Lords Sitting of 20 July 1961

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

DECIMAL COINAGE
3.4 p.m.
LORD FRASER of LONSDALE: 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 if they have any statement to make as to the adoption of a decimal coinage system for the United Kingdom.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, as I told my noble friend on February 23 last, I hope it will be possible for the Government to make a statement later on in the year.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, the year ends in December. Does "later on in the year" mean in the autumn part of the Session?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there are still five months left in the year, and quite a lot of interesting things may happen in that time.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Is the statement going to be made next week or this Session?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think it is unlikely that a statement will be made this week, and I cannot say whether my right honourable friend has any dates in mind yet.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: If a statement is made in the Commons, perhaps next week in connection with economic matters, will a similar statement be made here concurrently?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that is the usual arrangement through the usual channels, but a statement on economic affairs, which, as we know, will be made in another place on the
774
25th, does not necessarily imply that anything will be said about the noble Lord's Question on the Paper, which is a rather different matter.

LONDON AIRPORT TRAFFIC
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will state the approximate number of passengers who now annually arrive by aeroplane at London Airport, and how many more it is anticipated will arrive in each of the next five years; and how soon it is expected that the maximum number of aeroplanes it is possible for the Airport to handle will be reached.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, 2,652,262 passengers arrived by air at London (Heathrow) Airport in 1960. This figure is expected to increase over the next five years at the rate of about 500,000 passengers a year. Present indications are that by about 1970 the Airport will be handling as many aircraft during a busy hour as it will ever be able to handle.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he could tell me if the Government have any plans for the future after 1970, because the number of passengers is bound to go on increasing from that time on?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, because of the eventual limit on the number of aircraft that can be in the air and on the runways of Heathrow, the development of Gatwick and the planning of a third major airport for London is necessary. Architects have been invited to prepare plans and estimates of costs for the second half of the terminal building at Gatwick, and the consulting engineers have been invited to carry out a survey with a view to preparing cost estimates for the second runway. In any event, a second runway will not be needed there until after 1965. A good deal of thought has been given to the location of the third airport. This will be affected by the development of supersonic aircraft, but on present form Stansted seems to be the

775
most likely candidate, being in a good position to deal with the northerly traffic and already having a 10,000-foot runway built by the United States air force.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before we get to 1970, could the noble Lord tell us when it is proposed to complete the central buildings at Heathrow so as to deal with long-haul aircraft? Secondly, has he any comment to make on the complaints being made on congestion at Gatwick?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the long-haul terminal buildings at London Airport are under construction. I cannot at the moment give the noble Lord a date of completion, but I will find out that information and let him know. With regard to congestion at Gatwick, I think that is slightly outside the scope of the original Question.

TRANSPORT FACILITIES AT LONDON AIRPORT
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they have details of the number of passengers using London Airport who come by road in (a) private cars, (b) by air-line buses, or (c) by any other form of transport; and how many of these are spectators or accompanying travellers, and how many are actual travellers.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, during 1960 2,618,057 passengers left London (Heathrow) Airport by air. On the basis of sampling it is estimated that approximately 33 per cent. (or about 864,000) travelled to the airport by private car; approximately 52 per cent. (or about 1,374,000) by airline coach; and approximately 15 per cent. (or about 380,000) by other forms of transport. A total of 949,631 spectators visited the roof gardens, of whom approximately 32 per cent. (or about 300,000) travelled by private car. There were no figures available of other visitors.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, in view of the vast number of
776
people who are coming, and the fact that this number is steadily increasing, does he not think it desirable to have some other means of transport to get them to the airport so that they will not congest the roads, as not only the airport but the roads get congested as these passengers arrive?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the planned road improvements will cater for all the road traffic that Heathrow can generate. The Government have not yet received from the promoters of several monorail schemes all the comprehensive technical information for which they asked. It will not be possible to say whether a monorail is the right answer to the problem of competing with any congestion until this information is available.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us what steps are being taken to complete arrangements for a helicopter service between the two parts of London Airport, Heathrow and Gatwick?
LORD DENHAM: I cannot give the noble Lord an Answer to that question for the moment, but I will let him know.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the figures which the noble Lord has just given us suggest that until we have some major reconstruction of the whole of the transport facilities to and from London Airport we may have to forgo the luxury of allowing spectators to come anywhere near the place, wholly desirable though it may be for them to come, because they are cluttering up the airport in its major function of providing transport by air to and from this country.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I was not aware that from the figures one would get that impression, but I have no doubt my right honourable friend will consider what my noble friend has said.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, I use London Airport from time to time and I have not noticed this congestion. If I may put it to him, I have noticed a great deal of happiness on the part of visitors who come to London Airport, especially the youngsters, who see the aircraft coming and going. So, while giving consideration to the noble Lord opposite, I hope that the Government will

777
not do anything about needlessly interfering with the happiness of the population.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers, may I slay that I too use London Airport, and I think that if the noble Lord opposite does not find any congestion it may be because he does not use it very often on Sundays. But I think my noble friend should bring to the attention of the Minister the congestion in the buildings on Sundays, when travellers are swamped by spectators, to the detriment of the travelling public.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, in reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is the noble Lord aware that before the London and North Eastern Railway was nationalised we had begun to examine the advantages of monorail transport; and is he also aware that monorail transport is operating very successfully in certain parts of the Continent?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I will bring all these remarks of your Lordships to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in view of the large number of passengers and spectators who use the facilities provided at London Airport (Heathrow), and in particular who avail themselves of the facilities provided in the main hall on the first floor of the central buildings and the adjoining caféteria. may I ask my noble friend what are the intentions of his right honourable friend with regard to the lack of ventilation which is prevalent at the moment in those two parts of that building? Am I not right in believing that that central building was originally planned to be air-conditioned? It is felt by many people there that there is an insufficiently frequent change of air at that central building.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this supplementary question. The main building at London Airport is mechanically ventilated and the system there allows for six changes of air per hour, which is thought to be quite a fair allowance. It was never intended that the building should be air-conditioned,
778
taking that as meaning air-cooling. It was discussed whether the new long-haul terminal at present under construction should be air-conditioned, but it was decided that the mechanical ventilation should be installed there, too, for many reasons, among them being the one of cost.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the figures he quoted do not bear out the contention that the spectators are causing such congestion? The figures he quoted show that 40,000 passengers every week come by airline bus and private car and only 8,000 spectators come by car, some of whom come to see passengers off at the airport. Will he not be too ready to agree that spectators cause congestion?
LORD DENHAM: Would the noble Lord repeat the last part of his question?
LORD STONHAM: I asked the noble Lord not to be too ready to agree that the spectators caused the congestion.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have quoted a very large number of figures, and I will certainly consider what the noble Lord has said, and I thank him for his intervention.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, might I inquire of my noble friend whether, when this number of passengers increases very much and a monorail or some other type of transport is essential, that will be a part of the national transport system or will the Government help to finance it?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that is more a question for my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport.

CENTRAL BRISTOL DEVELOPMENT
3.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that variations have been permitted by the City of Bristol Corporation to the development plan for the central area of Bristol, as approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in

779
1952; and whether the Minister will take appropriate action in pursuance of such permissions.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the erection of office buildings for the Bank of England and the Norwich Union in the Wine Street area. The land concerned was allocated for civic purposes in the development plan and had already been acquired by the Corporation. Bristol Corporation sought the consent of my right honourable friend to the disposal of the sites for office building, and this was given, since development by the Bank and the Norwich Union seemed appropriate to the character of the area. The Corporation themselves gave planning permission for the erection of the buildings.
My right honourable friend is aware that this matter has given rise to controversy and he is considering the position.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider it right that land should be compulsorily acquired for one purpose and then disposed of for another purpose entirely; that land acquired for the purpose of municipal buildings should be disposed of for the purpose of a private insurance company?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with such an expert as the noble Lord I shall be very cautious in replying to this, but it was certainly my impression that the land was acquired by the municipality, and it was the municipality themselves who asked to dispose of it in this way.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that does not really answer the supplementary question I nut. Does the noble Earl think it right that the land which has been acquired for civic purposes, presumably for civic buildings, should then be used for an entirely different purpose, for the building of an insurance company's offices? May I, while I am on my feet, ask him another question? Is he aware that the Fine Art Commission have sought to put their views before the Council and that the Council have refused to see them?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thought I had answered the noble Lord's first supplementary question. In answer to his second, I am aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission have sought to put their views before the Bristol Corporation on this matter, and I understand that they are in touch with them on it now.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that the municipality can requisition a building without specifying the purpose for which the site is to be used?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think there is any question of requisitioning these buildings. They were acquired by the municipality, and before there was a change of use the Corporation did what I understand is perfectly appropriate in these cases; that is, they sought the Minister's permission for a change of development and use. And that permission was granted. I understand that that is a perfectly correct procedure.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is not the implication of Lord Silkin's question that it might be wrong, or less in the public interest or less profitable to the nation, to devote a site to a money-making concern rather than to a civic purpose? If that is so, does it not follow that, had it been known that the Norwich Union was to get this site they would have paid more for it, and therefore perhaps less was paid than should have been paid?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that was certainly not the implication of my question, whatever inference the noble Lord may draw from it. The implication of my question was a perfectly simple one. The compulsory purchase procedure is devised in order to enable a local authority to carry out their functions. I was asking: when the authority take somebody's else's land, and say they want it for the purpose of municipal buildings, is it right then, having acquired it compulsorily, to use it for some other purpose?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord I can only repeat that, as I understand it, all the correct procedures were gone through in this particular case so far as planning is concerned.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I certainly think the Minister should never have agreed to it, particularly as there has been a public inquiry and the public have attended the inquiry and given evidence. The Minister should never have agreed to it. I think it was quite improper, and I propose to raise the matter again at some convenient time.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, if the Corporation did not require the land for their own purposes, why they did not offer it back to its original owner from whom they compulsorily acquired it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall be glad to look into the answer to that particular question, which off-hand I do not know.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.19 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in moving this Motion on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I Should like to inform your Lordships that it has been arranged through the usual channels that the Report stage of the Licensing Bill should be taken on Tuesday next, and the whole day has been set aside for this purpose. The Third Reading will be taken on Wednesday next. In addition, it has been arranged that on Thursday next there will be a debate on the economic situation. Consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Trustee Investments Bill has been put off from Wednesday next until the Monday following. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Report stage of the Licensing Bill (which stands appointed for Wednesday next) to Tuesday next.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, which is down to have its Third Reading on Tuesday, will he taken on Wednesday? He did not mention that. May I ask also whether the Visiting Forces Order will also be discussed on Wednesday?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, they will both be dealt with on Wednesday.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EYEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (EXMOUTH) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TEESSIDE RAILLESS TRACTION BOARD (ADDITIONAL ROUTE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
3.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships long, or to restate the arguments I put forward on Second Reading. But I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend for his courtesy in writing to me on the subject and informing me that there was a more flexible procedure available to local authorities for dealing with the confirmation of Provisional Orders. As I understood his letter, he was referring to Orders that are unopposed—I am thinking of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. But as the Order may be opposed by objectors to the extension of a trolley-bus route, would Her Majesty's Government seriously consider the practicability of allowing objections to be dealt with by the traffic commissioners, as is the case with regard to new bus services which are proposed, because such proposed new services are elaborately publicised?
There is no question of any interested party being unaware of a proposal to put on a new service for in all cases, without exception, the local Press publicise the fact that there is such a proposal. Then such objectors as there may be have one month in which to

783
lodge their objection to the traffic commissioners, who seem to be the right persons to handle any questions of objection to new bus services or to the extension of trolley-bus routes. I shall not talk on the technical aspect, but I mentioned that on Second Reading.
With regard to the provision allowed for under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, the noble Lord said in his letter that only seven local authorities had applied for such a provision. Does he not feel therefore that, as the 1945 Act is applicable only where some other Act applies it, this provision is not workable; and that to be in the position to apply it may, in a number of cases, be pure coincidence? I feel that the operator of such a form of transport must in many cases go through the costly procedure which we have before us to-day, of having to go through Parliament—I do not mention all I said on Second Reading on this matter—with a view to obtaining a Provisional Order. It has been stated to me by transport managers who operate trolley-bus vehicles and also diesel vehicles that this costly procedure has a discouraging effect on the extension of such fumeless types of traction.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, in view of what my noble friend said when I replied on Second Reading. I am bound to say that I have had some difficulty in relating the major part of the substance of what my noble friend has said to the Third Reading of this Bill, and I think perhaps it would be more convenient for all concerned if I said that I will certainly look into the points that he has raised.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the
784
Urban District of Adwick-le-Street, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) REGULATIONS, 1961
3.28 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved. It may be convenient to your Lordships to discuss with them the Scottish Regulations, which are similar and which, if your Lordships are agreeable, my noble friend Lord Craigton will move formally. The Regulations which I am presenting now provide for the superannuation of some 350,000 persons engaged in the National Health Service in England and Wales. There are 89 Regulations, plus five schedules, and they are enshrined in this little book of 119 pages. I recommend them strongly to your Lordships, but not as bedside reading. This, however, is almost entirely a consolidating operation. The main changes in the scheme, such as they are, are set out on pages 118 and 119 in the Explanatory Note—and that is not exactly light Literature either.
I think that I need mention only two of the main changes. First, Regulations 10 and 35 provide that an officer who would be eligible for injury allowance but for the fact that he is receiving other substantial benefits—for example, under the Industrial Injuries Act, shall have his contributions returned to him if he is not entitled to any benefit of any kind under the scheme. From his point of view, this is a good innovation. Secondly, Regulation 18 provides that unpaid sick leave shall no longer count as reckonable service for pension. However, if an officer's service is terminated because of sickness or injury he will be able to come back into the scheme without any disqualifying period after three years, or even longer at the discretion of the Minister, instead of after only one year, Which is the rule et present. This provision meets a point which the nursing profession regards as important.
My Lords, all these recommendations have been the subject of detailed consultation with more than twenty organisations representing staff and professional interests, including the Royal

785
College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and the Joint Trade Union Committee for the National Health Service. One or two of the organisations have differed about one or two of the provisions; but, broadly speaking, all these regulations are acceptable to those who have been consulted. It is not expected that there will be any significant change one way or the other in the total cost falling upon the Exchequer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1961, be approved.—(Lord Newton.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have examined this fairly voluminous document and I agree with the noble Lord that, except for the two cases he has mentioned, there has been little discussion about it. I understand that all the professional organisations approve the amendments, and therefore I am quite sure we are prepared to accept them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1961
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1961
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1961, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1961
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Police Pensions (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1961, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CROWN ESTATE BILL
3.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Continuance of Crown Estate Commissioners, and general provisions as to their constitution and functions
1.—
(3) It shall be the general duty of the Commissioners, while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land (with such proportion of cash or investments as seems to them to be required for the discharge of their functions), to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to add to subsection (3):
"the preservation of the amenity of the respective areas in which such estates are situated and to the principles of sound town planning."
The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading I expressed on behalf of my noble friends some anxiety about some of the duties that this Bill will lay on the Crown Estate Commissioners. I am bound to say that the noble Lord the Minister who replied did not entirely allay those anxieties, and it is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment. We expressed doubt and anxiety that there was a conflict in the duties of the Commissioners. On the

787
one hand, there is their duty to increase the value of the estate, to increase the revenues and get the maximum revenue, and, on the other, the public interest, in the shape of the amenities of the district in which these properties are found.
The noble Lord said that the revenues from the Crown estates go to the Exchequer and therefore, as he said, it is literally true that the increase of the revenues redounds to the public benefit. But surely the noble Lord would not consider that revenue for the Exchequer would always compensate for the loss of amenity and the damage to the æsthetic aspect of the properties. It is precisely this conflict that surely was at the bottom of the legislation that has been in force for a number of years now and is generally accepted under the planning Acts. There is control of advertisement, very strict control, as many of your Lordships will know. Even the smallest advertisement that an owner or occupier wishes to put up outside his shop or building or on his property has to have the consent of the planning authority; and so far as my experience goes, planning authorities are by no means ready to give this permission except under strict control and in strictly limited form. But the Crown do not have to obtain consent of the planning authorities. The Bill, as we have seen, charges the Commissioners with the duty—and this is in Clause 1 (3):
"to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained "
from the estate. Further on, in Clause 3 (1), they are required when selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of any land to get the best possible price for it. Here is the clash.
I do not know exactly what the Commissioners' properties in London consist of, but we know they have a very large interest in London. We know that 75 per cent, of the total revenues arise from the rents of London properties. But properties outside London are listed in the Report on Crown Lands which was published in 1955. I should like just to remind your Lordships of what some of these properties are. We read that at Hampton Court there are 28 acres, mainly business and residential property; in Berkshire there is land at Ascot, including Ascot Race Course.
788
There is a lot of land at Swinley, including two golf courses. At a very well-known holiday resort and beauty spot called Symond's Yat, on the River Wye, they own six acres and a fishing hotel; and they own common land at Egham, land at Bagshot, and here and there all over England shops and other residential property.
It is easy to see that potential tenants of that property would be prepared to pay a great deal more if they had the right to let part of the site for advertising purposes. Indeed, the Commissioners themselves could raise considerable revenues, even in the case of buildings they keep in their own occupation, by letting the advertising sites. And, of course, it is not only buildings, as we know, that can earn revenue from advertising; in the countryside advertisements are put up on agricultural or any other land. In fact, I think it is the opinion of many people that much of the attraction of the country and of the towns and villages is lost because of advertisement.
Now I am sure we should not suspect that Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve and the present Commissioners would be guilty of such a lapse of taste as that, but this Bill is going to pass into law and, in the course of years, and in the course of changes of personnel and staff, there might be people who will take their duties literally and do their utmost to perform their task of increasing the revenue and the value of the estate. It is for that reason that we propose to add, at the end of subsection (3), after it says that their duty is
"to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management",
the additional words,
"the preservation of the amenity of the respective areas in which such estates are situated and to the principles of sound town planning".
I cannot see that anyone can object to that addition to and qualification of the duties of the Commissioners, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("the preservation of the amenity of the respective areas in which such estates are situated and to the principles of sound town planning.")—(The Earl of Lucan.)
3.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: In support of this Amendment, I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend has said. My noble friend has referred to the possibility of advertisements being put up. I would go further. One of the estates owned by the Crown Commissioners is Ascot Racecourse. Under this Bill, theoretically—I do not suggest for a moment that this would happen, but theoretically—there is nothing to prevent the Crown Commissioners from deciding themselves to put up a block of flats or a block of offices or some other type of building, which obviously would be quite inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood and quite contrary to the principles of good town planning. I admit that they would have to do it themselves. I believe that if they were to let the site to a private developer, that private developer would have to get planning permission; but there is nothing to prevent the Commissioners from themselves putting up buildings. In fact, they do so in certain circumstances; and when they do that they are exempt from planning requirements.
We therefore suggest that there should be this obligation upon them, not only to have due regard to the requirements of good management (which, of course, means that they have to conduct their properties in such a way that they do not become disreputable, and we have had some experience of that in the past in connection with Church Commissioners' property), but that they should also have regard to proper town planning considerations—in other words, that they should behave as I would submit every good property owner in the past has behaved. Far instance, if some of the owners of the large London squares which we still cherish, and which we hope will be preserved for a very long time, had decided that they were going to make the maximum amount of profit out of it, they could have found remarkable ways of carrying out development which would have lost us the amenity of these squares. But they have behaved as good public citizens, and have conducted themselves exactly along the lines of the principles that we seek to incorporate in this clause.
Now if it is the intention of the Crown Commissioners, as I am sure it is, to
790
have regard to these things—to the amenity of the neighbourhood and to town planning considerations—I can see no earthly reason why those principles should not be incorporated in the Bill in the same way as they are required to maintain and enhance the value of their property. If you can say the one thing, I can see no reason why you should not say the other. I therefore cordially support this Amendment.
LORD BOOTHBY: Before the noble Lord replies, may I be allowed to say a word, immediately declaring an interest as a director of a bill-posting company in this country. In principle I am not at all opposed to this Amendment; I think it is quite right. But I think that some care should be taken in this matter because while it is essential to preserve the amenities of the countryside, particularly the beauty spots and such historic cities as Windsor, Winchester and so on, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rightly pointed out, I nevertheless think we can carry the campaign against outdoor advertising too far.
I have just returned from a prolonged trip to the other side of the Iron Curtain, and I must tell your Lordships that the thing that depressed ime more than anything else was the drabness, particularly of the towns. I came to the conclusion, to my great personal satisfaction, that one of the reasons for the drabness was the absence of outdoor advertising of any kind. While I should go so far as to say that you must take every possible step to protect the amenities of the countryside and to stop the kind of ribbon road advertising that is almost spoiling Italy, for example, it is nevertheless difficult to conceive of any outdoor advertising that does not improve towns like Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow or 20 or 30 other industrial cities that I could mention. The designs are getting better all the time. They brighten our lives and they improve the gaiety of the general scene. I would therefore beg the noble Lord not to be carried too far on this sweep, this almost passionate wave of enthusiasm, for preventing outdoor advertising of any kind and for preserving amenities which do not in fact exist. Where the amenities exist, let us keep them at all costs: where they do not to any great degree, let us buck them up with a few posters.
LORD CONESFORD: I had not the slightest intention of intervening until I heard the last speech. One of the most appalling delusions that can afflict a human mind is that a city has no amenities. I could not myself be more eager than I am to preserve the countryside, but I have always been perfectly certain that, in the long run, we in this country will preserve the amenities of both cities and country or we will preserve neither. As long as you treat a city as a place from which to flee, you will not preserve the countryside. My only point of agreement, I think, with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, about advertising is that I agree with him that all outdoor advertising is not necessarily to be barred; but the idea that you cannot, in a town, spoil a street of good architecture by outdoor advertising is, frankly, ridiculous.
On the general merit of the Amendment now before the Committee, I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will give it the most sympathetic consideration. I do not know whether the exact words are right, but that there should be some expression in the Bill that, far from these being improper considerations for those responsible to keep in mind, they are the most proper considerations that they should keep in mind, I think the case has been made. I am sorry that the provocative remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, prompted me to an intervention that I had not intended, but I would assure the Committee, from a fairly long experience of these matters, that nearly everything that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said on this subject was wrong, and that this Amendment seems to me to have considerable merit.
LORD BOOTHBY: Perhaps the noble Lord would tell us, before he finishes, the names of the streets in Wigan or Rotherham, for example, where the amenities would have to be preserved.
LORD CONESFORD: I am not sufficiently acquainted with either Wigan or Rotherham; but I think it is a most disastrous idea that it should be said to the inhabitants of any town, village or city in this country who feel that they have an amenity and wish to preserve it, "No, you must not preserve it, because your place is horrible already".
LORD SILKIN: I would question the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, on his idea of Wigan, which I think he has obtained from the music halls. Actually, Wigan is an attractive town with a very fine, wide main thoroughfare, and I can assure him that it would be possible to spoil that thoroughfare by improper advertisements of the kind which often spoil our towns.
LORD BOOTHBY: I withdraw the word "Wigan".
LORD HASTINGS: The effect of this Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, would be to place a general duty on the Crown Estate Commissioners under Clause 1, subsection (3), while maintaining and enhancing the value of the Crown estate, to have due regard, as they have at the moment to have due regard, to the requirements of good management; and not only to that, but also to the preservation of all amenities in the areas in which Crown estates are situated, and to the principles of sound town planning. I do not think the effect of the Bill as at present drawn is really going to be in any way different from the objectives of the two noble Lords opposite who have moved this Amendment, and I hope to be able to show them, in the course of quite a short speech, that in fact their Amendment is unnecessary and that it will tend to complicate the issue rather than simplify it.
In so far as preservation of amenities and the principles of sound town planning are relevant to the welfare of the Crown estates, they will already be covered by the requirement of good management, and I think I explained that to a certain extent on Second Reading. It is in the interests of the Crown Estate to see that the areas in which they have estates retain a high standard of amenity, so that the values of the area, and therefore of the Crown Estate property within those areas, may be maintained. The Crown Estate Commissioners do now have regard to such considerations and will continue to do so under the Bill as already drawn; but in so far as the Amendment adds anything to what is already in the Bill, it seems to be seeking to place on the Commissioners a public duty which goes beyond what is required of them for the good management of the Crown Estate,

793
and this would be a public duty in the nature of planning for the benefit of the community at large. But that is not a function that can properly be placed on the Crown Estate Commissioners, because it would raise wide issues of planning in the public interest which are properly governed by the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts.
As I said on Second Reading, the Commissioners, when selling or leasing land for development, are in much the same position as a private landowner. It would be wrong to place upon the Commissioners responsibilities which belong to the Minister of Housing and Local Government or to the planning authorities. It would not be right to suggest, by including these words of the Amendment in the Bill, that the Commissioners are expected to take a hand in the public duty of planning the use of the land of this country on behalf of the community at large. That is, and must remain, a matter of Government policy, under the control of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the planning authorities concerned. If it is suggested that, without words such as these, the Commissioners might do things which are against the public interest—and that is in fact what has been suggested—the answer was given by me on Second Reading, when I pointed out that, although the Commissioners are not themselves subject to planning control, the people who buy from them or who take building leases on the Crown Estate are subject to such control; and that point was fully recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The Commissioners always seek to co-operate with the planning authorities, and expect to conform to provisions contained in the development plan, which can be made to include Crown Estate land.
Perhaps on this point I might be permitted to enlarge a little, especially following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Planning authorities do in fact include Crown Estate land when they are drawing up their overall plans for a certain district, although the Crown Estate Commissioners themselves are not legally subject to the planning authority. But the land is included for the purposes of overall planning; so that if anyone leases or purchases that land, it immediately comes under planning control. I am informed that there are not very
794
many places in the country on the country estates where there are great opportunities for town development; but where that is so, it is invariably the practice of the Commissioners either to sell or to lease the land, and not to develop it themselves. I will come in a moment to the question of Ascot, which was a special case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
I should like to quote a few words of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, which he made on Second Reading; and here I am also coming to urban development. The noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 108), col. 265]:
"There are a great many estates where it may be that they manage them well and profitably, but very much to the detriment of the general public by indiscriminate building and commercialisation of the properties."
I am not sure if that sentence is qualified by the words "may be", or whether in fact the noble Earl was stating that there were such cases. Probably he was speaking theoretically about what could happen, rather than what had happened.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Not of the Crown Estate.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl was talking about other developers and landowners. I rather thought he meant the Crown Estate Commissioners, but he did go on to give them high praise for what they had done in the restoration of the Regent's Park Terraces. Then he went on to complain about the possibilities of advertisements which the Crown Estate Commissioners might be tempted to put up on their properties, and which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, felt might be put up perhaps on the new grandstand at Ascot Racecourse, or in the neighbouring surroundings—
LORD SILKIN: No. I said theoretically they could put up a block of offices at Ascot, and no one could stop them if they built it themselves. They could not lease the land to somebody else to put up a block of offices, but they themselves could do that theoretically.
LORD HASTINGS: I am just coming to that part of the argument. It may interest the noble Lord to know that in Piccadilly Circus, for example, which no

795
doubt, in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is greatly improved by the advertisements there—
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear!
LORD HASTINGS:—on one side there are in fact no advertisements, and that is because that side belongs to the Crown Estate Commissioners. So that gives an indication of the views in the minds of many noble Lords opposite, that good taste has been exercised by the Crown Estate Commissioners. I hope they will not feel alarmed on that particular score, because a great deal has been made of this question of advertisements.
LORD BOOTHBY: I really must ask the noble Lord what he thinks causes foreigners from all countries to flock to Piccadilly Circus at night. It is the advertisements and only the advertisements—nothing else.
4.0 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: We have had an interesting side debate on advertising, but actually we are dealing with an Amendment to the Crown Estate Bill and I think that I must keep to the main subject, otherwise I may get involved in an argument between the noble Lords, Lord Boothby and Lord Conesford; and, as I hear on my left, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, might have to withdraw not only Wigan but also Rotherham—but I will not go further into that.
I was coming to the most important part of the argument, which answers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, brought up about what might happen when the Crown Estate Commissioners themselves develop sites, something which will seldom happen in the country but which does happen with urban properties. Here they always seek to co-operate with the planning authorities and are expected to conform to the provisions contained in the development plans. In any event, the words suggested in the Amendment are not at all precise as an instruction to the Commissioners. In particular, the words, "the principles of sound town planning" appear to be open to argument, and if they do not tell the Commissioners precisely what they are to do, they would run the risk of setting up the Commissioners as arbiters of what are the principles of sound town planning. Surely that would not be desirable.
796
This is precisely where the conflict arises. The noble Earl kept talking about a conflict. He said, on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 108), col. 266]:
"…there is a conflict between the requirements of good management and those of good planning and the Minister's power to give directions."
That is precisely why it is undesirable to add the words in the Amendment to the Bill, because they create a conflict and make the Crown Estate Commissioners arbiter in their own case. It puts on them the onus of making plans for their own developments and then putting them into force. Their function is to have regard to the amenities and good management of the estate but it is the function of the planning authorities, including the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to see that the plans put into force are good ones.
So far, no conflict has arisen between the Commissioners and the Ministry, and the Government suggest that it is much better to leave things as they are. In the unlikely event of there being a conflict of views on the development of one of the urban sites, the planning authorities can bring the difference of opinion to the notice of the Minister concerned, who can then give a direction, under the powers which are reserved in Clause 1 (4), as the noble Earl knows. It is felt that to add the proposed words to the Bill would create a greater conflict than there is at present. It would be better for the conflict to be resolved by the Minister giving directions, rather than by making the Commissioners arbiters in their own case. Therefore, the Government have concluded that it would be best to leave the clause as drafted and that the Commissioners should be concerned primarily with looking after the Crown estate and should have regard to all the considerations that a good landlord should have in mind. So far as the public interest is concerned, there should be, within the exercise of the Commissioners' general duty, a general power of direction for the Minister that could be used if the need for it arose.
LORD SILKIN: May I just ask the noble Lord if he has read Clause 1 (4), because it says that this direction "shall have regard to subsection (3)" and that before giving any such direction the

797
Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consult the Commissioners. But a direction cannot go beyond what is contained in subsection (3). Therefore, there could be no direction simply about complying with the principles of planning and of amenity, but only a direction about maintenance and enhancement of value and so on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be going beyond the powers of this Bill if he gave any direction beyond subsection (3).
LORD HASTINGS: I am advised that in fact that is not the case and that the clause as present drawn—" with due regard to the requirements of good management "—includes all that it should and is able to include for the duties of the Commissioners.
LORD SILKIN: I think that the noble Lord is wrong and that he is rejecting this Amendment under a misapprehension as to what subsection (4) means. Would he undertake to consult with his right honourable friend on this point and, if he turns out to be wrong, will he give further consideration to this Amendment on Report stage?
LORD HASTINGS: This is a highly legal argument, which I cannot enter into at the moment. I hope that I have explained to the noble Lord why his Amendinew, as at present drafted, is not acceptable: that it would not appear to add anything necessary to the Bill. The Amendment would make the Commissioners pay
"due regard … to the principles of sound town planning",
but in his speech the noble Lord wanted to make the Crown Estate Commissioners subject to the Town Planning Acts, which they are not at the moment, for the control of advertisements and everything else.
LORD SILKIN: I want to put the Commissioners in this position. Just as they must have regard to the principles of good estate management—and in this they are the judges; and I am not proposing that we should lay down the law to them on the requirements of good management—so they should also be required to have regard to the interests of amenity and of good town planning. They are to be the judges. My noble
798
friend and I would be quite content if it were stated in the Bill that they have to consider these matters, just as they have to consider good management. They would be the judges and nobody would be in a position to control them, because they are exempt from town planning.
LORD HASTINGS: I see exactly what the noble Lord is driving at. What I have been trying to prove is that this Amendment is not necessary, because at the present moment the Commissioners do take regard to all these matters; and if they did not, the Minister could give a direction. Moreover, if any difference arises over any legal point (it might even be legalistic), the Minister can also give a direction. However, I will certainly bring this point to my right honourable friend's notice, and if there is anything wrong in the way of drafting, I have no doubt that it will be put right. I cannot go farther than that, nor can I hold out any great hope or promise. But I will do that, and, in the circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will now withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: We have had an entertaining debate on this matter. I do not think that the noble Lord has gone very far towards convincing us. He says that the expression "principles of sound town planning" is ambiguous, but then so is the expression "principles of good management." These words are interpreted by the Commissioners themselves. The noble Lord is right in saying that the Commissioners are arbiters in their own case. Of course, they are. They judge for themselves how best to interpret their instructions. We are seeking to save them from the ambiguity and, indeed—I stick to it—from conflict between the interests of increasing revenues and rents and the interests of the public from the amenity and planning points of view.
The noble Lord said that the Commissioners would not do anything contrary to an amenity, because it would lower the value of the rest of their neighbouring property. In the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that is not so. He says that if they put up a large number of advertisement hoardings on the other side of Piccadilly Circus the value would

799
rocket sky-high; and the same with their other properties. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby is not here, because we enjoyed his exhibition of coat-trailing, performed by an expert in the art; and I was glad to have the powerful support of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. Commenting on the views of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I must say that I should certainly not agree that if a place is not a known beauty spot, or a place of historic interest, it does not matter what you do with it. I believe that the inhabitants of every village and town, and of any part of the country, have the right to enjoy their streets, whether of good or bad architecture, unadorned by the expression of commercial interest and the operations of the advertisement world.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one straight question. He says that the Commissioners seek to co-operate with the planning authorities; and I am sure that they do. But will he tell me whether, according to the Bill as it now stands, they would be able to develop, say, the property at Egham, which I think includes Runnymede? There are 250 acres at Egham, including common land, and I suspect that it includes Runnymede. Would it be within the powers of the Commissioners under this Bill to build a housing estate at Runnymede? If we include this Amendment, I maintain that they would not be able to do so, or if they attempted to, the Minister could give directions to stop it, but that without something like this Amendment there is no safeguard and the Commissioners themselves are in a difficult position. Could the noble Lord say whether, if they felt strongly enough, they would be able to ignore the requirements or the wishes of the planning authority?
LORD HASTINGS: I completely take the point made by the noble Earl, and whether they can ignore the plans of the town planning authorities if they so wish is what we have been discussing. My contention is that under the Bill as at present drawn the Minister could give a direction on that point. However, that is exactly the point that I promised the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would look into, and I will do so.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I thank the noble Lord, and on that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

THE SUMMER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that it is proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Recess in the latter part of the first week in August. I hope to announce the exact date next week.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, crofting in the Highlands faces difficult and long-standing problems, arising mainly from the small and uneconomic size of most of the crofts, and from the need for other occupations and employments to supplement the crofters' agricultural income. All this has led to the decline and decay of many of the crofting townships, the young and active crofters going off and leaving a high proportion of older and inactive people in occupation of the crofts.
The whole crofting situation was studied by a Commission of Inquiry, the Taylor Commission, which reported in 1954. The Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, which the present Bill is designed to amend, implemented the recommendations of the Taylor Commission generally, and in particular it established the Crofters Commission. The 1955 Act also effected a considerable measure of consolidation of the various Statutes dealing with crofting.
In their Annual Report for 1959, the Crofters Commission reviewed their experience of the operation of the 1955 Act provisions. While the provisions

801
relating to the control of assignations, relettings, absentees and so on had worked satisfactorily, they felt bound to point out that practical experience had shown the need for changes and improvements in the 1955 Act. This Bill generally gives effect to these recommended changes.
First, the provisions of the 1955 Act relating to good husbandry had proved virtually unworkable. This was largely because of the extreme nature of the final sanction, namely, dispossession of the crofter, involving his eviction from the croft dwelling house. The relevant 1955 Act provisions are now to be repealed by Clause 10 of the Bill. There is no doubt, however, that a considerable number of crofts are not used or are inadequately used, and that there are younger and active crofters desperately needing more land to help them make a better living.
What we propose to do to meet this particular problem is to provide for the orderly development of sub-letting of crofts. We propose, under Clause 11 (1), to give crofters an opportunity, in agreement with their landlords, of continuing formal or informal and technically illegal sub-lets, by intimation to the Crofters Commission. For the future, crofters will be able to sub-let their crofts, subject to the approval of the Commission, who must first consult the landlord. In addition we are, in Clause 14, proposing to extend to sub-tenants of crofters the agricultural grants available to crofters. We hope that with these inducements there will be a wide use of sub-letting by crofters.
But we have included in the Bill (Clause 12) provision for the Commission themselves to arrange a sub-let of a croft where, after due notice and consultation, the crofter has failed to bring it into adequate use or even to arrange his own sub-let of it. Here the crofter's right to a fair deal is adequately protected. He will, in every case, be able to retain his dwelling house and other buildings which he may need for any non-agricultural occupations, and he will be able to retain some ground for his personal use. We are providing, in Clause 19, that Clause 12, to which I have just referred, with its compulsory subletting provisions, will not come into
802
operation until such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order, subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
The Commission found that the procedure relating to the formal reorganisation of crofting townships had not worked in the way originally intended; and so in dealing, in Clauses 8 and 9, with the reorganisation provisions, we have had three purposes in mind: first, to shorten and simplify the procedure; second, to secure a better method of ascertaining township opinion on a draft reorganisation scheme; and, third, to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. We propose, therefore, to institute a public inquiry, where necessary, under the usual procedure, before the Secretary of State finally decides on the scheme.
I now turn to the question of compensation for permanent improvements on the croft. On the one hand, the present basis of valuation of such improvements by the Land Court has tended to discourage crofters from engaging in nonagricultural activities, such as tourism, since they were not assured of compensation for improvements made in connection with these non-agricultural activities. On the other hand, the fact that the valuation was not related to the realities of the local demand for crofts meant that landlords, in some cases, have had to pay, by way of compensation, far more than they could, in fact, expect to get from an incoming tenant. To replace the present basis of compensation for permanent improvements, we are providing, in Clause 6, that the permanent improvements of a crofter, on outgo, will be assessed at their market value. Under the new provisions, the value put on the improvements will be based on the realities of the local demand for crofts. This will be fairer to landlord and crofter alike.
To safeguard the position of the crofter in tenancy at the commencement of the Bill in an area where, for example, the demand for crofts may be low and the new assessment therefore less than what it would be on the present "hypothetical incoming tenant" basis, we have provided that any such difference between the two amounts—that is, between market value and the hypothetical incoming tenant—will in these circumstances be made up by the

803
Secretary of State. To clarify the position regarding non-agricultural improvements—these include such things as weaving sheds, hard standings for caravans and so on—we have, in Clause 5, made clear the crofter's right to erect buildings and other structures reasonably required for a subsidiary or auxiliary occupation, provided, of course, they do not interfere substantially with the agricultural use of the croft.
These are the main provisions of the Bill. For the rest, we have in Clause 1 increased the membership of the Crofters Commission from six to nine; in Clause 2 (1) the limit on the size of a new croft from 50 to 75 acres, and in Clause 2 (2) to an even larger size if the Secretary of State approves; in Clause 3 improved provision is made for the maintenance of a register of crofts, and the registration of crofters as opposed to a registration of crofts is cancelled; under Clause 7 absentee crofters can retain their house and garden if they or their predecessors provided it or substantially provided it: this will make them more willing to give up the land to other crofters who wish to cultivate it; and Clause 15 makes minor amendments to the provisions of the 1955 Act about common grazings.
My Lords, the provisions of this Bill and those of the 1955 Act have to be regarded as a whole. With the improvements we have proposed in the Bill, the Crofters Commission should be enabled to make further progress. This Bill does not in any way detract from the various measures in hand to provide other employments in the crofting areas. As your Lordships know, the crofts in some parts of the Highlands are extremely small, and we cannot look in these cases to enlargement and consolidation as a means of development. In these areas particularly, other employments, such as forestry, are of special importance; but the extension of financial assistance to croft sub-tenants, their extension to small non-crofting occupiers, and the improved measures of control and development in the hands of the Commission, should serve to bring an increased measure of prosperity and social wellbeing to all the crofting areas. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
4.26 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should wish to start off by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the very lucid explanation which he has given of the purposes of this Bill. In fact, in a comparatively short time he has said all the things which he advised me he was going to say, but one, and that was to describe it as a "useful little Bill". I am sorry he did not do that, because it would have given me the opportunity of at least saying that I agree with him in part. The expression "little Bill" is one which Ministers frequently use in praise of their efforts, and it is one to which the House never takes exception. Of course, it does not always give the same unanimous response to the other adjective. "Little" has a somewhat hallowed use in mitigation of offences. It has been used, I think, in justification of everything from illegitimate babies to the Crofters' Bill this afternoon.
I could do a lot of things at later stages if I were so inclined. I did a little looking up as to what had taken place on this Bill in another place, and I learned to my surprise—and it added to my admiration for the activities of my friends in another place—that they were able to have the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee last for 23 sittings. I am assured by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that during those 23 sittings the Government accepted some of the Amendments which my friends in another place proposed. There is a grave temptation for me to try at the Committee stage here to put forward once again all the Amendments which the Government did not accept in another place, to see whether I on my own could be more persuasive than all my colleagues put together in another place. There are a variety of reasons why I have decided not to do that. I think the first is that at such a late stage in the proceedings, and following on the announcement which was made about the expected time of rising for the Summer Recess, I do not think that would make me unduly popular with my colleagues here, even though we might succeed in temporarily disrupting the Government programme—a measure which I am sure has its

805
attractions in another place more than it necessarily has here. The second reason why I do not propose to do that is that I am quite satisfied that all I should succeed in doing would be to prove to your Lordships that I was no more persuasive than the people elsewhere.
I have two even better reasons for not doing so. The third one is that I am quite certain that what I should succeed in demonstrating beyond any shadow of doubt is that the only Members of your Lordships House who know less about crofting in Scotland are those Members who rose hastily to leave when the noble Lord started to move the Second Reading of the Bill. My last reason for confining my remarks at this stage is that when the succeeding stages of the Bill take place next week, notwithstanding the announcement of the rising of the House, I expect to be in the island of Mull endeavouring to ensure that, when the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary proceeds there a little later, nothing that the Government has meanwhile decided will detract from the welcome which Mull will give him.
For these reasons, I shall confine myself to congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the friendly way in which he has presented this Bill. And I express the hope that it will fulfil the Government's intention and that it will not be necessary for the Government to present a third Bill in 1967 to repair the omissions or anomalies created by the 1961 Act which is to amend the provisions of the 1955 Act.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton has pointed out, this Bill is primarily to amend some of the provisions of the Crofters Act, 1955. It is a Bill which should be beneficial to the crofters, and as such I am sure that all your Lordships will welcome it. Crofting, as most of us know, is in many cases a very lonely occupation, where families often eke out a somewhat precarious existence if conditions mitigate against them, and I believe that, within reason, anything we can do to improve crofting in the Highlands of Scotland, we should do. Above all, we do not want to see a further de-population in the crofting counties of Scotland.
806
The Bill seems to lay emphasis on the need for reorganisation of crofts, and I suppose we must recognise the modern tendency in agriculture towards larger units of production. We see it everywhere in the world, in business and in agriculture; and, of course, the same thing applies equally to crofting. It may well be that many amalgamations of crofts will have to take place under the new provisions of this Bill in order that land will not go out of production.
This is a crofting Bill, not a tourism Bill, but I feel that the two things, crofting and tourism, if they are more closely integrated, can be of.the greatest mutual benefit, crofting to the tourists and the tourists to crofting. Because I think that crofting belongs to-day with the economy of the Highlands as a whole, and I am a great believer in tourism to help the economy of the Highlands. We have the most incomparable scenery and wonderful monuments for people to see. I do not know if your Lordships know the Islands of Orkney, but I have just paid another visit up there, and I was tremendously impressed with all there was to see—not monuments just to interest the archeologists, but those of interest to the ordinary tourist. All sorts of things; 2,000 B.C. Stone Age monuments right through to the Viking Period and medieval times. Places such as St. Magnus Cathedral, in Kirkwall, one of the masterpieces of our country, and, indeed, of Great Britain.
All these things are there to be seen, but the Tourist Board is greatly hampered by lack of accommodation. So I am very glad to see that in Clause 5 of the Bill provision is made for erecting additional buildings which will rank as permanent improvements on the crofts. It seems to me that the provision of more accommodation on the crofts for tourists is an excellent way of supplementing the crofters' income during the holiday season. Many tourists do not require full-scale holiday accommodation—indeed, we know that hotels have enough problems of their own, with so many of their staff going away nowadays to work in industry.
The only thing I should like to know from the noble Lord is this: who is going to pay for this accommodation which landlords or crofters are entitled under Clause 5 to set up? There is financial provision, I think, in Clause 14, but is

807
the Secretary of State liable to give financial assistance to landlords or crofters for putting up this holiday accommodation, or have they to do It at their own risk? I hope that this is included under this clause, because if it is not I believe that a golden opportunity has been missed to help the tourist trade.
My Lords, the only other thing I want to mention is the question of common grazing, under Clause 15. Many of us feel that it would have been of great benefit to crofting if there had been provision in the Bill whereby the landlord had the right, with the Land Court's consent, to resume the practice of common grazings for pastoral purposes. Many of these crofts are bleak and wind-swept places and we all know what sheltered cairns can do; how they can improve the amenity of the country, warm the land and bring more fertility to the crops. We all know how the land can benefit by keeping the wind off; how much it can benefit young grass in the early part of the season, and how the sheep breeders like to have that early grass for their sheep. It is not in the Bill, so it is too late. I wanted to mention these one or two points, but, of course, I do not intend to put down any Amendments. I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on introducing this Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships and hope that you will give it a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you for any length of time, but I should like to support what has fallen from both the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, in support of this Bill. There is still, in the Highlands, a great tradition of facing great difficulties, but one particular difficulty at the moment is that the young people are attracted away elsewhere. Therefore, anything which can be done to help bring more young life into the Highlands will be for the good; and for this reason I give my support to the Bill.
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have an interest to declare here as I have a few crofts on my own estate, in the Western Highlands. I heartily support this Bill.
808
Anything that we can do to help the crofters, this sturdy race of independent people to whom this country owes so much, in men of letters and brains, is, I think, extremely important. Of course, crofting has been decaying as an industry ever since the end of the nineteenth century, but that has not been the fault of the crofters or of any of the the British Governments: it has rather been the fault of circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the Isle of Mull. It might interest him to know that in the nineteenth century the Isle of Mull had a population of over 12,000, who were nearly all crofters. Today the population is 2,400-odd; and you can count the crofters. I do not know the figure, but I should doubt if it is over 300 or 400.
There are other reasons, too. The rigidity of tenure, which is so beloved by crofters, has been, I think, rather a drawback. The whole answer is that crofts to-day will have to become small farms, because it would be entirely impossible for a crofter to live completely on his croft. I suppose the average income of a croft cannot be more than £3 a week. Of course, on the shore and in the islands, where there is fishing, especially lobster fishing, there is a great difference; but the crofters who used to do a great deal of lobster fishing in the Western Highlands and Islands have had to compete with these factory lobster ships. They have been into the sea lochs where I have my place. They put down about 400 or 500 pots, all on a line, and completely clear out all the lobsters. The crofters have therefore had no option but to stop fishing for lobsters. These factory ships are quite within the law, but it is a great pity the law cannot be altered to stop them.
Turning to the actual Bill, I am not quite happy about Clause 5, subsection (1) (a), where a crofter may make improvements
"reasonably required to enable him to make use of the croft for any subsidiary or auxiliary occupation in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1955."
If, for instance, a crofter had a croft beside a road, and if he built a café, would that café be auxiliary to his occupation as a crofter? Would the landlord have to take it over? I am extremely pleased with Clause 6, which is fair to the crofter and to the landlord,

809
but perhaps the Minister could say something on Clause 5 with regard to what is exactly an auxiliary occupation to crofting. With regard to the reorganisation schemes under Clause 8, I am not quite happy that a majority of crofters must agree to any reorganisation scheme. About a third of the crofters are absentees. In the past some schemes have been blocked by the absentee crofters and the older crofters, and that has been extremely frustrating for the younger go-ahead crofters. I would say that here this Bill is not really any improvement on the 1955 Act.
I agree with the repeal of Section 21 of the 1955 Act (which is done by Clause 10), so that the crofter can no longer be dispossessed for bad husbandry. After all, farmers have had that security granted to them under the Agriculture Act, 1947. As in everything, there are good crofters and bad crofters, and if the Government have not any say regarding bad husbandry I think it is going to be rather hard to make bad crofters till their crops properly.
I should also have liked to see in this Bill something about a crofter's needs. The Minister has just said that this Bill will increase crofts to 75 acres, and to a larger area if the Secretary of State agrees. If you have 75 acres of good land the croft can probably just pay; but I should have liked to see laid down some idea of the number of sheep and cattle that Her Majesty's Government think a crofter must have before he can exist on his croft without being also a postman, or driving a school bus, or being a gillie or having some other ancillary occupation. I personally should say that a crofter cannot exist on his croft with under 200 sheep and half a dozen cows and followers. You cannot keep 200 sheep on a 75-acres holding in the Highlands. I know that you have your common grazing in crofting townships; but rather than laying down the area, the Bill ought to have laid down the number of sheep and cattle.
Regarding the assignation clauses and the question of sub-letting to tenants, we have always had this rule, which brings us back to the rigidity of tenure: that a croft always has to go to a crofter's family. Under this Bill the position would appear to remain that way. But often I think it would be preferable to have new blood. It often happens that
810
a crofter and his family may not be the best people to carry on a croft. I think that if the assignation, sub-letting, clauses could be more widely drawn the situation might be better.
Before I conclude, I should like to suggest that when an inquiry is held under this Bill the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1959, should apply. I have known bad feeling caused among crofters who resent that the result of the inquiries is not published completely. I suppose that it may sometimes be difficult, but if the report of an inquiry could be published it would probably do away with some bad blood. If you do not have things like inquiry reports published, people always feel that they have been badly treated, or that somebody has been better treated or something like that. On the whole, my Lords, I support this Bill heartily, and I hope that it will do something to encourage crofting. But, as I said before, if we want crofters to live on their crofts completely it is necessary to turn them into small farmers.
4.53 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his generous speech. I think all your Lordships appreciate the four reasons that he gave us why he does not think it appropriate to move any Amendments. Perhaps there is a fifth reason—namely, that after so much consideration of this Bill in another place neither he nor I can think of any. I agree with my noble friend Lord Haddington that what must be uppermost in all our minds in all crofting legislation is the prevention of further depopulation. Everything else we do must be secondary to that. My right honourable friend and I have continuously in our minds the problem of depopulation, which sometimes in Scotland has taken second place to the more urgent problem of unemployment; but it is going on all the time.
In that context, the noble Earl said that this was a crofting and not a tourism Bill. Of course I must agree with him. A croft is an agricultural holding. But Clause 5, as he realises, does give a more specific encouragement to the crofter to engage in subsidiary occupations, and that, I am sure, will be of practical benefit to the crofters themselves, to tourism, and to the country as a whole. In some

811
areas the sidelines available for a crofter can be most profitable, but in other areas they have no such opportunity. There is the provision for compensation for the market value of improvements as adjuncts to the croft.
The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, asked about financial assistance towards these tourist improvements. Section 22 of the 1955 Act enables my right honourable friend, with the approval of the Treasury—those words must be added—to give grants and loans towards the erection or improvement or rebuilding of dwelling-houses and other buildings for crofters. So my right honourable friend has the powers. Loans for other nonagricultural buildings have not so far been made. There are obvious difficulties here about security. But on the question of loans I can tell my noble friend that my right honourable friend will watch the position most closely. So far as grants are concerned, the present Building Grants (Scotland) Regulations, 1956, do not extend to non-agricultural buildings. So amending Regulations would here be required, and these would call for careful consideration.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard asked about auxiliary occupations. If I do not give him the right answer perhaps he would come back at me. I will give him the answer as I have it. The primary occupation of a crofter is the agricultural cultivation of a croft. All the time the croft is an agricultural unit and everything else is subsidiary to that. He is committed by statutory conditions of tenure contained in the Second Schedule to the 1955 Act to pursue subsidiary or auxiliary occupations without detriment to such cultivation. These other occupations may take up most of the crofter's time. They include, I am advised, such things as weaving, road work, the Merchant Navy and tourism, but in each case the crofter must cultivate the croft himself or with his family, with or without hired labour. And in case of dispute about the occupation, it is for the Land Court to adjudicate. So in relation to non-agricultural improvements, with which I know your Lordships are greatly concerned, in Clause 6 of the Bill we deal with compensation—for instance, the method of calculating the value of the improvements, which is related to market
812
value. All the time the agricultural interest must be dominant. But, apart from that, one wants to encourage the crofters to have a subsidiary interest, provided the croft remains an agricultural subject.
The noble Viscount also spoke about publishing the reports under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. I can give him an unqualified assurance that the procedure laid down in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act will be fully implemented in connection with any such public inquiries. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, also asked why we have not in the Bill given the landlord the right, with the Land Court's consent, to resume common grazings for forestry. I know he will be pleased to hear the answer. It is already open to the landlord under the 1955 Act to apply to the Land Court for authority to resume for planting purposes a croft or a part of a croft. Of course, the term "croft" includes the right to common grazings. So even if there were not unanimous consent about resuming a common grazing, for forestry or any other purpose, the landlord can go to the Land Court and put up his case. But if the application is with the consent of the majority of persons sharing in the common grazing, and the Crofters Commission approve, then of course the Land Court's approval is automatic. Further provision is not really necessary in this Bill.
There are undoubtedly aspects of the use and disposal of common grazings which merit most careful thought, and the subject is a very complicated one indeed which will require careful study. In Clause 15 we have made one or two important and urgent amendments, but I feel that we shall eventually have to bring in a small Bill dealing exclusively with the problems of common grazings. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard spoke about Clause 8 and re organisation schemes. I believe he thought that the absentee crofter could not vote. But the absentee crofter can vote under this Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No, my Lords, I thought he could vote. I was trying to point out that I thought perhaps he ought not to be able to vote. My point is that if you have a reorganisation scheme and the younger crofters who are working on the

813
land want that scheme, it is rather unfair that the absentee crofters with their vote can mar the scheme, as I understand they can, as it is effected by a majority vote.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, we are, of course, acting here under the recommendations of the 1959 Report of the Crofters Commission, who went into this matter very carefully because they had not been able to get their reorganisation schemes through. I think that the absentee crofter will not mind so much about the reorganisation scheme when he knows he can retain his croft house. There will not be the opposition that there was when he thought he Might get turned out altogether and lose his house. I do not think I can agree with my noble friend that it is not an improvement on the 1955 provisions. The very fact that the rent of the township is fixed for seven years means that there is no worry in the crofter's mind. There will be stability for seven years, which of course is to the interest of the landlord as well. The crofters will now see the final scheme before they vote; and there is now an inquiry procedure. The Crofters' Commission feel that this will enable them to get their schemes through more quickly, and I think they are quite right.
The noble Viscount asked about bad husbandry. I think we have replaced "bad husbandry" in Clause 12 by "failing to make adequate use". Again, the sub-letting provisions, whether voluntary or enforced—if they are enforced the man can retain his house—will, I think, overcome the problem he mentioned. I agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that anything we can do to help the crofters should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, hoped there would not be another Bill—I think he referred to 1966—but we must always be prepared to do more if a new opportunity arises.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I thank him for answering all these questions so fully? I understood him to say that the only financial assistance that crofters or owners of crofts could get from the Government would be by way of loans, not by grants or in any other way. The noble Lord was not quite certain yet about that. Can he
814
assure us that, if after consultations he finds that loans will be made available for the purpose of building additional holiday camps to the crofts, this fact will be most widely publicised for the benefit of the crofters; and particularly that the Tourist Board will know about it, because it is a matter they are very concerned about?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords I am grateful to my noble friend. I was talking only about non-agricultural improvements. I chose my words very carefully So far as loans are concerned, my right honourable friend will watch the position very closely. We want to help the crofter to help himself. But I have to be very careful in saying more at this stage than that we will watch the position very closely. So far as grants for non-agricultural improvements are concerned, I said that any amendment to the Regulations would require very careful consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MOCK AUCTIONS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CREDIT-SALE AGREEMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in view of the allusion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to the classic example of "only a little 'un" I shall describe this Bill as useful and modest.

815
It attempts to fill a gap which has become increasingly apparent recently in the system governing "never, never" North of the Border—not the whole of "never, never", but only that part which is technically known as "credit-sale agreements". There has been increasing disquiet recently on account of hardship, which has arisen very largely because people have been entering into credit-sale agreements without fully realising their liabilities; but, worse still, guarantors to these agreements have found themselves, quite unbeknown to themselves, saddled with large sums of money to pay on someone else's behalf and, on occasions, with no means with which to pay them. Therefore, my Lords, what is at any rate a move in the right direction has, I believe, been taken by this Bill, which was steered through another place by my honourable friend the Member for Fife, East.
The Bill itself is not altogether difficult to understand, because it does no more nor less than apply, as Clause 1 (1) says, Sections 1 and 3 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, as amended by the 1954 Act, both of which were English Acts of Parliament. In Clause 1 (2) the necessary interpretation provisions of the 1938 Act are also applied so that this Bill can be properly worked in Scotland. I think that, perhaps, in view of the very brief body to this Bill, I should just refer your Lordships to what those parts of the 1938 Act say. Section 1 describes the credit-sale agreement to which the Act applies, and it says that it is one where, in the case of livestock, the total purchase price is not more than £1,000, which is perhaps an unlikely figure in this context, and where in any other case the total purchase price is not more than £300. Section 3 goes on to set out the protection which is given to the person who enters into one of these transactions, which has been found to be very effective South of the Border since 1938.
The protection given is found in Section 3 (2) and is, first of all, in the note which the buyer and any other party to the agreement must sign; secondly, in the fact that the note or memorandum contains a statement of the total purchase price (and that is an expression I will explain to your Lordships in a minute) of the goods, and sets
816
out the amount of goods, the amount of each instalment and the date on which it is to be paid; and, thirdy, in the fact that a copy of this note or memorandum is delivered to the buyer within seven days of his entering into the agreement. So, all in all, he really ought to know what he has done and what he has put his signature to. Unless in exceptional circumstances the courts allow the person who has made the hire-purchase agreement to get out of two of those conditions, but not the one that the transaction must be put into a note or memorandum—unless the courts allow that small relaxation—the whole transaction is completely unenforceable on anybody's behalf against the buyer or the guarantor.
When we come to Section 21 of the 1938 Act, your Lordships will see the definition of a credit-sale agreement, which is there described as,
"…an agreement for the sale of goods under which the purchase price is payable by five or more instalments;".
This, of course, must be interpreted by the Scottish courts as to its full extent and meaning, but I believe that it has a very wide meaning and should cover most, if not all, of the transactions which have been causing trouble in Scotland. For instance, a similar phrase has been held to mean,
"a contract of sale of goods under which the whole or part of the purchase price is payable by instalments",
which is much the same thing. It would also cover a case where, for example, a shop gives credit of a certain sum (say, £200), which will be repaid on a sort of instalment basis, and then allows the person who has this credit to take goods to a lesser sum than the full amount for which he has been given credit, and where, again, the whole transaction will take place on some sort of "never, never" basis. There is a wide meaning given by the courts to this expression "credit-sale agreement", and, as I say, it should cover most of the damage which has been done.
One of the other matters explained in Section 21 of the 1938 Act is the meaning of the total purchase price; and although this may exclude certain costs if it comes to court action, none the less

817
the total purchase price, which must be set out on the note or memorandum, will include the interest and the operating charges, which are the two points that have led people to believe that they should pay rather less than it turns out in the end they have to pay. Therefore, my Lords, under the definitions in the 1938 Act, I hope that such nefarious practices as have caused trouble and hardship in Scotland may be reduced, if not altogether obliterated. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a useful Bill, and I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
5.17 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on what must be, if not a unique experience, at least a real experience. For it must be rare indeed for a Member of your Lordships' House who is not a Minister to pilot two Bills to a successful conclusion in one afternoon, and then to proceed to take a third one to Second Reading. I can assure him that nothing that I intend to say will prevent him, in due course, from making it a hat trick. I am sorry if anything I said on the previous Bill compelled the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to abandon any phraseology that he had contemplated, particularly as I should have been prepared to extend my welcome on this occasion to both adjectives.
My Lords, quite frankly I have doubts whether the Bill goes far enough, and I am quite sure that these doubts are shared by the supporters of the Bill, both in another place and here. However, there is no doubt that the effect of this Bill, if it becomes law, as I hope it will, will be to improve a position which at the present time is undoubtedly very unsatisfactory. It may be that the Bill will not do all that is hoped, but if that is the case I understand from the noble Viscount that it has been indicated that what will then be required will be a substantial alteration of the major law, which would undoubtedly require to be a Government proposal and not one put forward by a private Member. But,
818
whether or not it accomplishes all that it is hoped it will accomplish, there can be no doubt whatever that it will improve the present lamentable situation, and I have no hesitation in giving the Bill my fullest support.
In doing so, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to this almost extraordinary unanimity between the points of view of those of us from Scotland, notwithstanding the side of the House on which we sit. I should like to say that I give this support without any expectation of receiving, in due course, any gratitude from Her Majesty's Government if I should find it necessary to move Amendments in the future to any of their Bills. I throw that in as a real Scot, without expectation of any reward to come in due course.
5.20 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I will say only a few words. I, too, must congratulate my noble friend on his clarity and also thank him for his public-spirited assiduity in introducing these modest but important measures. As he says, Scotland is protected over hire-purchase transactions by the 1932 Act, but that Act does not cover credit-sale transactions. There has been public disquiet in Scotland over people entering into credit-sale arrangements. Similar problems do not seem to have arisen in England. Therefore, it seems proper to import into Scottish law the control over credit-sale agreements that is exercised in England under their 1938 Act. My Lords, I beg to support the Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend Lord Craigton very much for his words in support. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that he has deprived me of the hat-trick, because I have had no opposition to bowl out. With those words, I hope that your Lordships will now agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been represented to me that a number of your Lordships who are concerned with the Housing Bill, which is down for discussion on Monday, cannot get here until 4 o'clock. Therefore, I think it would be for the convenience of the House generally if the House were to meet at 3 o'clock.

RIVER RAVENSBOURNE &c. (IMPROVEMENT AND FLOOD PREVENTION) BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past five o'clock.