Lords Sitting of 1 March 1962

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

FORCES' TOUR OF DUTY IN SINGAPORE
3.4 p.m.
LORD BRAYE: 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, in view of the severe climatic conditions, the length of service in Singapore could be reduced to two years instead of two and a half years for members of Her Majesty's Forces to whom this applies.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the change suggested by the noble Lord would involve more frequent movements of men and their families, and would be more expensive in both money and manpower. There is no evidence to suggest that the climate of Singapore has an adverse effect on those serving there for two and a half years and Her Majesty's Government do not consider it necessary to make this change.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, so far as the Royal Air Force are concerned, there are strong grounds for keeping the tour of duty in Singapore in line with that in Aden, which is two years? Also, would he not agree that the same medical reasons which apply to Aden apply to Singapore?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I really should not have thought that the climate of Singapore was so bad as my noble friend tries to suggest. After all, there is a large number of people who live in Singapore all their lives.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as one who has lived in Singapore for over ten years, may I agree thoroughly with the
1028
noble Lord, Lord Carrington? It is not so much the climate that is the concern of those who have a period of service in Singapore; it is the question of housing accommodation, particularly for married men and their families. Perhaps when we have the next Defence debate or Army debate the noble Lord could give us some more details of what progress has been made in the provision of married accommodation for all Service men stationed in Singapore.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords, I will try to do that. I agree with the noble Lord that housing has a great deal to do with it.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would my noble friend say why it is felt that the period of service should be maintained at two years for Aden?. Why is it not two and a half years there?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is because the climate is worse in Aden.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, in view of recent climatic conditions in this country, will the noble Lord consider whether the period of service in this country should not be reduced in preference to that in Singapore?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I only wish that the noble Lady had been in the House when we were taking the Committee stage on the Army Reserve Bill. She might have had a good stand-up fight with her noble friend in front of her.

MATERNITY SERVICES
3.7 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 why the new maternity service regulations are not introduced following from the Royal Commission's Report (Cmd. 939) that increased maternity fees to the doctors would be accompanied by an improved service.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the amending Regulations came into operation on January 1, 1961.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, perhaps it may be my mistake, but the noble Lord has interpreted my Question incorrectly
I am not, of course, asking about what happened a year ago. I am asking about the regulations being introduced, and if the noble Lord relates this to the third line of my Question as it appears on the Order Paper, it will be obvious that I mean "introduced into the National Health Service". Is the noble Lord not aware that last month his Ministry agreed that certain provisions in these regulations should be modified to such an extent that the number of times doctors were expected to be asked to visit mothers was to be reduced; and, furthermore, that his officials agreed that the important Memorandum issued by his Advisory Council on Midwifery and Maternity Services would be modified? Would the noble Lord look into this, in view of the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee, of the Royal Commission and of this Memorandum, to the effect that the maternity service of this country should be improved?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me why the new maternity service regulations are not introduced—I imagine she meant "had not been introduced"—following upon the Royal Commission's Report; and my reply was that they came into operation on January 1, 1961. These regulations were the result of a package deal which was made as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission, and were agreed with representatives of the medical profession before they came into operation. Since January 1 of last year, it is perfectly true that there has been mounting criticism within the profession, mainly on the ground that the regulations go into too much detail and to that extent represent too much of a direction as to the sort of professional care doctors should give their patients. Consequently, the terms of service incorporated in these regulations are now being discussed between my right honourable friend and the profession. I should emphasise that it is my right honourable friend's intention that the revision of the regulations shall not result in any lowering of the quality of service required.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether the result of these regulations has been that often a doctor who should be in charge of a case does not see the patient, or certainly does not attend during childbirth; and if so is he paid the fee for what he did not do?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I could read out to the House and the noble Viscount exactly what the Regulations are, but it would take me a very long time. They go into very great detail indeed. Of course, the fees which a doctor gets for performing these maternity medical services are dependent on exactly how much treatment and what sort of treatment he gives in each particular case.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what my noble friend said is quite correct? The purpose of the new regulations was to ensure that, wherever possible, the doctor should attend the mother at her confinement. Nobody should be able to argue about this. Yet in the last month the Minister has been discussing these details anew and promising to make modifications, which will diminish the strength of these important regulations which were introduced to protect the mothers of this country.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, let me say again that it is my right honourable friend's intention that any revision of the regulations which follows the review which is now going on with the profession shall not result in any lowering of the quality of the service required of doctors.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is not the point that we should increase the quality of the service required, particularly in respect of ante-natal care? Will the Minister have regard to the need for better standards of ante-natal care in return for these fees by, at any rate, some practitioners? Many are doing it properly, but some are not.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will always have regard to improving all forms of service provided by the National Health Service as a whole.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord to go into the Library and read this week's copy of the British Medical Journal? He will see there what his Department has promised to do, which I say will diminish the strength of these regulations.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as these discussions are still going on, how can anyone say whether these services will be improved or worsened?

ZINC CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WEST INDIES BILL [H.L.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Perth, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable provision to be made for the cesser of the inclusion of colonies in the Federation established under the British Caribbean Federation Act, 1956, and for the dissolution of that Federation and for matters consequential on the happening of either of those events; to enable provision to be made for the establishment of common courts and other authorities for, and fresh provision to be made for the government of, certain West Indian colonies; to enable provision to be made for the establishment of new forms of government for combinations of such colonies; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been arranged through the usual channels that the Motion standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on the Commonwealth shall be postponed to a mutually convenient date later on. It has also been agreed that the Second Reading of the West Indies Bill shall be taken on Wednesday next. March 7.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VisCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Northern Ireland Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
In moving that the Bill be read a third time, may I suggest to your Lordships that you allow that to take place formally, after which I shall move the Privilege Amendments, and any discussion on the Bill can take place on the Motion that the Bill do now pass? I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a, —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Privilege Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Privilege Amendments be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, could the noble and learned Viscount tell us what these Privilege Amendments are? I am sure they are quite harmless, but many of us have not seen them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Privilege Amendments relate to Clause 5, at page 7, line 13, to leave out subsection (5); Clause 8, page 11, line 45, to leave out subsection (5); and to Clause 26, at page 21, line 36, to leave out subsection (3).
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount, who is always so kind, to say whether these Amendments are of any substance? We have not seen them—at least I have not—and we are unable to offer any opinion about them at the moment. May we take it that they are quite formal?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl can take them as quite formal. This is the usual procedure, as the noble Earl is aware—and it is one he has no doubt carried out—when Bills are introduced in your Lordships' House. But if the noble Earl will look at the subject-matter of the first of these Amendments, subsection (5) of Clause 5, at page 7, line 13, he will see that it says:
"For any period during which a person who does not hold office as a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal or as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary sits and acts under this section, there may be paid to him, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such remuneration and allowances as the Treasury may, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, determine."
The noble Earl will recall that I have drawn his attention to the fact that under the Parliamentary procedure when Bills are introduced in this House, we leave matters involving direct payment of money to another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, it is only with great reluctance that I rise once again to address your Lordships and to consume your Lordships' time on this Bill, but certain new facts have come into my possession since the Report stage last week. I believe it is my duty to bring them to your Lordships' notice, and I therefore ask your indulgence in listening to me for just a few minutes. Your Lordships will recall that the only real opposition to the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House has been in connection with Clauses 13 and 14. I myself have been principally concerned with Clause 14, which removes the prohibition on making laws taking property without compensation which is imposed under the Government of Ireland Act, on the Parliament of Northern Ireland, although I have supported the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his opposition to Clause 13 which resulted in an Amendment to that clause.
On each occasion that I have raised the question of compensation the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack
1034
has sought to reassure me—and he could not have done so with more patience and consideration—by stressing that there was, in fact, no danger of any action of a confiscatory kind or of any expropriation. I have now received a communication from a solicitor in Belfast, Mr. F. J. Lavery—he is well-known in the city; he is a justice of the peace, and I have no reason to doubt what he writes—giving me particulars of 19,133 houses for which vesting orders are now being sought by the Belfast Corporation. Compensation will indeed be paid. Mr. Lavery informs me that in respect of the great majority of these 19,000 cases the compensation will be in the neighbourhood of £1 per house; and this princely sum is divisible between the head landlord, the intermediate landlords and the lessee.
In one particular case, which I should like to present as typical, and of which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is, I believe, already aware, two spinsters invested their late mother's life savings of £2,045 in purchasing the lease of 28 houses in Broadbent Street, Belfast. That was in 1948. I would mention here that there is no question of any religious discrimination; these ladies are Protestants and the question of discrimination does not arise. These two good ladies are now in their late 60's, and one, unfortunately, is confined in a private mental hospital. The profit rental from this investment is virtually their only income. The total compensation payable for an investment of £2,045 in 1948, as I am informed, will be £28, of which approximately £5 will go to these spinsters; that is 50s. each as the sum total of their wordly goods after compensation has been paid.
That seems to me to be bad enough; but what makes it more pernicious is that I understand that, although there is no question of demolishing these houses until 1968, the vesting order is being sought immediately. This means that these ladies will be dispossessed of the property at once, and the Belfast Corporation, in return for an outlay of £28, will be entitled to the entire profit rental, which I understand is £405 a year, for the next six years for an investment of £28. I think that is "Nice work if you can get it ".

1035
If this were an isolated case I should not trouble to bring it to your Lordships' notice, but, as I have mentioned, I am informed by Mr. Lavery that there are some 10,000 to 15,000 houses which are being acquired in a comparable way. I hold no brief whatever for slum landlords. There is nothing I should like more than to see all slum lands abolished, in this country as well as in Ireland. But how can action of this kind be justified? In this case, notice of the intention was first given to these ladies in December, 1959, before this present Bill had ever been heard of. If such confiscatory proposals were possible—and it seems clear to me that they are in contravention of the 1920 Act, although these good ladies, of course, cannot afford to litigate—before this Bill, with the safeguard with the Government of Ireland Act, I can only wonder what kind of action is expected if Clause 14 is allowed to stay in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before we had the Report stage the noble Lord who has just addressed us told us that he had just been to Northern Ireland and had come back with some useful information for us. Since the Report stage he has been again, and he has brought back further information. But whatever one may feel about this matter, it has nothing to do with this Bill at all. The Northern Ireland Government is acting on powers. If it is acting improperly, then these ladies have their remedy. They can appeal and have their compensation properly assessed. It is not unusual for a local authority, or a Government, to offer a low figure and hope that they can get away with it. That happens, even in this country. But these ladies have their remedy. But to bring this up as a reflection on this Bill seems to me wholly irrelevant.
I thought I ought to say this because I had hoped that we had come to a reasonable compromise on this Bill; that we had done our best to allay feelings and suspicions that might have arisen, and that the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount moved on the Report stage would have been acceptable to all sides, even though with some reluctance, and that that would have been the end of it. I very much
1036
deprecate the noble Lord's speech in attempting to reopen what I thought had been settled amicably between all of us
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think I should be less than honest if I let this matter rest there. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, spoke to me a day or two ago about this case, and asked me what I should advise him to do. I said that, so far as I was concerned, for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I had had my say about the present Bill. But I did add that if I were in the noble Lord's position I should raise this shocking case. I would say, with deference to my Deputy Leader, that I am very glad he has done so.
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is absolutely right: this has nothing at all to do with the Bill before the House. This action was taken under the existing law of Northern Ireland, and they are all matters, of course, for the Northern Ireland Government. In the ordinary way we should not discuss in this House reserved matters, but in view of the fact that it has been raised I shall, because I do not want the reflection to go out on this Bill or on the course your Lordships have taken.
The payment of site value in cases of slum clearance is a course that has been taken for years in this country, and the Northern Ireland Government have just followed it. But I think, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that he ought to consider this point. The provisions of the Northern Ireland law, which have given rise to the representations of the gentleman he mentioned, are all contained in Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, including your Lordships' House, passed before 1920. So how the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, can say that they are a breach of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, I cannot see.
The main complaint is related to Section 6 (1) of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, which provides that compensation for houses condemned as unfit for human habitation shall be assessed on the basis of site value. That is an Act of our own Parliament, passed by your Lordships' House. I agree that the noble

1037
Lord has the advantage of youth, and cannot be blamed for not having said anything against the Act in 1919. But, of course, we take the responsibility for what the British Parliament has done, and it was our Act.
The houses owned by the ladies he mentioned have been condemned as houses unfit for human occupation, and the principle of compensation on the basis of site value for condemned houses in slum clearance areas is well recognised and is embodied in Section 10 of, and the Second Schedule to, the Land Compensation Act, 1961. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will remember that we discussed that when that Act was going through.
I think I ought to continue a little further. The houses lie within the Belfast No. 1 redevelopment area. They were acquired in 1948, although they were well known at that time to lie in an area of very old property, Obviously due for demolition sooner or later. That is the position that obtains, and I shall say nothing further about it, except to say that these were the facts. Having been condemned by the medical officer of health as unfit for human occupation, and his decision having been confirmed by the Minister after public inquiry, the houses attract no compensation. But if the 'houses are acquired the sites attract compensation.
May I say a little more about the statutory basis? This principle of site value for slum houses is firmly established throughout the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland the basic Statutes relevant to this subject are the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, Section 6 (1) of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, which I mentioned, and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919—all Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, passed before the setting up of the Northern Ireland Government. I think I ought also to say this. The Northern Ireland Housing Acts provide for several types of special payment to persons if they are dispossessed from unfit houses, well-maintained houses, owner-occupied houses, or houses with a trade or business carried on, a resettlement grant of £60. I do not want to be too dogmatic on a difficult subject, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his vast experience,
1038
which is greater than mine, would agree that these are at least as generous as payments offered in England and Wales for the same position.
That is the position. The Government of Northern Ireland are acting under powers given by this Parliament, and in the same way as action is taken in England. Of course, if there is anything wrong about the action, then the gentleman in question, or his clients, if they believe that the actions have been wrongly taken, can pursue the matters in the courts. That is the basis on which the Northern Ireland Government have acted; as we directed them to act, in the same way as is done in this country; and clearly there can be no complaint about that.
The noble Lord can then put his argument only in this way: that the fact that we, or our predecessors, in their wisdom, selected this method of action it relation to slum property is some reason why we should not give the Northern Ireland Government powers for dealing with housing and slum clearance which would enable them to act in other directions in a way similar to that adopted by successive Governments, of all Parties, in this country. The cause or connection between that premise and that conclusion are, if I may put it most moderately, not clear to me; I cannot see that they exist at all. While I welcome any noble Lord deliberating on a point, I must say that it is rather hard on the Northern Ireland Government that the noble Lord should make what will be construed as an attack on that Government for legislation which this House, as part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, has chosen to impose upon them, and under which they had to act.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

TELEGRAPH BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDEPENDENT CHAPEL MAWDSLEY STREET BOLTON BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the Motion for Second Reading of the Bill, moved on Wednesday, 7th February, by the Chairman of Committees.
THE CHAIRMAN or COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene very briefly to suggest to the House that the most convenient course this afternoon might well be that we should debate this Bill and the next Bill, the St. Peter's Church, Nottingham, Churchyard Bill, at the same time. The position is, of course, that there is an adjourned debate on the Second Reading Motion of the Bolton Bill, but as some of the points, though not all of them, in the two Bills are similar I thought it might be convenient, if your Lordships agree, that we should discuss all the points on the first Bill, and should proceed formally to pass the second, if that be the wish of the House. May I put forward that suggestion, in the hope that it might be a convenient course and save time this afternoon?
LORD FARINGDON: I shall speak very briefly because I had already spoken on the earlier Motion of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, when he introduced the Second Reading of the Bolton Bill. As the Lord Chairman has said, these two Bills are not entirely similar, though they both raise points which, to me at any rate, are somewhat disturbing. It is true to say that these Bills, which concern the liberation of burial grounds from the restrictions put on them by law, are nothing new; they have occurred again and again through the years. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that of recent years there has been something of a spate of them; and that has led me, and, I think, other Members of your Lordships' House, to consider the whole problem posed by this alteration of use.
My own attitude can be summed up under two heads. First, I feel considerable anxiety about the change of use of property which has been acquired by the community, given to the community by
1040
an individual, or purchased by the community for a communal use. It seems to me that such property must necessarily be treated somewhat differently from ordinary property. I am not one who would wish to anchor the past around the neck of the present, like the bird around the neck of the Ancient Mariner. None the less, I feel that where a community has, as I say, acquired or been given property for a communal purpose, we must be very vigilant when that purpose is changed. Again, I do not say that it is wrong that it should be changed, but I think that when a change is proposed it requires special consideration. I would suggest such property should be alienated or changed in its use only when the proposed change is one that would benefit a community as a whole.
My second point is concerned with planning. Both of these Bills have a model clause (in each case the penultimate clause) which makes the property involved subject to the Town Planning Acts—at least that is how I read it. I think, however, that there is a certain anxiety, because, as all your Lordships are aware, the effectiveness of action by planning authorities is constantly frustrated by economic facts. There are many things which planning authorities —no doubt this applies all over the country, though I know one authority better than others—would wish to do but which they are prevented from doing by the amount of compensation they would incur if they insisted on the plan they considered the most desirable. I am therefore anxious lest they may be forced by economic pressure, as it were, to vitiate their own plans and I wonder whether anything in these Bills might have the result of preventing free action by the planning authorities.
I wonder very much, particularly in the case of the Nottingham Bill, how the burial ground concerned is at present zoned. If it is zoned as public open space, as is usual, then it seems to me that probably the planning interest in the matter is satisfied, because I think that in that case the use of a permission to build can always be frustrated by the planning authority by reference back to the development plan on which these burial grounds would be marked as public open space. If, on the other hand,

1041
they are not so designated, I am very much afraid lest the local authority may find that the amount of compensation it will have to pay would prevent these areas being treated in a way which they believe to be to the public good.
This I feel more strongly about because, as I think I said on the previous occasion (I beg your Lordships' pardon if I am repeating myself, as I feel I am) these burial grounds, as indeed is evidenced by the fact that they are disused burial grounds, are in an old part of the town. We have this experience, of course, all over England, that the disused burial ground is the one which is near the centre, and these centres tend to be extremely congested areas and areas in which, therefore, these areas of open space, however small, are of infinitely greater value than their size would at first sight indicate. Therefore, I suggest it is very often, or would be very often, the desire of the planning authority to retain these open spaces.
Of course, if all that is wanted is to rearrange them for the better enjoyment of the public, then that is something entirely different. if, on the other hand, too, the planning authority has no objection to their development or even desires their development, or if, as I think is the case in the Nottingham Bill, there is provision for the giving up of some of the area for the widening of a road, then that is, it seems to me, all in the public interest. But if we are in fact by these Bills making the task of the planning authority more difficult, then I think that we must really think again and think very hard.
I do not know what kind of an answer I am going to get, and it is not my intention to-day to present your Lordships—and indeed it would, I think, though legitimate, be improper to present your Lordships—with a proposed direction to the Committee to which these Bills will be confided. But I should like to say that if the answer that I get is not satisfactory in my view, then I shall feel impelled to put on the Order Paper for a later date some direction to the Committee rather to this effect: that the Committee shall be directed to consider, especially in respect of Clause 5 in the St. Peter's Church, Nottingham, Churchyard Bill, whether the exercise of the powers proposed to
1042
be taken under this Bill would be in the public interest and whether the Bill does in any way frustrate or impede by financial considerations or in other ways the free exercise by the local authority concerned of its functions as a planning authority. I say this as a warning that if the answer I get does not seem to me to be satisfactory, this is a matter which seems to me to be of sufficient importance to bring up again to your Lordships' House.
3.44 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL: My Lords, I do not intend to bore your Lordships with a speech, but as the Bishop immediately concerned I think that I ought perhaps to say just a word or two about the Nottingham Bill. I should have been in my place on the last occasion, but actually I arrived back from East Africa only that morning and I did not know the matter was coming up. I am not the promoter of this Bill. but if it should be passed by Parliament very heavy responsibility would rest on me with regard to the way in which the permissions contained in the Bill were exercised, and therefore I have had to go into it very carefully and, of course, to take the best legal and architectural advice that I could get. In consequence, though I have many qualms, I have found myself able to support the Bill.
The Bill involves important decisions both for the Church and far the City of Nottingham, and therefore I was very glad to find that your Lordships wanted to debate the Bill and to give it the benefit of your experience. If I may say so, I do not want to disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has just said. We are not thinking only about the Church, and I would never be a party to depriving the City of Nottingham of that oasis of dignity and beauty in the heart of the business area if I could help it. There has, of course, been careful consultation with the city before the Bill was drafted at all, and in the interests of the community itself I made certain stipulations before I was willing to encourage the incumbent to proceed with the Bill. But actually it was the City that started the whole business by wanting part of the land for road widening, and the Church had to do something.

1043
The only other point is that both to-day and on the previous occasion questions have been raised about the proposed new building on the churchyard site. May I just say this? On my own insistence the Bill contains a clause, Clause 6 (2), which brings any such building under faculty jurisdiction. That is all that Ecclesiastical Law could ask for, and that does at least give a certain power of veto even if it is confined to the Bishop and his chancellor; but of course it also gives opportunity for consultation with the best architectural opinion on what the council or anybody else would like. Though no human authority is infallible, not even planning authorities, I do think there are reasonably satisfactory safeguards in the Bill about those buildings. If, however, your Lordships think that they are not sufficient, it would surely be quite easy, if the House thinks right, to amend the Bill in Committee by inserting some clause to that effect. If your Lordships think that full value control ought specifically to be required, or any lesser state than that, then it would surely be easy for your Lordships to insert an Amendment to that effect on the Committee stage. In so far as that would give me rather stronger safeguards and a check on my own judgment, I should rather welcome it if it were done.
3.50 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Faringdon has said, these Bills raise some important problems which I think it is right that we should discuss in your Lordships' House. To-day we are concerned with two of them; and there was a similar clause in the Manchester Corporation Bill, which we were discussing a week or two ago. I noticed it at the time, but I felt that we had already a sufficiently important assignment for discussion that afternoon without introducing then the question of disused burial grounds.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has said, it is clear that we are likely to get more and more of these Bills, because there are many old and disused churchyards in the interior parts of cities and other built-up areas in which land values are very high. No doubt in many of these cases it would be most sensible, and in the interests of the community as a whole, that the land should be used
1044
in an economical way. I think that nobody would grudge to the Church, which on the whole spends its money reasonably well, at the present time at any rate, whatever may have been the case in the past, the opportunity of making use of this money in a more sensible way. The main matter which we had in mind at the beginning of these discussions was the one with which Lord Faringdon has dealt—namely, how far the provisions in the Town Planning Acts give control to the local planning authorities in respect of the use of land freed under Bills of this kind. I do not want to say more about that. I know that my noble friend Lord Silkin is also interested in this matter, and Lord Faringdon has made it quite clear. We are hoping that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on these points when he comes to express his opinion about them.
But in the case of the Nottingham Bill there is a quite different point which may from time to time be of importance, and it is the one to which the right reverend Prelate has referred: the historic and valuable architectural quality of the Church of St. Peter's in Nottingham. Nottingham is one of our most historic towns. As I understand it, it has two mediæval churches of considerable historic interest and architectural value, one of which is the Church of St. Peter which is the subject matter of the Bill before your Lordships to-day. It would certainly be a tragedy for Nottingham, which has only these two mediæval churches left out of a large number of fine churches which formerly existed in the town, if, as the result of the proposed building operations, either for additions to the church itself or to business premises, which I understand may be extended on to part of the land freed by this Bill, the architectural quality of the church were interfered with, possibly destroyed, certainly much reduced.
Undoubtedly, from information which has come to me, there is a good deal of anxiety about it in Nottingham itself. Indeed, I have been aproached by the Nottingham Civic Society to say that they are worried and anxious about the commercial building which I understand is the subject matter of negotiation if the Bill goes through. There is a chance

1045
of a branch of a well-known store purchasing part of the land on the South side of the church for the extension of their existing commercial accommodation in the city. Whether one ought to mention the name or not I am not quite sure—possibly not. They are a firm which has a good reputation in matters of this kind, and I am quite sure, from what I have heard, that they would be glad to discuss the whole problem.
But the Nottingham Civic Society would like to see the Royal Fine Art Commission brought into this. There is proposed in the Bill a biggish extension to the church itself by the church authorities, for the erection of a bookshop and other accommodation to use in the work of the church. Of course, if that can be done without any detriment la the architecture of the church it would be a good thing. I was most encouraged by what the right reverend Prelate said about the care which he had given to the matter and the architectural advice that he had obtained. But, after all, the Royal Fine Art Commission is the organisation which on this sort of occasion is properly brought in. I was not quite clear, from what he said, whether he would be prepared to support an Amendment to the Bill requiring that their advice should be taken.
I was encouraged by what he said about an Amendment to the Bill in Committee. As this Bill is not opposed, an Amendment of this kind must be made outside Parliamentary procedure by agreement between the Promoters and those who are interested. Then, if the Promoters are willing to accept some compromise of this kind, it can be put into the Bill by them. I was not quite sure from what the right reverend Prelate said whether he would support some plan of that kind. I greatly hope that his mind is working in that direction, because, obviously, with his support something of that kind might well be done. If it cannot be done, I, like my noble friend Lord Faringdon, reserve my right to try to do something at a later stage.
The only other point which I think one ought to make is: are we satisfied that we have adequate procedure for having matters of this kind brought to our attention? As Lord Faringdon said, and as I myself said at the beginning
1046
of my speech, we are likely to have more and more Bills of this kind. While, in many cases, as in the case of the Bolton Bill, probably no historic interest or architectural value is disturbed, in quite a number of them this may not be so.
It is interesting to note that one of the occasions on which there was a considerable dispute as to a mandatory direction—the history of which we were going into in connection with the Manchester Corporation Bill a week or two ago—was the case of St. Olave's, Southwark, where Lord Bryce moved a mandatory instruction because the disused burial ground there was a most important historical site, as well as being a little bit of open land in a congested part of London. By a large majority in your Lordships' House it was decided that that area ought to be kept open. But in that case, and in this case, and in other cases of the same kind, we rely on the vigilance of individual Peers or on the activities of local organisations like the Nottingham Civic Society to have these matters brought to our attention. I am wondering whether possibly the Lord Chairman of Committees, who takes these matters so much to heart and gives such conscientious consideration to them, might be able to invent some sort of procedure under which points of this kind could be specifically brought to our attention when the Second Reading of such Bills is moved. I am referring to Bills in relation to some matter which is of more than just mere local importance, but where great and valuable historic interests are concerned, as they are with these very fine mediæval churches, which are the heritage not only of the citizens of Nottingham but of the people of the country as a whole.
4.2 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the Promoters of the Independent Chapel Bill have asked me to say a few words on it. I have no doubt that, so far as Bolton is concerned, I can fulfil the two criteria which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, suggested should be applied to Bills of this nature. There is a very distinct difference, I think, between the two Bills. So far as Bolton is concerned, the original trust setting up the chapel and the adjoining ground, which was used for burial ground, was created in

1047
the year 1809, and in 1854 burials there were discontinued. A short time after, in 1870, the original chapel was demolished and a new chapel was built, which took in all the area of the original chapel together with all the area of the burial ground. Whether or not this was a particularly sanitary thing to do is not a matter for us to decide. At all events, the good people of Bolton seem not to have worried about it in any way at that time or since.
By 1959 the circumstances in this part of Bolton had changed. It is a factor which all religious denominations have to consider that the nature of a particular area changes considerably with the passing of time, and I am informed that the church had been materially depleted in membership, that this part of Bolton was no longer the residential area it had been, that new areas were being built on what had been the fringes of the town, and therefore it was important that the Independent Communion, the Congregational Union, should cater for the people in the new areas rather than maintain chapels in the old areas where they were no longer required. At this time, in 1959, at a special meeting of the members of the church, the Lancashire Congregational Union Incorporated was invested as the trust corporation to deal with the particular property at Mawdsley Street.
After due consideration the Congregational Union decided to put the premises up for sale, and they were put into the hands of a firm of auctioneers in Bolton. At this particular moment they were advised that, by reason of Section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, there is a prohibition against the erection of any buildings upon a disused burial ground, except for the purposes of a church, chapel, meeting house or other place of worship. That meant they had to proceed with a Bill of this nature. One of the possible purchasers applied to the local authority in Bolton for permission to use the premises for other purposes, and on March 30, 1961, conditional approval was given by the County Borough of Bolton for the purposes for which this particular applicant desired to operate the land and premises. One of the conditions of the conditional approval was that the existing premises should be completely demolished and,
1048
of course, that detailed building plans should be submitted to, and approved by, the council before any development was undertaken.
Furthermore, your Lordships will recall that the Lord Chairman gave his view on this question at an earlier stage of this Bill, when he said that nothing in the Bill exempts the land from the general law relating to Town and Country Planning. I gather that that is also the Ministry's point of view, and, so far as they have any opinion on this matter, it is also the point of view of the Promoters. But if it is found not to be so, then the Promoters are very ready to agree to an amendment of the Bill during the Committee stage. My Lords, this Bill has also been considered by the Attorney General, whose report says that in fact he has no objection, subject to one Amendment relating to Clause 6, which Amendment, again in Committee, the Promoters are prepared to accept. It is an Amendment which does not at all deal with the substance of the matter; it deals with records of removals of human remains; and, as I have said, they are prepared to agree to that at the Committee stage.
Your Lordships will see that this is a very different case from the one which I think the noble Lords, Lord Faringdon and Lord Chorley, had in mind—that is to say, where there was an open space in the middle of a town. There is no open space; the land is covered by what one might call a derelict chapel, derelict in the sense that it is no longer being used for public worship. I would suggest to your Lordships that in these days it is most desirable that organisations like the Lancashire Congregational Church Union should have the power of disposing of chapels in areas where they are no longer required, in order that the funds may be applied to erecting, or helping in the erection of, chapels in areas where they are required.
The only other point to which I think I ought to draw your Lordships' attention is this. As I have said already, the planning control in this Bill is completely in the hands of the local authorities. In the other Bill, the Nottingham Bill, there is some restriction on the powers of the local authorities; but here there is no restriction whatsoever. The local authorities will have exactly the same powers

1049
with regard to planning permission for any building which may be erected on this site when the chapel is demolished as they would over any other piece of land in the country. I would suggest, therefore, in view of those facts, that this Bill should be given a Second Reading.
4.9 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all obliged to my noble friend Lord Faringdon for having raised this general question. I do not know how many cases of alienation of burial grounds we have had before us—I cannot think we have had a great many—but I think it is right that we should just spend a short time in seeing where we are going. Burial grounds constitute a form of open space, and before we build on them or alienate them for some other purpose I think it is right that the matter should be very carefully examined.
My noble friend went a little further. I think he indicated that any trust which had been formed for the purpose of public use should remain in public use for all time. That, I think, is stretching the doctrine a little far, because there is provision in law for the case where a trust has been constituted and its purpose has come to an end: it is open to interested parties to go to the courts and have the purposes of the trust changed, and the courts will readily do so.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will excuse me. I should not dream of differing from him on that point, but, when you go to the courts for permission to alter the object of a trust whose original purpose has become obsolete, the courts will order you to use it for something similar; therefore, presumably, also for a charitable purpose.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my noble friend is very familiar with the cy-près doctrine, but I think that does not conflict with the generality of what I am saying: that in the normal course of events you go to the court, and the court will carry out as best it can the purpose or spirit of the trust. In the case of burial grounds you do not go to the courts, because of the Disused Burial
1050
Grounds Act; you go to Parliament. It is for Parliament to make up its mind as to whether the alternative use which is being suggested is right. I should have thought that the right course was to leave it to the Select Committee to make its decision. I do not think that we can profitably in this House—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord right in saying that it will go to a Select Committee, if it is unopposed?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is for the Chairman to answer that. I thought that it went to the Select Committee. The Select Committee, if it is unopposed, will of course have to do the best it can without the advice of those who might have had something to say on it. But I would trust the Select Committee to go through these Bills clause by clause, and I am sure they will be vigilant about any suggestion of depriving the public of any land of which it has the benefit. In my view, this is a general principle, and when you set up Select Committees to examine Bills you should have confidence in those Select Committees and not clutter them up with instructions and directions, but leave them free to make up their own minds on what is the right course to adopt.
I can understand that if there is a big question of principle involved it may cause this House to say that we ought not to give a Second Reading to a Bill. It may be that that question of principle was involved in a recent measure that came before us. I myself would have disputed that; nevertheless, I can understand noble Lords taking the view that in that case there was so vital a question of principle involved that it ought not to go to a Committee. But in the case of these two Bills no such principle arises, and I should have thought that the proper course was to let them go to a Committee. I hope that my noble friend will not carry out his threat to put down an instruction to that Committee.
The other question with which I am very much concerned is that of town planning. If these disused burial grounds are alienated, it is vital that the freedom of the local authority to form a judgment on how the land should be

1051
used shall be completely unfettered. It seems to have been taken for granted—I do not know on what authority—that that is the case. To take the Bolton Bill first, if noble Lords will look at Clause 7 of that Bill they will see that there is a provision there which says:
"This Act shall be deemed to be an enactment passed before and in force at the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for the purpose of subsection (4) of section 13 and subsection (1) of section 118 of that Act."
Curiously enough, the other Bill contains exactly the same provision. It seems to be common form. I do not want to be academic about it, but these clauses in the Bills seem to say, in effect, that you must regard these Bills as if they were passed before the days of town planning. Therefore, I should have thought that there would be no jurisdiction on the part of the local authority to exercise its town planning powers.
Perhaps I may read to the House Section 13 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and noble Lords may judge for themselves.
"For the purpose of enabling development to be carried out in accordance with permission granted under this Part of this Act, or otherwise for the purpose of promoting proper development in accordance with the development plan, a development order may direct that any enactment passed before the passing of this Act"—
and that is what this Bill asks us to do; to assume that it was passed before the passing of this Act—
"or any regulations … shall not apply to any development specified in the order, or shall apply thereto subject to such modifications as may be so specified."
I do not say that that is conclusive, but at least it enables the developers to argue that the purpose of the inclusion of this provision in the Bill is to oust the jurisdiction of the town planning authority. I can see no other purpose of putting in this clause and treating this Bill as if it had been passed before the days of the 1947 Act. I should hope, therefore, that with the strong expression of opinion from all quarters of the House that this land should be subject to town planning control, the Committee will very carefully examine this, and if, in their wisdom, they feel that the purpose of this clause is to deprive the local authority of its town planning powers, they may think
1052
it right to eliminate this particular provision. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, went so far as to say that he had been advised that the intention of the Promoters of the Bill was that there should be planning control, and that it was their belief that planning control had not been ousted. They have taken very good care to see that it was ousted, with this clause in the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this was specifically stated by the Lord Chairman in this House on the 7th February. I must admit that, in view of that statement, I had assumed that there would be no objection. What he said was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 237 (No. 33), col. 61]:
"nothing in the Bill exempts the land from the general law relating to town and country planning ",
and it had not occurred to me that there was any doubt. If there is any doubt, I am sure the Government will give their view upon it.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope have at least aroused some doubt in the Mind of the noble Lord, by reading this clause in the Bill; and it is in the Nottingham Bill as well. I will not put it any higher than that it raises a very strong doubt, and, in my view, so strong a doubt that it ought to be eliminated and ought not to be open to possible legal interpretation hereafter. If one were trying to amend this Bill at this stage, or were discussing giving directions to the Committee, I would gladly have given such a direction, but, having raised the point and dealt with it, I am quite confident that the Select Committee, when they come to examine this Bill, will in fact consider this particular point.
4.20 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I intervene before the noble Lord finishes his speech? May I interrupt now —I did not want to do so in the middle of his speech—on this one point of whether this Bill will go before a Select Committee? I think the noble Lord would like that point cleared up. Normally an unopposed Bill is not sent to a Select Committee, but there are occasions when, for various reasons, it is desirable to make an exception to the general rule and to

1053
send a Bill to a Select Committee. For example, if any of your Lordships (and I have in mind the noble Lord, Lord Chorley) wanted to move an Amendment to either of these Bills now, and if that Amendment was not agreed to by the Promoters, that, in my judgment, would be a sound reason for referring the Bill to a Select Committee—which, as I say, is not the normal routine. My Lords, by Standing Orders I am given the power to refer any Private Bill to a Select Committee, and I have quoted one example of the sort of case in which I would do so; but I wanted to inform the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that such a Bill does not normally go before a Select Committee because it is an unopposed Bill.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, since the noble Lord has merely interrupted my speech, may I ask him for his guidance on this? I did not want to put down an Amendment to this Bill, and in any event I do not know whether I should be in order on Second Reading, or what opportunity I may have of putting down any Amendment; but if he now tells me that this point would not have been considered in the normal course of events but would go by default, then I think that in this case the point ought to be considered by somebody and some ruling given before the Bill becomes law. I do not know whether or not, in spite of what he says, the noble Lord has jurisdiction to take these two particular Bills to the Select Committee on the points that have been raised during this discussion. If he has, that would satisfy me.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may say one more word, this particular point of the planning law will, I understand, be dealt with by the Minister, who is to speak next. Therefore, I am not going to attempt to deal with that point. I am dealing merely with this question of the Select Committee, and I can only repeat that if, as a result of this debate to-day, I am of the opinion that points have arisen necessitating further discussion on one or more of these Bills, then I shall consider very carefully whether they ought to be referred to a Select Committee; and no doubt I should have consultations before coming to a decision.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, at an earlier stage in our discussion, and still to-day, some doubt has been raised as to whether the planning authorities will have jurisdiction over any development which is proposed upon the sites of these burial grounds. I am not surprised that doubt has existed about it, because the Bills are not drafted in a way which makes their interpretation particularly easy at first glance, especially those clauses which begin, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment …" However, that is in fact modified by the second last clause in each Bill, which provides that they are to be interpreted as if they had been passed before the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947.
My noble friend Lord Silkin has referred to one section which enables the Minister to make Orders, but the general provision is, I think, in Clause 118 of the Act of 1947, which says:
"For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act, and any restrictions or powers thereby imposed or conferred in relation to land, apply and may be exercised in relation to any land notwithstanding that provision is made by any enactment in force at the passing of this Act … for authorising or regulating any development of the land."
So it seems to be clear that the planning authority will have unlimited power.
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? It is very interesting for him and me to have this legal argument about it, and, fortunately, it does not cost the Bolton owners of the churchyard any money; but if we had to have this legal argument outside, it might cost them a lot of money. I would ask this: what is the purpose of having a clause in a Bill saying that this must be interpreted as if it were passed before the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, if, as my noble friend is now telling us, it has no effect and it makes no difference, and if Section 118 of the 1947 Act, which can have no bearing on this because it is to be presumed that this was passed before the 1947 Act, is still in force? I just fail to understand it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this legal argument, but I feel satisfied that the position is as I have stated it. However, I do not object to that being investigated by a Select Committee. But

1055
the point I do want to raise is this. This question came before us originally at the instance of the Lord Chairman of Committees, who very properly thought it right to point out to the House that these two Bills, and also the Manchester Corporation Bill, were proposing to dispense with the restrictions which are imposed by Statute upon the use of disused burial grounds—and this is a very important point. If Bills are going to come before this House, and perhaps before the other place—I do not know, but there may be some there, too—at the rate of three a year, which Bills are going to dispense with the general provisions of our law relating to the use of disused burial grounds, and if they are going to go through, the question arises whether the proper means of dealing with this is not by an amendment of the Statute relating to burial grounds, and not by piecemeal legislation of this kind at all.
That is a point which somebody ought to consider, because it is not right that general statutory provisions should be negatived in this way as a rule. If there are some special and exceptional grounds for doing so in relation to one particular burial ground, then one can see that it is a matter for Private legislation: but if there are no really special circumstances relating to these burial grounds, except that they are in fact disused and they are in the centre of a town or city of considerable size, then it is, in effect, a means of amending the general law with regard to this matter, and it ought not to be done in this way.
LORD MAcANDREW: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chairman this question? Many unopposed Private Bills get through this House without any discussion at all, and the same happens on Third Reading. If there is no Committee stage, are they not discussed by anybody? Are they never looked at?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the answer is that every Private Bill, like every Public Bill, has a Committee Stage, but only opposed Private Bills have their Committee stage before a Select Committee upstairs. The others do not. But in the case of every Private Bill, the Preamble has to be proved by the Promoters, and therefore there is a Committee Stage for every Private Bill.
LORD MAcANDREW: I beg your Lordships' pardon; I thought the noble Lord said there is no Committee stage.
LORD MERTHYR: In the case of unopposed Private Bills, normally there is no Committee stage before a Select Committee upstairs, but there is nevertheless always a Committee stage. As your Lordsips can see time after time in the Minutes and Orders of the Day, they are referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee. If your Lordships will look at to-day's Minutes you will see about five Bills (that number is a guess) which have been referred to Unopposed Bill Committees. The noble Lord, Lord MacAndrew, will see that for himself if he looks at to-day's Order Paper.
LORD MAcANDREW: My Lords, I can see that, but who proves the Preamble of these unopposed Bills?
LORD MERTHYR: The Promoters.
LORD MAcANDREW: To whom?
LORD MERTHYR: A representative of the Promoters, on oath, proves the Preamble to the Unopposed Bill Committee.
LORD MAcANDREW: My Lords, I thought they did not go before the Unopposed Bills Committee.
LORD MERTHYR: Yes, they do.
LORD MAcANDREW: But the noble Lord said they did not.
LORD MERTHYR: If the noble Lord will look at to-day's Order Paper, towards the end he will see a Notice about forthcoming Committees, and he will see that six Bills have been referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee, and the dates of the meetings are set out on to-day's Order Paper.
LORD MAcANDREW: But, my Lords, whether it is an Unopposed Bill Committee or a Select Committee, who proves the Preamble?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I thought I had just said. A representative of the Promoters is called before the Committee, and he proves on oath the Preamble.
LORD MAcANDREW: What I am trying to find out is who comprise this Committee, and where does the Committee sit in the case of an Unopposed Bill?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the Committee is the Unopposed Bills Committee, and it sits in the Moses Room.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, could he tell us whether the effect of Clause 5 would be to obscure unduly the southern aspect of St. Peter's Church?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there is one small aspect of both these Bills which seems in danger of escaping notice. In both these cases these grounds represent the assets of a Christian body; the church in one case, and a chapel organisation in another. In both cases they wish to re-deploy those assets in directions where new assets are very badly needed—new churches, new housing areas, and so on. If, in the interests of the preservation of public space, these bodies are going to be made to maintain these particular assets as open spaces, it is putting on the church or chapel respectively the burden for providing public amenities which should more rightly and properly fall on the general citizens of those cities.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, for the noble Lord's information, it is always possible for the church authorities to hand over a burial ground to the care of the local authority.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not know- whether the noble Lord is going to deal with this point, but I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacAndrew. What course is open to us here if we feel that the attention of the Unopposed Bills Committee ought to be directed towards something that we have discussed, and how can we ensure that that is so? For instance, will this point which I have raised on planning be brought to the notice of the Committee; and is it open to the Committee to seek further information?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to deal with that point in my speech in reply to the debate? It would save my interrupting too much, and I will try to do it then.
4.35 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, fools rush in where angels fear to tread; and the longer this debate has gone on this afternoon, the rasher it has seemed to be to venture on to this contentious ground, where even some lawyers may have feared to tread. First of all, perhaps I should explain why it is necessary to seek these powers by Private Bill. Under the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, building is prohibited on a disused burial ground except for enlarging a place of worship, and except in the case of a burial ground sold or disposed of under the authority of an Act of Parliament. That is why Private Bills are needed in these cases; and to that extent, at least, a communal property of this nature is subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has urged that it should be, to very special consideration.
There are, I think, two main questions at issue before your Lordships this afternoon. The first, and more general one, concerns the appropriate use of former burial grounds. The second, and more technical one, concerns the extent to which the redevelopment of former burial grounds should or should not escape the mesh of general planning controls. There is a third set of highly technical issues to which my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees will no doubt be referring in a moment.
On the general issue, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government takes the view that it might well be desirable to put to other and appropriate use burial grounds which have ceased to be used for interments. This is surely better than that they should be allowed to become neglected and unsightly. But whether it is right to put any particular burial ground to some particular use, be it for open space or for some other form of development, and when is the right time to do this, are questions which, in my right honourable friend's opinion, must inevitably depend upon the local circumstances of each case. I shall be coming back in a moment, if I may, to

1059
the particular arguments regarding open space, which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, deployed.
As regards planning controls, I feel that it would perhaps be useful if I were to give a word of general explanation before turning to the particular circumstances of these two Private Bills. In general, the authorisation of development by a Private Bill does not normally remove that Bill from the scope of town and country planning legislation. If, because of the drafting of the Bill, there seems any danger that it might be so, a common form saving clause for town and country planning is usually included, to leave no doubt that the development will be subject to planning control. These savings are to be found in Clause 7 of the Bolton Bill, and in Clause 9 of the Nottingham Bill.
On that, all I would say is that I entirely agree with what I understood to be the interpretation which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, placed on those particular common form clauses. They are meant to make Section 118 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, bite. That, as I understand it, is their intention. Why it is done in that roundabout way I am not certain. All I can say is that this particular form of drafting was, I understand, worked out by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, presumably under the ægis of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, soon after the 1947 Act was passed; and that formula has been generally agreed and is used in Private Bills.
It is often the case, however, when a Bill authorises a specific project on a specific site, that the planning issue is the primary question that has to be considered by Parliament. A typical case, not unfamiliar to your Lordships, would be the proposal in a Private Bill for the building of a dam or the construction of a reservoir. In such circumstances, it would be manifestly absurd for the Promoters of the Bill, having obtained the approval of Parliament, probably after full and careful consideration by the appropriate Committee, to have to go back to seek a planning permission all over again from the local planning authority.
To meet this difficulty Class XII of the First Schedule to the Town and Country
1060
Planning General Development Order, 1950, provides that the permission of the local planning authority shall not be required for development authorised by a Private Act which designates specifically the nature of the development and the land upon Which it may be carried out. It reserves to the local planning authority, however, a jurisdiction in such cases over the design and external appearance of buildings and certain other structures, which are laid down in Class X, and their precise position on the site where they are to be erected. The effect of this—and, indeed, the purpose—is to avoid any clash between the decisions of Parliament and the decisions of the local planning authority. To the extent that Parliament is asked and is able to consider the planning issues involved in a proposal, they are removed from the jurisdiction of the local planning authority, with the exception I have just mentioned. Where the Bill is in more general terms, so that Parliament is unable to deal satisfactorily with the planning issue, or where it is unnecessary for Parliament so to do, planning permission has to be obtained from the local planning authority, who are free to deal with the application in the normal way.
In practice, I understand that the consideration by Parliament of the planning issue in any particular case has not presented any special difficulty. The Ministry for which I am speaking always consider the planning implications of any development proposed in a Private Bill of this nature and would, if necessary, refer to them in their report; and the local planning authority themselves could, if they so wished, petition against it. A prudent Promoter will, of course, discuss the matter with the local planning authority and put himself in the position of being able to assure the Committee on the Bill that the planning issue has been cleared with them. So much for the general principles involved here. I think that the two Bills before your Lordships' House this afternoon are, in fact, pretty good examples of the way in which these principles apply in practice.
Your Lordships will note that the Bolton Bill (if I may use that "shorthand" phrase) does not specifically state the nature of the development

1061
which is to take place on the site. The development, therefore, does not fall within the scope of Class XII of the General Development Order, and it is necessary, before it can take place, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made clear, for planning permission to be obtained in the ordinary way from the local planning authority. In fact, this has already been done on behalf of the trustees of the chapel. I am informed that the site is in an area zoned for business purposes in the Development Plan, and the Bolton Corporation have issued a planning permission for its development by the erection of shops, showrooms and offices.
The Nottingham Bill is rather more complicated, since the development proposed falls into three parts. As will be seen from the relevant clauses of the Bill, it is proposed that the southern part of the site should be used for unspecified development. In that respect, it is in precisely the same position in law as that to which the Bolton Bill refers. Any development carried out here on the southern part, to the south of St. Peter's Church, will, therefore, require planning permission from the local planning authority in the normal way. However, the western part of the site is to be used for street improvements, and the northern part for the building of a vestry, church hall and religious bookshop, or other suitable building to be authorised by the Consistory Court, as the right reverend Prelate made clear. Since on those parts of the site the form of development is specifically designated in the Bill, Class XII of the General Development Order will apply and the local planning authority's jurisdiction will be limited. However, my right honourable friend has looked into the position, as he and his Ministry always do, and he is informed that the Nottingham Corporation are fully aware of what is proposed in the Bill and of the extent of the jurisdiction which will be left to them. It is my understanding that the Corporation are quite content with the position. For his part, my right honourable friend sees no reason to object to what is proposed.
I think that there have been three specific issues raised by noble Lords with regard to the Nottingham Bill, and
1062
perhaps I may take them one by one. The first was the question of compensation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, referred. I am advised—and this applies to both Bills—that if planning permission were refused, or the developments sought were refused, no claim for compensation would arise, because there is no Part VI claim. Therefore, there need be no inhibitions on Parliament or on the planning authority in that respect.
Secondly, there is the important issue of open spaces, to which the noble Lord also referred. I would submit that that issue is also safeguarded in both these Bills. In the case of the Bolton Bill and that part of the Nottingham Bill where there is no specific designation of the proposed development, the planning authorities' full powers are in no wise impaired. Therefore, in deciding whether to grant permission, the planning authority can take full account of the need for open spaces and decide whether or not, in their view, these particular sites should be used far open spaces.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, not, I take it, at Bolton, which is not open space.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it could be. I am afraid that I am not so intimately acquainted with the details of the site as the noble Lord certainly is.
LORD FARINGDON: It is built over completely.
EARL JELLICOE: The buildings could be pulled down and it would then be an open space.
LORD FARINGDON: It cannot be an open space, if there are buildings all over it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would submit to the expertise of the noble Lord on that, but I think that what I was saying would apply to the one-third of the St. Peter's site, if the noble Lord will grant me that.
As for the position which arises when there is a specific designation, I think that the open spaces aspect is also safeguarded in two ways. In the first place, as I have already said, my right honourable friend if necessary consults the

1063
local authority concerned before reporting on any Bill, and he reports on any Bill which raises any issues considered worth reporting on. If that local authority were concerned with space which could be used if open space were being lost, and if my right honourable friend endorsed that view, then that consideration would be brought to the attention of the appropriate committee in the report of my Minister.
There is, of course, a second safeguard—namely, that if the local planning authority are seriously concerned about that particular issue they can petition against the Bill. There are, therefore, I would submit, two fairly firm safeguards, even when an area is specifically designated. Of course, I would not in any way minimise the importance of safeguarding open space wherever necessary. But in that respect, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that the target for open space which we aim to achieve for development plans is of the order of 6 acres per 1,000 population. Unfortunately, in heavily populated and urbanised districts that target figure is not always achieved. However, in the cases of both Nottingham and Bolton it has been exceeded: in Nottingham it is 6·2 acres and in Bolton 9·1 acres per 1,000 population.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, this is most interesting, and the House will forgive me if I ask the noble Earl a further question. Is that for the whole of the city of Nottingham or for any particular area? It makes a difference.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, it does. It is for the whole city of Nottingham and for the whole of Bolton. I hope I have dealt with at least some of the points which have been raised in this debate this afternoon, but my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees will also be answering and dealing with the more legal aspects of this subject which more intimately concern him. There was one point put by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the question of the architectural merits of St. Peter's Church, Nottingham. The position there is that the local planning authority will in fact retain full control over the architectural details of all the development; and they will doubtless consider in that the ques-
1064
tion of the southern aspect which was put to me by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl.
If these Bills are now given a Second Reading, the Lord Chairman of Committees will be able to inquire into these matters more fully than is perhaps possible in a debate on the Floor of your Lordships' House. I am sure my noble friend will have taken careful note of what has been said in the debate this afternoon, and he will wish to bear this all in mind when he comes to examine the Bill. In addition, the Promoters of the Bills will no doubt come full prepared to answer any questions which he may wish to ask them, and a representative of my Ministry will be present also to answer questions on the basis of the information available to us.
In conclusion, I hope that what I have said will assure your Lordships that, in practice, the planning issues which arise in cases of this sort are properly resolved and are not allowed to go by default. It is, of course, very important that they should not do so. As regards the two particular Private Bills which your Lordships have been discussing, I should myself have no hesitation in recommending, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did, that they be given a Second Reading, in the full confidence that before they are finally passed the Lord Chairman will have satisfied himself that the planning considerations which they raise will have been fully examined.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, before the noble Earl finishes, could he answer one short question? Supposing that the Nottingham Corporation had wished to withhold permission for the building on the portion of the site which it is proposed to sell outright, would any compensation have fallen to be paid or not?
EARL JELLICOE: I do not want to give inaccurate information on that point. It is my understanding that no compensation would have fallen to be paid, but I should like to safeguard myself by saying that it is merely my understanding.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I also ask the noble Earl a question? It is a little difficult to follow these things, especially as the noble Earl

1065
referred to the different portions of the Nottingham site by their orientation instead of by the colours which are mentioned in the Bill. Am I correct in deducing from his remarks that the two sites which are referred to in Clause 6 of the Nottingham Bill are given planning permission by the Bill, subject merely to the planning authority's having the right to look at details of the elevation and other features of the building to be put up? If that is the interpretation, it is a little unfortunate as a piece of drafting, because we have in effect got a triple negative into the Bill, in that the provision in the penultimate clause is apparently displaced by some words in this clause which say, "Subject to the provisions of this Act". It is an extremely complicated form of drafting, and I think somebody should try to devise a simpler method of doing it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must apologise for confusing the noble Lord by using the points of the compass rather than the colouring given in the Bill. I am afraid I did that because in the map which I was looking at this morning the green portion was cross-hatched in blue and I found that even more confusing. In answer to the noble Lord's direct question to me, it is my understanding that the part covered in Clause 6 of the Bill, which is yellow and pink, would be subject to only the more limited form of planning permission which is covered by Class XII of the General Development Order, 1950. But that does not remove that part of the Bill from the general ambit of town and country planning, because Class XII forms part of the General Development Order, 1950, which flows directly from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question?—and I am sorry to do so because he has had so many interruptions. Am I right in assuming that the land affected by these two Bills is entirely consecrated land, and that if these Bills get a Second Reading, then by Act of Parliament that land will be deconsecrated?
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether I could turn to the right reverend Prelate for advice on that.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL: A churchyard remains a churchyard, but some of the land concerned in the Bill is church property, although not consecrated ground. What is enclosed in the churchyard wall, however, will not be freed from consecration. I did not draw it up—it is very complicated —but that is my understanding of the matter.
5.0 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing the words of the noble Earl who spoke for the Government when he said he was sure that I would look most carefully at the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate and study all the points that have been made. I can give your Lordships an undertaking that that will be so, and that if there remain, as well there may, any points upon which your Lordships are not satisfied, I will consider what steps I ought to take in order to bring them further before the House.
Your Lordships will appreciate, if you study the Standing Orders on Private Bills, that there are quite a variety of steps which are open to me in order to effect this purpose. I can, for example, refer a Private Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, as I said I might do in the case of the Manchester Bill the other day. I can also refer a Private Bill, even if it be unopposed, to a Select Committee, and there are various other methods designed to ensure—and I think there are sufficient of them—that a Bill does not pass through the House and go to another place before it has been properly considered. All that is arranged having due regard to Parliamentary time. We do not want to take up unnecessarily Parliamentary time which might be devoted to Public Bills of greater importance. But I think I can assure your Lordships that careful attention will be paid to all these points.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds from that point, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that these two Promoters are in fact religious bodies, and that while, of course, every possible precaution in the public interest must be taken, if there is a cheaper course to take I would ask him to take it, because this has already put them to great expense and,

1067
as he knows, there is not a great deal of money provided to deal with questions of this nature.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I will certainly give an undertaking to bear that in mind. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is a material point to be considered.
May I say next that I hope the House will be content if I rely upon what has been said by the noble Earl behind me in dealing with the planning points which have been raised? If that is not so, naturally I shall be glad to try to go into these afterwards. But the noble Earl has greater knowledge of them than I, and I hope your Lordships will be satisfied with what he has said. May I say only this about planning, referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon? I think he said that these Bills were making the task of planning more difficult.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not say they were making the task more difficult; I said that I wanted to be sure that they were not—at least, that is what I meant to say.
LORD MERTHYR: I accept the noble Lord's correction entirely. But if the noble Lord was minded to say that, I should like to point out this fact to him: in the case of both these Bills the planning authorities have not thought it proper to oppose them. They could easily have come here. They are not in the same position as religious bodies. Most planning authorities have sufficient funds to oppose a Private Bill if they think it necessary or desirable. I do not think it is altogether insignificant that neither of these planning authorities, each of whom has the care of a substantial town, has deemed it necessary to come to Parliament and oppose these Bills. They could so easily have done so had they wished.
I would again point out this. The noble Earl said that if there is something in one of these Bills that is objectionable on planning grounds, that can be, and very likely will be, dealt with by the Government Department concerned in presenting to this House their report on these Bills. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government will inevitably make a report on both of these Bills.
1068
The time has not arrived for the report to be received yet, but it can, and I have no doubt will, deal with any points which occur to that Department, whether they be in support of the Bill or against it. So there is that additional safeguard which should be not forgotten.
The noble Lord also mentioned that he had in mind possibly to move an Instruction to the Committee which deals with this Bill. I should like to say only this. There is nothing improper about that; there is nothing out of order about it. The noble Lord can certainly do so, if he so chooses. I did not want him to spring it upon the House to-day and ask the House to divide on his Instruction this afternoon: that would have been taking the House by surprise. On the other hand, it would be perfectly proper, if he thought it necessary, for him to put down on the Order Paper notice that he would move an Instruction to the Committee dealing with the Bill. That would be taken no doubt in a week or two; and, because the Bill is unopposed, there is plenty of time. It is for the noble Lord to say whether he wishes to do that or not. Perhaps he would have a word with me afterwards and we might discuss it.
Questions have been asked about the procedure for drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to Private Bills in cases where attention ought to be so drawn. Let me start by saying that of course there are a number of Private Bills with which the House does not want to be troubled. But, be it remembered, the proper machinery is gone through just the same in respect of every Bill. Earlier this afternoon I moved the Third Reading of a Private Bill, and I think that was one which falls into the category with which, as I say, the House does not want particularly to be troubled. Nevertheless, all the Rules are observed in passing it through this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that he might want to move an Amendment with regard to the question of consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission about the buildings to be erected in Nottingham. I should be glad to help the noble Lord on that, if he wishes to do it. If he would let me know exactly what he wants to do, I will undertake that in any event the Pro-

1069
moters will be consulted, and then it depends upon whether the Promoters are in agreement with him or otherwise. If the Promoters are in agreement with him, the matter is quite easy, and either an agreed Amendment can be inserted in the Bill in Committee or perhaps an undertaking may be sufficient. An undertaking given by the Promoters of Private Bills is often considered to be of equivalent value to an Amendment. But that is another matter which the noble Lord and I can discuss later on if need be.
Now I come to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I think he wanted to ask: what can the House really do to alter these Private Bills in certain circumstances if they are unopposed Bills, as is the case to-day? As I have hinted already, there are several things noble Lords can do. May I say that, as a last resort, if all else fails an Amendment can be put down and moved on Third Reading. There is a Standing Order which provides machinery for doing that and regulates it, which of itself proves the fact that it can be done. It is true that it is seldom done; nevertheless, there is that ultimate safeguard available to your Lordships if you cannot obtain satisfaction by any other means, and then you can test the feeling of the whole House by putting down an Amendment on Third Reading. I am not encouraging any noble Lord to do that, but I thought perhaps it might be helpful if I said that it could be done. That, I hope, is the main answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with which I promised to deal now rather than earlier. The noble Lord thought that all these Bills were referred to Select Committees. I think I have explained already that that is not so in the case of unopposed Bills unless, as I have said, they are referred to a Select Committee by me for some good reason, which occasionally happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, if I may go back to his speech for a moment, said that he was not satisfied with this procedure for drawing the special attention of the House to certain Bills. May I remind him that on February 7 I made a statement under Standing Order 91 which is specially drafted to deal with just this point? If there is any purpose for this Standing Order at all, and I
1070
think there is, it is to do just that: to draw the special attention of the House to one or two Private Bills when occasion demands. As in the case of other things, it is not wise for me to draw special attention to too many Private Bills. If I do, the reaction of your Lordships is apt to diminish. I did, however, draw special attention to these two Bills, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was quite fair when he complained that there is an absence of machinery for so doing.
May I also remind you that in the case of every single Private Bill the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, which are many and which have just been revised and brought up to date, are very strictly enforced. The Examiners examine every Private Bill and report at once if a single one of the Standing Orders is not complied with; and I should like to point out to the noble Lord that included in the Standing Orders are those made to ensure that any property owner or any individual who has an interest which may be affected by the Private Bill shall receive proper notice of it in good time. That is all in the Standing Orders.
I am saying this to-day because several times lately—I am referring to the debate on the Manchester Bill—there have been complaints that notice has not been served in sufficient time. I am satisfied —it is my duty to be satisfied—that these Standing Orders are strictly complied with; and if there are any of these Orders which, in respect of time or any other reason, are not satisfactory, they can be altered by the Standing Orders Committee or by the whole House. In respect of these two Bills I am satisfied that all the Standing Orders have been complied with.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, brought up the question of whether there should be public legislation dealing with the question of burial grounds. It is not for me to say what the answer to that question should be. It is a matter of policy, and public legislation is not within my province. But I should like to say this to him, if I may: that in the absence of public legislation, individuals and other bodies in the country are fully entitled to come to your Lordships' House and promote a Private Bill, which means that they are petitioning the Sovereign for an

1071
exemption from the general law. It has been recognised for centuries that Petitioners are entitled to do that, and that is just what the Promoters of these two Bills are doing this afternoon. The noble Lord is quite entitled to say to the House that this matter ought not to be dealt with in this way and that it ought to be dealt with by public legislation. So be it. But at the same time the Promoters are equally entitled to say: "If Parliament cares not to introduce public legislation, then we are entitled to come here and ask for this Bill."
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I was not intending to make any criticism whatsoever of the Promoters of this Bill. They are fully entitled to do what they did. I entirely accept that.
LORD MERTHYR: I am glad. I was sure that the noble Lord appreciated the point, but it is an interesting one and I am not sorry it was mentioned. However, I hope the House will not allow that to prevent these Bills from having a Second Reading to-day. I hope I have dealt with the remaining points. Your Lordships may think this debate has gone on long enough—I do not know; but I hope that your Lordships will now be willing to give these two Bills a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH, NOTTINGHAM, CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the Motion for Second Reading of the Bill, moved on Wednesday, 14th February, by the Chairman of Committees.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I just say this again? I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

KENT RIVER BOARD (HARBOUR OF RYE) BILL [H.L.]
5.17 p.m.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Select Committee.
LORD KILLEARN LORD KILLEARN rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill may be committed that they should examine the Bill to see whether it would in any way affect the existing amenities of the town of Rye and also of the harbour of Rye as regards the use, navigation and mooring of vessels, and if so, what provision should be made for mitigating the position. The noble Lord said: I rise to lay before your Lordships the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before proceeding further I would ask for your indulgence, because just before I came into this House I found that I had lost the key of the pouch in which I have all my papers and notes. If I am a little hesitant, therefore, I hope you will be, as I say, indulgent. I have, however, written down a few notes to which I shall refer.
The first point I should like to make is that this Motion is not mandatory. Your Lordships may have noted that similar Motions put down recently have had several forms. Each one of those forms I have prepared with the best technical advice I could obtain in the House. I have also ascertained that I shall be in order in putting down this Motion at all. The Lord Chairman of Committees has earlier to-day given quite a long dissertation on the right procedure, and he mentioned, in one of his passages, that it was in order, that it was right and proper, to move a Motion of this kind for an Instruction. So I am at least in order, if nothing else. But I was very anxious not to call it an "Instruction", but rather an invitation; because that is what I wanted to do: to invite a Select Committee, if and when appointed, to direct attention to these particular points. Apparently, however, it is in order that it should be an "Instruction". I suppose the idea is that your Lordships can only instruct a Select Committee whom you appoint —I do not know. I still feel that I should rather have preferred to "invite" the Committee to look at these matters.
May I turn now to my Motion? I am one of the staunchest supporters in your Lordships' House of the system of Select Committees. It has been my privilege to sit on a few of them; it is most impressive and most instructive, and the last thing I should wish to do is

1073
in any way to impair the efficiency or the authority of the Select Committees. At the same time, there are occasions, of course—it has been explained to-day by the Lord Chairman—when we have a right, as Members of this House, to call attention to particular points which strike us and, if necessary, to put down a Motion such as I have done.
The Motion, it seems to me, in its present form, is unexceptionable. What I am inviting your Lordships to do is to instruct the Committee to examine whether this Bill
"would in any way affect the existing amenities of the town of Rye and also of the harbour of Rye as regards use, navigation and mooring of vessels, and if so, what provision should be made for mitigating the position."
I cannot see that anybody can really oppose those two principles. If they were to be opposed it would surely lead to a sinister suggestion: does anybody really propose to affect the existing amenities? To me it seems a rather curious idea that that should be possible —which, of course, brings me back to commending this wording to your Lordships.
In moving this Motion my intention is to invite the Select Committee—I use the word "invite" advisedly—to pay particular attention to the impact of this Bill on the ancient town of Rye, which is, if not the last, at any rate one of the last of the operational Cinque ports. From the Preamble to the Bill it is clear that the Promoters, who are the Kent River Board, have in mind one main object, the improvement of the drainage of certain land bordering the River Rother. The method chosen for achieving this improvement is the construction of a sluice and a lock near the mouth of the River Rother. I am sure that the people of Rye and district would be the last to oppose any scheme for the improvement of land drainage merely for the sake of doing so. On the other hand, they are entitled to expect that the River Board, who, one must remember, are also the port authority, will pay careful regard to Rye's access to the sea. This access is provided by the River Rother and its tributary, the River Tillingham. If anything were done to interfere with the navigation of the three rivers, much of the character and commercial usefulness
1074
of Rye would slowly but surely disappear.
Lest any impression exists that the ancient port is becoming defunct, I should mention that when I visited Rye a few days ago I observed in the port ten fishing trawlers, two of which came from Cornwall. I was told that last year the fish landed at the jetties known as the Fish Market were worth £20,000 sterling and that for many years past the fish in Rye Bay have never been more plentiful than they are at the present moment. The Strand quay, on the other side of the town, which is below the river, is regularly used for the landing of timber brought in by freighters up to 250 tons. Yacht-racing at Rye goes on all the year round, and in the summer the harbour is alive with pleasure craft of every size and rig. All this maritime activity is noticeably on the increase, despite the standard of mooring and bunkering facilities, which is said to fall a long way short of those provided by other harbour authorities, and which is controlled entirely by the Kent River Board. It is not surprising to find that the popularity of Rye is increasing, because such is the boom in sailing to-day that in some harbours further west it takes five years to obtain a mooring. Furthermore, Rye is the only natural harbour between Newhaven and Sandwich. It is because of the unique natural and historical advantages of Rye that this Bill assumes greater importance than an ordinary drainage measure.
My Lords, I do not know how many of you have been to Rye—I should imagine many of you—and I am sure that if you have you will agree with me that Rye is a unique place. It is not long since we had an historic debate in this House, with Lord Birkett making one of the best speeches of his life, about the preservation of Ullswater as a national asset. Ullswater lies in a National Park; Rye does not. But if anybody has any doubt about Rye a visit to the town will dispel any doubts about its particular character. And if that is not enough there is a recently published book which I commend to your Lordships (I do not imagine you are hard up for reading), an enthralling book the title of which is The English Channel, written by a Mr. Williamson. He develops the story of how the

1075
Channel came to be at all, how it came up, first of all from the west, and then gradually from the east; how in fact we became an island. Then follows the history of the various régimes and reigns—the Romans, the establishment of the Saxon shore about which we have all heard vaguely in the past; and, later on, how the Cinque Ports were set up. And Rye played a great part in this history as from that time down.
I will not labour the point. It seems to me that we are a very odd people. First of all we talk about Ullswater, almost dispassionately; and now, in a smaller degree—I grant you a lesser degree—we are talking about Rye with no national feeling about it, no sense of emotion, of historical retrospect. That seems to me a most extraordinary thing. If this Bill goes through what will your Lordships be authorising? The River Rother will be turned into an agricultural drain. That is all. My Lords, it is not right.
You may ask how it is that I should be getting up and pleading this cause. The point is this. I am a near neighbour of Rye. I do not live there—I wish I did. But the feeling in the neighbourhood of Rye is very strong and I think very justified; and I felt this was one of the exceptional cases in which a Motion might be put down. I should still have preferred to put down the Motion in the form of an invitation and not an Instruction: I still stick to that, because that is what I mean. I should like an invitation to go to the Select Committee before whom the whole scheme will be pleaded, with learned counsel for the Promoters and for the Petitioners. The whole matter will be argued out fully; but I still feel that there are sometimes occasions on which a Member of this House not only could, but should, get up and make a special point. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill may be committed that they should examine the Bill to see whether it would in any way affect the existing amenities of the town of Rye and also of the harbour of Rye as regards the use, navigation and mooring of vessels, and if so, what provision should be made for mitigating the position.—(Lord Killearn.)
5.30 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this Bill has fifty-one clauses and three Schedules; so it is a Bill of some length. Perhaps I could state its object quite shortly if I say that it is to improve the drainage of low-lying lands and to prevent tidal flooding; and it proposes to do this, again putting it quite shortly, by building a lock and a sluice across the River Rother at Rye, or a little below the town of Rye.
Unlike the two other Bills which we have been discussing to-day, this is an opposed Bill. There are three Petitions set down against this Bill: first, by the Port of Rye Protection Society, which I have been informed was formed ad hoc to oppose This Bill; secondly, by the Royal Yachting Association—here may I declare an interest, because I am one of the 13,000 members of that Association—and, thirdly, by a group of owners and occupiers of land in the neighbourhood which may be affected. The Instruction which the noble Lord has just moved would be to the Select Committee. He has described it rightly. The key word, as I see it, is the word "examine". I do not think the noble Lord need be unduly worried as to whether it is called an "Instruction" or an "invitation". Of course the word "Instruction" is a Parliamentary one, and the noble Lord will lose nothing if he will allow us to use that word instead of the word "invitation".
If this Instruction is passed the Select Committee will be in duty bound to examine the Bill, as he said, to see whether it would affect two things: first, the amenities of the town; and, secondly, the amenities of the harbour, having particular regard to navigation. May I just say here that with regard to this question of amenities I do not think that consideration of this Bill is quite so easy as the noble Lord thinks? He said in his speech," Can anybody oppose the amenities of such a place as Rye?" or words to that effect. I would respectfully remind him that the duty of Parliament in these cases is to consider whether, if there is injury to the amenities, it ought nevertheless to be allowed having regard to the public interest. As I see it, that is the duty of Parliament. It would be going too far, I submit, to say that once injury to amenities is proved, however

1077
small it may be, that is the end of the matter.
I hope it will not be thought from what I have just said that I am taking any sides in this matter, because it is my duty to be strictly neutral. But I wanted just to point out to the noble Lord, if I am right, that it is not quite such an easy question as from his speech he appeared to think. For example, every now and again the Electricity Authority puts up pylons in the countryside. Few people (I understand there are some) think that pylons improve the amenities; but, nevertheless, Parliament frequently authorises and allows the pylons to be put up, because of course Parliament considers in those cases that the injury to the amenities is outweighed by the public advantage. I am not saying that that applies to this Bill. It is not for me to say that; that is a matter for the Select Committee. I am only saying that in certain circumstances it might apply to this Bill.
Unless any of these three Petitions is withdrawn, the Select Committee will be obliged to consider the very points which the noble Lord has raised this afternoon —in fact, they will do that whether this Instruction is passed to-day or otherwise. Let me just try to prove my point by quoting quite shortly from two paragraphs in the Petitions. First, dealing with the amenities of the town, paragraph 16 of the Petition of the Protection Society says this:
"Your Petitioners object to the Bill because, … the construction of the works … would seriously detract from the amenities of the town of Rye."
Need any of us fear on that that the point will not be fully considered? Surely, the issue is joined on the amenities to the town. Secondly, with regard to the harbour, paragraph 16 of the Petition of the Royal Yachting Association says this:
"Your Petitioners object to the Bill because … the construction of the works … would have the most serious consequences upon the use and operation of the port and harbour of Rye for navigation."
Again, need any of us have the slightest fear that there will be any lack of consideration given to this point? And again I say, the issue is joined on the question of the amenities of the harbour.
The House may want to ask, what is gained by passing and agreeing to this Instruction to-day? As the noble Lord
1078
rightly says, it is not a mandatory Instruction. In my view, it is all the better for that. I am prepared to advise your Lordships that this Instruction can be accepted because it is in no way objectionable. It does not compel the Select Committee to alter the Bill in any respect. Therefore, I suggest to the House that it could be accepted, in spite of the fact that what the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, wants done must in any event be done upstairs by the Select Committee if justice is to be done both to the Promoters of and to the Petitioners against the Bill. It seems to me that if that objective of doing justice is achieved, then it is inevitable that these particular points must be thoroughly considered.
I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for drawing particular attention to these points and inviting the House to do so, and for putting down this Instruction. But I would remind the House that this is a most controversial Bill. It is, in my view, essentially one for a Select Committee; and the members who are appointed to sit on that Committee, whoever they may be, will not in any event be allowed to ignore the significance of the points which the noble Lord has properly and rightly put before the House. My Lords, I hope I have said enough by way of guidance to your Lordships. Whether this ought to be passed is a matter for your Lordships; but I, for my part, can see no objection to the passing of this Instruction.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have no complaint to make about the manner in which the noble Lord moved his Motion; nor do I wish to suggest that he is not perfectly in order in doing so in the terms in which he did. My object in rising is to express my own feeling that Instructions of this kind are undesirable. Surely, when we set up a Select Committee we have confidence that they will do their job. When in fact the Select Committee are obliged by the very wording of the opposition that has been filed to have regard to the specific points, it seems not only unnecessary, but in my view objectionable, that they should be instructed to have regard to these points.
The noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees is always so fair and

1079
objective that I do not like disagreeing with him, but he took the view that this Instruction is unobjectionable. I think it is objectionable. If I were a member of the Select Committee and had this opposition to the Bill in front of me, I should strongly resent being told that I was to have regard to things which, in the normal course of events, I would have regard to. I should assume that the House had some special purpose in asking me to have regard to them; that, in fact, the House was leaning towards expressing some kind of sympathy with the points that were contained in the Instruction.
The noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, quite rightly said that there may be injury to amenity, but that is not necessarily fatal to the Bill. You must have regard to general public interest, and he gave some very pertinent examples. But if there is an Instruction contained in the Bill that the Committee are to have regard to something, surely they must pay some attention to that Instruction over and above the opposition that they will meet. They will say, "Parliament has specifically told us to have regard to these points", and there is a danger that they may attach undue emphasis to them. So I should hope that the noble Lord who has moved the Instruction, having achieved his purpose of ventilating the matter, being satisfied that it will inevitably be taken into consideration, will not think it necessary to overburden the thing by giving the Instruction. But if he presses his Motion, I must say, even if I am the only opposing voice in this House, that I shall have to vote against it, and that will be a great pity, because if the House refused an Instruction of this kind it might be regarded as damaging to the cause which the noble Lord has at heart; just as I think that, if it were to pass it, it might give improper emphasis to the point. I would appeal to the noble Lord not to press this Motion, now that he has put his case so fairly and ably and, in my view, achieved what he set out to achieve.
5.45 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I have no exception to take to the manner in which my noble friend Lord Killearn, has submitted his Motion to the House,
1080
and no one who knows Rye can fail to be charmed by its beauty and impressed by its historic associations. I intervene to give just a brief outline of the scheme and perhaps to show that the Promoters of the Bill are not vandals or Philistines who would willingly destroy anything of a traditional nature which we wish to preserve in our old England.
I ought, I suppose, like the Lord Chairman of Committees, to declare that I have a slight interest, inasmuch as I happen to be a Vice-President of the River Boards Association, which is, of course, interested in this Bill. This Bill is promoted, as has been said, by the Kent River Board, and its main purpose is to authorise the construction in the estuary of the River Rother of a sluice and lock and certain other works, including river walls and slipways, near the mouth of the river and south of the town of Rye.
The Board is the responsible body for land drainage purposes, and—this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, may have had in his pouch but did not submit to your Lordships—in regard to the Rather valley and the adjacent areas draining into it, a large part of it is at, or only slightly above, the high tide level of the estuary of the river. In consequence, large areas of agricultural land in the valley are regularly subject to flooding. The gravity of this problem may be illustrated by the fact that in the latter part of 1960 more than 20,000 acres of land were inundated, and in the low-lying areas extensive floodwaters covered the land for periods stretching into months.
I am advised that the Kent River Board ever since its formation in 1950, have had under active consideration a number of schemes for improving the land drainage of the Rother valley area, and in this connection the fullest discussions have taken place with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The scheme eventually agreed upon in principle, of which the works proposed by the Bill form part, is divided, one part being for the improvement of the drainage of Shirley Moor, one of the inland areas of the river valley that has been most affected by flooding; and the other part is the construction of the sluice and lock in the estuary of the River Rother. These two

1081
parts are sought to be authorised by the Bill. The two parts of the scheme are interlocking, in that, by excluding the tide, the sluice and lock constructed side by side will increase the discharge from the river to the sea by more than 20 per centum. In addition, the works will afford protection against tidal flooding by making it possible to exclude abnormally high tides.
The harbour of Rye—and again this is a point which may have escaped my noble friend's notice—was originally under the jurisdiction of commissioners appointed under an. Act passed in the year 1797, but the revenue was inadequate to enable them to fulfil their functions. Therefore, in the year 1932 the undertaking of the commissioners was transferred to the Rother and Jury's Gut Catchment Board by a deed of arrangement made under Section 40 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The functions of the said Catchment Board were transferred to the Kent River Board by the River Boards Act and the orders made thereunder, and the Board are now the harbour authority.
The harbour is a fishery harbour, as my noble friend said. It is also used by yachtsmen for recreational purposes. But the capacity of the harbour is strictly limited as regards both the number and the size of vessels which can utilise its facilities. The Board, however, intend to interfere with navigation no more than is necessary to enable them to carry out their proposals in regard to land drainage. It is for that reason that the lock for the passage of boats is to be constructed alongside the sluice, so that it will interfere as little as possible. Of course, the rights of navigation over so much of the channel as is enclosed by the sluice will obviously be extinguished. The lock, however, will accommodate all boats now using the estuary and the harbour of Rye, situate further up the river, except for a boat which uses the harbour for the importation of timber on about four occasions a year in the summer months, when it is expected that neither the sluice nor the lock gates will be closed.
It will, of course, be appreciated that, under the terms of the Bill, the opening and closing of the sluice and the lock will be at the discretion of the Board. But here again may I point out the care-
1082
ful way in which the Board have proceeded? There have been long discussions with the local authorities and other interests, and, as a result, agreement has been reached in principle. Without going into detail, Amendments to implement this agreement will be moved in the Select Committee, now that your Lordships have given the Bill a Second Reading.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, to bear in mind that since, the transfer of the harbour authority undertaking from the commissioners, its condition has been considerably improved. The revenue from the undertaking has been insufficient to pay for these improvements, or for ordinary maintenance. In consequence, they have been subsidised by funds paid by the Board and their predecessors, in their capacity of land drainage authority. Most of these funds have been provided by the ratepayers of the County of Kent. I do not say that they have not done that willingly, but in their precepts are included amounts for this very desirable work.
My Lords, I have an assurance that the Board intend to continue their policy of maintaining the harbour and its facilities, notwithstanding that the harbour revenue is insufficient for the purpose. The construction of the sluice and lock, and their operation, will have no appreciable effect on navigation by private boats or yachts; and, indeed, in some respects an improvement will be effected. Alternative facilities will be provided for those who have been displaced as a result of the construction work. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind the flooding, which, as I said, occurred in 1960, and which may happen again on any day in the future unless this work is put into operation. Substantial benefit to agriculture will result from the implementation of the proposals, but not at the expense of the yachting and other interests involved in the navigation of the harbour.
As has been rightly said, the Select Committee will examine all these points. There are three Petitions against the Bill and, with my noble friend Lord Silkin, I think that the passing of Instructions such as this, well-intentioned though they may be, is not a desirable practice for this House to induge in. There may

1083
be instances where it is necessary; but, after all, Select Committees have a long and arduous task to perform. Moreover, as my noble friend has pointed out on the wording of this Instruction, if it is negatived pit will have one effect, and if it is accepted it will probably have no effect at all, because the Committee will do their job—and I am sure will do it thoroughly. In the circumstances, perhaps the wisest thing for the House to do would be not to accept the Motion, knowing that the Select Committee will do their utmost to give effect to what is mentioned in the Motion and to many other points which will arise in consideration of the Bill.
5.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise simply because I happen to be a member of the East Sussex County Council, whose statutory duty it is to examine this Bill. We have various interests in connection with land drainage, and we appoint representatives to the Kent River Board. The planning authority are interested in amenity, and we have some rather more general responsibilities for looking after the navigational interests.
My Lords, we have exercised that duty. We have been over this Bill very carefully with the Promoters, and we have secured a number of undertakings in regard to Amendments in Committee, to which reference has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden. As these undertakings had been given, we did not see the necessity for petitioning or opposing this Bill, in the first instance, although we are reserving the right to do so in the House of Commons Select Committee, if necessary. I mention these facts only because my noble friend Lord Killearn made a number of strictures on this Bill, and the fact that we were not opposing it might lead some people to imagine that we had not been doing our duty.
5.59 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, while greatly regretting my inability to agree with my noble friend the Lord Chairman, I wish to align myself very closely with what has been said from the opposite side of the House. I myself have never been enamoured of these Instructions which are moved to Committees. I
1084
know that they are in order, and I know that they are perfectly proper. But I myself have always thought, after a good many years' experience of Committee work upstairs, that they have an element of being objectionable in principle. I believe that, as a general rule, they serve no useful purpose. Indeed, I feel so strongly about it because I think that they inject a certain element of prejudice into the minds of what should be a completely unprejudiced Committee. The Select Committee is there for one purpose and for one purpose alone: that is, to examine every facet of and every implication in the Bill, and in my humble opinion they should not be saddled with these Instructions. I beg my noble friend sitting on the Cross Benches not to press this Motion.
6.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I fully agree with what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said about the undesirability of continually moving Instructions to tell Select Committees what they must do. However, following the speech of my noble friend Lord Burden it occurs to me that there are implications in this Bill which are more important than merely the interests of those persons who use the harbour of Rye. It strikes me that this is a case where there is a conflict between the interests of agriculture and the interests of a port and those who use that port.
In a sense, there is a national question at issue here because, according to my noble friend Lord Burden, the Promoters are making a considerable point of the fact that, as it is, the harbour is not economically self-supporting; that it does not pay its way. Are the Promoters therefore going to run the place on a commercial basis and spend only so much as they can afford without running into a deficit? In other words, are the River Board going to accept their responsibilities as a harbour authority? If so, they must surely maintain and improve the facilities of the harbour to allow for whatever traffic happens to use it. For instance, we were told by my noble friend Lord Burden, in a rather light-hearted sentence, that the lock being built in the harbour will accommodate all the ships that at present use the harbour except one, and that, it appears, is the only one that brings a

1085
commercial cargo. If this ship happens to want to come at a season of the year when the tides are such that the sluice has to be closed, then that ship is excluded from the harbour.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, on that point, may I assure my noble friend that the timber boat comes four times a year, and then always in the summer, when everything will be available for it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: So my noble friend says, but it appears that the continued use of the harbour for commercial and transport purposes is a secondary consideration to the land drainage. It is conflicts such as this, my Lords, which obviously can be threshed out only by a body such as a Select Committee, which has plenty of time and which has the opportunity to hear fully developed the technical case on either side. I therefore hope that the Bill will go forward to the Select Committee. If after it comes back there is anything, objectionable in it, it is always open to your Lordships to discuss it and to criticise it on Third Reading.
6.4 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I desire to say only a very few words about this matter, but there is one small point which concerns me a little. As I understood it, the tenor of the speech of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, was that this Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, was possibly a little superfluous in view of the existence of more than one Petition filed by persons who are very concerned about the amenity aspect of the matter. But I think we all know that the mortality rate of Petitions which are filed before the time that a Select Committee actually sits is in some cases extraordinarily high.
I have no reason to suppose that these Petitioners are likely to withdraw their Petitions in this case, but, my Lords, suppose that for one reason or another they did. Then, it seems to me, the attention of the Select Committee would no longer be riveted so closely upon the amenity aspect of this matter as would otherwise be the case if the Petitions remained outstanding and were argued by counsel before the Select Committee. For that reason, my Lords, in view of the possibility of the withdrawal of
1086
Petitions before the Select Committee sits, I feel that perhaps this Instruction might cease to look quite so superfluous as it may appear to some noble Lords who are here this evening.
6.7 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not think I need say very much about this Bill, because I think that almost everything that could be said about it has been said. I must stress the fact that this is a Private Bill, and an opposed Private Bill at that, which means that it will be sent upstairs to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is unnecessary—indeed, it would be inappropriate—for me to deal in any detail with the merits of the Bill. What we are concerned with this afternoon is the merits of the Instruction to the Select Committee which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn.
Your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord that the proposals in the Bill are designed to empower the Kent River Board to construct a lock and sluice in the estuary of the Rother at Rye Harbour. Improvement works on the Rother further upstream have been assisting, and are continuing to assist, the drainage of Shirley Moor, and these works will almost certainly result in an increase in the flow of the Rother. Your Lordships have already heard about that aspect from the noble Lord, Lord Burden, who went into very considerable detail on the Bill, on its desired effects and, indeed, on its probable effects.
The construction of the sluice and lock would be designed to enable the river to receive this additional discharge of water at an increased rate. The lock and sluice could also form part of any larger subsequent drainage schemes which might be drawn up in this area. They could, in addition, afford protection against tidal floodings by making it possible to exclude abnormally high tides from the river. That, my Lords, very briefly, is the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Killearn, referred to turning the Rother into an agricultural drain. My Lords it is not for me to pass any judgment this afternoon: the Select Committee will no doubt go into that. But I think I can at least say that an agricultural drain is a

1087
very necessary thing for the English countryside. The noble Earl, Earl Lucan, remarked, I think, that there appeared to be a conflict between agriculturists and users of the port, but this may not turn out to be so after examination by the Select Committee—and agricultural drains are not necessarily disadvantageous to the surrounding urban districts. But, as I say, I pass no judgment to-day.
The noble Lord is quite rightly concerned about the effects upon the existing amenities of the town of Rye, and also upon the harbour as regards the use, navigation and mooring of vessels. In so far as the construction of these works is concerned, I understand that it is the intention of the River Board to carry them out in two stages, and in such a way that it will not be necessary to close the river to navigation at any time, except possibly for an occasional day while the contractor is moving machinery. After the completion of the lock and sluice, it is intended that interference with the navigation of vessels will again be kept to the minimum. Another undertaking which, I understand, has been given by the River Board is that the present landing stages by the Fish Market, which are in a very dilapidated condition, will be put into a reasonable state of repair.
My Lords, these and other details will be threshed out by the Select Committee upstairs. As your Lordships have heard, there are three Petitioners, and I have no doubt that, in the course of their evidence, the question of fishermen's rights, navigation and general amenities, as well as the merits of the drainage schemes concerned, will be gone into most thoroughly. The Department for which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is responsible will, of course, be submitting to the Select Committee its views upon the scheme from the point of view of land drainage and also from that of fishing. I am not, therefore, in a position to say any more about that this afternoon. In short, everything that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, wishes the Select Committee to examine will in fact be examined whether this permissive Instruction is passed by the House or not. I think that point was made perfectly
1088
clear by the Lord Chairman of Committees when he spoke. These matters will be examined because the Bill is opposed and the Petitioners are concerned with those very matters with which the noble Lord is concerned. In addition, as I have said, the opinions of the Government Departments concerned —and I understand that will include the Ministry of Transport from the point of view of navigation—will also be expressed to the Select Committee.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to inquire whether the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, comprehending planning, will also be consulted?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I understand from my noble friend the Lord Chairman that they will report. I have not actually had a briefing on this occasion but I understand that they will be reporting. Therefore, my Lords, this permissive Instruction—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, was "invitation" but one might call it either an invitation or an instruction—is in no way necessary for the protection of the town of Rye or of the harbour of Rye. That does not mean to say that I am not sympathetic with the noble Lord's interest in the matter, for it so happens that I know Rye and the harbour quite well, and was there only last week-end. My visit had nothing to do with this Bill, because in any case I visit Rye two or three times a year privately at my leisure. It is quite true that it is a lovely old town—I agree with all that the noble Lord said about it—full of charm and fascination, and beautifully sited. There are magnificent views both from the town and up towards it from far away across the marshes. But, nevertheless, if the noble Lord wishes to divide the House on this matter, I am bound to say that, in all the circumstances, I shall not be able to follow him into the Division Lobby for the reason that this permissive Instruction is not necessary. This is not the same as opposing an unobjectionable instruction, as he put it; it is simply because the Instruction is not necessary.
The noble Lord has heard already that he has opposition in this House if he divides and it might indeed be a pity if he were to divide and not to carry

1089
the House with him. But in point of fact I think that, whether the noble Lord wins or loses the Division, it will not materially affect the position. If he were simply to withdraw his Motion his main purpose would already have been fulfilled—namely, to draw the attention of the Select Committee to the matters mentioned in his Motion.
6.15 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, we have had, to me, at any rate, an extraordinarily interesting debate. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part for the very friendly way in which they have received this Motion of mine. Even in the quarters which did not like it, it was received kindly. There is one point I want to be quite certain about. Lord Silkin said that he would go into the Lobby against it. I thought Lord Burden said that he would go into the Lobby for it.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, no; I did not say that.
LORD KILLEARN: Then I misheard. In any case, the hour is late and it is a very thin House. I do not know how many of your Lordships are here now, but I think very few. I feel that this matter has been very largely disposed of, not only by the speech we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, but by what the Lord Chairman of Committees said at the start. The point has been fully covered. If I won the Division, it would be all right; if I lost it, it would not do anybody much good—I think that is about what it comes to. Having had my say, and with a sympathetic listening from your Lordships, I feel that I have achieved my purpose. Presumably the Select Committee may read some of this debate in Hansard, but certainly they will have the Petitioners in front of them. So with your Lordships' consent, I will withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past six o'clock.