Lords Sitting of 26 May 1960

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Radcliffe

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDISATION OF ROAD SIGNS
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give consideration to the calling of an international conference with the object of ascertaining how far it is possible to standardise all road signs in many countries.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, it is not the Government's present intention to proceed on the lines suggested by the noble Lord. An international conference of the sort he has in mind would more appropriately be called under the auspices of the United Nations. Such a conference was, in fact, held at Geneva in 1949 and produced a Convention on Road Traffic and a Protocol on Road Signs and Signals. Progress towards a further international standardisation of road signs might take the form of wider adoption of the existing Protocol, or its revision following another United Nations conference.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that rather comprehensive reply, I am sure that he is aware that no fewer than 1,900 cars a day are being introduced on the roads in addition to those already there. What I asked was, how far it is possible to do what I have suggested. There are accidents all the time on account of the lack of uniformity. Could not some action he taken on this account?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to see what action could be taken in addition to what I
1292
have already mentioned. There are in existence a Convention and a Protocol, and that Protocol has been supplemented by a European Agreement on a slightly less official basis. I think that to obtain standardisation a proper World Conference such as I have mentioned would be required. I should like to remind my noble friend that we do not stand still on these matters, and our policy on road signs, as we make improvements, is coming nearer to existing European practice, as I think he will see if he looks at the signs that have been produced, for instance, for the M.1.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if the noble Lord finds it difficult to have international standardisation, could the Government make some move towards having national standardisation in this country?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the Commonwealth Motoring Conference has this matter within its consideration at the present time; and also whether he is aware that, if he can persuade his right honourable friend to exercise a rather greater degree of enthusiasm in introducing international signs into this country, it would be of very great help?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords. I think I am aware of most of these points. That brings me back again to the question of a World Conference. I think that the Commonwealth Conference is a most helpful thing; the Protocol which exists is a very good thing, and the European Agreement is a very good thing. Therefore we have three. To which are we to adhere?—because they are all likely, perhaps, to be different. Therefore, I think that the most progress will be made by a proper international conference. So far as standardisation in this country is concerned, which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned, I think that things are getting more and more standard as we go on.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while again thanking my noble friend for what he has said, is it not a fact that since 1949 the number of cars on the roads of this country has nearly doubled, and that we are getting accidents on a scale which nobody desires? Therefore, would it

1293
not be worth experimenting and trying to get somewhere, and not waiting indefinitely?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we are well aware of the accident rate and every possible reason for causing accidents is investigated. That is why many new-type signs, in accordance with quite widespread and international feeling, have been, and are, being introduced all the time.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend very much for his Answer, I hope that he will give the matter most careful consideration.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree with the fact that while not only the actual design of the signs but their application is in the hands of local government, there are bound to be a number of rather disconcerting discrepancies? I know of many. If the noble Lord were to come on a drive with me, I could show him some extraordinary ones. Does he not also agree with me that pictorial signs are far more efficient than word signs?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have already said that signs are getting more and more standard all the time, and it is for the reason that my noble friend mentions that we have been switching over to pictorial signs.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this House will adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday next, June 2, and will reassemble on Tuesday, June 21. It may, however, be necessary for the House to sit formally on Friday next, June 3, in order to receive a Bill from another place. I should also like to inform your Lordships, purely for your information, that another place will reassemble on Monday, June 20.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
PEERS ACTING FOR PECUNIARY REWARD
The Committee record their opinion that it is undesirable for a Peer to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation in or for which he is or has been acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward. The Committee do not, however, feel that it is necessary to frame a Standing Order or pass a Resolution in this connection.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I think it may be for the assistance of the House if, briefly, I point out in what respects the wording of this recommendation has been changed from the wording which was previously before the House. The words "or oppose" have been inserted after the words "advocate or promote"; the words "any Bill or subordinate legislation" have been inserted in place of the words "any proceeding or measure", and the words "for any pecuniary fee or reward" have been inserted in place of the words "in a professional capacity."
There are other quite minor differences, but those are the principal changes in the wording from that which was before the House on April 28. Your Lordships will remember that on that date the paragraph of the Report of the Committee was referred back to the Committee because, I think I should be right in saying, the House thought that the wording was not sufficiently precise and was perhaps too wide. The Committee have done their best to deal with the matter, and have re-worded the original Report in the manner which I have just outlined. My Lords, if there are any questions which any noble Lord would like to ask me I will do my best to answer them. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as I was concerned in this matter on the previous occasion, I should like to say that I think the Committee have interpreted quite admirably what was obviously the sense of the Whole House, and I think that the wording now ought to be entirely acceptable. I would also say that I think the Committee are entirely right in their recommendation to the House that this should not form the subject of any Standing Order or Resolution, but should be treated, as so many matters are in this place, just as a matter of common convention.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, as the person who was principally responsible for having put the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House to so much trouble about this matter, I should like to express my appreciation of the results which they have achieved. As the matter stood before, I found myself in an exceedingly embarrassing position upon one occasion, and I am quite sure that if the recommendation now before us is adopted by your Lordships, such an occasion will not be able to arise for any of your Lordships again.
With regard to the earlier recommendation, I myself shared the opinion which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it might possibly have been too wide, and, if strictly adhered to, might have debarred most professional Members of your Lordships' House from being able to contribute to discussions on matters before your Lordships which involved the use and benefit of the experience which they had gained in their professional capacity. In my submission the recommendation which is now before your Lordships does not go so wide as that, and so will enable professional Members of your Lordships' House to submit such experience as they have gained in their professional capacity, so long as it is not directly concerned with any particular matter in which they have been in receipt of a definite fee or emolument. For these reasons, I hope that the recommendation is one which we shall all be able to accept.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we on this side of the House entirely agree with the recommendation of the Committee. And may I take this opportunity of telling
1296
the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that we on this side greatly appreciated the case he put in the speech he made which raised the whole subject, and therefore agree with what he has just said about leaving professional experience for the use of the House in subsequent debates. It is something we ought not to forgo. All the way through there has been nothing, from my point of view, on which the noble Viscount's action on that occasion could be criticised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Truro be approved;
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of South Molton, be approved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Holmfirth, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CORPORATE BODIES' CONTRACTS BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.13 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to carry out the principal recommendation of the Eighth Report of the Law Reform Committee which was published in December, 1958 (Cmnd. 622). It may be convenient if I state briefly the circumstances which led to that Report.
At Common Law a corporate body can bind itself only by a contract under seal. There are exceptions to this rule. It does not apply to contracts of a trivial nature or frequent occurrence; and a

1297
contract not made under seal may be enforced by a party who has fully carried out his part of the bargain. These exceptions, however, are ill-defined and cover relatively few transactions. In the case of trading corporations the rule requiring the sealing of contracts was abrogated in the 19th century, and companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948, and earlier enactments have been empowered by Statute to enter into contracts with no more formality than is required in the case of an individual. For all other corporate bodies the Common Law rule still applies, but it had been widely ignored or overlooked until fresh attention was drawn to it by a decision of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard in a case which came before him in November, 1956—the case of Wright v. Romford Borough Council [1957] 1 Q.B. 431.
In that case the plaintiffs, a firm of demolition contractors, sued the Borough Council for damages for breach of a contract under which they were to be employed by the council to demolish certain buildings. The Borough Council had invited tenders for this work and the plaintiff's tender had been accepted in writing by the Borough Engineer. The Council had later repudiated the agreement and they were able successfully to resist the plaintiff's claim, on the ground that the agreement was not under seal and so not binding on them. The case naturally attracted attention. It seemed clear that a technical defence could defeat substantial justice. The publicity given to the decision made it far more difficult to continue the practice of ignoring the need for a seal; on the other hand, strict compliance with the rule would involve serious inconvenience and needless expense.
Accordingly, in March, 1958, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor invited the Law Reform Committee to consider, in the light of the decision that I have cited, whether alterations were desirable in the law as to the formalities required in the case of contracts made by bodies corporate. The bodies corporate which the Committee were invited to consider did not include companies within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1948. The reason for this exclusion was that statutory provision for such companies had already been made in Section 32 of that Act.
1298
The principal recommendation of the Law Reform Committee is most easily set out in their own words. I shall quote the beginning of paragraph 14 of their Report:
"In our view, a body corporate of whatever category should be able effectively to express its will by the action of one or more individuals to whom the corporation has delegated, expressly or impliedly, power to act on its behalf. The manner in which such action is to be taken should be controlled by the internal rules of procedure which govern its management and activities; but that is exclusively a matter of internal management and there seems to us to be no reason of principle why the authenticity of the act as regards the outside world should be treated in any way differently from that of an act purporting to be done on behalf of a natural person."
The Bill before your Lordships carries out that recommendation. It has been approved by all Parties in another place. It applies to bodies corporate wherever incorporated. Among the bodies which will benefit from its passage into law are local authorities, universities, colleges, schools and City companies. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Conesford.)
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am here to welcome this Bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and to express my appreciation to my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford for the task he is undertaking in promoting it. This is the fifth occasion on which a Bill has come before your Lordships which implements recommendations put forward by the Law Reform Committee, and we must all be very pleased about the growing body of reforming legislation which is finding its way on to the Statute Book following the labours of this eminent body of busy Judges and practitioners who give so freely of their time and experience to advise on improvements in the law.
I have particular cause for welcoming the present Bill because when I invited the Law Reform Committee to consider the formalities required in the case of contracts made by bodies corporate I had considerable misgivings about the state of that branch of the law, as revealed in the decision in the case of Wright v. Romford Borough Council, to

1299
which my noble and learned friend has referred. I was confident, however, that what shortcomings there might be would soon be revealed in the Committee's investigations and might before long be put right. My expectations will be fulfilled in this Bill, thanks to the initiative of my noble friend and of the honourable Member who preceded him as the promoter of the Bill in another place. We have become accustomed to expect the Law Reform Committee to unravel for us some of the more esoteric complexities of the law and to make recommendations in branches which are, end perhaps even when analysed and simplified by that eminent body remain, to the layman, something of a mystery.
The present Bill, by way of contrast, deals with a reform of a simple and intensely practical nature. The formalities of contracts made by bodies corporate, which are not companies within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1948, have, largely for historical reasons, been left substantially unaltered for hundreds of years and they are no longer suited to the numerous end various contracts which these bodies daily enter into at the present time. In doing away with these out-dated formalities this Bill will certainly save local authorities, incorporated charities, schools, universities and many other bodies a great deal of trouble and expense. If in some cases the inconvenience of the present law has not been felt to be quite as serious as one might have expected, it has been so only because, as my noble friend said, the strict requirements have been very extensively ignored. That is all the more reason for doing away with those requirements, for a law which is habitually disregarded, as I said in another connection on Monday, is assuredly a bad law.
My Lords, I suppose that for some of us the seal of a great and perhaps ancient institution, with all its historic associations, sometimes evokes a nostalgic appeal so that one might be reluctant to reduce or do away with its application. I should certainly be sorry if the pressure of any drive for greater efficiency were ever to do away with any of the uses of the Great Seal, whose custody is my special charge; but in the vast majority of the cases to which this
1300
Bill will apply the Seal is used for transactions of little, if any, historical importance, and I am sure that no consideration of mere sentiment ought to stand in the way of a reform which will make for greater expedition and economy. I welcome this Bill and hope that your Lordships will speed it along its Parliamentary course.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend very much.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I add a few words, as one whose professional life, or a great deal of it, has been devoted to teaching the law of contract? The noble and learned Viscount referred to the great work which has been put in on the Advisory Committee by Judges and distinguished practitioners. There have been a certain number of reforms of the university law schools as well. While it is perfectly true, I suppose, that when this particular part of the law became out of date the Judges became acute to try to find ways round it, it never became completely a dead letter; and the result has been that one could never be quite certain, at any rate in a substantial number of cases, whether one needed the Seal or not. And certainly to try to teach this branch of the law to the younger students who are going into the profession is one of the most difficult and troublesome aspects of the many difficult and troublesome aspects of contract law. Therefore, I am quite sure that, even from that point of view, which is in some ways only a small one but in other ways a quite important one, this reform will be warmly welcomed in the great law schools which are now such a distinguished part of our universities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that if I unintentionally appeared to exclude the academic members of the Committee that does not mean I am not most grateful for their services. I am, and I realise how immensely they have helped in this field. I am sorry if my words gave that impression.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that my colleagues will be grateful for the charming way in which the noble and learned Viscount has expressed his appreciation of their work.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) BILL
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which comes to your Lordships' House from another place, having during the debates there attracted Members of all Parties to speak and vote without reference to their Party affiliations. For instance, I noticed in studying the debates in another place that the honourable Member For Finchley who brought forward the Bill had the support on several occasions of the honourable Member for Blackburn, Mrs. Castle, and the honourable Member for Eton and Slough, Mr. Fenner Brockway—an experience which is probably quite original. Here in your Lordships' House, where Party feelings do not rise so high and where mixtures in the Division Lobby are often found, I am hoping that perhaps I may have the good fortune, in piloting this Bill through the House, to succeed in getting noble Lords opposite to give me their support without recourse to the Division Lobby.
I do not know exactly why I have been chosen for the important task of piloting this Bill about admitting the Press and public to meetings—unless it is that in another place the honourable Member for Finchley, also a lady, did the job and did it exceedingly well; or that on this occasion we have a Bill which applies to Scotland as well as to England, and I am a Scot with fifteen years of experience of a Scottish county council, the Roxburghshire County Council. Whatever the reason, I am greatly honoured at having been given this task, and I will try to do it as succinctly and as swiftly as possible.
The objects of the Bill are simply to allow the Press and public to have access to all meetings of local authorities and other bodies mentioned in the Schedule which consist of and include all members of the body, and also all
1302
committees of those bodies which consist of and include all members of the body. It does not apply to committees whose membership is only part of, or selected from, the whole body. The object of doing this is to enable ratepayers and the public generally who contribute, either through rates or taxes or both, to the essential work of a local authority and to any other bodies mentioned in the Schedule, to be able to hear and read in the Press what is going on, how their money is being spent and how the business is being administered.
I hope very much that in the passing of this Bill one of the by-products will be to create a greater interest in the work of local government, work which I believe to be basic to our Parliamentary democracy and in which noble Lords can both take a part and vote. On the other hand, the public generally, I think your Lordships will agree, is lamentably apathetic about local government elections, as witness the very low polls which are all too frequent when we have municipal or county council elections. I think that that is a great pity and I believe that if the Press were not only allowed but encouraged to attend the meetings of local authorities the voters might then be able to read, interposed with the results of the 3.30 or the F.A. cup ties, some account of the activities of their local councillors and the administration of their local government. Incidentally, I should like to remind your Lordships that it was the father of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who, from the Labour Benches in another place, first secured a Bill in Parliament, in 1908, to allow the public access to local authority meetings. The Act of 1908 will now be repealed, and the Act which I am moving brings it up to date and takes its place.
Inevitably, however, having got the Press and the public into local authority and other meetings, there will be occasions when it will be necessary to exclude them. To draw up a list of such occasions has not been found possible, but in the Bill, in Clause 1, subsections (2) and (3), there are two provisions stating that when "publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest", a resolution can be passed to exclude the Press and the public for the whole or part of the

1303
meeting. The reasons for the exclusion must arise from the nature of the business and must be stated in general terms in the resolution. Such occasions, I suggest, might be when discussions invoking the private circumstances of a ratepayer might be involved—such things as housing allocations or land purchases; questions relating to staff matters, promotions, or appointments; confidential inquiries from a Government Department wanting information on a subject before a final decision is taken, or a debate held on a national issue of which this may be only part. Then there is very often the difficult question of the acceptance of tenders for a works contract. In fact, there are quite a number of subjects which come up at local government meetings and at the meetings of other bodies mentioned in the Schedule as to which the Press should be excluded; and there are ample safeguards in the Bill for a resolution to cover these occasions, when business should be taken in private.
The next point in the Bill refers to the giving of notice of a meeting and to the sending out of papers prior to the meeting. This, I think your Lordships will agree, is of great importance. It is one thing to get the Press admitted but quite another to get them there; and unless agendas and supporting papers are sent out to the Press beforehand and they know what is coming up at a meeting, they may not come. So subsection (4) (b) directs that, on request and on payment of postage, the Press must be sent the necessary papers. If there are confidential subjects to be taken at a meeting and the Press is to be excluded, then the papers referring to these subjects will not be sent to the Press. This will entail rather careful arrangement on the part of the clerk who is drawing up the papers, but I do not think it should prove to be too difficult.
The question arises that an exclusion of the Press or the public might be challenged and taken to court on legal grounds, or that an individual might be excluded on wrong grounds. He can then apply to the Attorney-General for a "relator action"—and this I quote from the speech of the honourable Lady who moved the Second Reading in another place. I know that noble Lords here, who are very learned in the law,
1304
will know what this means, but I am afraid I do not. However, the effect is to enable a person to challenge in a court of law a decision to exclude the Press in the ordinary way in which we can all call on the Judiciary in this country.
Clause 1, subsection (5), deals with the claim to qualified privilege on behalf of the body and its officers in case of publication of any defamatory matter contained in the agenda or papers, or any statement made during the course of discussion which might be proved to be defamatory. Qualified privilege can be claimed unless it be proved in a court of law that the publication or the statement was made with malice or improper motive. Subsection (6) refers to the possibility of a body meeting as a whole (and thereby being open to the Press and public) passing a resolution to say that it is now in committee, although exactly the same people are present, and then deciding that they will not admit the public or the Press. Under this new Bill, that will not be possible. The only way in which the Press or the public can be excluded from a body meeting as a whole is by resolution under subsections (2) and (3).
I am sure your Lordships will agree that, in 1960, no Bill dealing with the Press would be complete if it did not also refer to broadcasting and television; and in this Bill, in subsection (7), there is reference to the inclusion of broadcasting and television as part of the way in which the general public can be told what is happening on any given occasion. Lest your Lordships should be afraid that this might entail some rather alarming experience for those sitting in committees or at meetings, it is suggested that television and broadcasting should be treated in exactly the same way as the Press—namely, that they can collect information as to meetings and disseminate it afterwards, but not be present to take live pictures or make live broadcasts. That, then, deals with the first clause of the Bill.
The second clause applies to the bodies specified in the Schedule, and here I am very glad to see that there is a distinction between those bodies operating in England and those operating in Scotland. Our local government is slightly different in some aspects from the local government in England; but the principle of the Bill will be just

1305
the same when it is applied to the different circumstances in my country. The lists of bodies in the Schedule which appears at the end of the Bill cannot be altered by elimination; but, in subsection (3) of Clause 2, procedure is laid down by which additional bodies may be added should it be necessary and should Acts of Parliament create those bodies. The appropriate Minister can by Order do this, and can also annul such additions if it should be necessary.
The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland and will not come into effect until June 1, 1961. This will give local authorities time to make arrangements to implement the Bill and the Minister of Housing and Local Government time to draw up a code of conduct to supplement the Bill. The Bill lays down a statutory minimum in the carrying out of these public relations between the local authorities and the Press. Some local authorities and other such bodies already go further than the Bill specifies, but this will not be affected. To deal with those occasions when public business is carried out by committees and sub-committees composed of part of any body or local authority and not the whole, and the Press and public are therefore not admitted, it is the Minister's intention to try to draw up a code of conduct which will enable some other arrangements to be made whereby information as to such meetings can be given to the public. This may take a little time. It will entail consultation with the Press and with the local authorities; and therefore it appears that June, 1961, is the earliest date at which the Bill can come into effect.
Finally, there is a Schedule which lists the bodies to which the Bill applies—and this is a very comprehensive one. Bodies such as the London County Council, county boroughs, county councils, urban district councils, rural district councils, parish councils and all bodies connected with health, housing, education, water and other public services, and also combined boards and joint authorities, are included. In fact, the Bill caters for all existing bodies and for some that do not exist now but may in the future.
This Bill is an important step forward in our democratic system. It lays down minimum standards for relations between local authorities and other
1306
bodies and the public and Press. Some of these standards already operate, and the Bill does not preclude further co-operation between the Press, the public and the authorities, if it is so desired. I do not expect that the authorities who are not anxious to have the Press and public at their meetings will like the provisions of this Bill, but in my humble submission that is only an added reason for seeing that they are brought into line with the more far-seeing authorities whose work is now known by the public because they allow people and the Press at their meetings. Fashion and circumstances change from one generation to another, and 1908 was quite a long time ago. It is in the spirit of the present that we must take the past and shape it for the future. That is what this Bill is trying to do. I hope very much that your Lordships will support me. I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
3.42 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient to your Lordships if I give some indication of the Government's attitude to this Bill. Before doing so, however, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the way she has just moved the Second Reading of this Bill. She has propounded its provisions so lucidly and cogently that there is certainly little for me to add by way of explanation. But I want more particularly to congratulate her, and this I am sure I shall be doing on behalf of all your Lordships, on making history. This is the first time that the Second Reading of a Bill has been moved by a Peeress. Moreover, this Private Member's Bill was sponsored by a lady Member in another place, and, what is even more remarkable, was moved by that honourable (and married) lady in a maiden speech! The noble and honourable Ladies have indeed between them made history. Just for good measure, the most remarkable things happened to this Bill in Committee in another place. Among other things, they very materially changed its Long Title—which is, I am told, a feat not often or easily performed.

1307
There are many Members of your Lordships' House who, like myself, have long experience on bodies to which the Bill applies. They will, I am sure, agree with me that this cannot be an easy subject on which to legislate. It is a field in which some may think that the best results might be more easily obtained by a voluntary partnership between public bodies and the Press, rather than by legislation. Be that as it may, the object which everyone must surely support is that the Press and the public should be given all proper information about the wide range of important public business transacted by such public bodies as are mentioned in the Bill.
In most parts of the country, as your Lordships well know, local authorities already have entirely satisfactory arrangements with the Press and the public, at which no criticism has ever been directed. It is the practice of only a very limited number of local authorities which, in the past—and I do not refer here simply to the events of the recent past—has given rise to complaint. The Bill will certainly improve the position, though I doubt if it will achieve everything that is desirable. That is not to say that, I am damning this measure with faint praise, for we believe that the Bill is certainly a useful measure, and the Government commend it to your Lordships as such.
What the Bill does, as the noble Baroness has clearly explained, is to bring the existing law up to date, and make moderate extensions to it. The Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908, gives rights of admission to the Press to meetings of local authorities and certain other bodies, but it gives no rights to the public. At present it is only to meetings of parish councils, among all local authorities, that the public have a right of admission. The Government welcome a measure which, for the first time, would give the public a general right of admission to meetings of local authorities, and of the other bodies covered by the Bill.
Of course, as we all know, local authorities generally do admit the public to their meetings; but they are not there of right, and this may occasionally give rise to difficulties. I am told that recently a member of the public presented himself at the meeting of a certain rural
1308
district council and asked to listen to the proceedings. It was the first time that this extraordinary event had happened with that council for many years, and the council found it necessary to have some considerable debate on the matter before deciding to let the man in—and find a chair for him to sit on. All such doubts will be resolved by the Bill.
It is also an advance on the earlier legislation in that it will clarify the conditions under which the Press and public can be temporarily excluded from meetings to which they are given a right of admission. Some devices which have been used in the past to frustrate existing rights will no longer be possible. The noble Baroness mentioned some of these in her speech. A useful provision in this connection is the entitlement now given to the Press to receive advance information of the business to be transacted at meetings to which they are given a right of admission (Clause 4 (b)). The Press must at least be supplied with an agenda. It will be possible for them, therefore, to follow the business even if, as sometimes happens, the chairman merely refers to numbered items on the agenda and does not from the chair give any indication of what the numbers refer to.
But these provisions of the Bill, as the noble Baroness said, can be regarded as no more than the prescription of the minimum requirements which can be imposed by Statute. Bare compliance with these minimum requirements will not really be enough. Many local authorities already do much more than the minimum laid down in this Bill, and I think that some supplement to the Bill will be necessary. As the noble Baroness reminded your Lordships, before this Bill was introduced in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was already engaged in discussions with the associations of local authorities and the Press about the preparation of a voluntary code of conduct which all local authorities might be brought to observe in a spirit of voluntary partnership with the Press. Those discussions have naturally been suspended during the progress of this Bill, but my right honourable friend intends to take them up again and to prepare, in consultation with the appropriate associations and with the Press, a voluntary code which will be complementary to the Bill.

1309
The noble Baroness stated that the Bill, as it stands, will not come into operation until June 1, 1961. My right honourable friend will certainly use his best endeavours to see that the code of conduct will also be ready by that date. In this way the public bodies covered by the Bill will be able to make whatever changes in their arrangements may be necessary to enable them to comply with this Bill, as well as the code of conduct at one and the same time. I think I have said enough to indicate why the Government commend this Bill as a useful measure, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
3.50 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I hope that an apology from me may be accepted in the first place. I may have to leave after I have finished this speech, as I was due at a meeting twenty minutes ago and I do not want it to finish before I get there. The subject of this Bill is a matter upon which I have some experience as a result of my work in local government. I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, did well in expounding what is a difficult Bill to expound. I think that, in the circumstances, and having regard to the nature of he structure and the wording of this Bill, she performed that task with considerable ability, upon which I should like to congratulate her.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, that this is a different Bill from what it was when it was introduced in another place. And thank goodness for that! I must say that I am not enthusiastic in support of this Bill, though I doubt whether we shall vote against it. I do not see why local authorities cannot be trusted to manage their own business without all this Parliamentary performance, detailed direction and detailed control: and now we are threatened by the Minister with a code of conduct which may go into much extended and considerable detail. I should have thought we could leave it to the local authorities. After all, as the noble Earl has said, the number of local authorities which have acted improperly is very limited, and it would appear that many of them are in rural areas—and one can imagine what sort of local authorities they probably are!
1310
As a whole, however, the local authorities "play the game"; indeed, the London County Council now (and this was the case when I was the leader of the Council) take enormous trouble to be of service to the newspapers. The Press office is there not to run the newspapers, but to give them information when they ask for it, and to do this with courtesy and efficiency. When I was leader of the Council I used to have a conference on the day the Council agenda (which was supplied to the Press) was published. I took it behind the scenes and gave them information of the background of the committee reports, and answered any questions they asked; because I fervently believe it is the duty of all public authorities, not only to give the Press all reasonable facilities but to give them all reasonable help as well. That was done there, and I believe that it is done in the general run of the local authorities in the country.
Having said that, I must go on to say that this ought to be a two-way traffic. If the local authorities are kind to the Press, as they ought to be, then I think the Press ought to report the work of the local authorities. But if we take London (I cannot answer for the provinces, where the work varies: sometimes it is satisfactory, and sometimes not), how often do we get the work of the London County Council and its proceedings intelligently reported in the so-called London Press? Hardly ever. Yet these boys are making an awful noise about the rights of the Press. What about the rights of the local authorities? What about the right of the public to be informed by the Press as to what the local authorities are doing? The truth is that there is no London Press; it is a national Press which happens to have its head offices in London. There is no London Press, and the degree to which local government in London is reported in the national Press, except when somebody wants to run a Party political campaign against one or more of them, is very little.
This was not always the case. The old Daily News was very good in reporting the work of the local authorities, and particularly the London County Council. So was the Star very good. The Times used to be better than I think it is now, although The Times remains a great newspaper. But the reports are very

1311
limited; and sometimes they do not exist at all. If Parliament is going to take all this trouble to get the Press into local authorities, then the Press ought to give us something in return by way of reports of the debates and discussions in the local authorities themselves. If I have been critical of the newspapers in this regard, it is only as a friend of the newspapers, because all my life I have tried to be helpful to the newspapers and to assist them in their work—though heaven knows! in the course of my life I have been knocked about by the newspapers, I suppose, as much as anybody.
I think that some local authorities—a few exceptions—have gone wrong. It is true that in a limited number of cases the power to resolve the council into committee has sometimes been abused, and that has meant the exclusion of the Press and the public. And, by the way, talking about the public, of which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made great play, the public was not provided for in this Bill, when it was introduced. This provision is the result of Labour Party pressure in another place. The author of the Bill had not even thought of that point. The local authorities have in some cases resolved themselves into committee, and on some occasions I think they were wrong and that it was done improperly. Some of them have a general purposes committee which consists of all the members of the council—so as to make it easier to keep the Press out, I presume—although some of them take the view that it is more democratic to have a general purposes committee consisting of all the members of the council. But I think that is wrong. A committee should be a committee and not the whole council.
But, as a whole, I believe that the local authorities have done very well; and there has been a great advance. The education committees meet in public, and so do the councils; and they should never go into committee, in my judgment, except in clear cases where the public interest is obviously concerned. This Bill, as I understand it, does not give the Press a right to be at meetings of committees of the council. I think that is good, because if they were admitted to committees it would alter the whole spirit of committee discussion. A committee should be a committee. The
1312
talk in committee should be between the members, consulting each other, and speaking briefly. But if we know our politicians, including ourselves, we must recognise that, once the Press were there, they would be letting go: they would speak at much greater length, with greater eloquence and probably with a considerable degree of abuse from time to time, which, of course, is part of the sport of public life. I am glad that that has gone. Moreover, it would be difficult for the officers of the local authority to report confidentially and frankly to a committee of the council if the Press were there and the officers were liable to be hauled up.
We must not run this doctrine of the right of the Press to be everywhere too much. There might be a Private Members' Bill brought in to enable the Press to attend meetings of the Cabinet of the Government. What should we all do to that? We should say, "No." Or there might be a Bill to enable them to attend Cabinet committees, or even the Select Committees of Parliament in either House. Therefore, we really ought to have a sense of proportion about this business, and we should not try to do to local authorities what we should not do to ourselves.
EARL WINTERTON: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. Is he suggesting that it would be right to exclude the public from hearing the proceedings of this House or another place?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No; any more than I would suggest that they should be excluded from attending the meetings of the councils of local authorities. I was in my last argument dealing with committees.
Let us take one committee where it would obviously be difficult to have the Press there all the time—the Civil Defence committee, which deals with all sorts of possibilities of the consequences of enemy action. It would certainly give information to any potential enemy as to the priorities they should exercise in the bombing of our country. I remember, in discussions on the civil defence committees of local authorities, the most confidential things—things that ought not to be reported. Of course, it was provided that the Press should be excluded from time to time from a committee, if the committee so desired. But

1313
it is not convenient to have the Press in one minute, out another, back again and out another. I assure the House that the newspapers would have got tired of that procedure very quickly.
I say these things only by way of appreciation of the improvements in the nature of the Bill which have been brought about during its consideration by another place. There are two provisions in the Bill which I do not like, and I hope that, together with other matters, they may be considered in Committee, when it is possible that Amendments will have to be put forward. One is that this Bill now admits the Press and public to meetings of watch committees of borough councils and of standing joint committees dealing with the police in the counties; and, I presume, the corresponding authorities in Scotland. There are a good many things done in watch committees and standing joint committees which are of a confidential character. It may affect the reputations of private citizens. There are disciplinary matters affecting policemen who may be found "not guilty," so to speak; and it would be a bit rough to haul these men over the coals in public and for the matter to be reported, when possibly in due course they may be found to have committed no offence. I should have thought that police authorities should be exempted from the scope of the Bill.
There is another remarkable provision which is really totalitarian in character. Remember that every local authority and every public authority has a right to fight about these issues and to express views, and try to get either the rejection of the proposals or their amendment. But here it is proposed in Clause 2 (3) of the Bill:
"Any body established by or under any Act may be added to the Schedule to this Act, and any body so added may be removed from the Schedule, by order of the appropriate Minister made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament …"
That means that this Bill can be extended to other public authorities. No public authority knows whether it may be affected. I think that is a bit "tall" and should be the subject of specific legislation. Instead of these Regulations of the Minister being settled by Parliament by Affirmative
1314
Resolution—as they ought to be, because they are of very great importance—the only remedy open to a Member of another place, or to a Member of this House, is to move to annul the Regulations—that is to say, a Negative Prayer. That is a difficult thing.
Moreover, if we can avoid it, I should not like your Lordships to interfere with Regulations which require Parliamentary approval. I think it is primarily a matter for the House of Commons, though there is no doubt that this House has its rights in these matters. But to provide in this Bill that the Minister may extend these provisions to any other authority, or may remove some of the public authorities who are at present included in the Bill, simply by an order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, does not seem to me to be right.
My Lords, that is all I have to say. I have indicated that it may be found necessary—about which I shall be sorry—for Amendments to be tabled. But I hope your Lordships, if you pass this Bill, will pass it with restraint and in a spirit of moderation, because I think that the rights of local government, freedom of local self-administration in our country, which is a long tradition, should be respected and should not be unduly interfered with by Parliament, even at the request of such a great, powerful interest as the periodicals and the newspapers of our country.
4.5 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I must confess that, although I did not intend to intervene in this debate, I find the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, a little disturbing. I quite appreciate the difficulties he put forward and the side of the issue with regard to local authorities themselves. But the kind of argument he put up will hardly bear examination. One of the noble Lord's strong points was (how far he would apply it I am not sure from what he said) that if you had too much of the Press and the public overlooking the work of local authorities, you would find members, aldermen and councillors getting up and talking for the sake of publicity.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I put my noble friend right? That was as regards meetings of committees—not the councils.
LORD AMWELL: I said the work of local authorities. I am going to mention the work of committees in a moment. The noble Lord said that with some members of the council, in committee, if you like, or even on the council—it would apply just as much—with a progressive interest on the part of the Press and the public in local affairs, you would find that element of search for publicity. No doubt you would. But what is the noble Lord afraid of? Do we not get it in this House? Do we not get it in another place? I suppose that it is the price we have to pay for democracy in the relation between public authorities of all kinds and the public. What I am concerned about is that unless you have a wide field of local public expression in newspapers and in other ways (in the case of the London County Council, county interest), you may have many of the local authorities becoming much more like secret agencies.
I rise because I am in immediate memory, due to the fact that I attended a meeting of a borough council in the London area yesterday—not under the London County Council, but just on the fringe. There was a fairly large agenda. That agenda went through in less than ten minutes, because everything had been done and settled by committees, manned in the main by one particular Party, because the Opposition were very few. It was done without anything like a public debate in open council. I was a member of one of the Metropolitan boroughs for some years, and I know that when the committee report comes up before the open council any member can get up and raise a point in which he has managed to interest himself. Sometimes it is done with great distaste on the part of the majority.
That is not quite my point. It takes a very good journalist, and a very interested journalist, to break down that kind of barrier, and a newspaper that is sufficiently interested in local affairs to get behind the scenes in order to get the background of these public affairs and to dig out the real facts that come before councillors in committee and separate groups of councillors in com-
1316
mittee. They have their reports and they are published. But when they come before the council it is not the kind of thing which leads, or is likely to lead, to that fresh, open and real debate which is required if we are to have a real, democratic method of local government and a report of local government affairs in the Press.
I raise those questions because they appeal to me. I am not criticising a great deal what the noble Lord has said. The Bill is probably open to a considerable amount of criticism, and must be amended. But I think these things should be borne in mind. In many councils—not all—you have nothing to do at open council meetings unless, as I say, you are so interested in one particular point that you take the trouble to dig out the facts by going behind the scenes to find out what the committees have done in private discussion. I do not think that that is quite healthy, and I do not share the noble Lord's feeling that you must leave it to the local authorities because the intervention of the Press and public is likely to damage the work that they do.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have no desire, or indeed capacity, to comment on the dispute between the noble Lord who has just sat down and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but in discussing this Bill, although I wholeheartedly congratulate my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on her method of presentation of the Bill, I am afraid I can give it only somewhat half-hearted support, not entirely for the reasons that have hitherto been brought out. I think the latter parts of the Bill, which set out what is meant by publicity, are very useful; I think that that is a good addition to the law. But with regard to Clause 1, subsection (2) of the Bill, which deals with this rather vital matter of the reasons for which the Press and the public can be excluded, I have some reservations, because, in spite of the words of this subsection, I cannot see that the position under the Bill is likely to be very different in reality from what it is at present. That is, of course, unless it is a deliberate intention of the Bill, which has not so far been mentioned, to give to the chairman of the council, who is responsible for the observance of standing orders, a much

1317
wider discretion than he possesses at present.
Perhaps I might explain what I mean. At present all that is required to exclude the Press and the public is a motion to go into committee—quite a simple motion. But that motion, nevertheless, may be debated and eventually, if necessary, voted on. Under this Bill the resolution would no longer be simple. Reasons would have to be given. In 99 cases out of 100 I cannot see that that will present any difficulty at all. Most of the reasons for excluding the Press and public, as I think my noble friend herself said, have to do with such matters as contracts or tenders or misdemeanours, and things of that sort, which everybody would agree should be conducted without undue publicity. But in the 100th case, which I think might be by far the most important, there might be an acute division of opinion within the Council itself on this question of publicity.
The division might quite well be on Party lines. I do not want to give a Party slant to this. May I, as a Conservative, suggest that there might be an occasion on which the Conservative majority on a council wanted to hush something up, and it might be that the Labour minority wanted very badly to ventilate the same matter to the fullest degree. What would happen? I suppose the Conservative representatives would put down a resolution having relation to the wording of this Clause 1, subsection (2). Then it would be quite possible, and indeed probable, that the Labour Opposition would submit, on a point of order, that the resolution was ultra vires on the grounds that the circumstances of the particular case did not justify its being considered either as confidential or as special. Who is to interpret on that point of order? Is it the chairman or is it the council? If the council are to decide, I cannot really see that we are any further forward than at present, because the council can already turn down a motion that they should go into committee. But if the chairman has to decide, all I can say is that if I were in the chair I should regard the wording of this subsection as so wide that it would be simply an expression of my own personal opinion.
I do not consider that this is a purely pedantic point. This Bill is, I think,
1318
really aimed at exceptional circumstances, but at circumstances of a type that are likely to attract the maximum publicity, both local and national. Having been chairman of a county council myself, I do not think Parliament ought to place my colleagues in what might be a very difficult position. It may be that these points will all be looked after in the code of conduct or the standing orders that will have to be devised if the Bill is passed, but I can only say that I do not think it is going to be a very easy matter, and I shall look forward with interest to see what the outcome will be.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, may I, like other noble Lords, add my congratulations to the noble Baroness for the admirable way in which she introduced this Bill, and also on having been the first Lady to do so? I want to make only one point. Though I am in favour of the Bill in general, I question very seriously indeed whether it is desirable to include standing joint committees and watch committees in this Schedule. I think that that would be a grave mistake, and I believe that the more noble Lords on all sides think about that the more they will agree that that had better come out.
4.17 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Liberal Benches I would, if I may, give the blessing of those who sit with me to this Bill, and particularly, of course, congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent presentation and on making history—indeed, on being a great justification for the vast majority of this House who supported the inclusion of women Life Peers. I agree with the last speaker that there are some things that should be looked into again, and although the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said he hoped it would go through without Amendment—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD REA: If I understood that wrongly, I withdraw that statement. I thought he gave the impression that he hoped it would go through without great alteration, but. I think that after what has been said to-day it needs to be looked into to some extent, especially the clause to which he drew attention, Clause 2, subsection (3), where in the

1319
last line there is the rather surprising statement that
"… an order made under this subsection by any Minister of the Crown shall be effective, whether or not he is the appropriate Minister."
That is one of the things which I think needs further consideration. But with the general Second Reading atmosphere, I would give the Bill the approval of those who sit on these Benches and leave the details for a further occasion.
4.19 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate, and also to answer one or two questions which have been raised by noble Lords on both sides of the House. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, could not stay, because I should like to say one or two things about his speech. He was not very enthusiastic. On the other hand, it has to be remembered that there is already an Act, and therefore this Bill, in a sense, is not a new thing. This Bill is really, we hope, going to be a better Act than the one that exists to-day, and more up to date in various ways. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said with reference to the facilities which will be available to the Press and which, in many cases are not available to-day, because although the L.C.C., as he rightly told us, is a shining light in this matter, there are other rather dimmer authorities whose lights do not shine so brightly. We hope very much that this will encourage them to follow the example set by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and the L.C.C. when he was chairman of that great body.
He mentioned that alterations had been made during the Committee stage in another place, and stressed that some alterations had been particularly put forward by members of his Party. My point at the beginning of my speech was that this Bill, as it appears before your Lordships, is one which has had the support and the discussion of all sides of political life, and has not been supported only by those in another place who sit upon the Government Benches.
The question was raised, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth,
1320
about Civil Defence committees. Under Clauses 2 and 3 those committees could, if they so wished, claim the exclusion of the Press. One or two noble Lords have mentioned the question of the watch committee and the police committee. I particularly did not make any reference to those two committees because, like other noble Lords. I feel that in all probability it may be desirable to discuss this matter in Committee and to make some further recommendations thereon. I think it is a matter for further discussion. When I read the Parliamentary record in another place I saw that this subject had been discussed but that the Minister had not given a lead either way. The balance on either side was a fine one, and it is a subject that we might indeed discuss here in Committee.
There was one other point that the noble Lord made, about altering the Schedule of bodies to which the Bill applies. Under the Bill as framed it is not possible to alter those bodies. Those in the Schedule are in the Schedule. The idea of allowing further bodies to be added is simply because, in the course of legislation, sometimes Acts of Parliament are passed which create new bodies—one can think, for instance, of the National Health Service and various others—and it would be advisable in the interests of the public generally to be able to include such bodies if so required. I do not think it is put forward in any dictatorial spirit, as the noble Lord suggested, but simply in order that we should have an opportunity of bringing the Schedule up to date if that course is needed.
I was most interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, who seemed to me to be a splendid advocate for the principles of this Bill. I am grateful to him for what he said. I regard the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, as an important one. I listened with great care to what he was saying, and again I think it is a matter which might be raised in more detailed discussion in Committee. I should be glad to discuss the matter further so that the point, which is a most relevant one, can be met.
I think that those were the main points that were raised in the discussion. I should like to say that I am most grateful to your Lordships for being so kind

1321
to me, and for putting up with my rather amateurish methods in putting forward a Second Reading of this kind. I think it is a Bill which is certainly an improvement on the existing Bill and will be of benefit to us in our work, either in local government or in various other bodies. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will now give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BROMLEY COLLEGE AND OTHER CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
4.25 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CHIPPING SODBURY TOWN TRUST SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
UNITED CHARITIES OF NATHANIEL WATERHOUSE AND OTHER CHARITIES (HALIFAX) SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL
4.26 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL
4.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, the time has come for me to invite your Lordships to give the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Bill a Third Reading. I have no hesitation in recommending it to your Lordships as a valuable addition to the Statute Book. The situation which this Bill sets out to rectify is, by common consent, unsatisfactory. Successive Governments have been forced to employ a plausible device to circumvent the clear intention of the existing law which was to establish a monopoly of regular services for the Air Corporations. I hope that no one today seeks to defend this monopoly or to deny to the independent airlines a chance to play their part in British aviation alongside the two great Corporations. Credit is due to all sides of the industry, and not least to the Air Transport Advisory Council and its Chairman, Lord Terrington, for the way in which the present makeshift licensing system has been made to work as well as it has. I hope that the now system contained in the Bill will place the licensing of British civil aviation on an altogether sounder basis and create a new atmosphere in the industry.
Since this Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House a special reason has occurred to underline the urgency of the reforms it introduces. Some of your Lordships may have read reports of a recent Divisional Court judgment which has the effect of demonstrating in a new way the unsatisfactory nature of the existing legislation. The principal sanction behind the existing licensing arrangements has lain in Section 24 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, which reserved to the Corporations and their associates the right to carry passengers or goods by air for hire or reward upon any scheduled journey between two places, one of which at least is in the United Kingdom. The term "scheduled journey" was defined to indicate that it must be one of a series of journeys which together amounted to a systematic service and it must be operated in such a manner that the benefits were available to members of the public

1323
from time to time seeking to take advantage of it. The Divisional Court decision to which I have referred has now indicated clearly that it is possible, by inviting intending passengers to join so-called clubs for the purpose, for any operator to run a service, however regular it may be, without infringing Section 24. Under present legislation, therefore, this decision has opened the door wide to uncontrolled competition with the established operators. We have been able to anticipate the consequences of this decision by the introduction of the present Bill. Under the Bill, it is made clear that an air transport service—that is to say, any service for the carriage of passengers or of mails or of any other cargo by air for reward—will in future require an air service licence from the Board unless the service in question is exempted by regulations.
As my right honourable friend indicated in another place, it is his intention that the regulations should exempt from the requirement of an air service licence those cases where the whole of the space on an aircraft is chartered by one person, but that in any case where separate fares are charged for the carriage of passengers, whether those passengers are the members of a club or otherwise, the service will require an air service licence. As soon, therefore, as it is possible to bring the provisions of this Bill into effect, it will be possible to put right the consequences of the decision to which I have referred and to restore order to the industry. It is not now possible that the Bill can come into effect in time to bring under control the current plans of air operators for the summer of 1960. These plans always have to be made some time in advance of the proposed holidays and it is unlikely that the Divisional Court decision will in fact lead to any substantially greater number of uncontrolled flights this summer than had already been planned. But, as I indicated to your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, my right honourable friend has made arrangements for the Air Transport Advisory Council to give him early advice as regards licences to be issued under Clause 2 (6) of the Bill to cover similar operations in the summer of 1961, by which time the Bill should be fully in effect. I hope that this Bill will go forward with the full support of both sides of this
1324
House, and I invite your Lordships to give it a Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mills.)
4.35 p.m.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, I hasten to apologise for what may appear to be a deliberate double fault on my part by reason, in the first place, of my seeking to address your Lordships so soon after having taken my place in this House; and, secondly, for intervening in the debate on this Bill at such an unusual and, perhaps, awkward stage. I shall endeavour to explain my reasons for these matters. I realise, with great relief, the traditional indulgence that your Lordships have been in the habit of extending to new Members of your House who seek to address your Lordships for the first time; and I hope very much that I may have the benefit of your continued tolerance in this respect.
The privilege of a place in your Lordships' House is no small thing for an Australian subject of Her Majesty, and I am deeply conscious of the honour of being the first Life Peer from Australia. Your Lordships may care to know that the awarding of a Life Peerage to an Australian has been widely and greatly appreciated in Australia. In fact, a widespread public-opinion poll taken in the last month has shown that the granting of a Life Peerage to an Australian has been endorsed by a very strong majority, both among those who profess to support the Opposition in the Australian Parliament and those who support the Government of which I was, until quite lately, a member.
My reason for seeking to speak so soon after having been introduced in your Lordships' House and before I can be said properly to have become acquainted with the forms and procedures is that the subject matter of this Bill—international civil aviation—has always been of great interest to me. And since opportunities to address your Lordships on relevant matters within my compass may not frequently recur, I can only hope that you will excuse my intervening so early in my time here and at such an unusual stage in the consideration of this measure. In fact, this Third Reading is the first opportunity I have had since taking my place in this House to speak upon this Bill.

1325
I happen to have travelled no less than about half a million miles on international air routes over the last ten years. Moreover, I have had a personal interest in flying in less ambitious aircraft. I have, of course, read the speeches that have fallen from the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Civil Aviation in another place and from the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who has been conducting this Bill in your Lordships' House. If I may say so with respect, I welcome this Bill as a flexible, common-sense measure to bring order and uniformity into the structure of British civil air transport. My concern is not with the details of this Bill—on which, in any case, I am hardly qualified to speak—but on one or two aspects of the Bill in what may be regarded as a wider sphere.
The principal reason for my interest in this Bill stems from the fact that the British Overseas Airways Corporation, the principal flag carrier of the United Kingdom on international routes, and Qantas, the Australian flag carrier or chosen instrument, are in partnership in what is known as the "Kangaroo route" between London and Australia by way of the Middle East, Asia and Singapore. If may boast a little, as an Australian, the fact is that apart from American air lines, Australian air lines fly the highest number of passenger miles per head of population of any air transport company in the world; and although most of these miles are on Australian domestic air routes we have in Qantas an international air carrier of consequence. Its route mileage is of the same order as that of B.O.A.C. In terms of revenue ton-miles it is over one-third that of B.O.A.C. This gives Australia, as a partner of B.O.A.C. and a member of the Commonwealth, a keen and lively interest in the future pattern of British civil aviation. The B.O.A.C.-Qantas partnership, to which lately has been added Air India International, is not, I believe, the least of the integrating factors in the Commonwealth. The partnership is of long standing. It started in 1934 when Imperial Airways and Qantas pioneered the "Kangaroo" route not far off a generation ago.
My Lords, the field of international civil aviation, as you all know, is a highly competitive one; and it is likely to become even more competitive in the years that lie ahead, when the last of the
1326
pistoned aircraft will be replaced by jets on all medium and long distance routes, and when the industry will be in course of making plans for the supersonic era, which may be within ten or fifteen years in coming about. I believe that in the era of even more intense competition in this field that lies ahead, if we are to maintain our positions among the great air carriers of the world, we must seek to promote Commonwealth co-operation in every relevant field: in the integration of air services; in the matter of safety provisions; in avoiding overlapping; in the pooling of revenues; in repair facilities; in development of new aircraft, and in new techniques of air navigation and air traffic control, as well as adhering, I would hope, to a common policy in respect of more controversial matters, such as those of fares and exchange of air-traffic rights. In short, I believe that the Commonwealth must work together in all these matters even more in the future than has been the case in the past. As the Commonwealth's senior partner, in status and in stature, in aviation and in a very great many other matters, a great responsibilty in all these matters falls on Great Britain.
This Bill seeks to bring order and clarity into British civil aviation to replace what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has described as previous "makeshift arrangements" (these are his words), but without adding rigidity to the system. When I first became aware of this Bill I had some fears that the B.O.A.C.-Qantas partnership might be exposed to harmful and unfair competition at the hands of independent air operators. These fears were laid to rest by the statements of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Aviation in another place and by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. The Minister of Aviation has said in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 618, col. 1232]:
"… the Bill will not … break up the partnership agreements the corporations"—
I think that there he meant B.O.A.C.—
"have concluded with Commonwealth and foreign airlines … I shall certainly take care to see that nothing is done to upset these arrangements."
I imagine that this protection which the Minister promises in respect of B.O.A.C. must also give similar protection against unfair British independent air operators' competition to Qantas and, for that

1327
matter, more recently, to Air India International. The encouraging statements of the Minister of Aviation as regards protection to be given to B.O.A.C. derive their importance from the fact, which I think is apparent from the Bill, that, particularly in international matters, the Minister reserves to himself the last word on civil aviation policy and, as I read it, is not obliged to accept any recommendation of the Board of which he does not approve.
The statement I have ventured to quote of the Minister of Aviation is of added significance when read in conjunction with the B.O.A.C.-Air India International-Qantas Tripartite Partnership Agreement, a section of which contains a stipulation by Air India International and by Qantas to the effect that they will regard the Agreement between them as valid only so long as B.O.A.C. remains the only United Kingdom airline authorised by the United Kingdom Government to operate in or out of the United Kingdom on the main routes covered by the Agreement.
My Lords, although my fears have been removed so far as any threat to the B.O.A.C.-Air India-Qantas Partnership is concerned while Her Majesty's present Government in the United Kingdom are in office, I do not find in the Bill any longer-term protection for the more distant future. I realise very well that no one Government, of course, can legislate and bind its successors. However, I would believe that the United Kingdom interest in B.O.A.C.—and so, inferentially, in the B.O.A.C.-Air India-Qantas partnership—would be an unspoken guarantee for the future, whatever might be the colour and policy of any future Government in this country.
What I have said may sound as if I were afraid of competition on the air route from the United Kingdom to Australia by way of Singapore. This is hardly the case. There is already very strong competition with B.O.A.C. and Qantas on this route from scheduled operators of other nations. But B.O.A.C. and Qantas have built up over the years a legitimate vested interest in this route so far as Commonwealth interests are concerned—a vested interest which has been supported by very substantial investment in maintenance and servicing
1328
establishments and in amenities along the route, which they are, I imagine, reluctant to share with others who have not borne the heat and burden of the day over a generation. So I maintain that what I should imagine is the anxiety of B.O.A.C. and Qantas to have their interests protected is reasonable, and it should not be regarded as improperly selfish.
If any noble Lords should be concerned with the possibility of inordinate profits being made by reason of the protection given to B.O.A.C. and Qantas, I would remind them that there is no air operator, international air operator, in the world that is doing other than teetering on a knife-edge as between profit and loss, and occasionally (I think all our memories will support this) suffering very grievous losses. There is no international airline I know of in the world which is making other than a quite unappreciable profit, and frequently it is a loss of some consequence.
In what I have endeavoured to say, my Lords. I need hardly say that I am not attempting in any way to add to or subtract anything from this Bill, which in any event would be quite inappropriate at this stage. All I would say is that if I am wrong in any of the things I have been trying to say, or in any of the inferences I have drawn, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will be good enough to let me know. I will not detain your Lordships longer. I am grateful for your consideration and patience, and I repeat my apology for speaking so early in my time in your Lordships' House and at such an inconvenient stage in the consideration of this measure.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in the debates at any stage of the progress of this particular Bill through the House, but I find it to be more or less a duty that the Leader of the Opposition should be present to hear the maiden speech of our newly-added Member to the Life Peers' List. It is a particular pleasure to myself to welcome him on the occasion of his first speech in this House, because we have seen a good deal of each other in far more difficult days even than these. The noble Lord, Lord Casey, comes to our Membership here not merely as a

1329
tried statesman of the Australian Common wealth but as one who was one of our Imperial Ministers and servants, not only in Downing Street in the war but in Washington, and afterwards as a Governor in India, and connected with all our early discussions, not merely upon diplomatic matters but on defence. So I felt I had a personal duty, as well as a very great pleasure, in coming to-day to listen to his speech, which has been delivered with his usual capacity and, if I may say so, the forthrightness we knew and which may, we hope, be brought to bear upon our proceedings in the future.
I was a little nervous at one point when he was talking about long-term guarantees or future promises of this Bill, but he was so clever a Parliamentarian that he immediately followed it up with the proper reservation as to what can or cannot be done in the matter not only by the present Parliament but by future Parliaments. I waited for that to come; I thought it must come, after all his experience. We on this side are grateful for the manner in which he has dealt with this particular question, and we shall always look forward with interest to what he has to contribute to our debates and consultations. I would only, then, apologise to my noble friend, Lord Shackleton, who has borne the burden of the case on this side of the House in watching the progress of this Bill, for intervening in this way before he talks later on about the Bill.
LORD REA: My Lords, the Third Reading of a Bill is usually a purely formal occasion, and therefore it is purely formally that I rise to support this Bill. But, of course, there is another duty which is much more pleasant, and that is to welcome most heartily the maiden speech of the eminent noble Lord who has recently joined us. There are maidens and maidens. I should have thought this maiden an Amazon. We have seldom heard such a fine, such an interesting and such a clear speech as a maiden speech. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that we look forward sincerely, and not merely for the sake of saying so, to hearing the noble Lord
1330
on many occasions and on many subjects.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I know the House will have been delighted to hear the intervention of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and of the noble Lord, Lord Rea; and as this is a very exceptional occasion, perhaps I may be allowed to say, on behalf of everybody in the House, how delighted we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Casey, and to hear him, and how much we hope he will often take advantage of the occasions of our debates to give us the benefit of his wisdom.
4.51 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it would be presumptuous of me to make any remarks about the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Casey, beyond saying, as a relatively undistinguished Life Peer, that we are very happy to have such tremendous distinction added to our ranks. I would assure him that your Lordships' House has treated those of us of our special breed with extreme courtesy, and that we have never been conscious that we are particularly different in any way.
I thought that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Casey, were particularly relevant to the subject of this Bill and to the Third Reading. It may well be that in our discussions, both during the Committee stage and during Second Reading, we did not pay quite enough attention to the Commonwealth and imperial aspect of the airlines that carry the flag of this country and of the Commonwealth. I would assure the noble Lord that we, too, had anxieties as to whether this Bill might in any way endanger the position of our principal flag carriers, operating, as he said so rightly, on a knife-edge when it comes to matters of profitability. The Bill is not wholly as we should have liked it, although we fully accept the necessity for it; but I would assure the noble Lord that whereas, as he knows, obviously no House can bind successor Governments, he has nothing to fear from my friends on this side of the House as to the steps we should take in regard to the strengthening of British civil aviation.

1331
Although the noble Lord, Lord Mills, was unable to accept certain of the Amendments that we moved, we fully accept the unquestionable determination of the Government, which they have made clear, that they will do nothing which will endanger the position of, particularly, British Overseas Airways and British European Airways: and, as proof of that, we shall look for early Government action in regard to the appointment of the new Air Transport Licensing Board. We hope it will be announced very soon and will be able to take up its duties and continue to give proof, as it has in its earlier form, of its wide international interest in this matter.
There is only one small point that I would make, which I think is a Third Reading point. In regard to these transitional arrangements, I would draw attention to the fact that many of the independent operators who have operated under the old and rather unsatisfactory arrangements will of course be making their plans now, not merely for this summer but for next winter—and, indeed, will be selling some of their space under those arrangements. Therefore it is of great importance that this Board should be appointed at an early stage and that the clearest indication is given as to how these operators will be able to continue with their activities. Otherwise, it will produce precisely that degree of uncertainty which makes it so difficult for people who are planning sometimes rather risky operations, financially speaking, to take proper decisions.
My Lords, as I say, we wish this Bill and the Air Transport Licensing Authority good fortune. I should like to express my thanks for the courtesy and patience which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and, indeed, his noble colleague, Lord Bathurst, showed at various stages of the Bill, and to say that I hope that the Bill will continue in assisting or in "furthering" (I think the word was) the development of British civil aviation. To the operators, whether they be the established flag-carriers or whether they be the independents—and I hope that there will not be too many of them—I wish good fortune, and I am sure that this House joins me in those good wishes.
LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mills, replies, might I say one thing which might assist the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has just spoken? It is that the Air Transport Advisory Council are meeting to-morrow afternoon to consider applications for inclusive holiday tours for next winter.
4.56 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Casey, must be convinced that all sides of this House welcome his presence here among us, and I should like merely to join in offering my personal congratulations to him on his maiden speech. It is particularly appropriate that the noble Lord should have found such an early opportunity of speaking on a theme so near to his heart, and one about which he is particularly qualified to speak because of his experience in the matter; and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing a lot more from the noble Lord on matters of Commonwealth and international interest, on which he is so obviously qualified to speak with special authority.
I welcome his support for what he has been kind enough to call this "flexible, common-sense measure". I am sure that any system which improves the organisation of British civil aviation in this country cannot fail to strengthen its international standing. The principal point which the noble Lord, Lord Casey, has made, and on which I feel I should say a few words in reply, is in regard to the effect of the Bill on the partnership arrangements of the Corporations—in particular, the tripartite partnership between B.O.A.C., Qantas and Air India International. The Bill has been very carefully drafted in this respect.
Subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill sets out a number of matters which the Air Transport Licensing Board must consider in particular before they decide whether or not to grant any licences. Paragraph (g) of this subsection includes
"any capital or other expenditure reasonably incurred, or any"
other
"financial commitment or commercial agreement reasonably entered into"
by an existing operation. These words were deliberately intended to cover,

1333
among other things, such agreements as that to which the noble Lord has referred. In effect, the Bill requires the Board to consider the partnership agreements. They are also required, in paragraph (h), to consider any objections or representations duly made to them—and I have no doubt that the partners will not be slow to object to any proposal for a service which seems to them likely to damage their interests. In these circumstances, I do not think the Board would lightly set aside any views expressed to it by B.O.A.C. in regard to any application which would introduce new competition on the "Kangaroo" route. I do not think it would be right for me to go any further than that, since no words I could now use could bind the Board in their consideration of any particular application that they might receive. However, I again draw your Lordships' attention to the power of the Minister to consider appeals from the Board's decision.
The Minister's powers under this Bill have been carefully confined to certain essential matters. We want the Board to have the widest functions possible. The Minister has reserved to himself, as he must, the right to deal with international relations, since by their nature they are matters between Governments, and on them it is provided that the Board and he shall consult together. The Minister has also retained the last word in matters of fares or tariffs, which again are only one aspect of international affairs. But in other respects the decisions of the Board are decisions which, unless there is an appeal, will stand on their own, without approval or disapproval by the Minister. In the event of an appeal the Minister is not, of course, in any way bound to accept the views of the Board. He will consider all the evidence and reach his own conclusion on the proper course to be followed. Therefore, it is up to any person entitled to appeal to him to do so, if he is dissatisfied with any of the Board's decisions. Otherwise, the Board's decision will stand. And I suggest that it is out of these decisions on appeal that the future shape of the British civil aviation industry is likely to emerge.
It would be as wrong for me to try to anticipate the Minister's actual decisions on appeal cases as it would be far me to anticipate the Board's decisions on
1334
applications. I can only say that the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Casey, has already noted, has said in positive terms that he will take care to see that nothing is done to upset the partnership arrangements of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I hope that these remarks will relieve the noble Lord, Lord Casey, of any apprehensions he may have as to the effect of the Bill on the Inter-Commonwealth air line arrangements, the importance of which in our economy, and even more as a binding force in the British Commonwealth to-day, I most fully endorse.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his general support of the Bill. I am also grateful Ito him for stressing the importance of seeing that the transitional arrangements are such as will remove any anxiety on the part of operators. I think that my noble friend Lord Terrington has given him a better reply on that matter than I could possibly give.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT STEPHEN BRISTOL (BURIAL GROUND, ETC.) BILL
Reported, without amendment.