Lords Sitting of 1 August 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich

LEGAL EDUCATION FOR AFRICAN STUDENTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her 'Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations in the Report of Lord Denning's Committee on Legal Education for Students from Africa (Cmnd. 1255) and in particular those recommendations affecting facilities for the legal training of such students in London.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the Governors of the African colonial territories have been giving urgent consideration to the Report to see how far its recommendations can be implemented, and some progress has already been made. In East Africa it is hoped that a Law Faculty will open in Dar es Salaam this October: a building has been secured, a professor and two other members of the teaching staff have been appointed, and funds are available. Plans for providing post-graduate instruction and practical training are under discussion.
In Nairobi a Conference took place last week under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth O'Connor, the President of the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, to consider the future of legal education in East Africa. The delegates were unanimous in deciding that it would be desirable for a central Law Advisory Board to be set up on Which the different territories would be represented, in order to co-ordinate legal education throughout East Africa and to promote uniformity of standards.
48
In Tanganyika discussions will take place on the question of post-graduate training, under the auspices of the Faculty of Law as soon as the professor arrives in the territory. It is clear, therefore, that those responsible in the African territories are giving urgent consideration to the problems involved in the implementation of the Report.
In London, as the Committee pointed out, the problem is shortage of accommodation for the Council of Legal Education's School of Law. The Committee hoped that the premises in Lincoln's Inn occupied by the Inns of Court Regiment might be made available for the purpose. The Government have now fully examined this suggestion, but we have had to conclude that it is not a possible solution having regard to the current needs, including recruiting, of the Territorial Army and Air Force Association of the County of London who hold the lease of the premises on behalf of the Inns of Court Regiment. The Council are urgently exploring the possibility of finding some alternative acommodation, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, has offered to assist in any way he can. My Lords, I apologise for the length of this Answer, but it is a most important subject especially to me.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount for his long, detailed and informative Answer, and also for the care and attention that I know he has given to this subject. May I express my appreciation of what is being done in Africa, but my regret that, so far, nothing has been done in London. Would he himself continue to do what he can to assist the Inns of Court in obtaining alternative premises to No. 10, Stone Buildings?
TILE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do that. We are examining again the possibility of sharing and, as I say, also the possibility of new premises. The noble Lord may take it that I will keep the matter under my own personal urgent consideration.
LORD OGMORE: I thank the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether it is

49
considered that the facilities to be provided in Africa and in London are to be made available to persons from Basutoland, and if the needs of this Territory will be borne in mind?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, certainly. I am sure that all the educational institutions that I have mentioned, including those in London, would be open to students from the High Commission Territories. I assure my noble friend that I always have the High Commission Territories in mind when I am considering African problems of this sort.

BACK PAY OF JUNIOR MEDICAL TEACHERS
2.40 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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—

(1) what is the number of junior medical teachers who carry out duties, with or without an honorary contract in the National Health Service of similar nature and carrying similar responsibilities to their colleagues working in the Service; and

(2) why these junior doctors have not received back pay, as recommended by the Pilkington Committee, on the same scale as their colleagues above mentioned.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, there were about 900 clinical medical teachers below professorial status in post in the universities in October, 1960. Information is not available about the number of these, with or without honorary contracts, who are carrying out duties of a similar nature to hospital doctors in the National Health Service. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question is that, as in the case of professors about whom I answered on June 21, it was not considered right to make greater retrospective payments to these university teachers than to other university staff whose salaries were revised from January 1, 1960, having regard particularly to the fact that university
50
clinical teachers, because of their medical qualifications, in any case receive higher salaries than other university teachers.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his full and 'informative reply. But supposing a similar situation were to arise, when separate arrangements have been made between the two bodies in regard to doctors, could steps be taken to avoid this rather unfortunate anomaly taking place in the future?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will certainly pass on that suggestion. I quite understand what it is based on.

THE 43-LETTER ALPHABET
2.41 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: 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 experiments in the use of a 43-letter alphabet will be conducted in schools supported by public funds and whether the individual consent of the parents of any child involved will be obtained.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, twenty-four primary schools maintained by local education authorities have agreed to introduce the augmented Roman Alphabet next September in connection with the investigation into the process of learning to read sponsored jointly by the University of London Institute of Education and the National Foundation for Educational Research. I understand that it is the sponsors' intention that no child should be included in this project against his parents' wishes.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for that Answer. Would he say who is going to compensate these children for the inevitable setback in their education in having to unlearn the 43-letter alphabet and learn

51
that which is used throughout the English-speaking world?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the idea is that this is an aid to learning the ordinary alphabet and orthography and not a handicap towards it. Certainly, when I saw the long article about it in The Times eighteen months ago, and some more recent documents printed in the augmented alphabet, I personally formed the conclusion that this might well prove to be the case.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, are any steps being taken to obtain the individual consent of the children concerned?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord can suggest to himself many answers to that question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Viscount Why, when Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are considered rather excessive, it is necessary to add greatly to the alphabet?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the difficulty is that the Roman alphabet comprises sounds too few for the sounds which English speakers use in the ordinary course of speech. I must say, as a slightly old-fashioned and classically based person, that I cling to the old literate spelling. But I must say also that I was immensely impressed when I read the documents printed in the augmented Roman alphabet, and my noble friend will of course realise that current Russian practice is based upon the use of the Greek alphabet, with certain augmented symbols, to represent the various noises which they make and which the ancient Greeks did not.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Viscount this question? Even if it is not necessary in this country to follow the noises the Russians make, would he say whether, having taken that into account, he has any sympathy for the unfortunate child who 'has now to learn two alphabets—not one alphabet but two—and who, having learned to read in one, has then to learn to read in another? Would he tell us how the classes in the schools will be organised if parents decline to allow their children to go through this suffering and say they wish them to learn to read in the current alphabet and in
52
the way they will have to read for the rest of their lives?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, my noble friend is, of course, of the same cloth as myself as an ex-Minister of Education. My right honourable friend the present Minister expressed his general support for this project and has described it as timely and well worth doing. My own belief is that this is the true view. Obviously, if the experiment fails the children who take part in it will be at some handicap. This is true with any departure in education. But if it succeeds, as personally I think it may very well do, they are to be envied and not pitied.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount say why, if additional symbols were to be introduced, use was not made of the symbols already in use in the Russian and other alphabets, thereby reducing the labour for these children should they subsequently wish to learn such a foreign language as Russian? And, secondly, will the noble and learned Viscount arrange for an experimental period next Session that the documents of this House should be printed in the 43-letter alphabet?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The noble Lady's suggestion is, of course, ingenious, but I do not think it is right. To begin with, the Cyrillic alphabet is based, as I pointed out to my noble friend, upon the Greek alphabet and not on the Roman alphabet. The purpose of this experiment is not to invent a new alphabet in which the English language shall be written. The purpose of the experiment is to teach children the very difficult art of reading English as it is written at the moment and the augmented Roman alphabet is being experimented with as an aid to that, and not as an end to itself. Personally, I, with my right honourable friend, think that it is well worth trying, but it would not be worth trying if various arrières pensées were introduced, like teaching them Russian in the end or making a new alphabet in which to write The Times newspaper's leading article.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount

53
whether these proposals are related to the Shavian proposals, to Bernard Shaw's proposals, advocated by Sir James Pitman?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, so far as I know there is no relationship whatever to the late Bernard Shaw's ideas, which I think were almost wholly bad.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Viscount ensure that these children who employ the slightly augmented alphabet will not be referred to as "four-letter children" or as "four-letter-plus children"?
VISCONT HAILSHAM: "The 43-letter children".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, do you not think it would be rather wise to refer this to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think not. I hope the noble Viscount will not take an unduly conservative attitude about this thing. I think we must learn to look ahead, and my own belief is that my right honourable friend the Minister and his officials have taken a very wise step in suggesting that qualified praise should be given to the experiment which is being undertaken by the National Foundation for Educational Research and the very responsible department of the University.

FLASHING DIRECTION INDICATORS ON CARS
THE EARL OF LUCAN: 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, with reference to the international discussions on flashing direction indicators on motor cars—

(a) with which countries they are taking place,

(b) when they began,

(c) when the Government expect to reach agreement on an international standard.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, in January this year a standard for direction indicators, excluding intensity requirements, was recommended for adoption by Governments by the responsible Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has circulated proposals, based on this recommendation, for amending the existing Regulations, and the comments received from interested organisations are being studied. The main features of these proposals are the establishment of angles through Which light from an indicator must be visible and the standardisation of amber as the colour for all indicators on new vehicles.
Further international discussions, taking place at present, are directed towards establishing a range of intensities suitable for direction indicators by day and by night. Technical experts from the United Kingdom, the United States of America and most West European countries on an international Working Party have been investigating the problem since February, 1960. I am advised that, in April last, agreed recommendations were reached by the experts, which, in due course, will be submitted to the appropriate Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe for approval. It is important that Her Majesty's Government should await the outcome of consideration by the Commission before deciding what standards of intensity should be adopted here.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply; but do the Government realise that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present situation and that, while we should not expect the Government to take action without consulting other European and Western countries, the matter is urgent? We hope the Government will pursue it as urgently as possible.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, we are of course aware of what the noble Earl has said that there is dissatisfaction and concern about possible sources of danger. That is why comment has been called for from the interested parties—as, of course, my right honourable friend must do statutorily. He must have these

55
consultations; the answers are being considered as quickly as we can consider them.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I presume that this refers to the question of trafficators versus what are commonly known as "blinkers" and other devices to indicate where a vehicle is going. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will tell me. Will the noble Lord consider whether there should not be standardisation in this country?—because it is confusing when there are different indicator signs. Then, when that is done, whether by us or by international agreement, would it not be fair that the manufacturers should be required to observe the decision in the making of new cars, rather than that the owners of motor cars should be compelled to spend money on adjusting their cars straight away?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Question refers to flashing indicators. I think it would be right to say that this is a question which must have attention. I think, my Lords, particularly as the manufacturers are themselves represented on the Working Party in Brussels which is considering this matter, that they may even be ahead of any regulations that might be envisaged in the future. Once recommendations have been made, they might quite easily adopt them voluntarily, which would, of course, be all to the good.

CORRECTION: COTTON INDUSTRY CONFIRMATION ORDERS
2.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I should like to correct a mistake which I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT I made yesterday in reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, arising out of the Cotton (Confirmation) Orders. The noble Lord asked me [col. 12]:
"Will that cost the Exchequer anything?",
and I see that I replied:
"I should have thought it would cost the Exchequer the amount of the Cotton Board's expenses specifically related to the re-equipment schemes."
Of course, I ought to have said that it would cost, not the Exchequer, but the cotton industry, the amount of the ex-
56
penses. As I had just explained to your Lordships, not only at rather considerable length but twice over, in reply to questions, that these expenses were to be charged to the industry, I do not know how I came to make this verbal slip, but I think that, for the sake of the record, it ought to be corrected.

THE SUMMER RECESS AND PROROGATION
2.55 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is proposed that the House should resume after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, October 24. It is expected that Prorogation will take place on Thursday, October 26, and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, October 31.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement at some suitable moment after 3.30.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—

(a) No. 24/61 affecting the Clerk of the Records;

(b) No. 27/61 affecting the junior administrative staff;

(c) No. 33/61 affecting Clerical Officers etc.;

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee sanctioned consequential increases in superannuation awards in three cases.
2.—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1961–62
The Committee approved a token Supplementary Estimate to cover the revised scheme for the reimbursement of Peers of expenses incurred by them in travelling by private car to and from the House.
3.—RETIREMENT OF THE CLERK ASSISTANT OF THE HOUSE
The Committee learned with regret of the retirement on 12th August. 1961. of Mr. A. H. Jeffreys, C.B., on reaching the age of 65, after 42 years in the service of the House, and sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance to him under the Superannuation Acts.
4.—HANSARD REPORTING STAFF

(a) The Committee were informed of the increasing pressure of work on the Hansard Reporting Staff and accordingly authorised the appointment of a new post of Sub-Editor and an additional Reporter.

(b) The Clerk of the Parliaments reported on the present position with regard to the application by a trade union to be granted representative capacity for the Hansard Reporting Staff.

5.—ACOUSTICS OF THE CHAMBER
The Committee recommended that the Lord Great Chamberlain be requested urgently to review the amplifying system with a view to effecting an improvement.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I do not think that there is anything in it to which I need draw the special attention of the House, but if there are any questions on this Report which any noble Lord would like to put to me I shall, of course, do my best to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—STANDING ORDERS ON PUBLIC BUSINESS
The Committee recommend the reprinting of the Standing Orders relating to Public Business, incorporating all the amendments made since they were last printed in 1954.
2.—COMPANION TO THE STANDING ORDERS
The Committee authorise the Clerk of the Parliaments to prepare and publish a new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Public Business.
3.—AMENDMENTS ON THIRD READING OF PUBLIC BILLS
The Committee consider it undesirable that an amendment, which has been fully debated and decided upon on a previous stage of the Bill, should be moved again on Third Reading.
4.—FORM OF MOTION FOR NEGATIVING COMMITTEE STAGE
The Committee recommend that, where it is proposed not to have a Committee stage on a Bill (for instance on Bills certified under the Parliament Act, 1911, as Money Bills), the practice of negativing the Motion for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill should be discontinued; and that in future the Motion should be put in the form "That this Bill be not Committed".
5.—FORMAL SITTINGS TO RECEIVE BILLS FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Committee consider it desirable to avoid as far as possible formal sittings of the House the sole purpose of which is to order the printing of Bills brought from the Commons. They therefore recommend the adoption of the following Standing Order:—
"Printing of Bills brought from the Commons.
If a Public Bill is passed by the Commons and is carried up to the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments on a day on which this House is not sitting, and if it is for the convenience of this House that copies of the Bill should be circulated before the Bill is read a first time, the Bill shall be deemed to have been brought from the Commons and the Clerk of the Parliaments shall arrange for the printing and circulation of copies of the Bill."
6.—MOTION "THAT THE QUESTION BE NOW PUT"
The Committee make the following recommendation with regard to Motions the object of which is to bring a Debate to an immediate end:—
"That in the opinion of the Committee the Motion That the Question be now put' is a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House; further, if the Motion 'That the Question be now put' is proposed, the practice of the House is that the Question be put without Debate".
It is proposed that the recommendation should be recorded in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. With regard to paragraph 4 of the Report, I am afraid that I must ask your Lordships to make an amendment to correct a mistake which appears in the third and fourth lines of paragraph 4. My Lords, if I may put it in the form of an Amendment, I would ask the House to say that we should leave out

59
the words, "for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill", and insert the words, "that the Bill be committed". This is a technical but not unimportant correction that I am asking leave to make. A Bill is committed, not just before the Committee stage but immediately after the Second Reading. Therefore, it is almost essential that we should make this correction in the procedure before we make the alteration proposed in the paragraph.
With regard to the other paragraphs, I do not know whether there is any matter which your Lordships want me specially to deal with, but, in order to save time, I think I will content myself at the moment with moving this Motion. I shall, of course, be prepared to answer any questions which your Lordships may wish to put to me. I therefore move this Motion, subject to the alteration which I have made in paragraph 4. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

BAPTISMAL REGISTERS MEASURE, 1961
2.57 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Baptismal Registers Measure, 1961, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish me to enter into a long explanation of the purpose of this Measure, which is highly technical in character. Briefly, its object is to bring the statutory requirements with regard to the registration of baptisms into line with those relating to the entry of the birth of certain classes of persons in the civil registers of births. It follows logically upon the
60
Legitimacy Act of 1959, and certain of its provisions are also desirable in cases of adoption. Throughout its passage in the Assembly, the Measure encountered no opposition: no Amendments were moved or made; and at no stage was there a Division. I think, therefore, that I can clearly claim that the objects which it sets out to achieve are non-controversial, and I hope that your Lordships will be willing to accept the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Baptismal Registers Measure, 1961, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CLERGY PENSIONS MEASURE, 1961
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1961, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the lot of a clergyman on retirement can be an unhappy one, because he may have no savings from his stipend; he has no house, because he has been living in a tied house; and he can be in considerable hardship. Because of that, of course, there must be a temptation to him to try to cling to office after he is not fit for it. The Church Assembly has for some time evinced a great concern over this matter, and the Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board have responded to the utmost limit of their powers, the Church Commissioners providing most of the money, and the Pensions Board, a charitable body, providing some of the money and the administration. Normally this Measure would be moved by the Vice-Chairman of the Church of England Pensions Board, the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby; but as he is unable to be present, the only other member of the Pensions Board in your Lordships' House, myself, has the task.
This Measure is a result of the cooperation of the Church Commissioners

61
and the Pensions Board in an attempt not only to keep pace with inflation but also to make a definite move forward on the pensions front. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament have made a long and full Report recommending the passage of the Measure. I will not weary your Lordships with a great deal of detail, but I should just say that the Measure passed through the Church Assembly with Divisions on only one point: that was the point whether pensions for the higher-grade clergy between parish priests and Bishops should or should not be at the parish priest level, or at a special level. By a large majority in each House of the Church Assembly, largest of all, I think, in the House of Laity, it was decided that they should have a larger pension than the parochial church clergy.
The high notes of the Measure are that all the clergy now get a pension as of right, varying as to the office they have held, and amounting in figures, very roughly, to half what they are obtaining in stipends at the moment. This full pension has to be earned by 40 years' service and staying in office till the age of 70, with a lower proportionate pension for retiring earlier or for fewer years' service. The Measure provides various methods of preventing hardship, both in individual cases, and a power to make increases generally should conditions make it possible. The ordinary incumbent will now receive £400 per annum; and, what is rather important to him, the earnings limit has been abolished, so that any fees he may receive will not be taken into account. The Bishops, instead of getting a full Bishop's pension, as they do at present, irrespective of the number of years they have been ordained, will be on the same basis of 40 years' service and retirement at 70. I need hardly add that they will not have to serve 40 years in the office of Bishop to qualify for the pension.
The problem of widows has exercised us very much. At present they can obtain a small pension as of right from contributory schemes; the Pensions Board also operate a scheme whereby widows' incomes can be brought up to a certain figure of income from all sources—in other words, a means test. The figure has recently been put up to £300, and nobody in the Church is very satis-
62
fled with that figure. Under the new Measure, the widow of a pensioner will be entitled to one-third of his pension, and the widow of an active man to one-third of the pension he would have received if he had carried on to the age of 70. The small contributory schemes will continue, and will provide an addition. This pension is of right and is non-contributory, and will mean a net increase for all those who have not had to have recourse to the Pensions Board means test scheme. The means test scheme will still have to operate, but many widows will go out as a result of the grant of this pension as of right, and we hope that resources will thus become available to do something more. We are anxious to do so; in fact we are straining at the leash. But we have to see that the means are available. All this has been made possible by an extra £450,000 from the Church Commissioners, in addition to their existing commitments of about £1 million. The sum of £250,000 comes from the Pensions Board, dioceses, and charitable societies, so that the Church will be spending about £1,750,000 on pensions.
The Measure also provides certain other important powers. We have taken the opportunity of bringing our investment powers up to date. Under the Measure, we can hold land and, if we so desire, can put half our funds into equities. We can also put the lot into any investment fund run under the Church Funds Investment Measure, if we so wish. So, in effect, we can put considerably more than one-half of our funds in equities if we wish to do so. We have power to retain investments which are not listed as proper under Paragraph 32. We continue our power to maintain residences for the hale and the sick. In fact, approximately 500 retired clergy or their widows are now being looked after by the Pensions Board in homes and bungalows. We are frequently given plots of land, and where the plots of land are suitably situated for the retired person to live we in the Pensions Board are putting up bungalows. In addition, we occasionally receive gifts of large houses which are turned into houses of residence or nursing homes. I submit, my Lords, that this Measure is wholly benevolent, and I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to pass it. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1961, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSING BILL
3.6 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 13 [Regulations prescribing management code]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE) moved, in subsection (3) (c), to leave out "or who live in". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the two following Amendments are linked, and I think it might be helpful if we considered them together. Your Lordships will recall that during the committee stage my noble friend Lord Broughshane, supported by my noble friends Lord Colville of Culross and Lady Horsbrugh, expressed some anxiety about the rather wide scope of subsection (3)(c) of Clause 13 of the Bill as drafted. I assured my noble friends then that the Government intended to use the power in paragraph (c) only for rather minor purposes ancillary to our general objective of ensuring decent standards of management for houses in multiple tenancy. I also explained to my noble friends that there were a number of additional safeguards here, including consultations with all interested parties, which my right honourable friend had undertaken to initiate before he finalised his regulations. Nevertheless, in view of my noble friends' anxiety. I undertook to have another look at the wording of this subsection and to see whether it could be made rather tighter. These three linked Amendments are the consequence of that undertaking.
Their object is to give a clearer idea of the nature of the duties that may be imposed under this subsection on persons having an estate or interest in a house to which the management regulations have been applied and of the nature of the duties that may be
64
imposed on the tenants or lodgers in such houses. Without departing from the underlying intention of the whole clause, these Amendments clarify the subsection to the extent that the duties that may be imposed under it on a person simply in his capacity as the holder of an estate or interest in the house are expressly tied to the giving of information to the local authority. Your Lordships will remember the kind of thing we have in mind is information as to who has effective control of the house in question. The Amendments also introduce a new paragraph (d), which makes lit clear that the duties which the Regulations may impose on persons who live in the house are confined to duties directed to ensuring that the person managing the house can effectively discharge the obligations placed upon him by the regulations.
I trust that these Amendments will meet the anxieties expressed by my noble friends. In expressing this hope, I would again remind them that the regulations in question will require the approval of this House, and that the Minister has undertaken to consult interested parties before they are promulgated; and I assure the House that such consultations will embrace those of your Lordships who are concerned with this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 42, leave out ("or who live in").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as I explained, this Amendment is like the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 43, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 44 and insert
("as to the giving of information to the local authority, and in particular may make it the duty of any person who acquires or ceases to hold an estate or interest in the house to notify the local authority,

(d) may impose duties on persons who live in the house for the purpose of ensuring that the person managing the house can effectively carry out the duties imposed on him by the regulations,").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential upon the two previous Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 3, leave out from ("house") to end of line 6.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, during Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who has told me how sorry he is not to be able to be in your Lordships' House this afternoon, expressed some doubts about subsection (4) of Clause 13 of the Bill as drafted. He argued that under this subsection a landlord who unavoidably, though not in ignorance, might be in breach of the regulations, would be bound to be convicted by the courts and subject to the quite heavy penalties in the Bill. In suggesting where my noble friend's Amendment might possibly be defective, I made it clear that we felt that his fears on this score were somewhat exaggerated. However, I promised to have another look at the matter.
Having looked at the matter again, I should like to repeat that we feel it is most unlikely that a local authority would elect to prosecute a person who had unavoidably contravened the regulations, or, if they did, that the courts would impose any penalty on that person. Moreover, for the reasons which I gave on Committee stage, we consider that the courts would not feel obliged to convict in any event. Your Lordships know that we are anxious that these regulations should really bite, but we are also anxious that their bite, whilst firm, should be fair and be seen to be fair. In view of this and of what has been said about this subsection, as drafted, both here and in another place, we have felt it desirable to write into the penalty provisions of this subsection by way of this Amendment a specific safeguard for a person who, through some circumstance quite beyond his control, may contravene or fail to comply with the requirements of the management regulations.
As will be seen, the Amendment ensures that. a person who has failed to comply with the regulations can plead a reasonable excuse. I understand that there is a precedent for wording of this nature in the Public Health Act. Moreover, in the Government's view the proposed wording will not blunt the teeth of subsection (4) by weakening in any material sense its penalty provisions. If
66
it did, I would not be moving this Amendment. In sum, we think that the proposed Amendment is a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, after ("or") insert ("without reasonable excuse").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not wish to oppose this Amendment—I think that it is reasonable and perhaps an improvement to the Bill—but in commending this Amendment to us, the noble Earl has put up all the arguments which are usually put up against Amendments of this kind: namely, that they are unnecessary, that the position is already provided for in the Bill, that no local authority would prosecute and that, if they did, the penalty would be purely nominal. All my experience in your Lordships' House is that when we put up an Amendment of this kind we are met with this kind of objection and get no concession whatever. This will be a very interesting precedent. When an Amendment of this kind comes from the other side and is regarded as unnecessary, already met in the Bill and so on, at the very last moment, on Third Reading, an attempt is made to meet it. As I say, I have no objection at all, but I hope that when a similar occasion arises on an Amendment from this side, we shall get at least as favourable treatment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can speak again and would remind the noble Lord who has just spoken that we are on Report stage and not Third Reading. Perhaps I did put up arguments which I have used before. Probably the noble Lord may have thought that it was an Aunt Sally, but I put up these arguments merely to emphasise that the Amendment proposes to make assurance doubly sure; no more than that. On the second point the noble Lord made, I would remind him that not long ago from this place I had the pleasure of moving an Amendment on Third Reading to meet a point made by his noble friend Lord Latham.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Applications of ss. 12 to 15 to certain buildings comprising separate dwellings]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("the next following section") and insert ("twenty-three").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, before this Bill passes from your Lordships' House, I should like to make a few comments upon it, the more so as, since this Bill was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, we have had what is stated to be a financial crisis. I suppose we cannot deny any Chancellor of the Exchequer his crisis, but the measures which are being taken to meet this alleged crisis are very apposite to the consideration of this Bill. When it was introduced in another place by the Minister of Housing and Local Government he said that it was a major Bill. It is not a major Bill, and it is a misdescription to say that it is. It is a Bill that might have been a major Bill had it dealt, for instance, with the question of land prices, and had it approached in an equitable and just way the matter of subsidies to local housing authorities.
But since the Second Reading we have it that the only power which is given in the Bill to add a single house or a single dwelling is to be very largely put into suspense: I refer to the provision in the Bill to enable housing associations to receive subsidy if they build accommodation to let. That was on the basis of a 5 per cent. bank rate; but now that the bank rate has gone to 7 per cent., it is quite clear that the housing associations will not be able to build accommodation to let at rents which can be paid; it means that the subsidy will be inadequate, and it will mean that the Chancellor will have, at all events, postponed for a considerable time any activity of this kind by the housing associations of this country.
As regards repairs and renovations to multiple-occupied or dilapidated houses, this will be slowed down, for the landlord will now have to pay something in
68
the region of 8 per cent. for the money that he might need to carry out repairs and renovations. The proposed increase from 8 per cent. to 12½ per cent. which is comprehended in the Bill has been almost completely wiped out by the increase in:the bank rate and the consequent increase which must be paid for loans.
As regards local authorities, their activity will be cut down in two directions. The first is that the Chancellor has said that he proposes to cut down local government expenditure. He has already done so in regard to minor repairs to educational buildings and educational equipment, and 'there is no doubt that he will also cut down building for dwellings by local authorities. For, after all, education is the first capital expenditure in volume, and housing is the next; and it is clear that the Chancellor will cut dawn on housing and on education, with the result that, so far from this Bill being able to achieve any of its purposes, the position will be not improved but worsened.
Then the Chancellor has dealt another blow at housing. In the 1959 Act it was enacted that the Government would provide, through building societies, a fund of £100 million out of which loans could be made to acquire houses built before the end of the First World War, and the building societies could take out of that fund as advanced to them advances up to 95 per cent. of the value or price of the house. That was limited, of course, to houses which were relatively small, costing in the country generally no more than £2,500 and in London £3,000. I understand that something in the region of £40 million has been advanced already out of that first allocation, but not I think the only allocation, of £100 million: in short, something in the region of 40 per cent. has been advanced. Now that is to be stopped completely, except as regards, I understand, 'advances which may be, as it were, in the pipeline. So the Chancellor will have prevented that activity, about which 'the Minister (I feel rather sorry for him, because he was once a colleague of mine on the London County Council) was almost lyrical, for he said, when introducing the Bill in 1959, that it was
"the greatest measure for assisting home ownership ever introduced by any Government"—

69
I suppose in symbolisation of the slogan, "A property-owning democracy." Forsooth! the Chancellor of the Exchequer has soon stopped that nonsense, and he has, as I have said, suspended further advances from the fund.
Then the increase of the bank rate will shut down considerably the purchase of houses by the ordinary public. We have been told recently by the chairman of one of the largest building societies in this country that, owing to land prices and the rate of interest, it was almost impossible for a person having an income of £20 a week to buy a house. That was when the bank rate was 5 per cent. and it will be much worse and much more exclusive now that the bank rate is 7 per cent.
Moreover, local authorities will be bound to shut down on advances made, as they did when the bank rate was formerly at 7 per cent., and they will be bound, I think, because of the incidence of the additional cost, to diminish at all events, their housing activities. If ever there was a case for increasing subsidy, it is now, when the situation is such that local authorities will have to pay 7 per cent. —and it may be 8 per cent. plus—for the money which they will need. We are told that we have an opportunity State—an opportunity to remain in the slums, or to remain without lavatory accommodation, a separate tap and separate cooking facilities, to name only a few of the squalid deficiencies of over one million houses in this country.
Since the Second Reading of this Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown the Minister of Housing and Local Government out of the window and allowed him to fall on the broken glass of his own grandiloquent promises. Like a crusader, he said in another place, in terms, "I will deal a mortal blow at the slums, at bad housing, at shortage of housing, at over-crowding. This I will do." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken an entirely different view. One of the first things on which he cuts down is housing, and this Bill will leave your Lordships' House to add to the number of inadequate housing measures which have been passed since 1951 and which have the one common attribute: that they leave the housing problem unsolved and a continuing shame on all those responsible.
3.30 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I cannot let the lugubrious discourse of the noble Lord opposite go entirely without answer. He is the great champion of the local authority in all forms of housing, but if he goes to one place where the local authority is the entire housing authority he will find the worst housing conditions in Europe—that is, Moscow. The noble Lord had his usual "crack" at the bank rate, as if the 7 per cent. bank rate is now a permanent feature of our economy. I sincerely trust that it is a very temporary feature indeed. But, even then, we must remember that, for many persons hit by the high rate of interest, it is not 7 per cent. they have to look at; it is 7 per cent. less tax, which varies from 7s. 9d. in the £ up to a very high figure.
I greatly welcome the proposals of the Minister in an effort to get the local authorities, or some of them, to adopt a more realistic view towards the rent-paying potential of their tenants. A good many years ago I remember a very high civic dignatory of a Labour council asked me why the Conservative Government could not give him a strong lead, if not a command, to apply a differential rent scheme, because he personally was in favour of it but could never get it through his council. This is a strong lead in that direction, and it may produce results. I do not believe for one moment that it is going to lead to any lesser building by local authorities, except possibly in those parts of the country where the building trade is grossly overloaded at this moment. I often come across cases where the building trade is so overloaded that it is impossible to get tenders, or where tenders for a job which are expected to come to £5,000 turn out to be about £7,000, because nobody wants the work and it is impossible to get architects to devote time to preparing plans, and so on, because of the gross overloading. The Chancellor has stepped in—I think too late myself, but belatedly he has stepped in. He has issued his advice to the banks and the insurance companies, which is all designed to ensure that some of the load will be taken off the building trade.
Part II of the Bill, relating to houses in multiple occupation and so on, I think is much wanted, overdue, and very useful

71
legislation. I know that the price of land has soared because everybody wants to come and live in the South-East of England, and it is difficult to see what anybody can do to stop that, but it is having one useful effect. Go through any of these residential areas within 30 or 40 miles of London, and you will find large gardens now blossoming into maisonettes. People are being tempted to put land into the market which certainly would not have come into the market were it not fetching a highly enhanced figure. No, my Lords, so far from believing that this Bill is a bad one (I am no great advocate of legislation; indeed, I tend to think that if Parliament passed nothing and repealed everything we should be a better country) this is one of the pieces of legislation to which I give my whole-hearted support.
3.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I had not intended to speak at this stage of the Bill, but in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I feel I should at least say a word. He made a great deal of the effect of what has been called the July Budget on this Bill and on the housing situation in this country, and, indeed, on my right honourable friend whom he described as being thrown out of the window. Your Lordships devoted a good deal of time to the discussion of the July Budget in July, and I do not think that, now we are in August, you would wish to go over the same ground again. I would remind your Lordships that we have had five debates on the economic situation during the present Session, and, quite apart from that, it would probably be improper for me, within the rather narrow confines of this Bill, to branch out into a general apologia for the 'housing policy of this Government.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl said, "the narrow confines of this". The Minister described it as a major housing Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: I think it is quite possible to have a major Bill for housing which is not necessarily strictly relevant to the July Budget in all its aspects. That was all I was meaning. I also had very much in mind the fact that the Chancellor at this moment, I think with my right honourable friend, is seeing the
72
local authority associations to discuss the implications of the July Budget in part reference to the housing position. For all those reasons, I feel your Lordships will not wish me to embark upon a long speech on the general housing situation in this country at the present time.
In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has said, I should like to remind the House that housing authorities in England and Wales have at present a substantial building programme in hand, amounting at the end of June to 170,000 houses and flats—123,000 under construction, and 47,000 with tenders approved, but not yet started. As my noble friend Lord Hawke has said, the strain on the resources of the building industry has been delaying completion, and I would submit that the immediate need is to finish the 123,000 houses now building and to get a start made on the 47,000 already approved, and that there is really not a great deal of advantage to be gained in piling up approved tenders when there is already more work than can be handled. For a time, I would agree that there must be some slowing down in the rate at which new tenders are approved, for that reason if for no other.
I should like to emphasise—I think this has probably been made clear in answers to questions in another place, but I feel it should be on record in your Lordships' House—that the aim is to secure that this slowing down should be in areas where housing needs are less urgent, and to keep any interference to a minimum in areas with the really big and urgent problems. By adjustment of the overall problem in this way, we feel it will still be possible for local authorities with the really big problems to maintain a substantial building programme indeed in 1962. They will therefore be able to carry on building for such priority 'purposes as slum clearance, overspill, the accommodation of the elderly and the re-housing of families living in badly overcrowded and squalid conditions—all of them purposes to which this Bill is relevant. I hope, therefore, it will be appreciated that, notwithstanding the necessity for some moderation in the fixing of new contracts by local authorities as a whole, this Bill, despite what the noble Lord has said, has lost none of its practical importance or value in the help it gives to local authorities

73
confronted with the most pressing housing problems.
After that diversion, if I may so term it, which was to some extent imposed on me by What the noble Lord has said, I should now like to come back in conclusion, to the Bill itself. It came to us after considerable discussions in another place, including, I think, 23 meetings at the Committee stage there, and since the ground was turned over so thoroughly there it is only tight and natural that your Lordships would not wish to plough up the whole field again. In fact, as your Lordships know, you made no Amendments to either Part I or Part III a the Bill 'as it came to us, although both those sections received your close attention. It is Part II of the Bill Which has engaged the larger share of your Lordships' attention. I think all the Amendments which we discussed—in any event, all the Amendments which we approved—have 'been concerned with this Part of the Bill.
As your Lordships by now very well know, this Part of the Bill contains new and stronger powers to be put in the hands of 'the local authorities to enable them to grapple in a more drastic and radical way than has been within their power hitherto with the squalor which we find all too often in many of the older and larger houses in this country now occupied by several families or lodgers. I think the attention which your Lordships have focused on this Part of the Bill shows that we are all, whatever Party affiliations we may have, in full agreement that these often shocking conditions must be put right. Our concern here has been to make certain that we are in fact giving local authorities Ian instrument that will generally help them to overcome this overcrowding and squalor.
The principal change which your Lordships have made to this part of the Bill is the introduction as a result of an Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Colville of Cuirass, of what I might call reserve power of registration. This will take effect in three years' time and will enable individual local authorities in those areas Where experience has shown (that additional control of this kind will be valuable to introduce. subject to my right honourable friend's approval, a selective scheme of
74
registration as a supplement to the powers which were already written into the Bill. I know that some of the noble Lords opposite would have liked us to go further in making registration more immediate, more comprehensive and compulsory; and some of my noble friends may not have wished us to go quite so far as we have. For myself, I feel confident that the selective scheme which is now embodied in the Bill holds the balance just about right.
During our Second Reading of the Bill I made it clear that penalties in Part II—that is, its teeth—were fairly sharp. I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House has been worried about that aspect of it. However, some of my noble friends have been concerned, and quite understandably so. to make certain that the powers of the Bill, while operating firmly are also operating justly and fairly and, above all, are to be seen so to operate. I believe that the Amendments which your Lordships have just approved achieve these objectives; thus the regulation-making powers of Clause 13 have been more closely defined and the Clause has been further improved to the extent that it now assures cast-iron protection against unfair prosecution on failure to comply with the regulations.
I am confident that local authorities will make full and good use of the stronger powers which the Bill will confer upon them. Since the war, under Administrations representing both Parties, a great advance has been made towards raising living standards in this country. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to pretend that there is not a great deal still to be done. In particular, I think we have a long and hard slog ahead of us before we can really feel proud of the living conditions in many of our larger cities. However, if the local authorities concerned apply the new powers provided for in this Bill wisely and energetically, as we believe they will, we are confident that we shall witness a cumulative and increasing improvement in those conditions. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has said, I believe that this Bill, this important and useful Bill, will materially assist with that process of cumulative improvement.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

JOMO KENYATTA
3.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I think this may be a convenient moment for me to make a statement on Jomo Kenyatta in the same terms as my right honourable friend is making in another place. I will use his words, and they are as follows:
"The Governor of Kenya has sent a despatch to me in which he has informed me that he has decided that if there is no deterioration in the security position, Jomo Kenyatta should be moved to Kiambu about the middle of August and that his restriction order should be revoked a few days thereafter. I have informed the Governor that his decision has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
"I am laying a copy of the Governor's despatch to-day as a Command Paper."
As an aside, I would say that of course I will make similar arrangements for the Paper to be laid at the Printed Paper Office.
"The Governor's decision is supported by all the members, including the official members, of his Council of Ministers, as well as by the senior members of the police and the Administration, and the Kikuyu who stood by the Government during the Emergency.
"I believe that this decision, difficult though it is, is in the best interests of all the peoples of Kenya and that it should be taken now."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have decided to release Kenyatta and have had the moral courage to make this decision while Parliament is sitting, and not to wait until the Recess. Courage is something without which politics loses its flavour. I am particularly glad that this decision of the Governor has been supported not only by his Executive Council but by the senior civil servants and, above all, by the loyal Kikuyu; and I would express the hope that Jomo Kenyatta will take advantage of this unique opportunity to serve his country for the best advantage of his fellow Africans, Indians and Europeans. I should like to ask the noble Earl oppo-
76
site only one question. Will the law in Kenya be amended so that Kenyatta can take part in the political life of the country? This is important, because otherwise when he is released he will still be unable to take the part that his fellow Africans at any rate expect him to take in the political life of Kenya.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, perhaps I might try to deal particularly with the last question raised by the noble Earl before anybody else comments. First, let me thank him for the words he said in regard to this announcement. Of course, we echo the hopes that he expressed, and it gives us considerable satisfaction that the action which has been taken by the Governor, with our full support, is one which also has the backing of his Government and others, as was said in the statement.
In regard to the question about Jomo Kenyatta's position, as to whether, for example, he can be a member of the Legislative Council, your Lordships will recall that when we were discussing this very subject the other day I said that there had been a resolution in the Kenya Legislature asking that the Secretary of State should consider the amendment of the provision, which is under an Order in Council, which, as a general application, prevents this. My right honourable friend, as he said he would, has considered and studied the record of the debate, but on the information available to him he has no proposal for amending the provisions in question. Furthermore he will not take any such action on this matter during the Recess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl will, I am sure, realise that not all of us share the satisfaction which has been expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with regard to the information which has been given to the House. I do not wish to go into that any further to-day, because I explained my reasons fully in the debate last week. But arising out of the noble Earl's reply I should like to ask him one question. Can he give an assurance that Parliament will be informed before any step is taken to remove the disqualification to which he referred in his reply?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, what I said, and I should not wish to go further, is that no decision will he taken during the Recess. I hope that will

77
meet the point raised by the noble Marquess.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to welcome this decision and to express my appreciation of the action both of the Governor and of Her Majesty's Government in taking what I believe is a very wise step. May I ask the noble Earl whether it is not a fact that it is highly desirable to take this step new, while we still have power in Kenya? Secondly, may I ask him to give earnest consideration to removing the disqualification of Jomo Kenyatta, as otherwise the position will be highly artificial, if in every other way he is free and in this way is under an obligation not to serve in an official capacity?
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, following up the question put by my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, and the answer given about removing the disqualification, may I suggest that it is not at all an improper thing to continue the disqualification? I do not myself dissent from the view which I understand is the general opinion in Kenya, that it is a wise thing and a reasonable thing to move Kenyatta to this new place of residence, but that does not mean that there should not be a further period during which one has the opportunity to see whether that support which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, hopes he will give will be forthcoming. The Minister of State said that there would be no alteration in the status—that is, the disqualification by Order in Council—during the Recess. That seems to me to be perfectly proper, but surely the purpose of it is that Parliament should not be just informed after the event but should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether it is a right thing to do. I should have thought it was a very simple and very proper thing to do. The responsibility will be the Minister's. He has treated us—as has the Minister of State, if I may say so—very fairly in these debates, and it surely would be proper that if the Secretary of State decides that this disqualification should be removed the intention should then be communicated to Parliament, so that both Houses could have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before the Minister acted.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I point out that supplementaries are apt to pile up? The noble Lord will, of course, have an opportunity of asking his question, but I think it would be convenient if my noble friend were allowed to reply to the two outstanding.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I take the noble Earl's points first? I will certainly make known to my right honourable friend the views expressed both by the noble Earl and by the noble Marquess in regard to consideration of the legislation which prevents Kenyatta, as well as many others who are at present detained, from sitting in the Legislature or on the Executive Council. If I may say so, I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Earl that this is a completely logical process. Your Lordships will recall the statement the Governor made earlier this year. Perhaps it is worth my reading out just what he said then, because it shows how this process is going on. He said:
"It is not my view that Jomo Kenyatta should be kept in restriction indefinitely. I do not, however, propose to release him until the new Government is working well and until I think that the security risk can be accepted and contained and that the danger which his return presents to the economy and administration and to our whole constitutional progress towards early independence has been minimised."
He went on:
"The people who form the electorate and the political leaders and the world at large must be allowed to see him and know him as he is now and see his effect on, the country and its politics."
It is precisely that, over the last months, we have had an opportunity, and the Governor has had an opportunity, of judging. Remembering our debate the other day, I do not think I need go into detail, but I believe noble Lords would agree—I am elaborating on the point made by the noble Earl—that this is a reasoned and logical procedure.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I would say that I very much agree with him. I know that while we might have done it in any case, certainly many of those who are not happy about this feel that it is right or wiser to do it while we are in control, and that was of course an important consideration in our coming to our decision.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, while I quite appreciate and understand the feeling of caution which the noble Marquess and the noble Earl have expressed about this subject, it seems to me, and it will undoubtedly seem to many other people, that this is not a time for undue caution in regard to these matters. The Secretary of State has shown very imaginative insight into these problems of Africa, and a great deal of the value of this important decision will be lost if something like three months is to pass before the matter can be brought before Parliament again after the Recess. It is very important psychologically to seize the crucial time in regard to these matters. One knows how in connection with India, for example, the release of Pandit Nehru took place at a psychologically correct moment, and the result of that has undoubtedly redounded enormously to the benefit of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I appeal to the Government to have that in mind and not to let this very important opportunity slip by in procrastination.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think one can be satisfied that we shall not have undue caution. At the same time, we do not wish to be unduly rash.

HIGHWAYS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
4.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson has asked me to apologise for him as he is unable to be present and asked me to move this Motion in his stead. I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[NOTE.—The reference is to Bill (105) as first printed by the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Overruling of objections to streets becoming maintainable highways
(".—(1) Where by virtue of an objection made in pursuance of section two hundred and
80
two of the principal Act (which provides that where street works have been executed in a private street or part of it. the street works authority may by notice make the street or part of a highway maintainable at the public expense unless the owner or a majority of the owners of the street or part object) a private street within the meaning of that section or a part of such a street is prevented from becoming such a highway, die street works authority may, within two months from the expiration of the period mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, apply to a magistrates' court for an order overruling the objection.
(2) If an order overruling the objection is made in pursuance of the foregoing subsection and no appeal against the order is brought within the time limited for such an appeal, the street or part in question shall become a highway maintainable at the public expense on the expiration of that time; and where such an order is made or refused and an appeal, or an appeal arising out of that appeal, is brought against or arises out of the order or refusal, the street or part shall become such a highway on the final determination of the matter in favour of the authority or on the abandonment of the appeal by the objectors.
(3) Any power, however worded, to enlarge the time for appealing or seeking leave to appeal shall not be exercisable for the purposes of this section.")
The Commons agreed to the above Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment thereto—
Line 23, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 24 and insert ("Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment or provision, for the purposes of this section the time for bringing or seeking leave for any appeal (including an application for certiorari) shall be two months from the date of the decision or of the conclusion of the proceedings appealed against, unless apart from this subsection the time is less than that period; and any power, however worded, to enlarge any such time").
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is a Commons Amendment to an Amendment moved in this House, and the subject is the turning of a private street into a highway. As the law stands at the moment, under the Highways Act, 1959, Section 202, when any works have been done in a private street the highway authority can put up a notice and, after one month, can turn that private street into a highway. But if there is any objection by an owner, or by the majority of owners, if there is more than one, that proposal can be completely blocked. Conversely, if the street works are concluded satisfactorily and application is made by a majority in rateable value of the frontagers within three months, the authority must declare it a highway.

81
In your Lordships' House a new Clause 11 was inserted in the Bill which had the effect that if the frontagers blocked the turning of the private street into a highway, then the local authority could go to the court for an order overruling this blocking. This procedure was subject to the normal appeal procedure from magistrates' courts. Between leaving here and reaching another place it became clear to the draftsmen that the new clause could produce certain grave practical difficulties, and the Government, by an Amendment in the other place, have sought to put this situation right.
The first difficulty is the general one, that it is essential that there should be some time limit for litigation on the status of a road, for during the period of litigation the owners would have no incentive to repair it and the highway authority would have no legal power to do so. The Amendment moved in the Commons seeks to put this right by imposing a maximum time limit of two months from the date of a decision by a court for any further appeal: in other words, if the objecting party has gone to court and lost his case, unless he appeals within the normal time, or within two months, whichever is the lesser period, then the authority can go forward and turn the street into a highway. This period amply covers the normally expected type of appeal—that is, fourteen days from the magistrates' court to quarter sessions, or by way of a case stated to the High Court, and six weeks to the Court of Appeal.
The other difficulty is the possibility of doubt as to whether an application for a Writ of Certiorari is or is not an appeal. Certiorari is rather beyond my usual ken, but I was rather fortunate in having a lawyer staying in the house over the week-end, and he was able to explain to me something of what it means. I understand that it means that the applicant seeks to show that the court which gave judgment had no jurisdiction in the matter. Apparently, he has six months in which he can put forward this plea. If certiorari is not an appeal within the normal meaning of English, then the proceedings may hang on for six months from a court decision. If it is an appeal, then the two-months limit would cover it. There is some slight doubt about
82
this, though I believe it is generally recognised that this is so. However, it is better to resolve that doubt now by making the time limit cover certiorari and to put it in the Bill.
The only point raised in another place was the question of diminishing the length of time of the starting of certiorari proceedings. I submit that that is not likely to occur. The general public good is to get the status of the street fixed as soon as possible, and I submit that the theoretical variation of the citizen's right is not a high price to pay. We are not in any way denying a right to appeal; we are only suggesting that the appellants make up their minds whether to do so rather more quickly than they might have to do in some cases. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [85] as first printed by the Commons.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Act,")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 1. This Amendment paves the way for an Amendment to Clause 47, which is in the Marshalled List of Amendments as No. 12. Both these Amendments are for the purpose of correcting a flaw in drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2) In subsection (4) of section sixty-four of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which defines the period within which plans must be passed or rejected by the local authority), for the words from one month' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words five weeks or such extended period (expiring not later than two months from the deposit of the plans) as may before the expiration of the five weeks be agreed in writing between the person depositing the plans and the local authority'.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 2. With the permission of the House, I think it would be better if I were to group together various Amendments and to discuss them all at the same time. Amendment No. 2 is linked with Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46 and 49. These Amendments enable the period of five weeks within which local authorities are required to give notice of the passing or rejection of building plans to be extended to a period not exceeding two months if, and only if, the developer agrees to the extension before the five-weeks' period is up. In Committee of your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, expressed an interest in this matter, and the Amendment partly meets the point where both parties agree to the extension.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I shall not press the matter any further, other than to accept the insertion of the Amendment which the Commons have made to this Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 27, page 20, line 6, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 3. This Amendment is to correct a drafting error. Paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (3) should apply to notices given under subsection (1) of the clause and not to notices given under subsection (2). This Amendment puts that right. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 29, page 21, line 39, at end insert ("or
(c) without prejudice to the last foregoing paragraph, of an agricultural building (as defined in section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928) unless it is contiguous to another building which is not itself of a kind mentioned in this or the last foregoing paragraph.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 4. Clause 29 is designed to meet what are primarily urban problems, and it has been represented that it is both unnecessary and unreasonable to apply its provisions to agricultural buildings. There is some force in this point. On the other hand, there will be instances where, say, a barn adjoins a building used for other purposes; for example a farmworker's cottage, or, on urban fringes, a building quite unconnected with farming. In these cases, demolition may expose a wall in such a way that some form of treatment against the weather may be necessary, or there may be a need for shoring-up. This matter has been discussed with the National Farmers' Union and the local authorities, and they are in agreement with the Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 29, page 21, line 41, leave out from ("unless") to ("and") in line 43 and insert ("a notice specifying the building and the works of demolition intended to be carried out has been given to the local authority;")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 5. Subsection (3) provides that:
"no person shall undertake a demolition … unless he has … given … notice".
In some circumstances this might be regarded as applying to more than one person, such as the contractor as well as the owner, and it might be thought that they should both be given notice. This Amendment makes it clear that only one notice of intention to demolish a building is required.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
Accumulations of rubbish
("(1) If it appears to a local authority that there is on any vacant site in a built-up area an accumulation of rubbish which is seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, the local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, take such steps for removing the rubbish as they may consider necessary in the interests of amenity.
(2) Not less than twenty-eight days before taking any action under this section, the local authority shall serve on the owner and occupier of the site a notice stating the steps which they propose to take and giving particulars of the following provisions of this subsection; and a person on whom the notice is served and any other person having an interest in the land may within twenty-eight days from the service of the notice—

(a) serve a counter-notice on the local authority stating that he intends to take those steps himself; or

(b) appeal to a magistrates' court on the ground that the local authority were not justified in concluding that action should be taken under this section, or that the steps proposed to be taken are unreasonable.

(3) If a counter-notice is served under the last foregoing subsection, the local authority shall take no further action in the matter under this section unless the person who served the counter-notice either—

(a) fails within what seems to the local authority a reasonable time to begin to take the steps stated in the notice, or

(b) having begun to take those steps fails to make such progress towards their completion as seems to the local authority reasonable.

(4) If an appeal is brought under subsection (2) of this section, the local authority shall take no further action in the matter under this section until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn; and on the hearing of the appeal the court may direct the local authority to take no further action or may permit the local authority to take such steps as the court may direct or may dismiss the appeal.
(5) In this section 'rubbish' means rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal, and any other kind of refuse (including organic matter), but does not include any material accumulated for, or in the course of, any business.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 6. This is a new clause and it will give local authorities power to take steps at their own expense to remove from a vacant site in a built-up area any accumula-
86
tion of rubbish they consider to be seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. Before doing so, they must give the owner and occupier notice of their intentions. The owner or other person concerned may, if he prefers to do so, clear the rubbish himself, or he may appeal to a magistrates' court if he objects to what the local authority propose to do. The clause will be supplementary to, and not in substitution for, the powers contained in Clause 27 (2) of the Bill to deal with rubbish resulting from the collapse or demolition of a building.
It will be remembered that during the proceedings in Committee in this House the noble Lord, Lord Burden, raised the question of ensuring that once the site of a demolished building had been cleared it should be kept clear and not allowed to deteriorate into a dumping ground for rubbish. He was good enough to accept my assurance that there were powers in Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which could be brought to bear upon that problem. While that is perfectly true, the exercise of those powers involves a fairly elaborate process of serving a notice upon the owner, and then taking enforcement proceedings if he does not comply with it. Moreover, it is often the case that the owner is not to blame at all for the fact that his land is being turned into a rubbish dump.
It has been urged upon the Government that it would be useful for local authorities to have a power to go in and clear up a site themselves with the minimum of bother and delay, even if they have to do it at their own expense. It will not normally be expensive, and the important thing is to get the job done. This could not very well be done by extending Clause 27 of the Bill, which follows Model Clause 56 which is concerned with dilapidated buildings and the immediate consequences of their demolition. There are, however, some local Act precedents for a tidying-up power of the kind I have referred to, although it does not follow them precisely in every respect. After considering further the argument advanced here and in another place, the Government thought it right to bring forward a new clause based on these precedents. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burden,

87
who unfortunately is not here, will agree that it will be of some assistance in dealing with the problem he had in mind. The Government feel it would be a useful addition to the powers which local authorities already possess to deal with this sort of problem, and hope that the House will feel able to accept it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to say whether in subsection (5) the word "metal" would include disused motor vehicles?
LORD BRECON: My Lords, no, because a disused motor vehicle may have a certain value attached to it. This is really to remove rubbish that normally gathers on these sites. It does not, in effect, deal with disused cars and things like that, but with small quantities of rubbish put on to open spaces, which look very untidy. The council can remove them with the minimum of trouble. It is not intended to deal with the bigger problems that arise, which can be dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 39, page 30, line 16, leave out from ("theatre") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("including a cinematograph theatre, and any building used as a public hall, public concert-room or lecture room, public dance room or public gymnasium or indoor swimming baths").
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment. Clause 39 of this Bill is concerned with the machinery for excluding children from places of entertainment or assembly in order to prevent the spreading of a notifiable disease. This Amendment, which was inserted in another place as a result of points advanced by the Opposition there, has the effect of defining much more precisely than was previously done in the Bill those places from which it is considered by medical opinion to be desirable to be able to exclude children when necessary.
During the proceedings on the Committee stage in this Houe the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, was concerned that the clause as drafted then did not include
88
indoor swimming pools. I assured him that in fact indoor swimming pools were caught by the words in subsection (1)(a):
"any hall or other building which is used as a place of public resort",
which are now to be deleted by this Amendment. That I think was true. But in another place when this clause was being debated on the Committee stage it became apparent that the words which I have read out were being, or could be, given a wider interpretation than was intended. The purpose of this Amendment which I am moving now is to prevent that wider interpretation being given.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 43, page 32, line 10, at end insert—
("(3) A local authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section in such a way as to deprive pedestrians of reasonable access to any premises.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 8. This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 48 to the Third Sdhedule. They are to correct a flaw which arose in the process of adapting Model Clause 89 for general legislation and applying provisions of the Third Schedule appropriate only for the permanent works authorised by Clauses 42 and 50. This Amendment puts the matter right.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 44, page 33, line 24, leave out from ("in") to ("shall") in line 26 and insert ("section five of the Land Compensation Act, 1961".)
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Amendment No. 9 as approved by the Commons. This is purely a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 45, page 34, line 41, at end insert ("or under subsection (2) of this section to give a notice applying to anything erected in conformity with planning permission granted on an application under Part III of that Act").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 10. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove a possible overlap between the powers given to local authorities by subsection (2) of this clause end the powers of local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Dual control is avoided by exempting from this subsection anything which has received planning permission on application under Part III of the 1947 Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 46, page 35, line 17, at end insert—
("(3) This section shall not authorise the execution of any such works as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section three hundred and seven of the Highways Act, 1959 (which relates to dock, harbour and canal undertakings), except with the consent of the undertakers concerned (as defined in that section).")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 11. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to give to harbour authorities a degree of protection similar to that which they have in regard to works carried out by a local authority under Section 204 of the Highways Act, 1959. The purposes of that section are closely akin to the purposes of this clause, and it is desirable that there should be the same sort of limitation on the powers of local authorities in harbour areas in each provision.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 47, page 35, line 40, at end insert ("and subsection (4) of section one of this Act shall not apply to this section")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 12. This is
90
consequential on Amendment No. 1, to which I drew your Lordships' attention earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 54, page 41, line 41, leave out ("having regard") and insert ("specify in the direction, regard being had")
Clause 54, page 41, line 43, leave out ("and")
Clause 54, page 42, line 2, after ("disposal") insert ("and to any revenue likely to be derived by a sewerage authority from the trade effluent")
Clause 54, page 42, line 2, leave out ("specify in the direction")
4.20 p.m.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16, which can be taken together with Nos. 25 and 26, as approved by the Commons. The purpose of this group of Amendments is to provide that a local authority, in imposing charges on an exempted effluent under Clause 54 or on an unexempted effluent under Clause 58, shall have regard to any revenue likely to derive from the effluent. Your Lordships may remember the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, explaining, when the Bill was before the Committee in this House, that the treatment of certain effluents, particularly those produced in a section of the wool industry, may yield byproducts which have some value to the local authority. There has been, as he explained, some anxiety among the manufacturers concerned lest, when a local authority fixes charges for receiving an effluent, they will not be obliged to take this factor into account unless the Act says so explicitly. As I told the House on the last occasion, my advice is that this obligation is already implied in the clauses as drafted, but the Amendments certainly remove any doubt which the manufacturers feel on this matter, and I suggest they should be accepted.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, that means that in no circumstances can a local authority make a profit out of its activities in this direction, does it?
LORD BRECON: No, my Lords. What it means is that when it takes the effluent from the industry, in arranging its charges the local authority will have to take into consideration the profit it will make from any revenue it receives by using that effluent or part of that effluent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Page 42, line 3, leave out ("at any") and insert ("from time to")
Page 42, line 3, line 4, at end insert—
("(3) No further direction shall be given under subsection (2) of this section within two years from the date on which notice was given of the previous direction, but this subsection shall not prevent a further direction being given before that time with the written consent of the owner and occupier of the trade premises, and any direction given with such consent shall not affect the time at which any subsequent direction may be given.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, which go together with Nos. 22, 23, 27 and 28. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are the first two of six related Amendments. Their combined effect is to make an identical modification in the three clauses, Clauses 54, 56 and 59, which provide for the imposition of charges and conditions on trade effluents discharged to public sewers. As the Bill was drafted, the local authority was free to alter at any time any of the charges or conditions which they had imposed under these clauses. It was represented in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I think—and I undertook to consider the point—that traders should have some protection against too frequent changes, and that local authorities should be obliged to wait for some prescribed minimum period before seeking to alter their requirements. The Amendments prescribe a period of two years, unless the owner and occupier of the premises agree in writing to a shorter time. I am informed that they are generally acceptable to industry and local authorities.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 55, page 42, line 45, at beginning insert ("of the nature or composition so exempted").
Page 43, line 5, after ("effluents") insert ("in question").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which should be taken together. They are essentially drafting Amendments, to remove a doubt which has been raised that the clause as it stood might not be proof against evasion.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 56, wage 43, line 31, leave out ("and rate of discharge") and insert ("rate of discharge, nature and composition").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 21. Clause 56 empowers a local authority to direct that exempted effluents (that is, those exempted under Section 4, paragraphs (1) or (2), of the Act of 1937) shall be subjected to certain conditions which include conditions about the keeping of records of volume and rate of discharge and the making of returns on these matters to local authorities. It has been represented on behalf of the local authorities that information about "nature and composition" is a not unreasonable requirement in the case of these exempted effluents, as well as information about volume and rate. Industrial interests have intimated that they have no objection to this additional requirement, and it has accordingly been accepted.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 56, page 43, line 33, leave out ("at any") and insert ("from time to").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 17. I beg to move that this House doth agree with tile Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 56, page 43, line 34, at end insert—
("() No further direction shall be given under subsection (1) of this section within two years from the date on which notice was given of the previous direction, but this subsection shall not prevent a further direction being given before that time with the written consent of the owner and occupier of the trade premises, and any direction given with such consent shall not affect the time at which any subsequent direction may be given.")
LORD BRECON: This, again, my Lords, is consequential on Amendment No. 17. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 56, page 44, line 13, at end insert—
("() A local authority shall not have power to give a direction under this section without the approval of any body which is an interested body as defined in subsection (1) of section fourteen of the Act of 1937, unless in any particular case the Minister by a notice to the local authority dispenses with the requirements of this subsection.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 24. The purpose of this Amendment is to require the local authority, before issuing any direction under this section, to obtain the approval of any "interested body"—that is, a neighbouring or adjoining sewerage authority, harbour authority, and so on, who receive the effluent from the local authority's sewer in question. Similar requirements exist under Clause 54 (3), with respect to charges for exempt effluents, and under Clause 59 (2), with respect to the variation of conditions on discharges generally, and it seems reasonable and logical to make the same provision in this clause. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 58, page 45, line 9, leave out ("and")
Clause 58, page 45, line 12, at end insert "(and to any revenue likely to be derived by a sewerage authority from the trade effluent")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 59, page 45, line 38, leave out ("at any") and insert ("from time to")
Clause 59, page 45, line 41, at end insert—
("(2) No direction shall be given under subsection (1) of this section within two years from the date of the consent or, where a previous direction has been given under that subsection, within two years from the date on which notice was given of that direction, but this subsection shall not prevent a direction being given before that time with the written consent of the owner and occupier of the trade premises, and any direction given with such consent shall not affect the time at which any subsequent direction may be given.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, both these Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 17. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 62, page 49, line 10, at end insert—
("(8) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect any agreement duly made before the commencement of this Act between a local authority and the owner or occupier of any premises with respect to the discharge from those premises of any effluent which would fall within the definition of trade effluent as amended by subsection (1) of this section (but not as unamended.)")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment No. 29. Clause 62 provides that farm and horticultural effluents and effluents from premises used for scientific research are to be included in the definition of "trade effluent". As such, they will be amenable to control under the Act of 1937 as amended by this Bill. But the Act of 1937, in imposing control on trade effluents, exempts those which were already being discharged under an agreement between the local authority and the owner or occupier of a trade premises before the commencement of the Act. It seems right that Clause 62,

95
in bringing new classes of effluent under control as trade effluent, should make a similar exception in favour of existing effluents in these classes which are the subject of an agreement with the local authority. The new subsection is designed to achieve this. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 64, page 50, line 33, at end insert—
"(7) Nothing in section fifty-four or section fifty-six of this Act shall authorise the imposition of any charge or condition in relation to the discharge of a trade effluent to which the exemption conferred by subsection (4) of section four of the Act of 1937 for the time being applies.")
4.30 p.m.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 30. The purpose of this new subsection is to make it clear that the powers conferred by the Bill to impose charges and conditions in respect of exempted effluents—that is, those exempted under Section 4 (1) or 4 (2) of the Act of 1937—do not extend to any laundry effluent to which for the time being the exemption conferred by Section 4 (4) of the Act of 1937 applies. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 72, page 53, line 18, at end insert ("and this section shall not apply to premises situated within the jurisdiction of a harbour authority (as defined in section twenty-three of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928)")
Clause 72, page 53, line 20, leave out ("Petroleum (Consolidation) Act. 1928") and insert ("said Act of 1928")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 31, and may I, with your permission, include also No. 32? This clause provides local authorities with powers to deal with petroleum storage tanks which are no longer in use so that they may be made safe. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid any overlap of jurisdiction in areas for which dock and harbour authorities are responsible.
96
Those bodies are the licensing authorities under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, for dock and harbour areas, and it is clearly desirable that they, rather than the local authorities, should deal with this particular problem in their own areas. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 74, page 54, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 2 on page 55.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 33. This clause enables local authorities to make by-laws for controlling pleasure fairs and roller skating rinks, and such matters as hours of opening, safety, and the preservation of sanitary conditions. In Committee, Lord Burden proposed the deletion of paragraph (d). Though he did not press his Amendment, he felt constrained to utter a word of warning about the dangers of exemption. This matter was also raised in another place, where it was urged that there was just as good a case for protecting the public from danger, for example, at a fair held for charitable purposes, as there was at any other sort of fair. Views which have been expressed on this subject, including those of Lord Burden, have led the Government to reconsider the matter. There would be difficulties about applying the by-laws to fairs held by Royal Charter, or under licence, which are mentioned in paragraph () of subsection (4), or to fairs covered by by-laws made by any other authority; for example, such as a pier authority which is mentioned in paragraph (b); but the exemptions in paragraphs (c) and (d) are not easy to defend, and this Amendment will delete them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 55, line 21, leave out ("similar entertainments") and insert ("entertainments to which this section applies").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 34. This

97
Amendment is for the purpose of making a minor improvement in drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 75, page 55, line 42, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Any byelaw made under this section shall be of no effect if and in so far as it is inconsistent with any byelaw made by any dock undertakers or by any person authorised by any enactment or statutory order to construct or operate a pier.")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 35. This clause enables local authorities to make by-laws for regulating pleasure boats. Subsection (4) recognises that by-laws made by clock undertakers may overlap or conflict with by-laws made by a local authority under these powers, and accordingly provides that in those cases the dock undertakers' by-laws shall prevail. Many statutory pier authorities, however, also have powers to make by-laws regulating the navigation of vessels in the waters surrounding piers. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid any overlap or clash with by-laws made by those authorities, and to give them the same precedence over local authorities' by-laws as the clause already gives to the by-laws of dock undertakers. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 76, page 56, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("local") in line 12 and insert ("A")
Clause 76, page 56, Line 14, leave out ("registered under this section") and insert ("on which a hairdresser's or barber's business is carried on")
Clause 76, page 56, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of Clause and insert ("and it shall be the duty of the local authority to enforce byelaws made by them under this section.
(2) Section two hundred and eighty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1936, shall have effect as if this section were contained in that Act.
(3) The Minister shall be the confirming authority as respects byelaws under this section ")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38. This clause deals with hairdressers and barbers and their premises. It was not included in the Bill when it was first presented to your Lordships' House by the Government, but was introduced during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. It provides for the registration of hairdressers and their premises, and for the making of by-laws by local authorities. In another place, some of the provisions of this clause have been criticised. Subsection (1) provides that, as from the time the provisions come into force in the district of the local authority, nobody may carry on the business of a hairdresser or barber on premises occupied by him unless he and the premises are registered by the local authority. Subsection (5) provides that a person convicted of an offence under the by-laws may have his registration and the registration of his premises suspended or cancelled by the court.
Amendments to the clause were therefore moved in another place, the effect of which is to remove the requirement of compulsory registration and all that goes with it, while leaving local authorities a power to make by-laws governing the cleanliness of hairdressers' premises and equipment, and of people working in hairdressers' shops. It seemed to the Government that this was a reasonable line to take, in that it gives local authorities who feel that there is a need for by-laws in their districts to make them, and thereby to ensure reasonable standards of cleanliness. There will, of course, be penalties for breach of the by-laws by way of fines, but with the removal of the registration system from the clause, a man will not stand in peril of losing his living for breaking a by-law. The Government therefore accepted these Amendments, and I hope your Lordships will feel that the clause as amended will enable local authorities to exercise a reasonable degree of control. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Amulree, who unfortunately has been unable to

99
remain in his place, I should like to thank the Minister for his reference to my noble friend and to say that my noble friend is well satisfied with the position which has now been reached.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell me whether these provisions are limited to the condition of the premises, and not to the actual carrying on of a barber's business?
LORD BRECON: My Lords, it relates to the premises certainly, and also to the cleanliness in carrying on the business within those premises.
LORD LATHAM: But not the business itself.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 83, page 59, line 18, at end insert—
(2) Any order made before the commencement of this Act under subsection (2) of section nine of the New Towns Act, 1946, which applies all the provisions of the said Act of 1937 (or all those provisions except any which are repealed by this Act) without modification, shall have effect as if references to that Act included references to Part V of this Act, but nothing in this subsection shall affect any power to vary or revoke any such order.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 39. The powers of a local authority under the Act of 1937 may be conferred on a development corporation by order under Section 9 of the New Towns Act, 1946; and orders have been made which confer these powers on the corporations. Clause 83 provides that the powers created in the Bill may be conferred by order in the same way. It has been represented, however, that this is an unnecessary formality where there is an existing order, and there can be no reason why development corporations to which the Act of 1937 has been applied should not receive the powers direct without the need for supplementary orders. That is the effect of this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
First Schedule, page 62, line 20, after ("application") insert ("or direction").
First Schedule, page 62, line 21, at end insert ("or direction").
First Schedule, page 62, line 22, after ("application") insert ("or direction").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 40, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to include Nos. 41 and 42. These are technical Amendments to correct a minor drafting defect. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
First Schedule, page 62, line 38, leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 40;
First Schedule, page 63, line 30, leave out from ("respectively") to end of line 32;
First Schedule, page 63, line 35, leave out from ("respectively") to end of line 37.
First Schedule, page 63, line 35, leave out lines 40 and 41.
LORD BRECON: My Lards, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons Amendment No. 43, and, with the permission of the House, I include Nos. 44, 45 and 46. These are technical and consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 10, subsection (2). I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 66, line 12, at end insert—
("(2) A notice under this paragraph shall give particulars of the power of remission and the right of appeal conferred by subsection (8) of section twelve of this Act..")
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Schedule to the Bill goes with Clauses 12 and 13, commonly known as the "Romford Clauses", which deal with the recovery by local authorities of contributions towards the cost of laying public sewers in certain circumstances.

101
Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Schedule deal with the machinery for the serving of notices and the recovery of payments, and paragraph 3 requires the local authority to serve on the owner of the premises concerned a notice specifying the amount of the payment which he will be required to make. This will have been calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of Clause 12. Under subsection (8) of Clause 12 the owner has the right to apply to the local authority for a remission of the payment and to appeal to the magistrates' court against the authority's decision. This Amendment is simply to provide that the notice served under paragraph (3) shall give particulars of those rights so as to ensure that the owner is aware of them.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Third Schedule, page 67, line 40, at beginning insert ("Except in the case of works under section forty-three of this Act").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment, which is consequential on No. 8.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Fifth Schedule, page 69, line 16, leave out ("In section sixty-four, subsection (4)").
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the last Amendment. This is a technical Amendment consequential upon Amendment No. 2.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREAT OUSE WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.