than the speed of sound. I must say I have not contemplated anything like that, and have more or less regarded these vehicles as in the nature of aerial buses for relieving the strain on the roads; and I still think that that will be their primary purpose, besides taking people from city centres out to airports. So that I myself feel that any undue restriction, any hard-and-fast rules, upon the Board at this stage, when everything is so fluid, would be a great mistake. I would advise the Committee to leave this particular provision as Her Majesty's Government have it in the Bill.
LORD HAWKE: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, goes much too far here. This is pure Luddism. If such an Amendment were carried, it would be impossible for anybody ever to start up any new service with any new vehicle at all.
EARL BATHURST: With a great deal of charm, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has asked me to accept this Amendment, and your Lordships may think he made a convincing case for it. But as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also says, if this proposed provision that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would like to see were to become mandatory, then, in effect, this Board would never be able to grant a licence enabling a rival operator to become established on a route that is already being operated, not only by one of the Corporations but by any other individual operator.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, says, this Amendment, if accepted, would destroy an object of the Bill. I listened with great interest and care to what he has said, and also to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in his dissertation on the
890
vehicles of the future; and I daresay that what he said is very true. But the particular reasons why I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment relate to the services that are existing to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has described the enormous expense of running an airline. As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, knows only too well, we have in the national airlines an investment of something in the region of £279 million, and even that gives insufficient indication of the essential part which the Corporations must play in the future of British civil aviation.
I must emphasise what has been repeatedly stated by my right honourable friend in another place during the passage of this Bill: that the last thing intended is that the Bill shall do damage to the interests of the Corporations. As my right honourable friend said (the reference is to Vol. 618 (No. 68), col. 1231 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place), he regards the Corporations as our principal flag carriers—and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has made the same point—for the future, as in the past. And he looks forward to an expanding future for them, as well as for other British operators. This Bill has been very carefully drafted to place all operators, whether the Corporations or independent companies, in an equal position before the Air Transport Licensing Board. The terms of reference of that Board have been thought out so as to give a reasonable measure of protection to established operators, whether they are the Corporations or independent companies. It is against this background that we must visualise this and any other Amendments that are put down in the names of noble Lords opposite.
The effect of this particular Amendment would be to make it mandatory upon the Board to refuse an application for an air service licence if the proposed service would be likely to result in wasteful duplication. Many services are, in some respects, in competition with other services even though the destinations may be different; and the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Shackleton, both mentioned international competition. One of the objects of this Bill, as I stated at the beginning of my speech, is to secure expanded traffic for British civil aviation. We therefore have to depend

891
upon the Board to use common sense. My right honourable friend envisages a very high-level Board composed of the top people in, I suppose, all walks including industry; and I believe that we can rely upon them to use common sense in taking a view that will take into account this important test. However, we do not want to make their instructions so rigid as to deny to new operators the opportunity of starting new services—whether with the kind of vehicles of which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has spoken, or otherwise—merely because there might be some small element of wasteful duplication or diversion of traffic involved in the proposals.
The Amendment refers also to "financial results and potential earning capacity". My right honourable friend considered this aspect when the Bill was being drafted, and he is of the firm opinion that the grant of an air service licence which results in wasteful duplication or material diversion of traffic cannot fail to affect significantly at the same time the financial results or potential earning capacity of an existing or potential service. In his view, therefore, the words which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, proposes to use would add no real protection to any existing operator and would merely provide an additional ground for arguments before the Board and increase the likelihood of the Board having too rigid a direction. In the light of what I have said—that very real protection already exists in Clause 2, subsection (2) paragraphs (f) and (g), as well as in paragraph (d), which relates to the need for the provision of another service—I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must say that I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Government in regard to this Amendment, and also at what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He made his case rather in the distant future. I and my noble friends are particularly concerned with the facts as they stand to-day.
EARL BATHURST: Hear, hear!
LORD SHEPHERD: We have various examples of charter companies and
892
independent companies operating, in some cases in competition with the British Corporations, in other cases complementary to them. We see no reason why these independent services should not run either in competition with or alongside the established Corporations. But we see in this competitive industry the example where international airlines are joining together. We have the case in Europe of three countries which have national air lines and which find it unprofitable and uneconomic to fly in competition with each other, and they are now banding together and making themselves a strong economic company. If this Amendment were not accepted, it would be possible for the Board to grant a licence to a company who could practically destroy, not the Corporations—they are fairly strong—but an independent company that has already pioneered a particular route. I do not think that that is the Government's intention.
I cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, says that this particular Amendment will make the Board hide-bound. It would have to be proved to them that if they granted an application it would cause wasteful duplication and would prejudice the financial results. That is a question of fact. It will not be a question of a Queen's Counsellor making a case; it will be a question of fact. I think that for the benefit, not only of British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways, but also of the pioneer airlines, this Amendment should be accepted by the Government and passed. And it should be laid on the shoulders of the Board that they are not to grant a licence to any company that decides it would like to operate because the pickings look good, but only to those who have pioneered the route; that so long as the service meets the demand properly no new company should operate, and that the existing service only should operate until there is a need for another air line.
EARL BATHURST: I think that the noble Lord opposite has really missed the point. If this Amendment were accepted it would mean that the Board could never allow another air-line to operate along an existing route, simply for the reason that there might be some amount of wasteful duplication of carrying capacity. But that would not neces-

893
sarily be so. There are cases which one call envisage where at times more aeroplanes may be needed, but not those of the sort which the existing airline has and it would be ridiculous if the Board could not grant a licence for the carrying of passengers if the demand were there. As I said at the end of my speech, the provisions which the Board have seriously to consider are in paragraph (f) (that is the one about wasteful capacity) and also in paragraphs (d) and (g), which bears a little more closely on the financial provisions.
It will be a high-level Board which will be charged to take the interests of British civil aviation as a whole into consideration. I suppose one could imagine it, but I think it would be highly improbable that such a Board would grant licences which would be to the detriment of civil aviation, as would obviously be the case if a decision were taken which resulted in an airline becoming "broke" or destroyed in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned. I think he really has unfounded fears with regard to this clause. I do not think that your Lordships will find it is necessary to have this Amendment, because of the provisions which I have already mentioned in the subsection. I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sure that this new Board will, as the noble Earl said, consist of the top people, and I am sure that they will discharge their duties with the integrity and the high level of purpose the old Advisory Council under the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, has done. But I do not think that the noble Earl is taking this Amendment at all seriously, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is not. It simply is not good enough to talk about new developments in new aircraft. I did not know that the hovercraft was an aircraft, in any case.
EARL BATHURST: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, brought in this red herring of the hovercraft, but I assure the noble Lord opposite that what I am saying has really nothing to do with hovercraft or "bedsteads" or anything like that. It has to do with flying and aeroplanes at the present time and in the immediate future; and indeed in the far future this clause will cover the same sort of thing.
894
But my right honourable friend is thinking of to-day and the immediate future.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whether a Bill which comes before Parliament is intended to deal with matters of the future as well as the immediate present, and, if so, whether it is regarded as inappropriate that such matters should be mentioned?
LORD SHACKLETON: It is perfectly appropriate that such matters should be mentioned. I never said that this Bill should not deal with the matter. I do not want to deal with hovercraft any more than with railway engines. They are not part of the aviation industry, and I merely wanted to push this particular red herring, or whatever it may be called, out of the way. I agree that ordinary take-off aircraft are in fact aircraft. The noble Lord was, I think, a little surprised to hear that they were likely to be used in a supersonic rôle. Of course they are. And these developments will be tremendously expensive developments and we shall look to the Corporations to finance them. It is precisely because we want them to follow an adventurous path in this matter that we want to protect their position.
I do not think it is fair to say that, as a result of my Amendment, it would not be possible to start new services. Of course it would be. But unless the Government are in favour of wasteful duplication, or of the possibility of wasteful duplication, or of the prejudicing of the financial position of the operator, I cannot see why they cannot accept the Amendment. We are planning in this Bill perhaps for the next ten years, perhaps for the next twenty or thirty years, or it may be longer. I fully accept that. But there is a pattern of aviation already established. The Government accept that. There will be these two principal "flag carriers", B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.; and I would remind the Committee that, unlike the Royal Navy, they have to show the flag and to operate at a profit. We are trying to ensure that that is in fact guaranteed to them and that they are getting the confidence they are entitled to have.
I am sorry to go on arguing, but this is a serious Amendment. Obviously the Board would be able to grant a new licence, notwithstanding this particular

895
Amendment, if, in fact, there was to be the traffic to support it. But what we are against is their doing anything that is going to lead to wasteful duplication, and I cannot see why the Government cannot accept this principle right away. We do not want wasteful duplication; we cannot afford it. Nor can we afford to act for some doctrinaire reason. What the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to Luddites meant I do not know. We want them to go ahead and to introduce new aircraft within the limits of the funds they are permitted to borrow and which are provided by the State, and to do so with confidence. I really am alarmed by the noble Earl's speech. We should be quite willing to consider variations in the particular words we have used—it may be that here and there they are a little too restrictive. But unless we can have some assurances—and this is really a key point in regard to the intention of the Government—then I am afraid I will, regretfully, not be able to withdraw this Amendment and we will take it to a Division.
5.0 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (f) to insert:
"() the co-ordination of all forms of transport, whether by air, land or sea, and the
EARL BATHURST: I am sure that the Committee will understand the point of view that the noble Lord takes. Of course, if this Amendment were to be accepted, as I said before, it would break down the whole principle, or one of the main underlying principles, behind this Bill: that another aircraft operator can go on to a route. Suppose, however, there were a case in which the Board went wrong or made a wrong decision. Should such a thing happen, there is, of course, the appeal that the aggrieved party has direct to the Minister; and, no doubt, as a result of that appeal, it could be debated in the House. But if another airline were to start on the route there might obviously be some duplication; and, therefore, if the Board considered that it would be likely to be wasteful it would, this Amendment were accepted, have to refuse the application for the licence. That we cannot accept, because that would mean that its decision would be mandatory.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Dalton, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Pakenham, L.

Winster, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wise, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dynevor, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amulree, L.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Portal of Hungerford, V.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Atholl, D.

Grenfell, L.

Rea, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Blackford, L.

Hawke, L.

Sinha, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Somers, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Spens, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Killearn, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Carrington, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Leconfield, L.

Swinton, E.

Colyton, L.

Lothian, M.

Teviot, L.

Conesford, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Torrington, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

avoidance of wasteful or unnecessary services or facilities;"
The noble Lord said: The last Amendment sought to produce a form of co-ordination by making it almost impossible for anybody else to come in and operate at all—and, moreover, co-ordination only between existing and new

897
air services. My Amendment is much wider scope and, I hope, more reasonable in nature. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is our authority for things to come in the air, but there are also new potentialities on land and sea. Whether a hovercraft is a ship or a plane I do not know, but we see Pneuways being used in Rhodesia, and other forms of land transport will come along, too. While we are considering the licensing of fresh air services, we have an opportunity of seeing that in the granting of licences there is a degree of co-ordination over all our transport.
This will not eliminate competition, because the power to apply for and grant a licence implies potential competition, but where necessary the power can be used to see that the licensed service does not clash unduly with another one. That is what I seek to ensure by my Amendment. The Amendment has the support of those who operate road passenger services, and I should think it would appeal to those who operate railways and passenger coastal ships. On Second Reading, the Paymaster General drew an analogy from road passenger licensing machinery, which provides that when a road passenger operator is applying for a licence, his rail and air competitors have a right to be heard at the same time. If my Amendment is accepted that is the situation I have in view. It seems to me a reasonable point. The wording may be wrong, and the Amendment may be put down in the wrong place in the Bill; but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept the principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord's proposal is a cry from the past, from the days shortly after the war when there was a Government which believed in co-ordination of transport. It has a nostalgic sound. But I do not think that the noble Lord has the slightest hope of getting the Government to accept any proposal to co-ordinate transport. We are moved at the thought that those progressive people, the road operators, are worried. They were not very worried about railways in their time, and I am afraid that this, as the noble Lord said earlier, is simply a piece of Luddism.
898
In fact, the noble Lord would stultify thrusting, competitive, energetic bodies like the airlines and ensure that they are not able to develop as freely as they can. Furthermore, I am not sure that the Amendment would be in order. It seems to go far beyond the range of the Bill, as set out in the Title. But if there is a chance of the Government accepting something on these lines, I think my noble friends and I would be willing, on the broadest level, to accept such a conception; and we await with great interest to hear what the noble Earl has to say about the Amendment. Of course it would be in order for the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to talk about hovercraft on this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: I do not know whether I shall accept the noble Lord's challenge, but it is amusing to see the noble Lords, Lord Hawke and Lord Shackleton, reverse their positions on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he would support something like this if it was in order, and if it was possible for the Government to accept it. I do not think that either of these conditions will apply. At least I am consistent. I do not believe that this Amendment should be included in the Bill, because I do not believe in shackling the future. I have been criticised from both sides for looking ahead instead of having my nose, like a hen, on the chalk line of the present. When we are legislating for such a rapidly expanding industry as civil aviation; when we remember that when many of your Lordships were born man had never flown in any heavier than air vehicles; when we think of the enormous strides civil aviation is making, it is important not to put on the industry burdens which are going to shackle it in future.
Apart from that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in doubting whether the Amendment is in order, because it amounts to imposing upon the Board executive functions which it could not possibly carry out. This Board is to be a licensing authority, and not an executive which will co-ordinate and, presumably, have to set up some machinery for co-ordination to decide whether some little bus company shall run buses between Aberystwyth and Newquay, and whether B.E.A. should go

899
to Milan and B.O.A.C. to Chicago. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke seems to be thinking of setting up some vast coordinating Board under the ægis of this Bill. I would say that it is not only undesirable but out of order.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord would be right if the Board were told, before granting a licence, that they had to co-ordinate. But they are not: they are told that in considering whether they will grant a licence they have to consider, particularly, whether the proposed new services co-ordinate with services already in operation. I do not think that that turns them into an executive body.
LORD OGMORE: I think the noble Lord has a point there, but it depends on the interpretation of the words. The Board would have to consider the work of other people. In fact there is no other co-ordinating authority; and so far as I am aware, the Government have no intention of creating an authority for co-ordinating transport. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, such co-ordination as there was under the Labour Government has been destroyed and the present Government are highly unlikely to bring into being a greater system of co-ordination than the Labour Government had in their period of office. The Committee should reject this Amendment, which I think would add a great deal of confusion to the Bill.
EARL BATHURST: I am surprised to have some support from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. By the time I have finished I hope that I shall retain the amount of support I have from him and also persuade my noble friend Lord Hawke to withdraw his Amendment. I should like to make it clear that I am in no way criticising the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—and I do not think that other noble Lords are. But he introduced the question of the hovercraft and "flying bedsteads"—for which, it so happens, this Bill may be suitable in particular cases—whereupon the noble Lord opposite inferred that, because that was so, it was a point in favour of rejecting his Amendments and therefore left out in the cold, so to speak, the urgent problems that the Air Corporations and independent operators are
900
facing to-day. That is the only reason I would have said anything about the noble Lord and his interest in the future, which we must all appreciate.
I have great sympathy with the point that my noble friend Lord Hawke has raised, but, of course, sympathy is not always quite sufficient. He has already said that a similar Amendment was moved in another place, and my right honourable friend then gave an assurance to the House in that connection. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Hawke fully appreciates what my right honourable friend had in mind. When this Bill becomes law my right honourable friend intends to make regulations under the powers conferred by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 5. These regulations will prescribe who shall be entitled to be heard by the Board in regard to any particular air service licence and who shall be entitled to raise an appeal against any licence that is granted. In fact "other persons" are mentioned in addition to licence holders. It is the intention to provide that operators of surface transport, who are concerning my noble friend, shall be entitled to be heard by the Board and shall be included among the persons who may appeal against the decisions of the Board. In this way the Board and the Minister will be able to take account of other forms of transport when considering air service licences.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, we are concerned with an air licensing authority, and not with an all-powerful transport co-ordination authority. I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that under Clause 2 (2) (h), the Board are obliged to consider, in particular, all objections and representations that may be made to them as provided under Clause 5. I think this meets the point raised by my noble friend, but I am afraid that the Government could not go so far as he would like and put on this Board, which, as I have said, is solely concerned with the licensing of air services, the whole difficult and complicated problem of co-ordination of all forms of transport. This will go far beyond the provisions which your Lordships have already accepted this afternoon by approving the Amendment that I moved to Clause 1. I think that the Amendment moved by my noble friend

901
is really outside the scope of this Bill, and I would ask him if he would be prepared to withdraw it in the light of the assurance that I have been able to give him about the rights of other operators of transport.
LORD HAWKE: I thank my noble friend for his explanation and reply. While I agree that my Amendment is probably drafted too big and too wide, it seems to me that the Minister and I have the same objective in view: namely, that when air licences are being considered operators of other forms of transport may be entitled to represent to the Licensing Board that it would be a wasteful duplication of capital services, or words to that effect, if such and such an air licence was granted. If we have that same objective in view, why cannot we agree upon words to go into the Bill? I agree that there is provision under Clause 5 for making regulations as to the persons entitled to be heard by the Board, but for several reasons that is not wholly satisfactory. The Board are told to receive representations, but they are not given any guidance as to what they should do with the representations; there is no word about the avoidance of wasteful competition, as there is in the case of air services. Of course, we have not seen the regulations. I think my noble friend said that they were going to be put in the Library, and that is a satisfactory way of dealing with regulations; but at this moment they have not been seen and I cannot say whether they are satisfactory. The final and most important point about regulations is that they can be annulled by fresh regulations, whereas it is much more difficult for Parliament to produce amended legislation.
I believe that the Minister and I are trying to get exactly the same thing, and it is only a question of method: whether we should have something in the Bill, and, if so, what should be the form of words. I wonder whether my noble friend would act as a go-between and see whether perhaps the Minister, accompanied by officials from his own Ministry and the Ministry of Transport, who will be concerned in this matter, would be prepared to meet myself or my friends in order to thresh the matter out between now and the Report stage. If I could have an assurance of that kind, I should certainly be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I regret that I cannot give my noble friend the assurance for which he has asked, but my right honourable friend will of course read all that he has said. I feel that his fears are not well founded. This Board is a licensing authority; it is not a coordinating board. "Persons" other than licence-holders have still to be provided for under the regulations, and as my noble friend has said, if those "other persons" were mentioned in the Bill, it would be difficult in the future to amend the provision for any reason—if you wanted different persons or the particular persons mentioned in the Bill were no longer required—whereas with regulations, as he has said, it would be simple to specify who is to be able to make objections and representations to the Board. And I would remind my noble friend that surface transport operators will also be able to appeal to my right honourable friend.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, perhaps the noble Earl can tell us whether this opportunity to make representations will extend to all forms of service. If, for instance, some new type of all-night motor coach sleeper going down one of these new motorways is likely to be in competition with British European Airways, will they be able to make representations? If we are going this far—and I am beginning to detect a sign of penitence on the part of the Government that perhaps we might look at co-ordination of transport—we should like to be assured that other people would not be able to protest against air services without the airlines having the same opportunity in regard to British Railways and the road services.
LORD HAWKE: I believe that some right exists. Certainly the railways have power to protest against a road licence, and I believe that the air operators have, too. It was said in another place regarding air operators by the Member who moved the Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I can let both noble Lords know the answers to these problems, but I do not think they have a bearing on the exact point my noble friend has brought up in his Amendment. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I assure him that it is my

903
right honourable friend's intention to let operators of surface transport be represented before the Board if there should be a suitable case for that representation.
LORD HAWKE: If my noble friend will ask the Minister to read carefully what I said, and to think carefully, he will see that there are two points here: first of all, the objection to dealing with the matter by regulations, and, secondly, the desirability of putting something in the Bill as to what the Board have to do when they receive representations. On that understanding, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I cannot give my noble friend that assurance—
LORD HAWKE: I am only asking for the assurance that he will read my words.
EARL BATHURST: I will certainly give the noble Lord that assurance, but there was a second part to it. I assure the noble Lord that his words will be considered as, indeed, were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, at an earlier stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am wondering when the "little bit of sugar" is coming along from the Government. I think this Amendment is perfectly clear to the Committee. Speaking in reply to my first Amendment, the noble Earl stated that there would be very tight regulations. My Amendment means that if the holder of an air licence during a period of twelve months failed to carry out the terms of his application and the terms of his licence, that would give reason for the Board to revoke the licence. It does not mean that the Board will revoke the licence, but that the Board may revoke it if they so wish. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("() If it is established upon good and sufficient evidence that the holder of an air service licence has not, during any period of twelve months, regularly maintained the air services in respect of which he applied for the licence, or has unreasonably varied the character of those services, then the Board may revoke the licence.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
EARL BATHURST: I regret to have to inform the noble Lord that the "little
904
bit of sugar" has not quite come along yet, but if he will have a little patience I hope that I shall be able to give him some satisfaction. This Amendment, as the noble Lord said, is somewhat similar to the Amendment to Clause 2, at page 2, line 14, which I was not able to accept. It adds in no way to the powers of the Board as they are contained in the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3, which deal with revoking and suspending licences, apply whether or not any application has been made to the Board. Under subsection (2) the Board must "revoke, suspend or vary" a licence if they are no longer satisfied that the holder is a competent or fit person to conduct the service. This includes the question whether he has contravened the licence or any of its conditions, about which I spoke before. I do not see how any operator could unreasonably vary the character of the service without contravening the licence, since licences are bound to contain the specific conditions I mentioned on Amendment No. 2.
Under subsection (3) the Board may revoke, suspend or vary a licence if they are satisfied that it is right and proper for them to do so, after having considered the terms of reference set out in subsection (2) of Clause 2. That again deals with competence, finance, objections, and so forth. There cannot be any doubt that the failure of an operator to provide services under his licence would be valid ground on which the Board could properly revoke the licence. Indeed, we took great care to see that the Board had powers to revoke licences so that they could deal effectively with the dead licence problem. In those circumstances, I do not see what benefit would be gained from adopting the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to thank the noble Earl, and I fully accept all he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Revocation, suspension and variation of licences]:
5.25 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"() If the Board are satisfied that the holder of an air service licence is also the

905
holder of an operator's certificate and that the Board are satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section two or this Act, the Board shall not revoke, suspend or vary an air service licence if such revocation, suspension or variation would be likely significantly to prejudice the financial results or earning capacity of any service already granted."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is similar to the one I moved on Clause 2, but the case for it is, I think, even more cogent. There are properly powers in the Bill for the authority to revoke, suspend or vary the licence. There are certain circumstances in which, quite clearly, the Board would be obliged to revoke or vary a licence. We are not at all clear, however, as to the extent to which this power can be exercised. I have put this Amendment down because we should like to know the sort of further considerations the Board would have in mind.
It would be particularly objectionable—as I am sure all noble Lords would agree—if, in the case of a satisfactory service that was being satisfactorily operated, the licence were suddenly, or even at some notice, withdrawn, leading to a serious reduction in the earning capacity of that particular operator. We should like the Board to take into account once again the size of the investments that operators of all kinds have to make when they start a service, and the guarantee they are entitled to have when they are granted such a licence. Perhaps we can be told something by the noble Earl as to the conditions under which such a revocation can be made. Clause 3 is not very explicit on the subject, and I might be disposed not to press this Amendment if we could get some satisfactory explanation. But we should like an explanation because I am more alarmed than ever since we had the Government's attitude on my earlier Amendment explained. We should like to have an assurance on this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shackleton.)
EARL BATHURST: AS the noble Lord has said, this Amendment is a companion to the first Amendment put down by him to Clause 2. Whereas Clause 2 dealt with the grant of licences, Clause 3
906
deals with their variation. The main purpose of this Amendment is to prevent the Board from revoking, suspending or varying any licence, if to do so would significantly prejudice the financial results or earning capacity of the operator holding that licence. I think I have already indicated how much my right honourable friend is concerned with the interests of operators, be they the Corporations or be they independents, but this Amendment is contrary to the concept underlying this Bill. It is made abundantly clear in subsection (1) of Clause 3 that any persons entitled to be heard by the Board may apply at any time to the Board for any air service licence to be varied, suspended or revoked, whoever may be the holder. The Board would be bound, in considering the application, to have regard to exactly the same considerations as applied to the grant of the original licence. These, to which I have already referred as the terms of reference, are set out in subsection (2) of Clause 2. They concern among other things the fitness and finance of the operator and the objections, and it is indicated most clearly that the Board must consider the interests of existing operators. This is the protection the Bill provides for existing operators, and I suggest to your Lordships that one must rely on the common sense and wisdom of the Board to proceed reasonably and with full regard to the stake which existing operators, be they Corporations or independent, already have in the industry. If an operator is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board then there is the right of appeal to the Minister open to him.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am obviously not going to get much satisfaction from the Minister. I should have liked to see certain of these considerations made mandatory. I still think they should be. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.32 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved to leave out subsection (4) and to substitute:
"() Subsections (2) and (4) of section two of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the Board's functions under the last foregoing subsection with respect to the revocation,

907
suspension or variation of an air licence as if—

(a) the reference therein to the Board's functions under the said section two were a reference to the Board's functions under the last foregoing subsection;

(b) any reference therein to the applicant for an air service licence were a reference to the holder of such a licence;

(c) any reference therein to any air transport service proposed were a reference to any such service authorised by the licence or, as the case may require, to any variation proposed to be made in the licence."

The noble Lord said: This simple Amendment, which I commend to your Lordships, is designed to produce a clearer form of words than those already used in the Bill. If your Lordships will look at Clause 3 you will see that subsection (4) contains important provisions, which, however, are not so very easy to understand, and I have put down a form of words, admittedly with a little help in preparation, which I hope will be acceptable to the Government and will make this Bill rather more intelligible than the Parliamentary draftsman, despite his admirable work elsewhere, has succeeded in doing in regard to this particular subsection. I hope that this is the occasion when we shall extort a concession from the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shackleton.)
EARL BATHURST: This is indeed the moment the two noble Lords opposite have been waiting for. I have some sympathy with the purpose which the noble Lords opposite have in mind. There may well be sufficient grounds for saying that the words "with the necessary modifications" which occur in subsection (4) of Clause 3 (which deals with the granting, revoking and varying of licences) are not sufficiently specific and that they could be clarified. That, indeed, is the object and aim of the noble Lords' Amendment. The noble Lords have attempted such clarification in regard to the application of subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 2. I would call those subsections a sort of yardstick for the matters and objections and so forth to be considered. I accept their ideas as affecting those two subsections and I think they have merit.
908
On the other hand, having heard their argument I do not understand why they have not brought subsection (3) of Clause 2 into the ambit of their Amendment, and I think the reason must be that the noble Lord has worded his Amendment "(2) and (4)", whereas the words actually used in the Bill are "(2) to (4)", which of course included (3); I fancy that is the reason why that slipped out. I think this requires more thought than I have been able to give it since the Amendment was put down. I will give an assurance that I will look into it in the light of the points the noble Lords have made, and if my right honourable friend considers it desirable I will deal with the matter on Report, if necessary putting down a comprehensive Amendment to cover the reference to subsection (3), and the points covered by the noble Lords opposite.
LORD SHACKLETON: I must apologise for this mistake. Perhaps we were exhausted at that stage of the drafting. With that assurance, for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Regulations]:
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e), to insert:
"() for the making of representations to the Minister by the Government of the Isle of Man or by the States of Jersey or Guernsey as respects any such decision of the Board as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, and for applying in relation to those representations, with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit, any provision relating to appeals contained in this Act or in any regulations made thereunder;"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with sovereign Governments and their right to make representations to the Minister instead of appealing against decisions of the Board. The Governments of the Isle of Man and the States of Jersey and Guernsey have sovereign authority to operate systems of their own for licensing civil aviation if they wish. By agreement with those authorities the present licensing system has been extended to cover the islands by Order in Council. It is proposed that the new system should likewise cover the islands, and the necessary Orders in Council will be made under

909
Clause 11. There have been, and will continue to be, full consultations with the island authorities about the application of this scheme to the islands.
It is naturally envisaged that the authorities in these islands will be consulted by the Board about all applications that concern them, and the necessary powers to ensure this are contained in Clause 2, subsection (1) of the Bill, where they are described as "such persons". Nevertheless these authorities are anxious to retain the right to make representations to the Minister to consider any case where their views have not prevailed with the Board, and they wish the Minister to consider whether the decision of the Board ought to be set aside. It would not be appropriate that these sovereign authorities should have to appear as appellants in the same way as, for instance, the disappointed applicant for a licence. The Amendment accordingly ensures that their representations can be dealt with, without their having to make a formal appeal. The Minister has been informed that this Amendment meets the wishes of the island authorities in every respect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved in subsection (1) (a) to leave out all words after "payment" to the end of the paragraph and insert:
"to the Board in connection with air service licences or applications relating thereto of such fees determined in such manner as the regulations may with the approval of the Treasury provide;"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the problem of spreading the cost of the Board fairly over those who benefit from its actions. The effect of this Amendment is to replace the present paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 5 by a new paragraph which requires the Minister to make regulations for the payment to the Board in connection with air service licences or applications relating to air service licences of such fees determined in such manner as the regulations made with the approval of the Treasury provide. The Amendment is designed to permit greater flexibility over the methods of assessing the fees
910
for applications and licences. The original wording required fees to be charged only in connection with applications for the grant, revocation, suspension or variation of a licence or for the grant or variation of licences as a result of application. It did not apply to transitional licences for which no applications have to be made.
On examining the details of possible schemes for charging fees it appeared that fees charged on the basis provided for might not work out satisfactorily so as to spread the essential cost of the Board fairly between those members who benefited from its activities. It seemed to the Minister that it would be better to take a power for the collection of fees in more general terms, so that alternative bases of charging, for instance, by annual fee or some quite different means of assessment, could be discussed with interested parties before decisions were made. It is the Minister's intention that such conversations should be held before such regulations are drafted. In any case the regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is rather difficult to judge this Amendment. I quite see the wish of the Government to introduce flexibility and to cover the eventualities, particularly in the transitional stage, which are not covered. We shall have an opportunity to look at this in detail when we see the regulations. I do not think it is going to be easy to satisfy all the interested parties that this will be fairly done, however hard the Government try.
EARL BATHURST: I want to make it clear that it is mainly to the transitional licences that this applies. I could hardly call it a drafting Amendment. Provision for a fee for a transitional licence had not originally been made in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) to insert:
"() as to the liability of any of the persons heard by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section at any meeting of the Board in respect of costs or expenses incurred in connection with that hearing;"
The noble Earl said: The Bill already provides that the Minister can make regulations to determine the liability of

911
parties in respect of costs or expenses in making an appeal to the Minister—that is right at the end of Clause 5 (1) (c). This Amendment enables the Minister to make similar regulations to determine the liability of costs to parties incurred at a hearing before the Board. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 7, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Prohibition of aerial advertising and propaganda]:
5.41 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to add to the clause:
"() For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the expression 'aircraft' in this section includes any balloon (whether fixed or free)."
The noble Lord said: Clause 7 of the Bill deals with the prohibition of aerial advertising and propaganda. The sole object of my Amendment is to make certain that the clause shall achieve its purpose as explained by my noble friend Lord Mills in the debate on Second Reading. My noble friend, when he comes to reply to my Amendment, may well convince me that it is unnecessary because balloons will already he included beyond a doubt under "aircraft". If he does so convince me, needless to say I shall ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Perhaps I may tell the Committee why I am so anxious that this clause shall succeed. Rather more than twenty-one years ago, on October 28, 1938, the then Secretary of State for Air appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Gorell, with the following terms of reference:
"To examine the existing regulations governing the flight of aircraft over populous and other districts, and the adequacy of the means of their enforcement; and to consider whether further measures are required to regulate such flying in the interests either of the safety or the amenities of the public."
At that time I was working hard with my friend the late Lord Horder in the cause of noise abatement. With others, we had formed the Noise Abatement League, of which the late Lord Horder
912
was president. The League gave evidence before Lord Gorell's Committee; I drafted the written evidence and I gave oral evidence in support of it. If I may quote one paragraph of the written evidence, it was as follows:
"The League strongly recommends that the use of aircraft for advertising purposes should be prohibited."
The Committee reported in March, 1939, and their Report is Cmd. 5961. The Committee reported in our favour. A few months later, in June, 1939, the Government published a short memorandum giving their decisions on the recommendations of the Gorell Committee. May I quote briefly from what the Secretary of State for Air in the then Government said:
"The Report of the Committee on the Control of Flying has been carefully considered in consultation with other Government Departments concerned. The decisions which have been reached on the main recommendations of the Committee, set out in paragraph 72 of their Report, are as follows"—
I am going to quote three. They are:
"(i) The Air Ministry should take cognisance of the amenity as well as the safety aspects of flying.
This recommendation is accepted.
(iii) Sky shouting should be prohibited for all private and commercial purposes;
and
(iv) No increase in the existing number of aircraft used for banner flying purposes should be permitted, and the licences of those at present operating should not be renewed beyond 1st October, 1941.
"These recommendations are accepted. Legislation will be required to give effect to them, and its form is now being considered."
That was in June, 1939 (Cmd. 6045). The form of the required legislation has now been under consideration for twenty-one years, and the form which has been decided on is that which appears in Clause 7 of the present Bill. Twenty-one years is a somewhat long period of gestation. That period has been marked by frequent letters of mine to various Secretaries of State of all Parties and to other Ministers. I had a friendly correspondence on the subject, I remember, with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, at the time when he was Minister of Civil Aviation. It was most friendly, but he could not find time to bring this legislation to fruition at that moment.
After twenty-one years, a miscarriage or mishap at this stage would really be

913
too much. I have hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who tells me that he welcomes the baby, will not press his objection to the place of birth, which is the subject of the next Amendment.
My sole reason for this Amendment about balloons is to make quite sure that they are covered. Advertisement by captive balloons is in fact one of the forms of horror that is now threatened, and the clause must cover it beyond all doubt. The reason for such doubts as I have is this. In earlier Statutes a definition of "aircraft" has been considered necessary—see, for example, the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, Section 12. Nevertheless, that is a long time ago, and it may be that there have been so many Acts concerned with air navigation in the interim, in which it has been successfully assumed that "aircraft" does include balloons, whether fixed or free, that my Amendment is unnecessary. If that is the technical legal advice that has been given to the Government, needless to say I shall accept it. I am only glad that a recommendation which I persuaded a Government Committee to adopt some twenty-two years ago, which the Government themselves agreed should be embodied in legislation twenty-one years ago, is in this clause at last being enacted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Conesford.)
EARL BATHURST: It is, of course, for the very reasons that the noble Lord has expounded to us, following the views of his friends of the Noise Abatement Society, that Her Majesty's Government have decided to include Clause 7 in the Bill. Just in passing—I do not know whether I am the correct person to say this—I think that we should remember nostalgically brave and gallant men, of whom I suspect many were probably friends of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, who eked out a living between the wars, and possibly just after the last war, in skywriting or pulling along advertisement banners with a small aeroplane. All that will now be no more, but I am informed that a reasonable time will be allowed before the effects of this clause actually operate, so that people will have a chance to get out of that business and can avoid putting more money into it.
914
In reply to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I must admit that the term "aircraft" is not defined in the Bill; nor is it defined in the Civil Aviation Act of 1949. It is, however, normally understood to mean any vehicle supported wholly by the air. Article 73, subsection (1) of the Air Navigation Order which was made under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, defines aircraft as including balloons, gliders, airships and flying machines. We are advised that there can be no reasonable doubt that in the context of Clause 7 the word "aircraft" in fact covers balloons, whether fixed or free, and kites. In the Chicago Convention of 1944, the definition of aircraft was:
"any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air,"
and I believe that that, too, would cover exactly the points about which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is worried. I have been assured that Clause 7 as it stands will prohibit all advertising of the kind of which the noble Lord has complained, and will also stop sky-writing with mist or smoke. I regret, however, that if the noble Lord still wishes to press his Amendment I shall have to resist it, because it would cast doubt on the meaning of the word "aircraft".
LORD SHACKLETON: We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I am wondering if the time has now come when Her Majesty's Government ought not to consider a definition of "aircraft". I should have thought that a balloon was undoubtedly a hovercraft, but I very much doubt whether a hovercraft is an aircraft for the purposes of this Bill; and perhaps I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, whom I treated rather roughly in this matter. Although this point is not strictly relevant to this particular clause, it has arisen on the question of the definition of "aircraft". I am wondering whether, in fact, this Bill is to cover hovercraft. Are hovercraft to be licensed?
LORD CONESFORD: Perhaps the noble Earl, the Minister, had better speak first. I am going to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment and to give reasons why I am doing so, but if the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wants an answer to the question: "Are hovercraft

915
to be licensed?", clearly that must be given, not by me but by the noble Earl.
EARL BATHURST: At present the hovercraft is obviously a hybrid—I expect many of your Lordships saw its antics outside the House to-day. It is likely that it could be licensed or registered as an aircraft, although equally, perhaps, it could be registered as a ship or ferry boat, if that was to be the form of operation. Meanwhile, the definition I have quoted—
"any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air"
suffices to describe an aircraft, although no doubt my right honourable friend can consider that again if necessary in the future.
LORD CONESFORD: My reason for withdrawing this Amendment is precisely that which I adumbrated in my speech proposing it—that I defer, of course, to the legal advice that has been given to Her Majesty's Government. In answer to the friendly intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I would draw his attention to a fact with which I believe all lawyers are familiar—that when something is stated "for the removal of doubt", then, if, in fact, there was no doubt in the minds of lawyers, all that one achieves by the statement is to create a doubt. There may therefore be substance in the objection to these words and, in the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.56 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to leave out Clause 7. The noble Lord said: As your Lordships can imagine, I am not prepared to go to the stake over this Amendment or even to die in the last ditch in defence of it. I have put it down for two reasons, first, because I do not feel that the actual proposal of the Government in Clause 7 goes far enough; and secondly, because I am not at all sure that this particular clause should be in this Bill, in any event. I entirely agree with both the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that this provision is most desirable, but I am not sure whether it should be in this Bill, which deals with a licensing authority and sets up an Air Transport Licensing Board with the general duties
916
of which we have heard to-day. That Board will grant air operators' certificates and air service licences; but all those duties, important as they are, have nothing whatever to do with prohibiting the odd man who takes up an aircraft and gallivants about the sky advertising, as I said on Second Reading, somebody's beer or detergents.
This is a penal clause which prohibits this kind of thing and says that those who do it will be penalised; and it seems to me that the clause should be in another Bill altogether—perhaps a separate one—and not in this one. Supposing one were looking to advise a man who proposed to go up in the air and advertise somebody's beer, one would be very unlikely to look at the Civil Aviation Licensing Bill to find out whether or not that could be done and what was the penalty. Although I do not want to make a major point of this, I feel it is just as well to have some kind of consistency in legislation, so that we have in each Bill clauses which relate to the main purpose of the Bill and not to something which is completely outside it.
As to the merits, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I congratulate him on a twenty-first "birthday" and perhaps that is a more appropriate analogy than talking, as he did, of parturition. In congratulating him I would say that he is rather lucky, for, as he will recall, Professor Dicey said that in England 30 years was the usual time that an idea of this kind took to find its way on to the Statute Book; so the noble Lord is nine years ahead of that average.
When, in speaking of the merits, I said I did not feel that the clause went far enough, I meant that while I do not like people desecrating the heavens skywriting—and I think it is an offence against nature to see "Vote for Bloggs" and things of that kind written across the sky—to my mind that is not the only or the most important offence that we have to suffer from the air in these days. There is the question of noise; and the only noise covered by this provision is that which is emitted by way of advertisement. The Bill does not speak of the noise of the hovercraft, or what the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, called the "flying red herring" and the helicopter.
Speaking generally as to noise, first, I do not believe it is necessary in many cases for these aircraft to make the noise they make. When there are protests, very often the users manage to "dampen down" the noise. It may be only my imagination, but I notice that the 707s passing my house on the way to London Airport do not seem to make anything like the amount of noise now that they did a year ago. Then it was deafening; now it is bearable. But when we come to the occasional use of a group or mass (or whatever the collective noun may be) of helicopters, the noise can be really appalling. Only recently those who were listening in to Her Royal Highness's departure in the Royal Yacht heard five helicopters manœuvring at quite a low altitude around the Royal Yacht, taking photographs. That seems to me quite as much an undesirable practice as anything in this Bill. So while being quite prepared not to press the Amendment, and indeed to withdraw it—I do not want to lose the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, his excellent work which he did 21 years ago—I ask the noble Earl to consider the points I have put and see whether he can do something on Report.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD CONESFORD: I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord does not propose to press this Amendment, because when at last one gets something which is very desirable indeed, it would be the greatest pity not to accept it, merely in the hope of another Bill, of which there is at the moment no prospect, and for which we might have to wait another 21 years. I could then scarcely hope to see the ultimate triumph of my evidence.
As to the point the noble Lord made about advising clients, I am perfectly certain that, if anybody asked him for advice on whether or not something was a legitimate use of civil aircraft, the one thing he would be quite certain to look at would be every Bill which had the words "Civil Aviation" in its Title. Therefore, I do not think there is very much in that point. Finally, on the points he raised as to merits, of course I agree with him about the importance of the problem of noise. But the problem of noise very often deals with the very difficult question of the amount of noise. Advertising in the air is a thing which should be prohibited
918
altogether, quite irrespective of the amount of noise, and that is one of the reasons for covering kites and balloons. For all those reasons I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment and I am glad that the noble Lord will not press it.
EARL BATHURST: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that under Clause 7 the Board will have no power whatsoever as to the control of aerial advertising. Clause 7 bans advertising in the air and makes it an illegal pursuit. No doubt the police force will run you in for aerial advertising in the future. However, had Clause 7 not been included in the Bill undoubtedly the Air Licensing Board would have had to deal with aerial advertising. It is very doubtful whether aerial advertising could be called an "air transport service". Therefore, it would be most likely that it would be outside the actual terms of reference for the Board in this type of licensing and therefore the Board would have had to grant a licence for such aerial advertising. I must agree that this Bill is a peg on which to hang this particular clause; and I am informed that it is quite certain that, as a result of this clause, there could be no future legal aerial advertising.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Before the noble Earl sits down, could he elucidate the meaning of the words
"Save in such circumstances as may be prescribed"?
EARL BATHURST: That is with regard to action in the national interest—police instruction or something like that, possibly by loudspeakers from an aeroplane used by the police. But whatever else it may mean, it certainly means that there is to be no commercial advertising by such means covered in the proscription.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Will these matters be the subject of regulations by the Minister?
EARL BATHURST: Yes. I did not mention the point of noise which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned, because I am afraid that that is quite outside the scope of this Bill and of the clause about advertising. If persons commit an offence through noise they

919
must be at a certain height. They cannot be over the height or under the height or they will be running into trouble either from the air traffic control or for being too close to the ground and causing a danger. So I am afraid that that matter does not come under the clause in any way.
LORD OGMORE: As I said, I do not propose to delay your Lordships for any length of time on this Amendment, or to do other than withdraw it. I put it down in order to have these points considered. We have had them considered and we have had the Government's reply. I feel, however, that at some stage we shall have to consider more seriously the question of noise. I am quite certain about that. There is a limit to what people can be expected to endure. With the air becoming more and more filled, we shall have to have proscriptions for noise, as with motor cars and motor-cycles. Perhaps in due course another Bill will be introduced, by this or another Government, which will deal with noise emitted not only in the form of planes advertising but of rotor blades whirling round so that photographs can be taken of a ship, or something of the kind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CONESFORD: On the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, may I remind the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who asked about what might be prescribed, that my noble friend the Paymaster General had this to say in the debate on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 223 (No. 77), col. 600]:
"It is intended that these regulations should make provision for aerial advertising only where needed for public purposes, such as crowd control, or for communications between the aircraft and the ground for the purposes of safety."
I wonder whether, between now and the Report stage, the Government would consider, on this clause, whether that limitation about the regulations (about which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, questioned the noble Earl) might be made explicit in the Bill by some appropriate
920
words. I have an open mind about it, but I hope that the Government will consider that point.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
6.0 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 14 [Valuation of security]:
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "being a" to insert "written" [report]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to keep the House with my two small Amendments to this Bill. I did mention them on Committee stage, and I think that, although they are small, they are worthy of consideration again on Report stage. It may have been that in the past a director of a building society has been able at times to make a verbal report on the value of a property. But, in order that the records of a society should now be complete—and I think the general intention of the Bill is that they should be a complete record, and available for inspection at any future date—I wish to insert the word "written" before the word "report" in line 5. Your Lordships will notice that the word "report" comes earlier in this subsection, in the third line, but that refers to the availability of a report for the directors' consideration. I think the actual report should be in written form, and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 5, after ("a") insert ("written").—(Lord Wise.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about this point on Committee stage, and I then told him that I thought the courts would probably take the view that a written report was implied in the words of the clause as it now stands. Those advising me have now thought that perhaps this is not quite correct, and so they have asked me to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. But, in order to complete the work, I have told the

921
noble Lord—and I hope that the noble Lord on the Woolsack has a copy—that it would be convenient to move (and, with the leave of the House, I shall do so) a manuscript Amendment in addition, to insert the words "and signed" after the word "prepared". The reason for that is largely a technical one. A written document does not need, I think, to be signed in order to make it effective for legal purposes. But if we are, in fact, going to prescribe specifically that this report should be a report in writing, which on the whole we have accepted, it would, I think, be convenient to identify the author by providing that it should be signed. On that understanding, I would accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: That is to say, the subsection would then read, "prepared and signed"?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has said, I have received a manuscript Amendment. It reads:
"Page 18, line 5, after the word ('prepared') insert the words ('and signed')."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 5, after the word ("prepared") insert the words ("and signed").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.14 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "competent and prudent" and insert "professionally qualified". The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount for accepting my first Amendment. I hope that he will treat the second Amendment in a similar way. Having disqualified a director from making a report on a valuation of a property which bas been referred to the directorate of a building society for consideration, we have now to find someone outside the directorate who is capable of carrying out valuation work on behalf of the society. In my view, the words "competent and prudent", which appear in the subsection at present are extremely difficult to interpret. I may be wrong, but that is my view. The person
922
must have both attributes. I do not know by what standards competence and prudence can be measured, and who can judge whether a person has both qualities or lacks one and has the other. In my Amendment, I seek to make the subsection definite in its wording and its meaning. A professionally qualified person is one who, from experience, practice and scholarship, has been accepted as being a fit and proper person to be a member of one of the chartered institutions governing the profession to which he belongs.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: And by examination.
LORD WISE: And by examination. I covered that by "scholarship", I thought. He is bound to be a competent person, and he must be a responsible one with definite traits of prudence: otherwise, he would not have sought qualification and membership. He is subject to stringent codes of professional conduct and honour.
The Bill seeks to put the operations of building societies upon sound, regular lines; to safeguard those interested in the welfare of any particular society; and, also, to safeguard the investors and borrowers. I think, therefore, that outside advisers engaged in work on instructions from a building society should have professional qualifications of high merit, and integrity. This may be the case at present, but the Bill limits the activities of some and opens up new professional work for others. Now procedure has been introduced. It is quite probable that there are competent and prudent persons outside the ranks of the professions who are capable of carrying out inspections and valuations, and of making reports; but the building society directors are custodians of borrowed money, and this puts upon them an obligation to exercise the greatest care in accepting properties for mortgage purposes. This clause, even as it stands, seems to stress this fact. In other matters, the building societies undoubtedly engage professional men of standing and experience, who carry out their instructions. The examples which come to my mind are chartered accountants, who already find some place in the Bill; chartered architects; members of the noble Viscount's own profession; and admitted solicitors. I hope, therefore, that my Amendment, which I believe

923
to be an improvement and a simplification of the Bill, can be accepted by the Government in that respect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 6, leave out ("competent and prudent") and insert ("professionally qualified").—(Lord Wise.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount a question upon procedure? As he will recall, the Committee stage of this Bill occupied part of two days; and there were, I think, more than 72 Amendments, a number of which were accepted. There were, however, a number of important Amendments which were withdrawn on the understanding that the noble and learned Viscount would look into the matter, and on the understanding that the questions raised by those Amendments would be capable of further consideration on the Report stage. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount if he is in a position to report this further consideration, whether by himself or by his right honourable friend the Minister, especially in connection with Clause 5, which has now become Clause 6, dealing with restriction upon the acceptance of deposits; Clause 6, which has now become Clause 7 and deals with advertising; and Clause 14, which has become Clause 15 and deals with the rather doubtful and complicated question of whether the portion of 15 per cent. for which the building society is responsible is properly regarded as being a guarantee. If the noble Viscount could give us some information on those points, we should be grateful.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I can say much on this Amendment without getting dangerously out of order. I have a long list of points outstanding, of varying importance, which I promised to look into. I think that a convenient course would be for me to mention any important ones on Third Reading. I do not think that I should be called to deal with them at this stage, certainly not on the noble Lord's Amendment. About some I propose to write to noble Lords. A good many of them involve detailed discussions with various persons, and it is proposed to discuss these again in another place after discussions have
924
taken place. There is none which really demands action by your Lordships' House, but if there are any particular matters which noble Lords desire to raise specifically, they could be discussed on Third Reading. That will not be to-day.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, that does not give us an opportunity of putting down Amendments on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. Of course, he can put Amendments down on Third Reading.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, it requires putting down the Amendments beforehand and presumably awaiting the noble Viscount's answer. My noble friend and I were hoping to avoid putting the noble Viscount to that inconvenience by asking questions now, if an opportunity were extended to us to do so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords I am conscious that the noble Lord is trying to be helpful, but we must obey the ordinary Rules of Order about Report stage. I do not think that it is within my competence to depart from the ordinary Rules of Order. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has moved an Amendment, and I ought to reply to that. I do not think that I can undertake to answer a number of detailed questions when the only question before your Lordships' House is the limited one to which the noble Lord has drawn my attention.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I appreciate the position in which the noble Viscount is, but the facts are that the Third Reading is to be taken on Thursday, and whilst it may be the case that Amendments can be put down on Third Reading, we shall not have had the advantage of the further consideration which the noble Viscount undertook to give to certain important points which would influence us as regards putting down Amendments which were withdrawn on Committee stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, is one of the greatest experts on Parliamentary procedure in either House. As I remember, he acted as Deputy Speaker

925
in another place, so I do not think that he can claim to be taken aback by my refreshing his mind that, on the limited Amendment on Clause 14, it is not within my power to discuss the whole Bill. This has been on the Order Paper in the ordinary way, and nobody should appreciate more clearly than the noble Lord, with his vast experience of procedural matters, exactly how matters stand. If the matter simply rested with me to say "Yes" or "No" to what the noble Lord has asked, obviously I should seek, with the leave of the House, to consult the noble Lord's convenience, but there are departures from the Rules of Order so violent that I do not think that I should carry the House with me, if I were to attempt to indulge them.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I agree that we may be strictly out of order on this Amendment. The only course for my noble friend and I to adopt is to put down Amendments on Third Reading and await the noble Viscount's replies on that occasion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may now come to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, the object of his Amendment is obviously praiseworthy, and the Government have a good deal of sympathy with it. It is only after consideration—because the matter had indeed occurred to them—that they have decided that they cannot meet it, and I hope that your Lordships' House will agree with me. First of all, the noble Lord criticises the existing language of the Bill. But the words "competent and prudent person" are taken from the 1939 Act, and are not new language which we have thought up for ourselves. This has been the law in this connection for 21 years, and it has stood the test of experience. I do not wish to be pedantic, but the noble Lord's Amendment is no more precise than the language of the Bill. If the noble Lord asks me what is "competent and prudent", I might ask him what is "professionally qualified"? So far as I can see, both have difficulties in the way of him who would answer them precisely.
For all that, the Government would have liked to specify the professions which were meant, and to limit the preparers of such reports to members of
926
them. They have done so with the auditors' profession; but anyone who is familiar with professional matters will remember how extraordinarily complicated, and even thorny, was the history of the various bodies concerned; and only comparatively recently has it been possible to specify particular bodies. I am told that this stage has not yet been reached in the valuers' profession. There are a number of professional bodies who beyond all question could yield persons capable of delivering a report of this kind. There are a number of other bodies, about whom there may be dispute. And there are probably a number of other professionally qualified people who do not belong to any registered body. This profession is in the position in which the accountants were some time ago. I would be very far from saying that, in a number of years' time, some other Member of your Lordships' House, moving the next Building Societies Bill, might not be able to specify such bodies; but I do not think it would be possible now.
There are only two ways out of this problem, apart from leaving it as it is in the Bill, which, on the whole, is what we have decided is best. Either we can state in the Bill a number of qualified bodies, which inevitably would create a feeling of injustice in those bodies whose names were not in the Bill—and equally in those persons who were not on the register of any registered body; or alternatively it would be possible to leave it to the Registrar to prescribe the bodies, without specifying in the Bill what they should be. We think that this would be an invidious task to lay on the Registrar when the state of the profession, so far as I can ascertain, is as I have just described it; and we have put a large number of duties on this gentleman which have attracted the criticism that perhaps we have been giving him too wide a discretion and authority. Therefore, on balance, we decided not to do it. Though I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, and think that it is an attractive idea, we have been forced to abandon it this time, and I hope that the noble Lord will be contented with the arguments which I have advanced.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his explanation. To

927
a great extent I accept what he said: that there are difficulties in the way of expressing exact institutions whose members should participate. I have already thanked him for accepting one Amendment, and it would be bad grace on my part to put him in any difficulty in regard to a second one. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON AND SURREY (RIVER WANDLE AND RIVER GRAVENEY) (JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.