Lords Sitting of 23 July 1962

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

UNITED NATIONS BONDS AND SUBSCRIPTION ARREARS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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, following the vote in the United States House of Representatives, they will now give an undertaking that no United Nations Bonds shall be subscribed to by Her Majesty's Government while any members of the United Nations are in arrears with their subscriptions.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the noble Lord is, I think, referring to the recent vote in the United States House of Representatives by which an amendment was made to the annual Foreign Aid Authorisations Bill which would debar the Administration from purchasing United Nations bonds so long as member States were in arrears with their assessed contributions. I am informed, however, that this vote by the House of Representatives is not the last word in the matter since the amendment may not be maintained. Because of this, I not think Her Majesty's Government should allow it to influence their policy at the present stage.
The noble Lord might like to consider, however, that it is precisely because of the massive default by member States on their assessed contributions that the bond issue has become necessary to avoid the bankruptcy of the United Nations. To make the United Kingdom's purchase of bonds dependent on member States not being in default would be contrary to the whole object of the bond issue.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to indicate what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment? He indicated the reasons why the vote in the House of Representatives had that effect, but did not in his Answer meet the question as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly, my Lords. We have not yet bought any bonds. We informed the Secretary-General last February of our intention to buy bonds within a maximum of twleve million dollars, but we told him we should not be able to make our first purchase until Parliament had adopted the necessary legislation; that is the Appropriation Bill which is being considered during the present Session. When the necessary legislation has been adopted, we will give the question of purchasing bonds our early attention. But I cannot anticipate the decision as to the amount of bonds we shall buy, or the time at which we shall buy them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in view of the recent decision of the International Court on the obligation of members to pay the special contributions, it may now be found unnecessary to issue these special bonds?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know about that. We welcome the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, and hope that it will encourage many of the defaulters to pay the arrears which they owe to the United Nations. Although this may in time lead to an improvement in the financial situation of the United Nations, it does not diminish the need for the bond issue which is designed to meet the current cash needs of the organisation. I understand that the bond issue contains provisions for the repayment of bonds, if subsequently defaulting nations are prevailed upon to make good their default.
LORD BARNBY: Is it to be understood from the noble Earl's reply that no subscription would occur except by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It cannot occur, my Lords, until the Appropriation

863
Bill has been passed and until we have been given authority by Parliament to subscribe to the Bond issue
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Would he consider causing to be published, before the House rises, figures which would show the totals of the amounts in arrears under, (a) the normal contributions; (b) the special contributions by members of the United Nations; and also the total number of defaulters in both cases?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly do that, and will have it placed in the Library
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Earl say why the only word he can use, after the decision of the International Court, is that it will "encourage" other nations to pay up? Is there nothing a little sterner or more forcible that can be said?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am always able to think of a better word myself.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to seek, at the United Nations, to get the recommendations of the International Court implemented by members of the United Nations?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords, I have said we welcome this advisory opinion of the International Court, and we hope it will lead to the payment of what is due by the defaulters.
LORD HENDERSON: I heard the noble Earl's previous answer, but my point was this: would the British Government take action in some form or other to seek to get the advisory opinion implemented by members of the United Nations?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the only way in which it can be enforced is by depriving the defaulting nations of their votes, and I do not think we could do that on our own. I think there would have to toe a resolution of the Assembly.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek co-operation from other nations, in order that there may be a
864
workable solution to the situation as it is now, and not merely to give encouragement?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords. I think the phrase which my noble friend has used is quite unexceptionable and correct.
LORD OGMORE: Is it not a fact, my Lords, that the exclusion of nations, and prohibition from voting, is automatic? It does not need a resolution in the United Nations, because if they have not paid up by a certain time, two years, it is automatic that they are excluded from voting.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that may be so under the Charter, but the General Assembly have on occasions given evidence of their willingness to alter the rules to suit present circumstances.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is not so much a question of disbarring these members who have not paid, but of getting them to pay? That is why I am urging that Her Majesty's Government should take positive action to get the advisory recommendation implemented. It only weakens the United Nations if members are "shot out"; it strengthens it if they have to pay.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. If he is able to give us any aid as a debt collector we shall be very grateful.
LORD HENDERSON: You are the Government.

DRAFT SOVIET DISARMAMENT TREATY
2.44 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 whether their opposition to the proposal in the Draft Soviet Disarmament Treaty, that troops and bases outside national frontiers should be withdrawn in Stage 1, takes account of the fact that this proposal would seem to involve the inspected withdrawal of

865
Russian troops and bases in the Ukraine, in White Russia, and in Outer Mongolia.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should be delighted to think that the draft Soviet Disarmament Treaty would involve the inspected withdrawal of Russian troops from such a wide area, but unfortunately I think it most unlikely that the Government of the U.S.S.R. would regard the Ukraine and White Russia, which are two of its constituent republics, as being for this purpose outside its national frontier. Alternatively, it would no doubt find units which would be described as Ukrainian or White Russian for the purposes of the Treaty. This leaves Outer Mongolia which, as a separate State, would certainly be covered by this provision of the Soviet Draft Treaty; but its military importance is small.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Earl sees what I am driving at. These portions of the Soviet Union are represented as if they were separate nations at the United Nations. Might it not be a good idea to try, because even if it did not turn out like that, it might turn out that this State which is partially defaulting in its payments would accept a reduction of the very heavy representation it maintains in New York?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I can see what the noble Lord is driving at, but I think neither Soviet Russia nor any of the Iron Curtain States are driving in the same direction.

UNITED NATIONS REPORTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
2.45 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 whether they will instruct their Representative at the United Nations to move that the increasingly valuable series of reports drawn up by United Nations experts should be continued by a report on the following question:" In what areas and to what extent is international law already effective?"]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord no doubt has in mind that the International Law Commission should undertake the task of compiling the report. While I agree that this body has produced a series of highly valuable reports, I do not think the question is one that comes within its terms of reference, which are limited to the study of questions of law, not of fact or judgment. The Commission, moreover, has a very full programme for several years ahead, and we should not wish to recommend that it should undertake any new studies unless they were of unusual urgency.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would it not be possible to stimulate such a study in another organ of the United Nations, if the International Law Commission is not empowered to undertake it? I have in mind to ask whether the noble Earl shares the opinion that the best way to reach World Government is not by great Constitution-mongering. Utopian blueprints, but, on the contrary, brick by brick, and that already there is a great deal of it in certain provisions.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's suggestion. I do not have in mind at the moment any organisation or organ of the United Nations which would be likely to undertake a rather hypothetical study of this kind, which depends on what people mean by international law and what they regard as its enforcement. But I will certainly consider the alternative suggestion which the noble Lord has put forward.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords would not such an inquiry be an expensive waste of time? Is it not a fact that the reason why international law is not effective is largely the Veto position in the Security Council, particularly on the side of the Soviet Union? And while that is the position, what is the point of talking about effective international law?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that is perfectly true. I thought perhaps the Question referred more to legal than to political matters. But, to some degree, the noble Lord's objection would apply to both.

TALL BUILDINGS IN LONDON
2.48 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any condition which absolutely prevents London from restricting the height of new buildings in certain locations (as was actually the regulation for many years when this was maintained for many years without the slightest difficulty) so preventing any further disrupting of the sight to—and from—the historic architectural monuments and places within the Whitehall square mile.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, there is no condition which absolutely prevents a restriction from being placed on the height of new buildings in certain locations in London. But I am not aware of any absolute restriction in the past. I assume of course that my noble friend has the London Building Acts in mind. These, as he will no doubt recall, originally required the consent of the London County Council to the erection of buildings in excess of 80 feet. This was subsequently amended to 100 feet. However, these Acts have never contained a veto on such buildings. There is no change in this respect to-day. The consent of the Council has still to be obtained under the London Building Acts. In addition, it is now necessary to obtain planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Could he possibly explain what the community gains by allowing destruction of the privacy that has always existed of some of our most important residences in this town, which privacy is now being destroyed by these high structures?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should find that very difficult to explain in brief question and answer. I would, with diffidence, suggest to my noble friend that if he looks at the Order Paper he will see an Unstarred Question for tomorrow standing in the name of his and my noble friend Lord Albemarle, dealing with this general subject. I would suggest to him that it would be easier
868
to expand on the whole general question then, rather than in necessarily rather brief answers now.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while again thanking my noble friend for that answer, I hope I shall have an oppor tunity of speaking to-morrow. But, in any event, I think this situation is getting quite unbearable and intolerable in many ways to-day, and if the Government do not take some action——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that there will be a statement on the Common Market at about 3.30 p.m.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
TRANSPORT BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH NEW BRITANNIA PIER) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
PIER AND (HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN)BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (LANGSTONE HARBOUR) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS, 1962
2.56 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I feel your Lordships will probably wish me to give you a brief explanation of these Regulations. However, in view of the recommendation of the Special Orders Committee, I also feel that your Lordships wall not wish me to detain you with a lengthy disquisition on them. Briefly, the Regulations flow from the consolidation of the electoral law of Northern Ireland as an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament passed this year. For some years past it has been found convenient to combine together in Northern Ireland three sets of electoral registers; those to the United Kingdom Parliament; those to the Northern Ireland Parliament; and those to local authorities there. So far as this Parliament is concerned, the matter has been regulated by the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1950, as amended by subsequent legislation. The Regulations which I am now commending to your Lordships make further amendment to the 1950 Regulations as a result of the Northern Ireland electoral law to which I have already referred. Their purpose, nevertheless, remains the combining of these various electoral registers. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, this Bill, as its title indicates, is a House of Commons Measure. The object of the Bill is to give to the Fund the privileges which the Trustee Investments Act, 1961, accorded to other funds, and it does that, according to the provisions of the Bill, really by amending the 1960 Members' Fund Act, because the precise terms of that Act precluded the Trustees from operating many advantageous switchings of their investments. The proposed Bill lays down that the Fund shall be operated in two halves, namely, a wider fund, which ranges over equities, and a narrower fund, which ranges over gilt-edged stock; and that all new monies—and when I refer to "all new monies" I mean contributions by the Members of the House of Commons, grants in aid from Her Majesty's Government, interest and rights issues of stock—shall be equally apportioned between each half of the Fund. This Bill in mo way affects your Lordships other than in exceptional, individual cases of Members of your Lordships' House who have served for a long period in the House of Commons before becoming Members of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I beg to move formally that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Crathorne.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think every Member of this House will approve the purpose of this Bill, which is to take advantage of the Trustee Investments Act which was recently passed and enable the Trustees of this Fund to earn a higher rate of interest, if they are fortunate, than (they would if they confined themselves to gilt-edged securities. In the last few years it would appear that, if they had accepted this policy the Fund might have suffered. It is a gamble,

871
and I am not entirely sure that it is justifiable to gamble with the funds which have been contributed by Members of the House of Commons. However, I am quite confident that those who are responsible for the administration of this Fund will take great care, especially in these difficult times, and will not necessarily take advantage of this power, which is a discretionary power, that is being given to them. If I may be bold enough to offer the Trustees a word of advice, I would suggest that at the present time they would be well-advised to leave things alone and not bother themselves with equities. Of course, times may change; there may be another Government, things may improve, and in those circumstances they will, of course, have another look at the Fund. I think it is quite right that they should be given this discretionary power.
Some of my noble friends and I are a little curious to know what happens about the funds which we ourselves have contributed. I do not know whether or not we have a reversionary, or possibly contingent, interest in this Fund; but if we have, that is all the more reason why we should be concerned about what happens to this money. Some noble Lords present have contributed for a very long time to this Fund, and we should like to know, if the noble Lord can tell us, what is the position of such noble Lords in relation to the Fund. But I hope that the point I first made, that this Bill will not be regarded as giving "marching orders" to those administering this Fund to jump into equities at the present time, which I think are somewhat risky, will be noted by the Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have nothing to say on this Bill, because we do not intend to go into the details which have been raised. We axe willing that your Lordships should give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, may I add one further word? I am moving this Bill on this occasion only because, before becoming a Member of your Lordships' House, I was one of the Managing Trustees of this particular Fund in another place. I should Like to say at once that I know that all the remarks and comments which have been
872
made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be very carefully looked into by the present Managing Trustees, who are, as I think he will agree, a very wise body and responsible people. I am afraid that I cannot give any hope that the contributions which have been made by their Lordships when they served in another place will be returned to them, either in full measure or in part; but again, I know that the present Managing Trustees, having read our short debate on this Bill, will give consideration to the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

LAW REFORM (HUSBAND AND WIFE) BILL
3.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who has asked me to express his apologies to your Lordships fox being unavoidably prevented from being present to-day, I wish to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Brentford.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I apologise for troubling your Lordships on this matter once more, but this is a Bill in which I did take some special interest on the Second Reading. On that occasion I explained to your Lordships that the Bill bad had, as I thought, somewhat inadequate consideration in another place. It had passed the Second Reading "on the nod"; there was a very scanty Committee stage; and altogether the amount of time that was taken up on this most important amendment of the law in another place was something of the order of an hour and a half.
A number of honourable Members in another place expressed the hope that your Lordships would give this Bill very careful consideration, and, if necessary, move Amendments on some of the points which had troubled them. When we had our Second Reading here I myself undertook to scrutinise this Bill very carefully,

873
and to put down any Amendments that I thought might be desirable, either to clarify matters or for other reasons. There were, in particular, a number of points which troubled honourable Members in another place—for instance, the clause which provides that, in certain circumstances, where no substantial benefit would accrue to either party from the continuation of the proceedings, the court could dismiss or stay the proceedings. There was some hesitation in accepting these words, because they were thought to be vague and uncertain, and it was not easy to ascertain what was the meaning of "no substantial benefit accruing to either party".
There was also my own difficulty in accepting the fact that, While it was right that husbands and wives should be free to take proceedings against one another, I still thought it rather unseemly that a husband or a wife should be able to take proceedings against the other party in such matters as libel and slander. I thought that particularly inappropriate, and I was proposing to put down an Amendment to accept actions of that kind. However, I have given the matter a good deal of consideration. I have talked it over with a number of noble Lords, and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot devise an alternative form of words to "no substantial benefit". I know that that is the point which troubled the promoters of the Bill in another place. We know what we mean: we mean that where there is no purpose in an action by a husband against his wife, or vice versa, the court should be able to say so, and stop the proceedings, thus preventing waste of time and expense; and what we were rather concerned about was whether these particular words met the case. I must confess that, having given a good deal of thought to it, I can find no better form of words than are in the Bill.
On the other question, I have discussed it with a number of noble Lords and Ladies, and I was impressed with the fact that I should not have had a great deal of support if I had tried to except actions for libel and slander. I know that a number of noble Lords and Ladies would have supported me, but I think that a considerable majority would have been
874
against me, and therefore I decided not to trouble the House by moving an Amendment.
Finally, this is broadly such a good Bill—it is so progressive, and it conforms so fully with the Report of the Law Reform Committee—that I should hesitate to do anything which might possibly endanger its passage. Had Amendments been moved and carried, that would have involved sending the Bill back to the House of Commons for their consideration, and I felt that it was better to accept a Bill, which, even if one had certain minor hesitations about it, was worth having, rather than to endanger its passage. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for explaining this matter at some length, but, having made such heavy weather about amending this Bill on Committee, I thought that, as no Amendments appear to-day, this explanation was due to your Lordships. I fully support the Motion for Third Reading.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, all I want to say is that I regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was not able to find a better form of words. I had some discussion with him, as others did, and I thought that we could have improved this Bill; but evidently it is too difficult. Certainly I, as an amateur, could not possibly suggest other words, but I am not satisfied that in the Bill we have the best form. Once again I would say, as other noble Lords have said, that the difficulty is that we get Bills coming up at this time of year and always have to decide whether we shall make them better Bills or get them through at all. I think that that is great disadvantage to Bills which are going to be Acts of Parliament under which this country is to be administered. I repeat that I should have been glad if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had been able to put forward suggestions to make this a better Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): said that the Bill had been considered for only a short space in the House of Commons. In another capacity, I think that I spent considerably more than an hour and a half in trying to devise a formula which was more satisfactory for the purpose of putting into a Statute than that contained

875
in the Report to the Committee. I think that we found the best formula that can be devised. Of course, we shall be glad to consider any suggestions put forward, but it is not easy to define a matter of this kind with a degree of precision and yet arrive at the proper result. I believe that this will work all right in practice, and that the courts can and will give effect to it in accordance with the wishes of all those who have spoken in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I should like to thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am sure that he will consider that the greatest compliment that could have been paid to this Bill is the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was unable to find the right words whereby it could be improved. That being the case, I am sure that the wording of the Bill must be as good as it can be made. If it is of any reassurance to your Lordships, I would say that for a Private Member's Bill this Bill seems to have received more acute and detailed discussion by the Law Officers of the Crown, past and present, than any Private Member's Bill is ever likely to have had before; for I know, from a perusal of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the present Solicitor General was involved in discussions and also the ex-Solicitor General. And his predecessor, who is now President of the Probate and Divorce Division, I am credibly informed, has also approved the present phraseology. I feel, therefore, that with this almost classical series of approvals, your Lordships will be fully justified in passing this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

AIR GUNS AND SHOT GUNS, ETC., BILL
3.15 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In so doing, may I
876
express my appreciation to those noble Lords who have taken part in the consideration of this Bill, and particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who was good enough to support it on the Second Reading?
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Brentford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill [60] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after ("which") insert (i).
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, with the approval of your Lordships, I should like to discuss Commons Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 together. This group of Amendments ensures that the main restaurant business of the holders of the new restaurant and restricted hotel certificates is not serving light refreshments but serving main meals. The serving of drinks must, of course, be ancillary, whatever type of meal is supplied. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("providing") to (" for ") in line 3, and insert ("meals")
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("and which") and insert—
("(ii) so far as they are used, or intended to be used, for the said purpose, are principally used, or intended to be used, for

877
providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and (iii)")
Page 2, line 12, after ("which") insert ("(i")
line 17, leave out ("and which") and insert—
("(ii) so far as it is used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing meals to persons who are not residing there, is principally used, or intended to be used, for providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and (iii)")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships, I will move Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 together. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("or") to ("for") in line 31, and insert—
("by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person;
(iii) to supply exciseable liquor in those premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person")
Page 2,line 35 leave out ("or") to ("with") in line 36, and insert (" by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I would suggest to your Lordships that we take Commons Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together, and discuss with them Amendments Nos. 11, 22, 34, 35, 45 and 47. They all deal with the same point, which is a drafting improvement. They make it clear beyond doubt that liquor may be provided to a resident's "private friend" only if the resident pays for it. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 2, line 36, leave out ("with") and insert ("as an ancillary").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, perhaps we can consider this with Amendments No. 36 and 48. They close a possible loophole, and prevent substantial quantities of liquor from being sold to a resident for off-consumption by adding a sandwich and calling the consignment a picnic meal. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Lord Craigton.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, so far as Amendment No. 8 is concerned, there appears to be a printing error. It does not make sense unless you add after the words, "as an ancillary", the word "to". It must mean as an ancillary to a meal. It just cannot be that a drink when you are having some solid food is an ancillary meal. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to amend the Amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I took it that there was a notional comma there, and that it read,
"as an ancillary, a meal supplied at, but to be consumed off, the premises".
I think that is all right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 2, line 42, at beginning insert—
("(1) On granting or transferring a restaurant or a restricted hotel certificate in respect of any premises a licensing court shall, if as regards the use of the premises for the provision of the customary main meals it appears to them that it is only for the customary main meal at midday, or only for the customary main meal in the evening, that the premises fall within sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the last foregoing section, insert in the certificate a condition that there shall be no permitted hours in the premises in the evening, or that there shall be permitted hours in the premises only in the evening, as the case requires.")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, some holders of restaurant and restricted hotel certificates, such as, for instance, those who are in a predominantly business area, whether or not they keep open all day, serve main meals only at lunch. As the intention of the Bill is to link the serving of drinks with main meals, this Amendment requires the

879
licensing court to insert a condition restricting the permitted hours to the main meal period if it is lunch or dinner only. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Lord Craigton.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 4, line 20, leave out from ("requests") to end of line 36 and insert ("and if they are satisfied—

(a)that a part of the premises (hereafter in this subsection referred to as ' the off-sale pant ') is structurally adapted for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises; and

(b)that there is no internal communication to which customers have access connecting the off-sale part with a part of the premises used, or intended to be used, for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption on the premises, or that any such internal communication is capable of being closed to customers;

insert in the certificate the following conditions, namely—

(i) a condition that the off-sale part (which shall be specified in the condition) shall not be used for the sale or supply of exciseable liquor for consumption on the premises;

(ii) a condition that any internal communication to which customers have access connecting the off-sale part with a part of the premises used for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption on the premises shall be closed to customers during any time when customers are present in any part of the premises; and

(iii) a condition that no customers shall be permitted to use any internal communication for the purpose of passing from one part of the premises to another part thereof;

and so long as the certificate is subject to the said conditions, the provisions of the principal Act, and the following provisions of this Act, relating to the permitted hours shall not apply to the off-sale part.
At the general half-yearly meeting of any licensing court held in October, nineteen hundred and sixty-two, the holder of a hotel or a public house certificate may, notwithstanding that such certificate does not require to be renewed by the court at that meeting, request the court to insert in the certificate the conditions set out in paragraphs (i) to (iii) of this subsection, and in relation to such a request this subsection shall have effect as if for the words from the beginning of the subsection to 'so requests' there were substituted the words 'A licensing court shall, if the holder of a hotel or a public house certificate so requests'")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, perhaps we can consider this Amendment with Nos. 27, 28 and 43. Clause 3 (2) provides for the "hiving off" of separate off-sales parts of hotels and public-houses to which the off-sale hours (that is in Clause 18) and not the permitted hours apply. The first purpose of this Amendment is to give the licensing court the duty of ensuring adequate structural separation between the off-sale and on-sale parts of the premises. This separation is necessary so that there shall be no doubt which hours apply to which part of the premises. The second purpose is a helpful and procedural one. Certificate-holders can have their off-sale premises approved at the general half-yearly meeting of the court in October, 1962. If this provision were not in, they would have to wait until their certificate came up for renewal in March, 1963. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 5, line 15, leave out ("him at his own expense") and insert ("and at the expense of, that person")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment was discussed wich Amendment No. 6 I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 4, page 5, line 25, leave out ("three") and insert ("half-past two").
LORD CRAIGTONMy Lords, could we take this with Amendment No. 13, and also Nos. 15 and 44? I think we did very well in this House. This is the only Amendment made in another place in the hours upon which your Lordships decided. The general weekday licensing hours are by this Amendment reduced by half-an-hour, by closing at 2.30 p.m., instead of 3 p.m., on weekdays. This meets a point made by my noble friend Lord Haddington and other noble Lords, that

881
closing at 3.10 p.m. and opening at 5 o'clock allowed too little time for the staff to clean up and relax. But the Guest Committee's point of an early break being inconvenient to travellers still had to be met, and it is met by the new clause (Amendment No. 15) which allows drinks with meals to be supplied up to 3 o'clock. The new clause is somewhat long, but it is merely the supper extension provisions of Clause 5, adjusted and repeated for lunch time. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 4, page 5, line 36, leave out ("three") and insert ("half-past two")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment was considered with the last Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter
(".—(1) A registered club may apply to the sheriff for any one of the following orders, that is to say—

(a)an order providing that during the winter period the permitted hours in the club on weekdays shall not be those set out in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section four of this Act, but shall instead be the period between eleven in the morning and two in the afternoon and the period between four and half-past nine in the evening; or

(b)an order providing that during the winter period the permitted hours in the club on Sundays shall not be those set out in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1), but shall instead be the period between half-past twelve and two in the afternoon and the period between four and eight in the evening, and that for the purpose of the sale or supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises there shall be no permitted hours in the club on Sundays; or

(c)an order which contains both the aforesaid provisions;
882
and the sheriff shall, if in his opinion the conditions set out in the next following subsection are satisfied, make the order applied for.

(2) The conditions referred to in the fore-going subsection are—

(a)that the premises of the club are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests of athletic sports or athletic games;

(b)that one or more of such sports or games is or are usually carried on out of doors and, when so carried on, can (unless artificial lighting is used) only be carried on during the hours of daylight;

(c)that the said premises are regularly used, or are intended regularly to be used, during the winter period, for providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests, during the hours of daylight, of such a sport or game as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph;

(d)that having regard to the time at which the said sport or game is usually carried on by members of the club and their guests, the permitted hours set out in paragraph (a) or (b) or paragraphs (a) and (b) (as the case may be) of subsection (1) of section four of this Act are not suitable for the supply of exciseable liquor in the said premises to persons who participate in that sport or game.

(3) On an application for an order being made under subsection (1) of this section by any club the sheriff clerk shall forthwith give notice thereof to the chief constable who may, within twenty-one days of the date of the receipt by him of such notice, lodge with the sheriff clerk objections to the making of such order on the ground that one or more of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the last foregoing subsection has not or have not been satisfied in relation to the club, and shall, on lodging any such objections, send a copy thereof to the secretary of the club; and if any such objections are lodged and not withdrawn, the sheriff shall as soon as may be hear parties upon the application and objections and may order such enquiry as he thinks fit, and shall thereafter make or refuse to make the order applied for, and may award expenses against the unsuccessful party.
(4) An order made under this section by the sheriff in respect of any club shall expire on the date on which the certificate of registration which is in force in respect of the club expires.
(5) In this section the expression 'the winter period' means the period beginning with the first day of October and ending with the thirty-first day of March.")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, it might be convenient to consider this Amendment with No. 16. I am sure that both Houses of Parliament were right to maintain uniform standard

883
licensing hours throughout Scotland for premises supplying drink. In all but one case—and we examined a number—we were satisfied that adequate service could be given during the standard hours. The one exception is provided for in this new clause—that is, clubs whose outdoor activities in wintertime must be timed to match the hours of daylight. In some winter months the golfer must reach the 18th hole before 4 o'clock; and who are we to keep him away from the 19th hole until 5 o'clock on weekdays, or until 6.30 on Sundays? By this clause the sheriff has the power, on application, and subject to suitable safeguards, to grant the club the alternative hours, which are 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. on weekdays, and on Sundays 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.; that is, during the winter months, October 1 to March 31. I should add that my noble friend Lord Guest has seen and thoroughly approves of this new clause. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to say briefly how much I welcome this clause, and to make two small comments on it. I am rather sad that it has not been found possible to include ice rinks in this provision, but I see the difficulty facing the Government in doing that. However, I should like them to say that they will keep their eyes on the position in relation to ice rinks to see whether, at some time in the future, the position can be altered to enable ice rinks also to take advantage of this change in hours, should they wish.
Secondly, I should like to inquire why the winter period was chosen from October 1 to March 31, because, so far as most of these golf clubs and suchlike are concerned, the winter period is dependent more on when they lose the extra hour in the evening. Therefore, while I have no objection to October 1, I think that March 31 is perhaps a little early for ending the winter period, as I believe that normally summertime does not start until about April 10—I may be wrong about that. I should like to
884
inquire from my noble friend whether they have to adopt these special hours if they so wish during the whole of the winter period, or whether they can start adopting them only when summertime ends on (I think it is) the last Sunday in October.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, on the question of whether we should have summertime or a fixed period, we considered this point carefully, but the difficulty is that summertime is a movable thing and we do not know from one year to another when it may be altered. Therefore, we have a fixed time in the Bill. On the other point of ice rinks, I hope that we have sufficiently well drafted this Bill that, if we want to find a loophole with regard to them, we shall have to come to Parliament to have it enacted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Extension of permitted hours in the afternoon in certain licensed premises and clubs
(".—(1) This section shall apply to any premises for which a certificate (other than an off-sale certificate) is held or to the premises of a registered club—

(a) if the holder of the certificate or, as the case may be, the club gives notice of the application of the section to the premises in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, and

(b) as from such date as may be specified in the said notice:

Provided that, in the case of premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held or the premises of a club, the certificate-holder or the club, as the case may be, shall not give notice of application as aforesaid, and this section shall not apply to such premises, unless the licensing court for the licensing area within which the premises are situated are satisfied that the premises are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at midday for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises
(2) While this section applies to any premises the effect shall be that, for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection, on weekdays the permitted hours in those premises in the afternoon, as fixed by section four or, as the case may be, section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) of this Act, shall be increased by the addition of half an hour at the end thereof.
(3) The purposes referred to in the last foregoing subsection are—

(a) the sale or supply to persons taking table meals in the premises of exciseable

885
liquor supplied in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of such persons, and supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal; and

(b) the consumption of exciseable liquor so supplied.

(4) While this section applies to any premises, then for purposes other than those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, or in parts of the premises other than the part so mentioned, the permitted hours shall be the same as if this section did not apply to the premises.
(5) This section shall cease to apply to any premises on the expiry of the twenty-seventh day of May in any year if the holder of the certificate or the club, as the case may be, gives notice of the disapplication of the section from the premises in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection:
Provided that this section shall cease to apply to premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held, or to the premises of a club, at any time on the licensing court ceasing to be satisfied as mentioned in the proviso to subsection (1) of this section.
(6) A notice of the application of this section to, or of the disapplication of this section from, any premises—

(a) shall be in writing;

(b) shall, in the case of a club, be given by the secretary of the club on its behalf;

(c) shall, in the case of a notice of application, specify the date from which the section is to apply to the premises and, in the case of a notice of disapplication, state that the section is to cease to apply to the premises on the expiry of the twenty-seventh day of May next following the giving of the notice;

(d) shall be served on the chief constable not later than fourteen days before the date specified as aforesaid, or not later than fourteen days before the twenty-seventh day of May, as the case may be.

(7) The secretary of any club to the premises of which this section applies shall notify the licensing court for the licensing area within which such premises are situated of any reconstruction of extension of. or alteration in. the premises which affects the facilities available in the premises for the provision of the customary main meal at midday, and if the secretary of any club contravenes this subsection be shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(8) The holder of the certificate for premises to which this section applies shall keep posted in some conspicuous place in the premises a notice stating that this section applies thereto and setting out the effect of its application, and if any person contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment was considered with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move that
886
this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 5, page 7, line 1, leave out from ("or") to ("six") in line 2 and insert ("section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) or, as the case may be").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment was considered with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree With the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 5, page 7, line 42, after ("or") insert ("not later than fourteen days before").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, this seems to me to be an extraordinary piece of drafting, because if you read the clause now you will see it says:
"or not later than fourteen days before …"
I believe that that occurs twice in the Bill. Either it is done so that we get about ten extra words, and they can put up the price from 2s. 3d. to 2s. 6d. for those sufficiently unfortunate to have to buy a copy, or it is done because there must (have been very slack drafting in another place. It seems that we might ease everyone's burden by substituting the "thirteenth day of May" for
"not later than fourteen days before the … twenty-seventh day of May …",
as I cannot see that would make any difference to the substance of the Bill and would make it somewhat easier to define.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Duke has not got it quite right. This is not a point of substance; it is a drafting point. The point was that the words:
"shall be served on the chief constable not later than fourteen days before the date specified as aforesaid, or the twenty-seventh day of May …"
did not make it clear whether it was May 27 or fourteen days before May 27 that was meant. If we did what the noble Duke suggests we should not be clear whether it meant May 13 or fourteen days before May 13, which is April 30. I suggest to my noble friend that the drafting is correct—unless we wanted to redraft the clause which, of course, would be impossible. So I must support the draftsman in this case.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I disagree—but there it is.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 5, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) Nothing in this section shall affect anything done under section one hundred and twenty-six of the principal Act before the date on which this section comes into force, but anything so done shall, if in force immediately before the said date, have effect as if it had been done under the said section one hundred and twenty-six as set out in the preceding subsection.")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, by this Amendment it is made clear that supper extensions already granted to licensed premises and clubs under the present law will continue automatically after this Bill becomes law. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 9, line 37, after ("or") insert ("not later than fourteen days before").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment was considered with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 12, page 13, line 7, leave out ("No person shall") and insert ("A person shall not knowingly act as agent for a person under eighteen in the purchase of exciseable liquor, nor shall any person").
Clause 12, page 13,Line 23, at end insert ("and nothing in subsection (3) of this section shall prohibit the acting by any person as agent for a person who has attained the age of sixteen in the purchase of beer, porter, cider or perry for consumption as aforesaid").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, under the Bill as it stands there would be no offence if an under-eighteen wanting a drink gave the money to an over-eighteen to buy it. The first Amendment closes that loophole, and the second introduces the necessary and consequential saving for over-sixteens, who may buy beer et cetera with a meal. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 13, page 14, line 21, leave out from ("or") to end of line 23 and insert ("by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person, and if it is paid for with that person's accommodation")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment was considered with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
Sale of exciseable liquor in registered clubs to members of other clubs
(".—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act. the rules of a registered club may provide for the admission to the premises of the club of persons who are members of another club, and for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor to such persons by or on behalf of the club for consumption on the premises, if—

(a) the other club is a registered club whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed; or

(b) both clubs exist for learned, educational or political objects of a similar nature; or

889

(c) each of the clubs is primarily a club for persons who are qualified by service or past service, or by any particular service or past service, in Her Majesty's Forces and are members of an organisation established by Royal Charter, and consists wholly or mainly of such persons; or

(d) each of the clubs is primarily a club for persons who carry on the same trade, profession or occupation, and that trade, profession or occupation is the same in the case of either club; or

(e) each of the clubs is a working men's club (that is to say, a club which is, as regards its purposes, qualified for registration as a working men's club under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and is a registered society within the meaning of that Act or of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893).

(2) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, the authority of a certificate or licence shall not be required for such a sale of exciseable liquor as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection and, where the rules of a club provide as aforesaid, exciseable liquor may be supplied in the premises of the club to such persons as mentioned in that subsection and their guests for consumption on the premises, as it may to members of the club and their guests.")
Clause 15, page 15, line 12, after first ("the") insert ("sale or")
Clause 15, page 15, line 17, after ("the") insert ("sale or")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this new clause and the consequential Amendments follow the lines of the English 1961 Act. In all walks of life members of one club enjoy the facilities of membership of another club with similar interests, and there is nothing anti-social in including such a provision in club rules. But the decisions of some, though not all, sheriffs in Scotland have been against such a provision. So it is clearly right to clarify the law on this point. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Leave out Clause 16.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the battle for police inspection of clubs in any form and with any safeguards has been fought and lost. Your Lordships emasculated the Guest proposals; the Scottish Standing Committee rejected both your Lordships' proposals and an
890
even more refined Government Amendment. The other place on Report would have nothing but Clause 16 out of the Bill, and I have no alternative and no right, with a provision of this nature, but cheerfully and resignedly to ask your Lordships to agree with the other place. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry my noble friend Lord Hughes is unable to be here to-day to express our regret that the Government have succumbed to pressure and have agreed to what we regard as a wholly retrograde and reactionary step. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, coming here and saying that we have to carry out the will of another place. It is quite true that in another place the Government have a very large majority. Therefore, if the Government had let it be known that their will was that this clause should stay in the Bill, then it would have stayed and we should not now be considering this Amendment. No one can deny that. Nor can anyone deny that, when the Government put Clause 16 in this Bill, they did so after mature consideration. Your Lordships will remember that on the English Bill we had a series of debates in which we on this side (and certainly I personally, because I moved more than one Amendment) tried to get this clause, or one like it, inserted in the English Bill. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, the former Lord Chancellor, explained very carefully and at considerable length why that was not possible.
Then we came to the Scottish Bill several months later. The Government obviously had had much more time for reflection, and they had had much more mature and wise advice from the people in Scotland, and they put in the Bill a provision that a police officer of the rank of inspector or above could have the power to enter into a club. I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, explaining why the Government had come to this decision, that this was the right and proper course. I have no intention of quoting his words at this stage, because I know he expressed

891
genuine and sound views which secured tie general support of your Lordships. What is extraordinary is that the Government have now suffered some change of heart in his matter—I do not know whether the new Secretary of State for Scotland has any responsibility for this, but if so I would consider it a very bad start.
This question of a police inspector, a chief inspector or superintendent, having the right of entry to a club would never be abused. In every case police officers know before they go in whether it is a bad club. But under the present law in this country, and under the law as it will again be in Scotland if this Amendment is accepted, they will have to go through the whole rigmarole of getting evidence inside before they can go before a magistrate and secure a warrant. We all know the tremendous expense and time which is taken and, very often, the degrading steps which the police themselves have to undertake to secure the evidence. All that would have been done away with, and was done away with, by this Clause 16. No good club would ever object to this power.
No good club would ever have a visit from an inspector or chief inspector, because they know full well what goes on inside before they go in. What yielding in this way means is that we have once more given way to all the spivs and racketeers who want to carry on unsatisfactory and undesirable practices; who in fact want to break the law, and to break it with virtual impunity. The people who object are the people who have something to hide, the kind of people who, whether they be Fascists or Communists, are so ready to use the processes of democracy in order to preserve for themselves the Tights which they would deny to others.
There really is no case against this clause at all and it is extraordinary that the Government should have succumbed in this way. It would have given protection to young people, and particularly to young girls. It is not a question of snooping; it would have given provision to protect the decent clubs and to deal in a proper way, using responsible and senior police officers, with the undesirable clubs. It would, indeed, have been one example of many where Scotland was in advance of England,
892
and where we could have gained experience under the Scottish law which might later have been used with advantage by an amendment of the English law. I feel that your Lordships' House were entitled to some fuller explanation than the very lame and untenable one, that the Government have had to bow to the will of the Commons. The Government, at the moment, possibly without any justification, have a large majority in the Commons and they would have been able to deal with this.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, first, I must say that my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland had nothing Whatever to do with this Bill, and I must say that personally I am sorry that Clause 16 is out of the Bill. But let us be frank. Democracy has had its say, and this is the sort of Bill which cuts right across Party lines. The noble Lord talks of spivs and racketeers; but he is rather over-emphasising this aspect, because, as he realises, the same conditions already apply in England and Wales.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord refresh my memory, as he spoke of democracy expressing itself? Was this particular matter taken to Division in the Commons?
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 18, page 16, line 29, leave out ("a condition as is") and insert ("conditions at are").
Clause 18, page 16, line 32, leave out from ("the") to ("as") in line 33, and insert ("off-sale part (as defined in the said subsection (2)) of those premises").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 were considered with No. 10. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with, the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 16, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) In the case of any contravention of this section as regards any licensed premises,

893
the holder of the certificate in respect of those premises shall be deemed to be guilty of a breach of that certificate and shall be liable accordingly.")
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is a drafting correction, as the only offence possible under this clause is having the shop open for selling drink outside off-sales hours, and there can be no "other case" as in subsection 3 (b). I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it intended to go right through consideration of Commons' Amendments before we have the statement?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the only fair answer to that is that I do not know. I am waiting for my noble friend Lord Dundee, who is going to make the statement. He is not in this Chamber at the moment, and I can only assume that that is because we cannot be earlier than the other place in connection with the statement. I have not any news of the position in the other place.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I have only one more sentence to say; then everything else is formal.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 20, page 18, line 3, at end insert ('"two or more").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, your Lordships are wholly responsible for Clause 20, about boozing bus parties. Your Lordships will be glad to see that the only Amendment the other place could make is very minor and obviously a drafting one. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
First Schedule, page 21, line 40, after ("that") insert ("drinking water and other"),
First Schedule, page 21, line 41, leave out ("(including drinking water)").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, we can take Nos. 31 and 32 together, and consider them with Nos. 37 and 38, as these are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 22, line 4, leave out from ("committed") to end of line 5.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, amendment No. 33 may be considered with No. 39. These correct a drafting error. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Page 22, line 46, leave out from ("or") to ("for") in line 49 and insert—
("by a private friend of such a person who is a bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person;
(c) the certificate-holder may supply such liquor to any private friends of a person residing in the premises who are bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".)
Page 23, line 4, leave out from ("or") to ("with") in line 6 and insert ("by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, amendments Nos. 34 and 35 can be taken together and relate to No. 6. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 23, line 6, leave out ("with") and insert ("as an ancillary to").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, amendment No. 36 goes with No. 8. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Page 23, line 17, after ("that") insert ("drinking water and other").
Page 23, line 18, leave out ("(including drinking water)").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, amendments Nos. 37 and 38 go together and were discussed with No. 31. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 23, line 32, leave out from ("committed") to end of line 33.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 was discussed with No. 33. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Second Schedule, page 25, line 41, leave out ("'section'") and insert ("'applications'").
Second Schedule, page 25, line 43, leave out ("subsections (1) and (2)") and insert ("subsection (1)").
Second Schedule, page 25, line 50, after ("apply") insert ("also").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, may we take Nos. 40, 41 and 42 together, as these are all drafting? I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 27, line 49, leave out from ("nor") to end of line 4 on page 28 and insert ("where
896
by virtue of subsection (2) of section three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962, a licensing court has inserted such conditions as are mentioned in that subsection in a hotel or a public house certificate held in respect of any premises, to the off-sale part (as defined in the said subsection (2)) of those premises.'").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, Amendment No. 43 was discussed with No. 10. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 28, line 11, leave out ("section six") and insert ("sections (Extension of permitted hours in the afternoon in certain licensed premises and clubs) and six").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords. Amendment No. 44 was discussed with No. 12. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 28, line 25, leave out from ("or") to end of line 27 and insert ("by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person, and if it is paid for with that person's accommodation.'").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 45, was discussed with No. 6. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 28, line 43, at end, insert—
("26. In section one hundred and seventy-nine (which confers on the police certain powers of entry under warrant into registered clubs), in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "or the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962".").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, Amendment No. 46 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House

897
doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 30, line 35, leave out from ("or") to ("with") in line 36, and insert ("by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, Amendment No. 47 was discussed with No. 6. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 30, line 36, leave out ("with") and insert ("as an ancillary to").
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 48, was discussed with No. 8. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 33, line 58, at end, insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 60.

The Betting and Gaming Act, 1960.

In section twenty-six, in subsection (1), the words 'and in any condition contained in any certificate granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959'.")

LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 49, is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE COMMON MARKET AND AGRICULTURE
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a statement now being made by the Lord Privy Seal in another place on the progress of the Brussels negotiations.
"The Ministerial Meeting which began on the 20th of July was concerned with two important aspects of the development of the European Economic Community's common agricultural policy—arrangements for annual reviews and the provision of a further assurance for farmers in the Community.
"The arrangement worked out at this meeting contains the following elements:
"First, there will be an annual review of agriculture in the Community as a whole—a Community annual review. The information which member States will have to provide. to enable the Commission to prepare this comprehensive review of the situation and the economic prospects of agriculture in the Community has been agreed between us in detail. At the same time member countries of the Community who wish to do so will carry out their own annual reviews. The results of such reviews, together with any observation which member States concerned wish to put forward about them, will be forwarded to the Commission and taken into account by them in preparing the Community Review. The Commission will also carry out consultations with representatives of interested organisations, particularly of farmers.
"Secondly, the arrangement sets out explicitly what the Community annual review itself is to cover. This includes trends in the profitability of the agricultural industry, trends in prices and costs within the Community and an assessment of their implications for production, consumption, imports and exports.
"Thirdly, the arrangement covers the use to be made of the annual review when completed. The Commission must report to the Council of

899
Ministers the results of the Community Review and make appropriate proposals to the Council, particularly in the light of these results. The Council will also use the results of the annual review in taking decisions in the implementation of the common agricultural policy.
"Fourthly, the Community have accepted in the arrangement that if the annual review shows that the remuneration in the agricultural industry does not ensure for the farmers of the Community or of particular areas of it a fair standard of living, in conformity with the objectives defined in Article 39 of the Treaty, the Commission will take up the question either on its own initiative or at the request of a member State. The Commission will then submit to the Council of Ministers proposals to remedy this situation, and the necessary decisions will be taken by the Ministers.
"To sum up, an arrangement has been reached for the establishment of a comprehensive Community Review incorporating the results of those undertaken by national Governments. Those results will be applied by the institutions Of the Community in the construction of a developing common agricultural policy. The Community has also accepted that there should be a general assurance with regard to farming incomes and has agreed upon the procedure by which this assurance must be implemented.
"These are very important parts of our negotiations affecting domestic agriculture. To-morrow in Brussels we will return to other aspects of them, namely certain commodities and horticulture. The ministerial meeting will continue for the remainder of the week and will deal with other important items in the negotiations, in particular those concerned with Commonwealth trade. I expect to make a further report to the House next Monday."
3.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, of course we are obliged to the noble Earl for giving your Lordships' House the benefit of having the statement concurrently with the statement in another place. But I
900
must say that I think your Lordships will agree, when you read this in Hansard to-morrow morning, how remarkably little we are told upon something which apparently has been agreed as an arrangement. The language in this statement is extraordinarily abstruse, as I see it, and I am not surprised that in the newspaper this morning the National Farmers' Union President says that this is nothing at all so far as they are concerned; it is no use to them; and the charge is made by the President of the National Farmers' Union that Mr. Heath has not carried out his pledge. Has the noble Earl seen that? Does he know about that? Has he made inquiries? Can he give reassurance about this arrangement to Members of this House of Parliament as well as any statement that is made in the other? Because, so far as I can see, this is the beginning of the Tory Government's selling the farmers down the river. That is so far as I can read a meaning into this statement to-day, and the reaction of Mr. Harold Woolley, the President of the National Farmers' Union, seems to support me very strongly in this view.
What is actually going to be the position? Anybody who reads carefully Article 39 of this massive Treaty of Rome, which is concerned with agriculture, will see there the conditions which are laid down. Perhaps next week when we are dealing with the Common Market we shall be able to say a good deal more in detail. But it actually seeks a common agricultural policy for the whole community. It also makes passing reference to the standards of life of the farmer, the standards of life of the worker and so on. And here to-day we get a comprehensively abstruse statement as to an arrangement made for a whole procedure in regard to annual agricultural reviews.
First of all, it is right to point out, as Mr. Harold Woolley points out, that no other country in the Community is necessarily required to have an agricultural review. There is no guarantee at all, therefore, that there will be anything other—apart from our own—than a Community Review produced for the whole of the Six. It will be perfectly open, I know, for other members of the Six to have an annual review and report upon it, but there is no compulsion, according to this statement made to-day. Then you will have a judgment of the

901
Standard of life of the farmer and the standard of life of the worker, with its ultimate effect upon the consumers of the country, settled outside by a body which you enter and of which you become practically, shall I say, a province with a minority voice. This is the revelation and it is coming step by step. 1 hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us at any rate something more about the promise that there is to be an assurance about the farmers' position. We have heard nothing concrete yet about that, and perhaps he would give us some more information now.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving us both his own views and those of the President of the National Farmers' Union. Of course, your Lordships will realise that when a general agreement is reached upon the lines of approach to be fallowed in pursuing certain objectives it is very difficult to anticipate concrete details which have not yet been worked out by the Six themselves. The noble Viscount referred to Article 39 and asked whether I could give any more detailed information than I have done, which I do not think I can do. But the best I can do, I think, is just to remind your Lordships of what Article 39 says. The Objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be:

"(a) to increase agricultural productivity …

(b)to ensure … a fair standard of living for the agricultural population, particularly by the increasing of the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;

(c)to stabilise markets;

(d)to guarantee regular supplies; and

(e)to ensure reasonable prices in supplies to consumers."

And it provides that account shall be taken of the distinctive nature of agricultural activity which results from agriculturist social structure and from
"structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions".
With regard to this agreement which has been made between my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal and the representatives of the Six last week in Brussels, I think all I could say now in reply to the noble Viscount's question is that the Six have accepted, after a great deal of pressure from us, that there should be a comprehensive Com-
902
munity Review with explicit terms of reference, and we have established a mechanism whereby the Community will take account of the results of the Annual Review and make its decisions on the common agricultural policy. We have also persuaded the Six to accept that there will be a residual assurance to the agricultural population, and a procedure by which this has to be implemented. We have thus not only obtained a long-term guarantee for British farmers but have made a positive contribution to the establishment in due course of a comprehensive, long-term agricultural policy in an enlarged Community. I do not think I could be expected to prophesy the details of agricultural policy in ten years' time after the transitional period has come to an end. I do not think it would be useful if I attempted to do that, and I certainly do not object to the prophetic criticisms of the noble Viscount, which he is perfectly entitled to make and which may well be useful as a warning.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I am wholly dissatisfied with the comments made by the noble Earl. He started to read out the article—I saved the House from listening to it at length—but in fact he does not answer the points which have been made by the farmers themselves on this subject. Mr. Harold Woolley, the President of the National Farmers' Union, says that the Agreement would neither guarantee farmers fair prices nor maintain their standard of living, and he complained that Mr. Heath had retreated from a promise made last October that the Government would retain the right to safeguard farmers' living standards. There is no such right, according to this statement, retained by the British Government. They have agreed to this procedural arrangement. No other country in the Six is bound to have its own individual review. You can have an annual review here and it will be considered, probably under a policy approach for the year, by the Commission for the whole of the Six, or the whole of the enlarged Community. This means giving up your right in this country to deal with three points of fundamental importance to the citizens of this country—the standard of life of

903
the farmers; the standard of life of the farming workers, and the actual consumption position of the general mass of consumers in this country. You are letting that go entirely to a majority of other people in Europe.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue an argument on what may be largely a matter of opinion. I would only point out to your Lordships that under this Agreement which the Lord Privy Seal has now made with the Six, if the annual review—that is the annual review of any special country in the Community—indicates that the remuneration of the agricultural industry does not ensure for the agricultural population of any particular area in it a fair standard of living, then, in conformity with the objective defined in Article 39 of the Treaty, the Commission will have to submit to the Council, either on its own initiative or at the request of a member, measures to remedy that situation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You go cap in hand and ask for a change of policy of the majority against you. I have never before in my long life seen the position of British citizenship let down like that.
4.3 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the statement. I believe it is an important step forward in most difficult and delicate negotiations. May I ask the noble Earl one or two questions? First of all, how did the President of the National Farmers' Union know last week what was going to be in this statement to-day? Has there been any leakage of information, and has the President of the Farmers' Union obtained information before this House obtained it? Secondly, has the noble Earl not already said that there will be a comprehensive Community annual review of these particular farm prices?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the question, I can say I have no knowledge of any leakage, nor have I any knowledge of whether the anticipation of the President of the National Farmers' Union was correct or otherwise. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question is, "Yes".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not a fact that this statement was made by Mr. Harold Woolley only yesterday, but that there were already announcements on Saturday night that some agreement had been arrived at, and further expansions of that in the Press on Sunday? I have no doubt that somebody would have been present over there keeping watch on behalf of the Farmers' Union as to what was going on.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I nave done my best to study and understand the statement of my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal. I am afraid that I have not given equal study to the anticipatory reports, either of the newspapers or in anybody's speeches.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? He used the phrase that there would be an attempt made to ensure a fair standard of living. Does that mean a uniform standard, or may there be varying standards for the different countries belonging to the European Community?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have not been in politics for quite so long as the noble Lord, but I have been in it for about thirty years, and I do not think I have ever heard any politician in any Party define what is meant by a living wage, although one is often asked to do so; yet within the last thirty years a great many more people are receiving a living wage than was the case thirty years ago. I would make the same observation in regard to this phrase "a fair standard of living", which seems to me to connote much the same thing.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I fully follow the noble Earl. My point was not what was a fair standard of living, but would the standard of living, fair or otherwise, be uniform across the various countries who form the community?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is rather like asking in one country whether the wage in one industry will be the same as a living wage in another, which is often difficult to answer. In regard to agriculture, as we know, here the standard of living of persons engaged in agriculture has advanced

905
rapidly, though not so rapidly as that of those engaged in many branches of manufacturing industry.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like just to say that I am still quite unconvinced by the nature of the statement and of the answers. But there is going to be another statement on Monday next, which apparently is going to affect certain Commonwealth matters as well. We shall be opening our debate on Tuesday week, and we snail have something more in detail to say about the matter then. In the meantime, we shall pursue our inquiries elsewhere. Perhaps they will be more able to fill in the gaps for us than the noble Earl has been able to do to-day.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will always do my best to place all the information I have and all the arguments I can muster at the disposal of the noble Viscount. I am glad to say that it is not an essential part of my duty to convince him, although I should like to be able to do so.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, could the noble Earl explain one point. because these things are complicated? Why is it that the annual review of the Community takes place after the annual review of the (individual countries? One would have thought that if the Review of the Community was to have an effect on individual countries, it should take place before the review of the individual country.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it seems to me that it should be the other way round. Surely the annual Review of the Community should take account of the various particular annual reviews of individual countries. I think that is the general idea.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to point out that there is no compulsion upon any country to submit an annual review. There is nothing in that statement which says that all the Six, for example, are going to submit annual reviews. They are not.
EARL FERRERS: I am fully aware of that, but if the Review of the Community is to have an effect on the individual countries' reviews, then surely
906
those reviews must come after the review of the Community, otherwise they will not be able to have their policies imposed upon the individual countries.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the idea is to give individual countries the opportunity of influencing all the others, and that, if they think they want a change of policy or emphasis, they should produce their review first in order to prevail upon the Commission and the Council of Ministers to take action to dead with any special problems which are affecting them at that time.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING APPEALS (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) RULES, 1962
4.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHrose to move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1962 (S.I. 1962 No. 1425), dated 9th July, 1962, laid before the House on 13th July, 1962, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Resolution standing in my name upon the Order Paper. I think perhaps a word of explanation is due to your Lordships as to why I have put down a Prayer to annul the Rules which have been laid before your Lordships. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that in December last, when we debated the Council on Tribunals, I suggested to the then noble and learned Viscount who occupied the Woolsack, and I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it would be better if the Government would table these new Rules of Procedure in the form of a White Paper, the better to have an uninhibited debate, before a Statutory Instrument was prepared and placed before Parliament, which had to be either annulled or passed but which could not be amended. I think that the Government ware wrong in not acceding to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself, because there are various points in these Rules which I think are worthy of amendment. The difficulty of the Negative Resolution procedure is that you have to take the meal and either

907
swallow it or reject it; you cannot amend it.
I would rely upon what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, said when I pressed this point on December 7. He said—and I am quoting from col. 212 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of December 7, 1961 [Vol. 236]:
"The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, ask me again about the submission to Parliament"—
of these Rules.
"I promise that I shall give that the most careful consideration. I should like only to say this: that if one did lay the rules, and there was a prayer and a general opinion in this House that a rule, or rules, was or were not in accordance with fairness or equity, or equally, on the other hand, if the House thought the delays caused were too long, I cannot imagine that any wise Minister—and I hope I may include myself, just for this purpose, in that category—would not look at them again."
My Lords, I rest myself upon that statement, because I have no reason to believe the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack would not be just as reasonable in this respect as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, said he would be. Three years have elapsed since statutory provision was made, in 1959, for new Rules to cover administrative inquiries into planning appeals. These Rules are now placed before Parliament. My Lords, they do very little to alter what has been the procedure for these past years, except in one regard and that is in relation to Rule 10. And Rule 10, let me say quite frankly, is a great step forward.
Without going into the whole of past history, your Lordships will remember that during what is now known as the famous chalk-pit case controversy raged upon the admission of new factual evidence after the inquiry had been closed and the inspector's report had been received by the Minister. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, played a great part on the debates on that point, and I think it is a great triumph for the Council on Tribunals that they now have persuaded Her Majesty's Government to meet the case, which they do in Rule 10, which I should like to quote. It is now agreed that:
"(2) Where the Minister—

(a) differs from the appointed person on a finding of fact, or

908

(b)after the close of the inquiry receives any new evidence (including expert opinion on a matter of fact) or takes into consideration any new issue of fact (not being a matter of Government policy)which was not raised at the inquiry,

and by reason thereof is disposed to disagree with a recommendation made by the appointed person, he shall not come to a decision which is at variance with any such recommendation without first notifying the appellant, the local planning authority and any section 37 party who appeared at the inquiry of his disagreement and the reasons for it and affording them an opportunity of making representations in writing within twenty-one days or (if the Minister has received new evidence or taken into consideration any new issue of fact not being a matter of Government policy) of asking within twenty-one days for the reopening of the inquiry."
My Lords, that is a substantial move forward, but it does not go far enough. For it does not cover the question of what has become known as the third-party objector. This applies only to the appellant, the planning authority and any Section 37 party.
Perhaps I might explain, if it is necessary to explain it, what is meant by the "Section 37 party". According to Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, it is a party or person who has a legal interest in the land to which the application applies. Other than that, there is no difference in any of these Rules from what has become the accepted practice, and nothing As done to improve the position of the third party—that is, the neighbour who lives next door—who may have the value of his property, or his amenity, sadly interfered with by reason of a planning consent. I intend to refer later on to the position of the third party, but I should like to mention one or two other Rules in the Statutory Instrument, which I think are a little too narrow and should be extended.
I refer, first of all, my Lords, to Rule 2, which defines to whom these Rules shall apply. I would submit to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that they have been drawn far too narrowly. They do not cover the multitude of inquiries which have to be considered. The noble and learned Lord may say to me in his reply that there will be many other Rules made later; but there is one set of applications that is not covered by these Rules, and that is the one called in by the Minister. Under Section 15 of the Town

909
and Country Planning Act, 1947, either as a result of a general Order, as in the case of a mineral working, or by a specific direction, as in the case of an individual application, the Minister has the power to call in an application for planning permission. That is done in rather serious cases, but that application is not subject to these Rules, as I read them. I would cite the case of the North Oxfordshire ironstone working inquiry. That was an application for working of minerals which was called in by the Minister. None of these Rules applies to a case like that, yet they are very serious and have serious repercussions upon the rights of third parties, and I would therefore suggest that third parties should be included.
If we look at Rule 4 we see that the local planning authority is called upon to inform the Minister of all representations made to them in connection with these appeals. Rule 4 says:
"The local planning authority, on being notified of the Minister's intention to proceed with the consideration of an appeal … shall forthwith inform the Minister and the appellant in writing of the names and addresses of all persons "
who are legally entitled to make representations. I suggest that the Minister should be informed of all the parties, whether they are legally entitled to make representations or merely third parties who have no legal entitlement.
Rule 5 sets out all the persons entitled to appear at the inquiry. They are the appellant, the local planning authority and a large number of other people. But no provision is made for local, or even national, amenity societies to be called to give evidence. I think that is a mistake. We have the Society for the Preservation of Rural England, and many other amenity societies, but they have no standing under this Rule. One of the strange omissions from the list, incidentally, is parish councils. I understand that it has been the desire of the Minister of Housing and Local Government that parish councils should be brought into this planning machinery to a greater degree than heretofore. I would have suggested that they could be included in the list of rightful people to appear before an inquiry.
Then in Rules 6 and 7, my Lords, there is a right to request attendance of representatives of interested Government
910
Departments. I would suggest that this right should not be confined to Departments the applicant wants to appear. Why should not the right to request the attendance at an inquiry of a representative of an interested Government Department be extended to the local planning authority, to Section 37 parties—that is, those with legal rights—and, also, to third parties who are appearing before the inquiry as vitally interested parties? Because there are occasions, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know, where a local planning authority has been directed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to grant an application. There will be no appeal, because the appellant has, if I may use the expression, "thrown his hand in". But the local planning authority may very much disagree with the grounds upon which the Minister has given that direction. Why should not all the other interested parties at the inquiry have the right to request the attendance of a representative of the interested Ministry?
There is another case, my Lords, and I will grant that it arises only on what are known as called-in applications. One of the difficulties when an application is called in is to see that the applicant gives to the local planning authority the fullest possible information as to the grounds upon which an application is made. Perhaps I could best illustrate this by again drawing your Lordships' attention to the North Oxfordshire ironstone inquiry, where the appellants were the steel manufacturers, Richard Thomas and Baldwins, who flatly refused to divulge any of the information on which they based their application for planning permission to win iron ore in North Oxfordshire, and the planning authority could not get that information. At the inquiry, as the noble and learned Lord will remember, their case was: "We do not intend to bring any evidence, and we are not going to call any witnesses". Fortunately, they lost their application. But, in my view, if we are going to bring in these Rules for inquiries, or any other Rules Which may be made later on, there must be a duty upon the applicant to state the details of his application, and the reason for it, before the inquiry is opened.
I now come to what is perhaps the main point at issue. This has been

911
dealt with in the Report put forward by the Council on Tribunals as to the unenviable position of third parties. The third party, the neighbour next door, can have an even more vital interest than anybody else in whether an application is granted for the development of the land that adjoins his property, but at the present moment he is not entitled to be informed of the application. If he is the only objector—'and there may be a case where he is the only objector—he need not know anything about it until suddenly, next door to his property, something arises which can affect the value of his property and his amenities to a major extent. He has no right to ask the Minister to call the application in for the purpose of having an inquiry. The local planning authorities have no legal obligation placed upon them to tell him there is going to be any development; and, if he makes inquiries, and if he makes application for the Minister to call the application in through the medium of the local planning authority, the local planning authority can ignore his request.
The Council on Tribunals have realised all this, and they have produced what I think is an admirable Report. They say in the second paragraph:
"The present position is that, when a person appeals to the Minister against the refusal of planning permission and a public inquiry is held, all persons with a genuine interest in the application, for example, neighbours who fear that their amenities may be affected, are allowed to appear and take part in the inquiry. But this is by administrative concession."
However, before they can appear at the inquiry, they must know that the inquiry is going to be held, and at present they have no right to request that they should be informed. If they appear, they have found out: but they may not be able to find out.
The Report of the Council on Tribunals says in its third paragraph:
"It cannot be right for some of those who took part in the inquiry, but not others, to be consulted on these occasions."
Those are the occasions when the Minister is now obliged to listen to objections if he is going to reverse his inspector's decision, and also to re-open the inquiry if he desires so to do. They go on to say:
"It is generally agreed that the present practice of letting in third parties is right,
912
both in justice to themselves and in order to enable the Minister to take the best possible decision with all local opinion before him."
They should be allowed to have this right.
Now, my Lords, the Council have come up against a legal snag, and they admit it. The planning laws of this country do not confer any rights whatsoever on third parties, and the Council on Tribunals have frankly admitted that. They say:
"In view of these legal objections the Council have not felt able to insist on rights in favour of third parities being inserted in the rules."
Then they go on to say:
"Nevertheless the Council are of opinion that third parties who are genuinely affected by planning proposals ought in practice to be given the rights which they would have had if they had been brought within the scope of the rules. The Council therefore recommend that the rules in their present form should be accompanied by an assurance given in Parliament that third parties will in practice be given the benefit of them. The Council consider that this should not be limited to third parties whose legal rights are infringed, but should be extended to third parties who have appeared at the inquiry and by reason of loss of amenity or depreciation of the value of their property or on other similar grounds may fairly be regarded, in the ordinary use of language, as affected by the proposals in question."
I am not quite clear—perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell me—whether, when the Council on Tribunals say that these third parties should be brought within the scope of the Rules, that means information, notification, to all those who have a genuine interest, and not only to those who have heard of it by chance and who appear at the inquiry.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is perhaps one of our greatest authorities on the law set down in the Planning Acts, will agree with me. I think he would agree with me that the concession granted to third parties to be heard at these inquiries should stand. I think he would also agree that there should be some system of notification to genuinely interested third parties that an application is going to be made. I think he would further agree that a third party who applies to the Minister to call in an application for the purpose of holding an inquiry should be able to go direct to the Minister, so that the Minister has the duty and the

913
right to say whether that third party's application for a call in is frivolous or whether it is genuine, and so that that application should not go by default before the local planning authority.
I do not know whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree with The Times but, my Lords, in the leading article in The Times on Tuesday, July 17, it says this. Even if the noble and learned Lord is this afternoon going, on behalf of the Government, to accept the recommendation of the Council on Tribunals set out in their Report, this is what The Times says:
"This cannot be said to dispose of the difficulty. An assurance of the kind suggested would have no force in a court of law. Yet the ultimate safeguard that the procedures laid down will be properly complied with consists in judicial review by the High Court. The only people who are entitled to make application to the High Court are those whom the Act speaks of as 'aggrieved', and it has been held that 'persons aggrieved' do not include third parties, however prejudicial to them a planning decision may be."
Really, that means, in plain language, that an alteration in the planning law is contemplated or advocated—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree with that.
But, my Lords, all this, in my view, raises a very serious issue. It may well be that the Planning Acts of 1947 are outmoded. Maybe public opinion, in the course of time, has made their review imperative. But in a debate not very long ago—as a matter of fact, in July, 1961—on this special point of where administrative law comes in conflict with the rights of the citizen, I quoted some words which were uttered by the late Lord Birkett. I am now quoting from col. 154 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for July 12, 1961 [Vol. 233]. The noble and learned Lord said that the ordinary citizen can rest assured that
"no one will do him wrong, because in the ultimate there are English judges who will see that right is done by him."
On this question of third parties, ordinary citizens who have been aggrieved and may have had their property and their amenities ruined have no recourse to the law of this country. Would it be possible for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, on behalf of the Government, to embrace within these Rules the recommendations of the Council on Tribunals, with the proposal that they do
914
not confer any other rights? I think he will agree with me that the case which the Council make out for a better safeguard of the rights of third parties is overwhelming. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1962 (SI, 1962 No. 1425), dated 9th July 1962, laid before the House on 13th July 1962, be annulled.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.43 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I know that the House will greatly appreciate the immense interest and trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, takes in dealing with these very difficult questions about inquiries and tribunals. Particularly are we greatly indebted to him for enabling us to have a discussion on these new Rules this afternoon. He has had (and I have joined with him on many occasions) the opportunity of dealing with defects, as he felt them, in the procedure of public inquiries, and I am sure that nobody in this House will grudge the time we are taking this afternoon in once more having a discussion on the nature and the details of the machinery for public inquiries.
I think that in forming a proper judgment on the machinery of inquiries we have to clear our minds as to what is the purpose of these inquiries. The two Orders which form the subject of Resolutions on the Paper to-day deal with the machinery for inquiries into compulsory purchase by local authorities and others, and for appeals against decisions of local authorities. I think that in both cases we have to consider what is the intrinsic purpose of these inquiries. Are they pieces of legal machinery which have to be conducted in accordance with all the rules of legal evidence, and which have to be adjudicated upon entirely upon the facts and the weight of the evidence? Or are they pieces of administration, part of the administration of town planning in this country, which are designed to ensure that the citizen is fairly treated if his land is compulsorily acquired, or if he desires to develop his land, subject always to the national policy and the responsibility of the local authority or the Minister concerned? In my view,

915
the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has tended to look on these inquiries as an adjudication on a legal basis, rather than as part of the administration of this country.
The Franks Committee considered this question very carefully, and in paragraphs 262 and 263 onwards of their Report they set out the case for the two points of view. They said:
"Two strongly opposed views may be held about these procedures. They may be termed the 'administrative' and the 'judicial' views, and we state them, for convenience and simplicity …".
I think that the conclusion they reached was somewhat inconclusive, but my own personal view is that these inquiries are definitely part of the administration of the Town and Country Planning Acts, or of the other Acts under which compulsory purchase takes place. The Minister and the local authorities have a duty imposed upon them by Acts of Parliament to carry out certain policies. They have to do so in accordance with the policy of the Government, or of the local authority, which has to act within the scope of Government policy. But they have to do it in such a way as not to inflict hardship or damage upon the individual; and it is for this reason that the citizen is given the right of making representations. The whole structure of appeals is based upon the right of the citizen to make representations, so that the Minister, in the last resort—the Minister on appeal—may take account of these representations and, according to the weight of the representations, make his decision either to amend the policy, or to amend his own decision (where that is concerned) or that of the local authority.
It has been stated, and I think correctly, that if the Minister could hear personally all these representations, that would be the ideal state of affairs. Obviously, no Minister can bear 20,000 representations a year—I think that that is, roughly, the number he receives every year. Therefore, a representative is appointed, an inspector, to attend locally and hear the case that is put forward by those who are dissatisfied either with a compulsory purchase order or with a planning decision of the local authority—I take it that we are dealing with both Rules together. I think that it is
916
important to get our minds clear on the function of the inspector. He is not there as a judge, to decide the issue. He is there to hear what are the objections, to hear the evidence, to weigh it up and report to the Minister the various points that have been raised, both for and against the decision of the local authority or the proposal put forward by the Minister himself. The inspector may or may not make his own recommendation; he may assess the weight of evidence or he may not. But it is for the Minister to decide, in accordance with his policy and in accordance with the evidence that has been put before him.
My Lords, I have dealt at some length with what I consider to be the nature and purpose of these inquiries because I think that they have relevance to the case the noble Lord has put forward this afternoon. If we regard these inquiries as in the nature of judicial inquiries, which have to be carried out strictly in accordance with all the rules of evidence, so that the evidence submitted has to be strictly weighed, then obviously we must have the strictest possible rules, and the noble Lord is probably right in saying that these Rules would require amending in many respects. On the other hand, if we take the view, which I take, and take very strongly, that this is part of an administrative process, in which the citizen is given the right to make representations in case a local authority or the Minister himself may be making a mistake in the carrying out of a policy, which must be one for the Government of the day, then we come to a very different kind of decision.
Even then, it has been suggested that it might be more appropriate for these appeals to be dealt with through the courts. I think that the answer is quite clear. The courts could not possibly deal with the enormous number of cases that have to be dealt with. It was thought, too, that this procedure would be simpler and cheaper than the legal procedure of the courts. But as time has gone on we have been finding that the reverse is the case. The public inquiries that take place to-day, especially the more important of them, are certainly no cheaper, and they are no less complicated, than the procedure of the courts. The noble Lord referred to the North Oxfordshire inquiry, but

917
one can come nearer home and take the case, in which I had an indirect interest, of the hotel in Park Lane. This was a case in which the inquiry lasted many days, and the most expensive counsel were employed. They had expert witnesses, at considerable expense, and the whole procedure was just as expensive and as lengthy as if the matter had been a court case.
Furthermore, one of the original justifications for this kind of inquiry was that it would be quicker. In fact, however, to-day if you lodge an appeal it takes probably eight or nine months before there is a hearing; and in difficult cases it may take a similar time before a decision is given. I say these things because it seems to me that this whole question of public inquiries has got out of hand: they are far different in character from what was originally contemplated. I should like to get back to something very much simpler than these Rules that we have, with so many days for this and so many days for that. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he reads these Rules, will think that they sound like extracts from the White Paper, with all the regulations that are laid down and the times for delivering pleadings for this, that and the other.
It seems to me, my Lords, that the trend of these inquiries is such that it is becoming more difficult for a citizen who feels aggrieved to go to the tribunal and have his objections considered than it is to go to the courts. May I mention one special reason why this is so? Obviously, in order to do yourself justice, if you are unfortunate enough to have to go to a tribunal, you must have legal advice and employ a solicitor and counsel; and the number of solicitors and counsel qualified to deal with matters of this kind is extremely limited—and, incidentally, they are extremely expensive. Therefore, we are doing the ordinary citizen no justice in so complicating these Rules of Procedure as to make it essential for him to be advised by the most expensive legal personages and involving him in so much delay before a decision is reached.
I am not going to oppose these Rules, but I should like an assurance from the noble and learned Loud on the Woolsack that the Government have no intention of further complicating them, so
918
making it even more difficult for people to conduct their appeals. I should like to see another Inquiry held into the simplification of the Rules, so that people can go before a tribunal to confidence and feel that they can put their own case personally, without having to employ all this legal array of barristers and solicitors. Perhaps I should sum up by saying that I do not like the Rules because they are a further complication and are getting us more and more removed from the spirit we originally had in mind in providing for appeals to the Minister on specific points.
On the question of third parties, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the position of third parties is somewhat unsatisfactory. I think he is quite right in saying that one may discover too late that certain developments are taking place which may seriously affect one's personal amenities. I have heard (and this case is, I think, fairly well-known) of permission being given to an individual to build two houses in some back land. These houses were behind the house of a person who had gone to live in the area for privacy and for the beauty of the views from his garden, and these two houses were going to shut out these views entirely. It may have been right or wrong for the local authority to give planning permission for these two houses to toe built; but, to my mind, it cannot be right that the person whose views are to be so seriously interfered with should not know about it and have the opportunity of making representations. So I think the provision in the Town Planning Acts Which gives a right to people to make representations ought to be Widened. I have no doubt about that; indeed, I believe I said so at the time when the legislation was being brought before this House. I do not ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to commit himself this afternoon to giving a decision on a matter, which I suppose is not within his personal jurisdiction, but I hope he will ask his colleagues to give serious consideration to this question.
I could multiply the instances given of cases where people's interests have been very badly affected without their knowing about it beforehand. But when they do know, at present a certain

919
limited class have the right to make representations to the local authority. The local authority, presumably, study these representations and eventually give their decision. But one has no assurance that they study the representations even from those persons who have a right to make them. And if you increase the number of persons who can make representations, there is even less assurance that the representations will be studied by the local authority. The local authority are under no obligation to inform those who have made representations of the result of their consideration, if any. Obviously, therefore, such persons have not necessarily any knowledge of the decision; and certainly they have no right to appeal.
Nor, indeed, would I give them a right to appeal, because I am not desirous of multiplying this sort of case. But of course they ought to have a right to appear and make representations on the appeal if there is an appeal. Normally, people who object to a particular piece of development will have no grievance if the application for planning approval is not granted; and if it is granted, they have no right of appeal and the matter is at an end, anyway. But if they desire to appear at an appeal—for instance, if they should want to appear and support the local authority in refusing an application—they will not necessarily have been informed, even though they are people who have a right to make representations.
But then the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wants to go further and say that, first of all, third parties who are affected should have a right to appear; and secondly, that they should have all the rights of the appellant himself: that is to say, that if they think the Minister has gone beyond the evidence, or has heard new evidence without giving the appellant the right to consider it, then they should, like the appellant himself, have the right to go to the courts.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but I do not think 1 made myself clear. I said that they should have, as, indeed, I assume is the purport of the Report of the Council
920
on Tribunals, all the rights of the appellant up to going to court.
LORD SILKIN: I may have been expressing myself badly, but that is exactly what I thought I was saying was the view of the noble Lord. I was about to say that I do not agree with that view. I say that, not because it is not in the interests of abstract justice. Third parties may (be affected just as much as the appellant—that we agree—and if the Minister has arrived at the decision wrongly, by wrongly admitting evidence without giving the appellant the opportunity of considering the matter, then, in theory, I would agree that they should have the same rights. But, again, I think it becomes completely unwieldy. You may have 50 objectors at an inquiry, and if yon are going to give every one of those 50 a possible right to go to the courts, first, you are going to delay indefinitely the final decision, which must be bad for planning—.there ought to be finality within a reasonable time; secondly, it is going to add enormously to the cost; and finally, it will add to the complexity of the whole thing. While I would support their having the right to go to the hearing and to put their case, I would not (perhaps illogically) support their having the right to go to the courts if the decision of the Minister is open (to criticism.
I would summarise what I have said by saying, first, that I very much deplore the increasing complexity, expense and delay that our desire to do justice in the strictest possible way to the appellants at public inquiries is bringing about. I think it is due to a misconception of the nature of the inquiry and to the belief that these are legal inquiries, whereas I think they are administrative. I hope not only that we shall not extend this process of trying to emulate the High Court in its procedure at these public inquiries, but that we shall do everything we can to simplify them.
Finally, as regards their purpose, I feel that we ought to do far more for persons who may be affected, if we can define them. It is difficult to say what degree of interest a person should have to justify his being given a right to appear at a tribunal—and there are a lot of "nosey parkers" about in this world who would welcome any opportunity of poking their noises into other people's business, and

921
possibly going to the courts as well if they were not satisfied. Nevertheless, if we can reasonably limit the class of person who is likely to be affected by planning decisions, and give him the right to make representations before a decision is made by the local authority and on appeal, but without a right of going to the courts, I should welcome that. I should like once more to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quite sincerely, for giving us the opportunity of ventilating what is perhaps not a very exciting subject to ventilate, but one which is of the greatest importance and may in due course affect every citizen in this country.
5.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has covered in the course of his speech a somewhat wider field than that covered by the Regulations which are the subject of the Motion. I listened with the greatest interest to what he had to say, and I would agree with him that some inquiries, certainly, are becoming more complex. They last longer and, indeed, some of them are more expensive. The reason for that, of course, is that some of these inquiries differ widely in magnitude and may cover very large projects indeed. As the noble Lord knows, it is absolutely optional as to whether solicitors and counsel are employed; and, of course, the fact that they are, perhaps, more frequently employed than they used to be is an indication of the importance attached to the matters under inquiry by those primary concerned therewith.
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put down this Motion to annul these Rules, because it gives us a useful opportunity of considering them, as I am sure we ought to do, against the background of the Report which the Council on Tribunals recently submitted to my predecessor on the position of third parties at planning appeal inquiries. These rules deal with matters of considerable complexity, and I fear it really is not possible to deal with them shortly. I ask the House to bear with me, for I fear that in dealing with them as shortly as I can, my speech must necessarily be somewhat long.
The Lord Chancellor has power, by virtue of Section 7A, which was in 1959
922
added to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, to make rules of procedure for all classes of statutory inquiry held by or on behalf of a Minister. This power, the House will observe, covers a very wide field, and it is necessary that one should proceed by stages. My noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir decided—and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that he was right—that the best thing to do was to make Rules of Procedure in the first instance for the types of inquiry which are of most frequent occurrence.
The two sets of Rules which are now before your Lordships therefore deal with inquiries into proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities, and with appeals to the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Between them these two categories cover what is numerically by far the greater part of the field.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me why we had not also dealt with inquiries into what are popularly known as "called-in" applications under Section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. He drew attention to the fact, in passing, that several of the Rules did not apply, or were not intended to apply, to these "called-in" cases because these are cases in which the Minister has directed that a particular application for planning permission or a particular class of application should be referred to him direct for decision. These are the two categories. First, the power to call in applications is used primarily in cases where important planning issues arise which are of more than local significance, or where the issues, although local, are of exceptional importance. Secondly, and most frequently, it is used in cases where the proposed development would conflict with the provisions of the development plan.
The general responsibility, as the noble Lord knows, for planning control is, of course, vested in local planning authorities, and the Minister exercises his power under Section 15 of the Act of 1947 to call in applications for direct decision by himself as sparingly as possible. There are only about 200 inquiries a year in this type of case, while

923
inquiries on appeals from local planning authorities are running at the rate of about 5,000 a year. So that your Lordships will see, I think, that it was obviously right to deal with the ordinary planning appeals first.
If, however, Parliament approves the Rules which are now before it, I hope that these will serve as a model for the Rules of Procedure for other types of inquiry, and I see no reason why it should take as long to produce further sets of Rules as it has taken to prepare the present ones. These have necessitated the consideration by the Council on Tribunals, as well as by the various Ministers concerned, of difficult questions of principle which have inevitably taken a long time to settle. Now that this has been done, I hope that it will be possible for us to make rather quicker progress with the other sets of Rules which will be needed. That is my explanation to the noble Lord of the reason why these Rules deliberately do not deal with called-in cases; and it is a deliberate omission.
My Lords, there were two matters to which the Council on Tribunals gave particular attention, in connection with the Rules which are now before the House and which formed the subject of Reports by the Council to my predecessor. The first point was, of course, the question of the procedure to be followed where the Minister rejects the recommendations made by the person holding the inquiry. Your Lordships will remember that this was a matter to which the Council on Tribunals gave full consideration as a result of what had happened in the Chalk-pit case, and the Council's views were set out in the Report which they presented to Lord Kilmuir last March. In effect, what the Council said was that where the Minister differs from his inspector on a finding of fact he must give the parties an opportunity of making representations in writing before he comes to any final decision, and where he receives new evidence after the inquiry, including expert advice, or takes any new issue into consideration, he must reopen the inquiry if any of the parties ask him to do so.
The Government, as Lord Kilmuir told your Lordships, fully accept the justice of these recommendations made by the Council and effect is given to
924
them by the Rules which are now before the House in one case, Rule 10, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred, and which I gather he approved; and in the other case, Rule 9.
Your Lordships will see that the relevant Rules in each case refer to "expert opinion on a matter of fact". This is deliberately an echo of the words used by the Franks Committee in paragraph 350 of their Report. Your Lordships may remember that what the Committee said was:
"We recommend that the Minister should be under a statutory obligation to submit to the parties concerned, for their observations, any factual evidence, whether from his own or another Department or from an outside source, which he obtains after the inquiry. In the definition of 'factual evidence' for the purposes of this recommendation we include expert opinion on matters of fact but not expert assistance in the evaluation of technical evidence given at the inquiry."
In other words, the Franks Committee drew a distinction between factual evidence which included expert evidence received by the Minister after the inquiry, whether from Government officials or any other source, on the one hand, and the ordinary advice which a Minister gets from his officials to assist him in reaching his decision.
The Committee thought that information falling into the first category should be disclosed, while that falling into the second ought not to be disclosed, and this distinction was accepted by the Council on Tribunals. I could illustrate that by giving an example of how it would work if the Chalk-pit case came forward now, and perhaps it might be of some interest to your Lordships if I were to do so.
The Minister obtained advice from the alkali inspectors in his Department that, in their opinion, there was no likelihood of the working of the chalk-pit giving rise to the blowing about of chalk dust in sufficient quantities to injure the neighbouring land. This amounted to expert opinion on a matter of fact, and if the new Rules had been in operation at the relevant time the Minister would have had to disclose it to the local planning authority and give them an opportunity of asking for the reopening of the inquiry. But he would not have been under any obligation to disclose

925
the advice tendered to him by any of his administrative officials to whom the inspector's report had come in the ordinary way and who might, for instance, have formed the opinion that the conclusion reached by the inspector was not justified by the evidence given at the inquiry.
The distinction may seem to be a fine one, and in some circumstances it may fee a difficult one to make, but it is none the less real and I do not think in the vast majority of cases there will be very much difficulty in practice in applying the new Rule. I am sure the House will recognise the importance, if the business of government is to be properly conducted, of the Minister's being able to obtain advice from his administrative officials in the fullest confidence; and again I should like to make it clear that any new evidence, including expert opinion on matters of fact, will have to be disclosed. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord with regard to that very-important matter.
I now turn to the position of third parties, on which he and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, touched and on Which the Council on Tribunals have made their latest Report. The Council drew attention to the fact that, under the Town and Country Planning Appeals Rules, the parties who are entitled to appear and be heard at the (inquiry are first, the appellant, secondly, (the local planning authority, and, thirdly, any owner or agricultural tenant who has made representations under Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959—what the Rules and the noble Lord describe as a "Section 37 party". AM these parties have legal rights conferred upon them by Statute; and this point I desire to emphasise.
The Council wish to ensure, as I understand their Report, that rights similar to those given by the Rules are given to any third party who has a genuine interest in the subject matter of the inquiry; for example, a neighbouring landowner who fears that his amenities may be affected. Perhaps, the classic example of somebody in this position was, of course, Major Buxton and the other neighbouring landowners involved in the Chalk-pit case who thought that their land would be damaged if Heaths' were allowed to work the chalk-pit. Your Lordships will remember that
926
when the Minister decided to allow the appeal in the Chalk-pit case Major Buxton and the other landowners affected applied to the High Court for an order to quash the Minister's decision. Mr. Justice Salmon, however, decided that the landowners were not "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, because they had no legal rights which had been interfered with by the Minister's action in allowing the appeal. I should like, if I may, to read to your Lordships a passage from the judgment on this particular point. Mr. Justice Salmon said:
"Before the town and country planning legislation any landowner was free to develop his land as he liked, provided he did not infringe the Common Law. No adjoining owner had any right which he could enforce in the courts in. respect of such development unless he could show that it constituted a nuisance or trespass or the like. The scheme of the town and country planning legislation in my judgment is to restrict development for the benefit of the public at large and not to confer new rights on any individual members of the public, Whether they live close to or far from the proposed development.
"The legislature made the local planning authority, under the general supervision of the Minister, custodians of the public's rights. It is plain from Section 16 of the Act of 1947 that if a local planning authority grants permission for development there can be no appeal to the Minister of any kind. It is only if the local planning authority refuse permission or grant it on unacceptable terms that the applicant for planning permission may appeal to the Minister. The Act of 1959 has left this position unchanged. It would be strange indeed if the present applicants, who would have had no right of appeal to the Minister from the local planning authority's grant of planning permission, nevertheless have the right to appeal to the courts from the Minister's grant of planning permission."
I venture to quote these words to your Lordships because I think there has been, and perhaps still is, widespread misapprehension as to the true position in this matter.
It is perfectly true that it has long been the practice, and will no doubt continue under these Rules to be the practice, for the person holding an inquiry to allow anyone who seems to him to have a genuine interest in the subject matter of the inquiry to appear and put his case. This, however, is merely in order that the Minister should be as fully informed as possible of all relevant considerations. It does not mean that a man's neighbours have been given any

927
new rights to seek to restrict what he may do on his own land, beyond those Which they already possess under the Common Law. As Mr. Justice Salmon said, it is the local planning authority which Parliament has made the custodian of the general interest, and individuals are left to the rights which they have under the Common Law to complain if any activity carried on on their neighbour's land interferes with their reasonable enjoyment of their own land.
If the Rules now before your Lordships were to confer legal rights on third parties, such as the right to appear and be heard at the inquiry and the right to call for a reopening of the inquiry if the Minister has received new evidence, there can, I think, be little doubt that, if any failure to comply with the Rules occurred, third parties would be able to go to the courts as aggrieved persons and seek to have the Minister's action quashed. I understand I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in not being in favour of that course, but that is the effect; and, indeed, this is frankly recognised by some of those who press for an extension of the Rules to cover third parties.
The Times, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quoted, in its recent article said that—
"Since third parties are, very properly, treated in practice as if their interests deserved to be taken into account in the course of these administrative procedures, it remains an anomaly that they should be denied the one effective means of challenging the legitimacy of the procedures—recourse to the courts."
This, my Lords, raises an issue of principle of considerable importance—namely, whether the Town and Country Planning legislation is in fact to be extended in Mr. Justice Salmon's words, so as to confer new rights on individual members of the public, whether they live close to or far from the proposed development.
Some of your Lordships may think that this is desirable, but whether it is or whether it is not, of one thing I am quite sure: namely, that it would be quite wrong to seek to alter the law in this way by new Rules of procedure. If such a change is to be made it ought to be made deliberately by Parliament, and, indeed, the Council on Tribunals
928
recognise this to some extent in their Report when they say they have not felt able to insist on rights in favour of third parties being inserted in the Rules. However, they then go on to recommend that the Minister should give an assurance that third parties will in practice be given the benefit of the Rules, just as if they had in fact been given legal rights by the Rules themselves; and that, as I understand it, must mean including rights of appeal.
My Lords, I regret that I cannot give your Lordships any such assurance, and I am quite sure that it would be a mistake for me to do so, for I really cannot express with any confidence any opinion as to the legal effect of any such assurance. It is obviously intended that third parties should be put in a position to act as if they had legal rights, without any legal rights in fact being given to them, so that any such assurance has the disadvantage of creating, to put it at its lowest, a very great deal of uncertainty which it would seem likely could only be resolved by litigation in the courts. If the courts finally held that a third party was in effect given legal rights as a result of any such assurance, we should then have reached the position that the Town and Country Planning Act had in effect been altered by the giving of this assurance, a position which I cannot believe your Lordships would wish to accept.
Moreover, the uncertainty of the position would be accentuated by the fact that no clear definition would, or I suggest could, have been given as to What third parties were supposed to have been given the assurance suggested. The Council refer to persons whose interests are affected by reason of loss of amenity or depreciation of the value of their property or on other similar grounds; but I cannot believe that it would be satisfactory to put ourselves in the position of conferring new legal rights by an administrative assurance on a class of people who have not been clearly defined, either in the Act itself or by the subordinate legislation made under it.
I should, however, like to assure your Lordships that in practice "he position of third parties, apart from the right of recourse to the courts, is not so dark as

929
it might seem in the light of what I have just said. Under the Rules, they are given, an opportunity to inspect copies of the planning authority's statement and the maps and other documents referred to in it, and they will in practice continue to have a full opportunity of being heard at the inquiry. They will also (be able to obtain a copy of the inspector's report. It is true that they will not be able to claim the benefit of the procedure laid down in Rule 10 in one instance and Rule 9 in the other for the reopening of the inquiry; but I doubt whether in practice that will be such a disadvantage as it might at first sight appear, for presumably any third party whose interests are affected by the inquiry will be able to ally himself with the local planning authority or the appellant as the case may be.
I think I have now covered the main points which have been raised in this debate, and I hope that your Lordships, on reflection, will agree that in the Rules we have gone as far as we properly can in looking after the interests of third parties, and I hope your Lordships will agree that any extension on the lines which have been suggested is something Which it would not be proper to deal with except in the context of a Bill in which all the complex issues involved could be closely examined.
I think I have now dealt with the main points that have been raised by the noble Lords who have spoken, but it remains perhaps just to deal with one point Which has been raised and which I do not think has been covered by anything I have said. That is about the position of giving notice of these inquiries to third panties. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, required notice to be served on interested third parties. Of course, the difficulty that the administrators have is knowing in advance who will be she interested third parties, but I think myself that the provisions set out in Rule 4 really provide adequate machinery for drawing the attention of those who are interested to the fact that an inquiry is going to be held. Perhaps I might, in conclusion, again repeat my thanks to the noble Lord for raising this matter, which has enabled me to make, I fear, too long a speech, but which I hope will do something to remove some misapprehensions
930
and elucidate the position which if these Rules are approved will in future continue to apply.
5.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord need not apologise for the length of his speech. He has put us in his debt by making such an exhaustive survey and in such plain language. I will put it in even plainer language: he rejects the proposals of the Council on Tribunals; that is what it means. I am not going to make any comment on that now, because that requires thought. Am I to gather from his opening remarks about the called-in inquiry that at some time in the future—I join with him in hoping that it will not be another three years—there will be Rules governing the procedure to be adopted in called-in inquiries?
Also I am not quite happy—the noble and learned Lord could give me further information—about the position when the objector is the only possible objector and that objector happens to be a third party. The noble Lord has cited the Chalk-pit case. Major Buxton was at best a third party. Suppose that the local planning authority had not taken any action after the firm in question had appealed. Buxton would have been high and dry. There can be thousands of Buxtons, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, who have not the faintest idea that anything detrimental to their interests is going to happen until, like the beanstalk in the fairy story, it happens suddenly that a monstrosity has appeared next door. I think the noble Lord, on reflection, will agree that there should be some better arrangement than in Rule 4, so that genuinely interested parties could be informed. A genuinely interested party should be able to go to the Minister and the Minister should decide whether he had a frivolous case or a genuine one; because the only way to get a public inquiry then is for the Minister to call the application in. I will not ask the noble and learned Lord to give me an off-the-cuff reply, but at some time perhaps I might put a Question and he might care to answer it.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. After

931
all he is one of the greatest authorities in this country Upon this matter. Perhaps he would not claim to be so to-day, but that was the case in 1947. With those words, and with repeated thanks to the noble and learned Lord, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Resolution standing in my name upon the Order Paper.
Resolution, by leave, withdrawn.
COMPULSORY PURCHASE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) RULES, 1962
5.41 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given Notice of his intention to move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Compulsory Purchase by Local Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1962 (S.I. 1962 No. 1424), dated 9th July 1962, laid before the House on 13th July 1962, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to press this Resolution. I put it on the Order Paper because I thought that other noble Lords might wish to raise questions. I have none, and with your Lordships' permission I will move it and then withdraw it.
Resolution, by leave, withdrawn.

PLANNING APPEAL INQUIRIES
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given Notice of his intention to call attention to the Report of the Council on Tribunals on the position of "third parties" at Planning Appeal Inquiries (Cmnd. 1787); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want just to say to the noble and learned Lord a word or two on this subject. I am not going to reopen the matter in regard to anything he has said, but I think he must be prepared at some later date—it will not be this Session; it may be next—for another Motion to appear upon the Order Paper to debate this question. I look forward with great anticipation to having as instructive a reply to another Motion as I have had to this one this afternoon. With your Lordships' permission, again I will move, and then withdraw, this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before six o'clock.