Lords Sitting of 3 May 1962

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

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND EXCHANGE DIFFICULTIES
3.5 p.m.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are generally satisfied with the present arrangements provided by the International Monetary Fund in view of the exchange difficulties frequently being encountered by various countries, and the pressures to which key currencies, such as the dollar and sterling, have been recently subjected.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): Yes, my Lords. The International Monetary Fund already provides substantial facilities on which member countries can draw if they suffer temporary balance-of-payments difficulties. The effectiveness of these facilities in relieving pressure on a reserve currency was demonstrated by the assistance totalling 2,000 million dollars, which was arranged for the United Kingdom last year. The ability of the Fund to protect the major currencies used in international trade from speculative pressures will be further enhanced by the arrangements for borrowing supplementary resources from member countries, which were debated in your Lordships' House on April 5 last.
LORD CASEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but perhaps I may be allowed further to seek to lighten my darkness in these matters by putting my question in another way. Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the resources in
1118
the hands of the International Monetary Fund are adequate to ameliorate the short-term balance-of-payments problem of a number of countries, particularly in the environment of a rapidly expanding world trade; and are they also adequate to protect the principal currencies, sterling and the dollar and the currencies depending on them? Further, if the answer to that is "No", or a qualified "No", would Her Majesty's Government consider action designed towards increasing the resources in the hands of the International Monetary Fund, or, if possible, a rearrangement of its resources and methods of using them designed to improve the situation, in the light of the very considerable number of countries throughout the world which are to-day, for one reason or another—I think many of the reasons are legitimate—suffering balance-of-payments problems?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with the additional resources to be made available under the borrowing arrangements, the Fund's resources should be sufficient for most of the contingencies likely to arise at the present time. As regards the future, the Fund's Articles of Agreement already enable it to seek further increases in its resources as it may find necessary. The Fund has shown itself well able to adapt itself to new situations, and I am confident that it will continue to do so.
It may be of interest if I may quote from the remarks of Mr. Jacobsson, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, made in his address to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations on April 6. I should like both to quote them and to endorse them. He said:
"I think that great progress has been made in the past year in establishing and consolidating the necessary contacts and generally strengthening the machinery for co-operation in the international monetary system. Such steps as already have been taken in developing that system, as for instance the Fund's borrowing arrangement, do not of course close the door to future measures that in due course may be found appropriate. Attention must naturally be concentrated in the first place on the difficulties which are of immediate concern to-day, but the spirit of broad and willing co-operation evidenced among nations in recent months in these matters justifies confidence in their ability to find constructive solutions not only to present problems, but also to those which the future may hold in store for us."
LORD CASEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it be possible to have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT exact particulars of the additions recently made to the resources, to which I think this country has contributed, the amounts other countries contributed, and the total resources generally available?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords, I will see that that is done. We debated this matter on April 5 and your Lordships will find a good deal of the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I will see that it is brought up to date, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition suggests.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the first reply of the noble Lord to that part of the Question which dealt with exchange difficulties and the pressure on currency such as the dollar, which presumably includes the Canadian dollar, and in view of the announcement to-day of the further depression in value of the Canadian dollar, is he in a position to give the House any more details of exactly what that involves?
LORD MILLS: No, my Lords, I think I need notice of that question.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the resources of the Fund are sufficient to cope with crises of confidence in the dollar and in the pound coinciding with each other, and are there any other currencies which it could offer to those who fly from the pound and the dollar? And is it not a fact that the International Monetary Fund is no substitute for an increase in the value of gold?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I will say at once that I am not aware that countries are fleeing away from sterling.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I asked whether, if crises of confidence in the dollar and in sterling happened to coincide—and experts think that if there were a crisis in one there would be a crisis in the other—the International Monetary Fund would be in a position to cope.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, that is rather a hypothetical question. Your Lordships will remember that the Inter-
1120
national Monetary Fund was basically formed on the dollar, which was then the strong currency. The recent arrangements—and may I first say that I think the Fund has served countries very well—which were made for borrowing up to 6,000 million dollars were designed to bring in other currencies to a greater extent. I think the replies I have given and the quotation I have made from the Managing Director of the Fund show that they have confidence that they could meet any situation which is foreseeable.

ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of use of certain poisons for killing animals]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, to leave out Clause 1 and to insert instead:
1. Where the use of any poison for the purpose of destroying any animal has been prohibited or restricted by regulations under this Act—

(a) the fact that the poison was used as mentioned in the proviso to section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, or the proviso to section seven of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912, shall not be a defence in proceedings under paragraph (b) of either section if the poison was used in contravention of the regulations: and

(b) any person convicted in such proceedings of an offence committed by or in connection with the use of the poison in contravention of the regulations shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

The noble Earl said: As it stands, this Bill makes it an offence to place a designated poison—that is, one which has been prohibited by the Minister—on any land, or to administer or cause to be administered, any designated poison to any animal. In the first clause of the Bill as it stands, the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911,

1121
and the appropriate Act for Scotland are recapitulated; and it has been suggested to me, and I think rightly, that it seems better to avoid this overlap by the words which I put down on the paper, which have the same effect as my original clause but avoid this overlap between the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, applying to England, and that of 1912 applying to Scotland. The only other alteration, as your Lordships will see, is that in the Amendment the administration of a poison is excluded. Under the principal Act it is forbidden to administer a poison without reasonable cause. The only persons who are likely to administer a poison with reasonable cause are veterinary surgeons, and it seems probable that it is only the administration by a veterinary surgeon which would be held to be with reasonable cause. I feel that the provision for administration is unnecessary, and it is therefore omitted from the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Animal Poisons Committee]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: When I moved the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed some little shame at suggesting the setting up of one more committee, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, in that debate pointed out that Ministers have a vast amount of expertise available to them, as indeed I know to be the case. The infestation department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for instance, is constantly working on pest destruction and trying to devise new and more humane methods of destroying pests. I think one should at all costs avoid setting up additional committees. I am satisfied that the Ministers would have the necessary advice available and I am also satisfied that the animal welfare societies, who are of course rightly interested in this Bill, would be able to make submissions to the Ministers. Indeed, I think the Minister would not be able to hide behind the committee
1122
and would have to rely on his own responsibility. That, in fact, is what this clause provides. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3: [Designation of cruel poisons]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, to leave out Clause 3 and to insert:
3.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a poison cannot be used for destroying animals or animals of any description without causing undue suffering and that other suitable methods of destroying them exist and are or would in certain circumstances be adequate, he may by regulations made by statutory instrument prohibit or restrict the use of that poison for destroying animals or, as the case may be, animals of that description.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
The noble Earl said: This Clause 3 gives the Minister wider powers than he had under the provisions of Clause 3 in the Bill as given a Second Reading. Under the Bill as it stands the Minister can only prohibit the use of a poison, and it might well be that a poison which was indubitably cruel could not be prohibited because it was the only poison available for killing a certain animal. Under the Bill as it stands at the moment the Minister could not prohibit the use of that poison. Under the Amendment he could prohibit the use of that poison for all other animals other than the particular animal for which it was essential to retain it, and I am advised that the Amendment as drawn up does secure that, although I must confess that I found the ways of Parliamentary draftsmen extraordinarily difficult to understand. I am told that the words:
"or, as the case may be, animals of that description"
mean some other animal which the Minister wishes to exempt. But I must accept what I am told as being correct, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of Section 23 of Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out Clause 4. The noble Earl said: Clause 4 was intended to provide that regulations made under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act should not provide a loophole whereby designated poisons could be bought and used for killing animals. In point of fact, if by regulations the Minister who makes provision for people to buy poisons under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act were himself to prescribe the use of a poison he would not, and indeed could not, with the other hand give permission for it to be used under another Act. Therefore this clause is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Saving for purposes of scientific education and research]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out Clause 5. The noble Earl said: Clause 5 was necessary because, under Clause 1 of the Bill, it was an offence to administer poison. It was necessary to make provision for the administration of poison by research workers, but as administering poison no longer comes within the ambit of the Bill as amended, this clause is no longer necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(The Earl of Cranhrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out all words after "animal" and to insert instead: "means any mammal".
The noble Earl said: The definition of the word "animal" in the Bill as it stands is "any kind of vertebrate". That term was put in because it was in the original Act. I have always understood that it was put in that Act by mistake, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, because the legislators of the day thought that as a mammal was a vertebrate all vertebrates
1124
were mammals; and an Act which was intended to apply only to mammals was considerably extended. Be that as it may, birds of course are protected by the Protection of Birds Act, 1954; nobody wants to poison frogs, toads or snakes; and "mammals" seems to be the most convenient definition here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, leave out from (" animal ") to end of line 43 and insert (" means any mammal ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
3.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps this is a convenient moment at which to make the observations I think I ought to make about this Bill. I have nothing to say about the merits of the Bill—indeed, I do not know what the merits are, because having, regard to all the Amendments that have been moved, I am at a complete loss to understand what is left of the Bill. So far we have left out Clause 1 and put in something entirely different; we have left out Clause 2; we have left out Clause 3 and put in something entirely different; we have left out Clause 4, left out Clause 5. and we are now in process of completely altering the purpose of Clause 6.
On an earlier occasion, in connection with another Private Member's Bill, I strongly objected to this procedure. It means that we have now an entirely different Bill from the one which received a Second Reading. I should have thought that the proper procedure, when a Bill is so fundamentally altered, as this one is, is to withdraw the Bill and introduce a fresh one in the form in which the noble Earl Who wants it brought before the House desires it to be considered. It is most difficult for those of us who try to follow the business of the House to give our approval to one Bill, and then to find that, by a series of Amendments, we are being asked to approve an entirely different Bill. This is not a personal criticism of the noble Earl for whom I have a high regard. I imagine that he has been badgered by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and the Parliamentary draftsman into doing this. If these are the only terms on which he can get his Bill through, I would strongly recommend that he leaves it alone and does not try to impose this kind of procedure on the House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Might I say a word? I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend. I recollect the previous occasion when he objected to a Bill which had the sympathy of the House. The draftsmen came along, as they quite rightly do, and helped the noble Member. The noble Lord then objected. Surely there is a distinction between a Bill of this kind and one which is controversial. Everybody in this House accepts the purpose of this Bill. It is to protect animals against destruction by such a poison as strychnine, which involves considerable pain and agony to the animal, while everybody knows that there is an alternative available. That is the purpose of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill.
It happens, of course, that Departments are expert in the draftsmanship of a Bill. Nobody here pretends to be an expert in the drafting of a Bill. Let us take the last clause that the noble Earl mentioned. I cannot understand why my noble friend cannot understand it. In the definition of "animal", which includes worms and creatures of that kind, the noble Earl wishes to insert "mammals", which is, of course, the correct expression. There is nothing difficult to understand about that. It is the kind of thing that an expert draftsman would suggest to the noble Earl. I would ask my noble friend not to try to prevent the passage of a Bill of this kind which has the acceptance, in principle, of both sides of the House merely because, for academic reasons, he finds it a little difficult to understand.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have had some experience of poisons, and especially of strychnine, from the point of view of game preservation. I remember that as a boy I watched gamekeepers who would poison half a sheep or a hare and peg it down on the ground. The crows and gulls would then come and take the poison, and I would say that they would die in extreme pain. I am all for the noble Earl in his Bill, but as it has been handled it has not, so far as I can see, altered the law at all.
The whole trouble with the Pharmacy Acts is that people can ask the agricultural executive officer for a permit for strychnine to poison moles. But quite a few of the people who obtain a per-
1126
mit for poisoning moles use it not only for that purpose but also for the purpose of poisoning other animals. Although the use of strychnine is made illegal, apart from its use by veterinary surgeons, we shall always have this abuse. It is an extremely cruel poison, and I do not think its use for any purpose at all can be excused.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I am very grateful to the noble Lady for rising in my defence, but I must confess that I stand in a white sheet in front of the noble Lord who criticised me. I feel I should apologise to your Lordships' for my faulty drafting. I felt very ashamed, and put down these Amendments on the Order Paper in order to try to tidy up the Bill, although I was abundantly satisfied that the Bill was in its effect the same as when I introduced it. Although I do, as I say, stand in a white sheet for faulty drafting, I hope my mistakes in drafting will not make your Lordships feel that this Bill is not still a good one and should not become law if it is at all possible.
LORD HAWKE: Before the Government reply, could I ask my noble friend this question, because he has changed the description of the animal here? Is this Bill, as he proposes to amend it, going to make any difference to the legality of gardeners carrying on their existing methods against worms, slugs, rats, mice and wasps?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Neither under the Bill as drafted nor under the Bill as I propose to amend it would animals other than vertebrates be affected. I think the noble Lord has lumped moles with worms. One has a backbone and one has not. It is the animals with backbones which are protected, not the ones without. Only mammals, with backbones, come under the proposed Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Then only rats and mice do so, out of my list?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Only rats and mice, and I think you said moles, did you not?
LORD HAWKE: No.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Only the rats and mice are mammals, of course.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: May I ask a question on this? I think this question would have been more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill, but, unfortunately, I was not able to be present. It is on a matter which affects Scotland more than England. While this Bill applies to animals and not to birds, frequently poisons are put down to kill predatory birds, such as carrion crows, which do a tremendous lot of harm to young birds, protected birds' nests, and they sometimes even take young lambs. When the poison is put down in eggs for the crows to take, perhaps a valuable dog will eat it and die. Some time ago on an estate I saw this happen to a very valuable collie, who took up some strychnine and died—a dog worth some £300, which fortunately was insured. In a case like that I am rather at a loss to understand whether or not the man who put down the egg to kill the bird is responsible for the death of the dog, because Clause 1 says: "causes to be administered to any animal any designated poison …". He has caused it to be administered. What is the answer to that?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: This is really a Second Reading point, but, if your Lordships will allow me, I should like to reply to it. Under the Bill as amended it will be an offence to put down any designated poison for any purpose whatsoever. It is also an offence at the moment under the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, to use any poison for killing birds, except under a licence given by the Minister. I am informed that only one such licence has been given and that the poison is then specified. I have absolutely no doubt that the gentleman who filled that egg with strychnine was offending against the law. He could, and should, have been prosecuted, and should have been convicted and fined.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I am sorry I did not mention this point on Second Reading.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am quite sure about the backbone point, but I am unsure about the position in regard to the poisoning of moles. Will this upset the licensed poisoning of moles?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Under the existing law the Minister can, and does, give permission for strychnine to be used for poisoning moles, and I presume he will continue to do so until he is satisfied that another and equally effective poison is available, at which time he will prohibit strychnine. If he gives permission for that to be done it will be because he has not the power to prevent it, save under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act; but, if he is satisfied that an adequate and satisfactory poison or alternative exists, then he can prohibit it. But, until he is so satisfied, he will not prohibit it.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I thank the noble Earl. I hope the day will very soon come when another poison will be available.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): It might be convenient to your Lordships if I intervene now. What the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has just said is the whole point of this Bill. We did go into it in fairly considerable detail on Second Reading, and the reason for this Bill, and the major point of it, is that new poisons are becoming known and are coming on to the market. When a new poison can supersede an old poison such as strychnine, then this Bill will give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the power to outlaw that particular poison for the particular type of animal. That is why I am in complete agreement with the noble Lady opposite, because that was the point upon which your Lordships were agreed on Second Reading—unfortunately, it is rather a different story from my being in agreement with the noble Lady this day next week in your Lordships' House. If this Bill did not get through your Lordships' House, we felt—and I myself said so—that there could undoubtedly be unnecessary cruelty caused to certain types of animals. You will remember that we considered it might be very bad luck upon seals in Scotland, or equally upon moles.
Although I must admit, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, that we have altered this Bill very considerably, I think my friend the noble Earl is too

1129
modest. It is not due to any faulty draftsmanship, but rather to the complications about which we have heard something this afternoon in Committee—to make quite clear the difference between the obtaining and the laying of poisons for certain types and species of animals. That is the reason we have had to amend this Bill so considerably. There is of course the point about an advisory committee and I explained to your Lordships at some length why we felt that was not necessary, as indeed my noble friend has already explained. I would say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that I welcome all these Amendments and would commend them to your Lordships, this Amendment in particular.
LORD SILKIN: At the risk of incurring my noble friend's fury once more, may I just say this? I had no intention of opposing this Bill, but I am very concerned that we should do our business in a proper and regular way. Of course, every Bill is susceptible to amendment, and I have moved a great many Amendments in my time; but, when we come to a Bill in which every clause is amended, and most are withdrawn, and the Bill is an entirely different Bill from the one presented, I think we have reached the point where it is justifiable to consider whether the right thing is not to withdraw the Bill and introduce a fresh one and to deal with it in this way. Nothing I have said indicates that I have any desire to continue cruelty to animals or to do anything of that kind—indeed, I hope at some future time to show the contrary—but I feel that this is a point of procedure which we should consider very carefully. There must be a limit to the way in which a Bill is so amended and truncated that it becomes virtually a different Bill altogether. I think this is something which the House should consider at some appropriate time.
EARL BATHURST: I think that there may be something in what the noble Lord said, and I have every sympathy with it. I certainly did not mean to imply that he was against the theory of this Bill, but it certainly would not be very
1130
helpful if his advice were followed in dealing with this Bill. I can only assure your Lordships that the original principle is preserved, and even strengthened, in the amended Bill, as my noble friend has said, and I commend this Amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: This Amendment is quite formal and I do not think it needs any explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) This Act and the Protection of Animals Acts, 1911 to 1960, may be cited together as the Protection of Animals Acts, 1911 to 1962, and this Act and the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Acts, 1912 to 1960, may be cited together as the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Acts, 1912 to 1962.").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: This Amendment is consequent upon leaving out Clause 4. Perhaps in moving it I might say that the last time I took a Bill through a Committee stage of your Lordships' House was some time in the late 1920's when the fathers, and possibly the grandfathers, of some of your Lordships were rather kinder to me than the noble Lord opposite. At that rate of legislative output, at my age I doubt whether I shall be troubling your Lordships' children and grandchildren. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, leave out ("to amend the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933.").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

COAL CONSUMERS' COUNCILS (NORTHERN IRISH INTERESTS) BILL
3.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, this is a small Private Member's Bill which has been passed in another place. It is designed to remedy defects in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, and to enable representatives from Northern Ireland to sit on the Coal Consumers' Councils. The Coal Consumers' Councils are appointed by the Ministry of Power under Section 4 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. They comprise representatives of the Coal Board, consumers, and wholesale and retail coal traders. Their duties are to consider any matters affecting the sale or supply, whether for home use or for export, of coal, coke and manufactured fuel which are the subject of representations from consumers, or which they think ought to be considered apart from any such representations; and to report their conclusions to the Minister when they think action is desirable. They must also consider and report on matters of the same nature which are referred to them by the Minister.
Imports of coal into the United Kingdom from non-sterling sources are not allowed at present, so that Northern Ireland obtains practically all its coal—amounting, I think, to about 2¾ million tons a year—from Great Britain. The only other sources of supply are a few very small coal mines in Antrim and some small imports from the Irish Republic. I have always thought it is rather a remarkable thing that, whereas the principal coal deposits in Great Britain are situated on or near the West Coast—in Wales, for example, in Cumberland and in Lanarkshire, Scotland—there is practically no coal at all in Ireland. A few deposits have been discovered there and have been worked at various times. I remember that a large coal merchant in the North of Ireland gathered together a lot of capital in order to exploit a seam of coal at a place called Coal Island in County Tyrone. But in spite of that the seam petered out and the scheme had to be abandoned. So the net result is that
1132
practically the whole of the coal which is consumed in Northern Ireland comes from Great Britain.
In view of Northern Ireland's dependence on the National Coal Board for its supplies, I think it is very desirable that Northern Irish interests should be represented on the Consumers' Councils. This cannot be done at present because the 1946 Act does not apply to Northern Ireland. I think there will be advantages in having representatives from Northern Ireland on the Councils, so that matters affecting coal supplies to Northern Ireland—such as quantity, quality and price—can be discussed with representatives of the Coal Board and the coal trade in the context of United Kingdom supplies as a whole. The Minister of Power has welcomed the Bill, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Rathcavan.)
3.48 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I know your Lordships will all realise that this is a very difficult occasion for me, but I feel that we who have come here from another place—I might say we who have been privileged to come here from another place—have one particular advantage. We have already experienced in that other place the encouragement, the tolerance and the generosity of Parliament towards Members placed as I am placed to-day. I feel very strongly fortified as a result of that, because I know that your Lordships will extend to me equal generosity and tolerance.
But, apart from that, I should like to say that I have another advantage because, apart from my politics, I am a most conservative person and I stand here to-day, as nearly as I can judge, in exactly the same place as I stood some twelve years ago to make my maiden speech as a Member of another place, when your Lordships were kind enough to have lent us your Chamber as our own had been damaged in the war. Going back twelve years, I remember that, as happens particularly in another place—but not so badly here to-day, when the moles and the other animals have been mentioned—considerable delay ensues before the person making his or her maiden speech is able to be

1133
called. I remember getting up on that occasion and—it is something which does not often happen to me—I found I had lost my voice out of sheer fright. It had completely disappeared. But, obviously, your Lordships have been kinder. Your Lordships will not, I hope, think it presumptuous of me if I say that I have always had a very great respect for the debates in this House. I think it is generally conceded that there is a great fund of experience and knowledge here, and I should like to say, as a very, very newcomer, that I hope to be able to make some contribution which is worth while, however small it may be, to your Lordships' debates.
Coming now to the Bill, I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord opposite that I wish to support what he has said. As your Lordships know, to-day it is common parlance to hear, in the Press and on many platforms, that 1962 is to be the year of the consumer. I should like to go further than that—in a non-controversial way, of course—and say that I believe that this decade of the 'sixties will see the consumer movement clearly established as a recognised part of the social scene in this country. I believe that that is inevitable as an increasing number of consumers (which is a word I personally never like; perhaps we shall be able to find a better one) become both better informed and more interested. In fact, my Lords, speaking entirely as a consumer, and for neither side of your Lordships' House, I should like to say that when the Government of the day begin to take the ordinary shopper seriously, whether this be for coal or for any other merchandise, we shall have reached the end of the beginning. I know, of course, that maiden speeches should be brief, and so I shall not allow myself to be deflected into the wider area of asking whether or not the present Government have begun to take us shoppers seriously. But my guess would be in the affirmative; and I would say that the nearer we get to the General Election the more seriously shall we shoppers be taken. All of this, I hope, will provide us with much interesting debate, perhaps, in the next Session of Parliament.
Now why should I wish to support this Bill? First of all, because obviously it is a further development of consumer
1134
affairs and gives representation on the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council which is overdue; secondly, because it draws the attention of your Lordships to this subject of consumer councils in the nationalised industries; and, thirdly, because I have for some two years been a member of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council and have seen how it works. Point one is self-evident, but I should like to comment very briefly on points two and three. Are these Councils worth while, or are they simply "window-dressing"? Are they effective in any way, or are they simply "rubber stamps"? And are they known to the public? In these comments I must emphasise that I am speaking for myself. My colleagues have no idea that I proposed to speak—in fact, I myself knew nothing about to-day's debate when I attended the last meeting of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council.
My Lords, I think our Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, to which this Bill refers, is worth while; and what pleases me very particularly is that I believe it is becoming more worth while. One of the reasons is that the members are definitely not prepared to take "No" for an answer. Furthermore, they are not prepared to take any answer which is not fully substantiated—and, as a thoroughly awkward member of that council, I can assure your Lordships that we do require substantiation.
The second point, which I feel is very important, is that the lay members, the consumer members, of this Domestic Coal Consumers' Council are not overwhelmed by specialised trade knowledge. I think this is greatly helped by the co-operative spirit of the trade representatives on the Council, but I am quite convinced that your Lordships will know that in many consumer committees, dealing with all kinds of commodities, one of the great problems is to get lay members who are not overwhelmed by technical or trade knowledge. So often I have seen these committees become complete "rubber stamps" because, when a lay member puts forward some really worthwhile suggestion, the trade or technical representatives will say, "That is not possible", and the non-trade people just subside. I should like to pay tribute to the trade members of this Council and say that that does not occur

1135
here. Then if we, on the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, are not a "rubber stamp" can it be taken that the members to be appointed if your Lordships approve this Bill to-day can assume that they will have any real influence on national policy? I think they can, if they will accept that the suggestions from this Council are a contributory factor and not necessarily a decisive one.
It is not my purpose this afternoon—and it would be quite wrong—to go into the thorny question of coal price increases, but I would say to your Lordships that, going back some months, when the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council were informed of some price increases which had become inevitable, we took very strong exception to being informed of this at a late date. Whether or not our opinion would have made any difference, we did not like not having the time to make that opinion known before decisions were taken. Here I should like to pay tribute to the Minister, to whom the Council complained. Ever since then, we have had plenty of time, and it is up to us to make the feelings of consumers known.
There is one other point that I should like to mention, because I think it is important. This is that at all the meetings of the Council which I have attended, when there have been some very thorny discussions and some very strong arguments, the divisions in the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council have been between what I might call the sectional interests. They have been between the trade and the consumer and the Coal Board: they have not been between the political Parties—and that I take to be a very valuable pointer. I think it is the only way in which consumer councils can work effectively.
My last point is: are these consumer councils known to the public? Obviously I can speak specifically only from the point of view of the Council to which I belong, but what I want to say has, I think, general application. I believe that they are not well enough known, but the matter is not easy because a great deal of work is done behind the scenes. As your Lordships may know, many people believe that one of the primary functions of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council is to deal with in-
1136
dividual complaints; and from time to time we get presents of faulty coal. I hope that none will arrive as a result of this debate! But what the new members will find out, when they come to represent Northern Ireland, is, I think, that although we are not primarily a court of appeal for these individual complaints—and we all realise that individual cases make bad law—the actual complaints which come to the Council are investigated and are dealt with; and members of the Council are very assiduous in following them up from meeting to meeting until they really get to the bottom of things.
I hope that this Domestic Coal Consumers' Council will be better known in the future. If price increases become a thing of the past, if quality troubles disappear as a result of the Approved Coal Merchants' Scheme (on which we had many discussions before it saw birth), then I think the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, with the widening representation which the noble Lord's Bill to-day will give it, can bring home to the public the evolution that we hope for in this field. We have thoughts about clean air and the trend to central heating; we are getting the change from raw coal to man-made fuels tailored to the consumer's needs, and we shall probably see a change in delivery methods. So, as I visualise it, the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council can help the development of these new marketing policies; and we shall all be pleased to welcome the new members who will join us if your Lordships pass this Bill.
3.59 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, for having introduced this Bill, not only briefly but with extreme lucidity, in a way which everybody can very easily understand and without any ambiguity at all. I am really left very little to add about the Bill itself, but in a moment, perhaps, I will mention one or two points which could be of some interest. The only other speaker in this very short debate was the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I think we could have wished that the debate which she was illuminating might be a little longer, so that other Members of your Lordships' House

1137
could have added their congratulations on what I am sure we shall all agree was a model maiden speech.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD HASTINGS: For, in the first place, not only was it delivered with singular charm, and in a way that every Member of your Lordships' House could hear and appreciate, but it was a really illuminating speech, because this little Bill, which otherwise would have been rather dull, became extremely interesting. We heard a great deal about the Consumers' Councils. The noble Lady herself is a member of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, and we heard of the good work it is doing, of some of the difficulties it meets, and how effective it is, which was extremely interesting to everybody in this House. The noble Lady's speech was entirely non-controversial, which is not always easy for a maiden speech; and it was short. It is a pleasure for me to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness. It is the first time I have had the privilege of congratulating one of the noble Ladies; I have never had to speak immediately after one before.
The noble Lady made one or two introductory remarks which interested me. For instance, she referred to the tolerance of the House, and thought that it would be no less than that which she found in the other place. I think we can perhaps congratulate ourselves in that certainly we do extend a very considerable tolerance. She also referred to herself as a most "conservative" person. I can assure the noble Baroness that the tolerance of your Lordships extends even to those who wish to change their seats (and that has been known to happen, of course, now and again) from one side to the other, or backwards, or forwards, or even sideways. We are not particular about the direction in which we go.
I would also assure her, when she says that she hopes to make a worthwhile contribution, that she has already made one on this Bill in directing our attention to Consumers' Councils. Having looked up her record, it is fairly obvious that she is going to be able to make contributions on many other subjects in the educational field, in both academic and physical education, in welfare, and even in commerce and industry, with
1138
which I notice she has had some considerable connection. Therefore, I look forward very much to hearing the noble Baroness speak to us again on many occasions, and the sooner it is, the better we shall be pleased.
Now, my Lords, I think all I need say on this Bill is that the Government support it. My right honourable friend the Minister of Power actually welcomed the Bill in another place. The only point which perhaps needs any reference at all is this: that, of course, Northern Ireland's coal problems have not actually been neglected in the past. They have been reasonably well-considered, because these problems could always be brought to the attention of the Minister of Power by the Northern Ireland Government. The Minister of Commerce in that Government has often done this in the past, and has done so only quite recently in connection with the rise in the price of coal Which took effect as from May 1 of this week. Another point is that it is considered more advantageous to have representatives of Northern Ireland directly on the Consumers' Councils, both industrial and domestic, because it enables them to know rather better what is going on in relation to the sale and supply of coal from this country, upon which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, pointed out, they are really entirely dependent in their own country. Therefore, matters can be dealt with probably rather more efficiently and promptly if they have a seat on each of the Consumers' Councils.
The only other point is this. This Bill does not affect complaints of consumers in Northern Ireland itself. They are naturally dealt with by the Northern Ireland Government under their own laws and their own system. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, it will affect only complaints about the distribution and sale of coal from this country to Northern Ireland. The position of the Northern Ireland Government is safeguarded because these Councils operate under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, which, of course, does not refer to Northern Ireland at all. Therefore, it is simply a co-optation of members on the Consumers' Councils who will be dealing with matters relating to England, Wales and Scotland, and the export of coal from there to Northern Ireland, but not

1139
with the individual complaints which may arise in Northern Ireland itself. My Lords, I do not think I need say any more about this Bill, and I hope that the House will agree with the noble Lord who moved it and give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS' REPORT AND CHALK-PIT CASE
4.7 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:

(a) whether they have considered the recent Report by the Council on Tribunals, dated March 30, 1962, and what action they propose taking on this Report;

(b) whether the "Chalk-pit case" will be reopened to enable the procedure laid down by the Council to be carried out.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Question, as noble Lords can see, relates to the Chalk-pit case, which has been considered by this House on three occasions and will be well within the memory of most of your Lordships who have been interested in this matter.
I do not propose to go into the facts in any detail, but I would just remind your Lordships that the Chalk-pit case was a case where a company proposed to work chalk, to which strong objection was taken by a number of local inhabitants. A public inquiry was held, and as a result of the public inquiry the inspector reported, after having heard expert witnesses and seen the site, that the application ought not to be granted. At a later stage the Minister rejected the recommendation of the inspector and granted the application; and in his letter he stated that since the inquiry he had consulted the Minister of Agriculture, had discussed the matter with a number of experts in his Department and in the Ministry of Agriculture and, as a result, had decided to allow the appeal and grant the application.
The point was made very strongly by myself, and by other noble Lords, that
1140
while the Minister was within his rights in not accepting the recommendation of the inspector—the inspector was merely a person who acted on the Minister's behalf in ascertaining the facts—the Minister was, in this case, quite wrong in deciding to allow the appeal on the basis of information which had come to him, or on the basis of evidence or advice which had been given to him and on which the objectors had not had an opportunity of cross-examining. I think that that is putting the position succinctly. I believe that everybody who took part in this matter, including the Press (there were leading articles in a number of newspapers) felt that there was something wrong with a procedure which enabled the Minister, after an inquiry had been concluded, to reject the views of the inspector conducting the inquiry on what virtually amounted to the obtaining of fresh evidence.
At the conclusion of our debate on May 8, 1961, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who replied for the Government, and who, I may say, has taken a great interest in this matter and has gone into the case in great detail, said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 231, col. 72]:
" I have already said that I hope that my noble friend Lord Tenby and his Council will consider this problem and will come to me with any ideas or proposals."
The problem was the one to which I have just referred. The noble and learned Viscount went on to say:
" …I hope that we shall be able to continue our discussion when the noble Viscount and his colleagues have had the chance of considering what I have said to-day and the other aspects of the problem."
We have now received the result of the consideration of the Council on Tribunals. It was presented on April 2 of this year. The Council on Tribunals have made two recommendations, and I will refer to them briefly.
The first is that:
" Where the Minister proposes to disagree with the inspector's recommendation—
I am leaving out the words that are not material to this Question—
" because he differs from a finding of fact made by the inspector, he will notify the parties to the appeal of his disagreement and the reasons for it and afford them an opportunity for making comments and representations in writing before finally making his decision."

1141
Certainly the Minister did not do that in the particular case of the Chalk-pit inquiry. The second recommendation is:
" Where the Minister proposes to depart from the inspector's recommendation because of … fresh expert evidence (including expert advice) … the inquiry should (if any of the parties so desire) be reopened and the new evidence or issue should be produced at the reopened inquiry."
These are very specific and definite recommendations, and the first part of my Question is directed to asking the Government what action they propose to take on the Report, and particularly on the specific recommendation of the Council on Tribunals.
On the second part of my Question, obviously the whole inquiry of the Council on Tribunals was directed to the Chalk-pit case, although it is of general application. The inquiry was held because it was widely recognised that a gross injustice had been done, or appeared to have been done. I would say, in parenthesis, that I am not necessarily saying that the Minister's decision was a wrong decision. What I am saying at this stage is that it was a decision that was wrongly arrived at, on the ground that the Minister had heard evidence without giving the objectors an opportunity of considering that evidence. But I am not saying that in all cases the Minister must agree with the inspector or with the inspector's recommendations.
Nevertheless, I feel that in this particular case, which has given rise to this inquiry, an opportunity ought to be given to the objectors to test the fresh evidence upon which the Minister decided the case against them. I am well aware that there are objections to retrospective action of this nature, and I can see the difficulty of reopening a decision which has already been arrived at. I can also see the possibility of repercussions, where objectors in other cases, which have been dealt with in the same way, might also claim to have them reopened. But I submit that this is a very special case. It is the case which gave rise to the whole inquiry, and it is one in which there is a great amount of hardship to the objectors.
I am told—and I accept the statement that has been made to me—that the loss to the objectors, if this decision
1142
stands, will be of the order of £100,000. That is a very serious matter for them. On the other hand, I understand that very little work has been done as a result of the decision which has been given. Some exploratory borings have taken place, but I have been told that there has been nothing beyond that and that no irreparable damage would be done if the case were reopened and if the decision were reversed. But I am not asking for the decision to be reversed; all I am asking is that the case should be re-heard by the Minister on the basis of the recommendations of this Report. I hope that when he comes to reply the noble and learned Viscount will be able to say that this obviously improper procedure will be rectified, not only in future but also in this particular case.
There is one other point, which is not dealt with in the Question, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount could give me an answer to it. In the course of various discussions in this matter the question arose: what are the rights of third parties? And who are third parties? Can anybody anywhere object at an inquiry? Ought one to be able to object, and what are one's remedies? Obviously, it is a very difficult matter, but in the course of our last debate the noble and learned Viscount promised that he would give this question of the rights of third parties close and serious consideration, and that in due course he would be able to tell us what were the Government's intentions in clarifying their position. I hope that he may be able to do it to-day; but, if he cannot, he may come back to this matter at some later date in the near future. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
4.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I confess that I was considerably surprised when I learned that this Question had been put on the Order Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, within a few hours of our concluding the debate on the last stage of the Pipe-lines Bill, towards the latter end of which the noble Lord had sought to criticise me in a less than courteous manner—I hope I shall not be guilty of exaggeration when I say in a rather offensive manner—for being such a supporter, an

1143
ardent supporter, of the Franks Committee and its offspring, the Council on Tribunals. Indeed, it would be churlish of me not to give voice to the very fine expression that there must be more "joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth," because here I find the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pressing the noble and learned Viscount to operate upon a recommendation which has been made by the Council on Tribunals for the noble and learned Viscount's consideration, based upon the principal part of the Franks Committee's Report. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as a convert, because, if I may say so, I should rather have suspected for many years, from his Stevenage days until the signing of the Minority Report of the Franks Committee, that he has always erred upon the side of the Establishment and bureaucracy rather than upon the side of the oppressed citizen, whose case he has so well pleaded this afternoon.
I am not going to re-open the debates we have had, but I hope the noble and learned Viscount will this afternoon adopt the same course as he adopted when I raised this same question upon the Report stage of the Pipe-lines Bill, which was not attended by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I raised the special question of the issue which the Council on Tribunals raised in this memorandum, which the noble and learned Viscount said was under very careful consideration. I believe the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me that the discussion we had upon statutory inquiry procedure during the Report stage, and also the Committee stage of the Pipe-lines Bill, not only underlines the necessity for the principles which the Council have put forward in this document but also enlarges them.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, read out some of this memorandum upon which he wants the noble and learned Viscount to express an opinion. But earlier in this memorandum the Council state quite definitely that the Government policy behind the matter which is being inquired into should be stated and made clear before the inquiry. That is possible on some occasions; it is not possible upon all occasions. I think the noble and learned Viscount must have
1144
in his mind that it must be necessary for the objectors—in this case, the Chalk-pit case, the private citizen—to have a clear statement, either before or at the inquiry, as to what the Government policy is. Only just recently the Minister of Power has issued an edict upon the policy the Government wish to follow on the mining of home-produced ore. Your Lordships will remember that that was an issue upon which the Oxfordshire case was fought.
The noble and learned Viscount, in his reply to me on the Report stage, issued what I can only consider to be a policy in reference to the laying of pipe-lines. What was the policy there? What was the Government's policy in this question of the Chalk-Pit case? Nobody knows. We can only think that the policy was whispered behind closed doors. It was never stated in open court in an inquiry, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will take note of what the Council say in paragraph 6. This is the last paragraph of their memorandum to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred:
" The Council believe that a solution on these lines can be put into effect without delay and they recommend that in due course the proposed rules should be embodied in the rules of procedure for statutory inquiries."
The noble and learned Viscount said on many occasions during the course of the Pipe-lines Bill through your Lordships' House that these rules are being given very serious consideration. They are in transit. After he has considered them, they will be amended if in his view they do not cover the specific points which we have raised in your Lordships' House on the Pipe-lines Bill.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised a very crucial point here, because the statement must be made at some time in any of these inquiries, or before these inquiries: "What is the public interest?" That is where I think the procedure in the Chalk-pit case went wholly wrong. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will continue to give this consideration, and will see that the rules in future guard against a like happening. I am going to make this suggestion to him; I think I may have made it before. There has been a rule, or a custom, that Government departmental officials do not appear before

1145
statutory inquiries. I think that should be altered. I think that if a departmental official wants to give evidence as to the view of his Department he should give it in open inquiry so that he can be cross-examined by the objectors, and not give it after the inquiry has opened and raise the vital issue which was raised in the Chalk-pit case of fresh evidence or the evaluation of evidence already given. Therefore, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not give a firm decision upon the first part of the noble Lord's Question. Upon the second part, which is purely administrative, I do not propose to offer any opinion.
4.29 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as one who has taken some part in these discussions, both in the debate on the Franks Report, in the debates that we have had on the Reports of the Council, and, indeed, in the debate we had on the Chalk-pit case, I should like to add a few words in support of what my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has said this afternoon. I was not here, apparently, when the "Waterloo" took place between him and the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, and I am not in a position to act as arbitrator on that. But I must say that I am flabbergasted at Lord Lucas of Chilworth's suggestion that somehow or another my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has changed his attitude in regard to this matter, because if there is one Member of your Lordships' House who has been sensitive to the whole of this problem from the very start, and has, I think, raised it on the occasions when it has been raised—at any rate, the Chalk-pit case itself—it has been he. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is looking for a stick with which to pursue his vendetta, I must say he must find a stouter one than the one he has brandished this afternoon.
I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to tell us that he accepts the advice of the Council on Tribunals contained in this short but important Report of March 30. We all, in this House, know how much we owe to the care and attention which he has given to this problem from the very beginning, even before the Franks Report was issued, and in all the discussions which have taken place on it since then. I did not conceal from him or from your Lordships
1146
the fact that I thought he was a little ill at ease in the debate we actually had on the Chalk-pit case. He was batting on a very difficult wicket, and although one cannot but admire the skilful way in which he keeps his bat straight and succeeds in blocking the most difficult bowling, nevertheless, even for him it was not altogether a completely successful effort; and the reason was, I think, that he felt strongly the criticism of the case which came from the Council on Tribunals itself at this earlier stage. That was no doubt why he invited it to make proposals which would enable this difficulty to be overcome in the future, and these are the proposals which are before us this afternoon.
The great difficulty in the Chalk-pit case was to persuade the public that this matter had not been decided against Major Buxton and those who were with him in effect from the start on the basis of Ministerial policy. My recollection is that the noble and learned Viscount said that that had not in fact been the case but that the Minister had been advised by the Ministry of Agriculture, whose opinion on this question on agricultural chalk he had naturally taken, and it was just a question, so to speak, of weighing the evidence from that Department against the evidence which had been heard by the inspector and accepted by him at the inquiry. That really did not, I think, convince any of us—certainly, most of us—and obviously the situation there is an exceedingly difficult one. It seems to me that the Council on Tribunals has found a way out of that, because if the matter is one of policy, the policy must be known to the Minister from the start, and if the policy is made clear at the very beginning then it will be quite impossible for these suspicions to arise in the way that they did at a later stage.
I would not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and say that a civil servant should go down to an inquiry and subject himself to cross-examination on policy. Surely it would be impossible for the Government to accept a view of that kind. National policy clearly is not a subject on which civil servants should be cross-examined. There is no doubt a shading-off between national policy and agricultural advice which may be on the borderline of policy; and no doubt on some point of

1147
that kind it is feasible for a civil servant to be cross-examined by counsel in the light of expert evidence which he himself is calling and the advice which he has received in his brief. But I would suggest that it is not possible to go beyond that. But if the policy is made perfectly clear at that stage it cannot afterwards be said that, after all the evidence has been given, the speeches have been made and the inspector has drawn up his report, then, in some hole-and-corner way, policy is brought in and the inspector's report to the Minister is overridden.
On the other hand, if it is a question of the experts in some other Ministry being brought in to give their opinion, which may obviously be a very valuable one, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it is only right that that opinion should be subjected to cross-examination, and that should be done in the light of day. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has himself, in his very distinguished career at the Bar, on numerous occasions seen expert witnesses in the box, men of the highest position in their professions, advancing views with the greatest confidence, and everybody who had been in court, without the knowledge which the cross-examining counsel had at his disposal, would have said: "That is the end of this case; that man is ' top of the tree ' in his own particular line of country and the other side are not going to be able to stand up to it." Yet, the noble and learned Viscount himself has then got up to cross-examine, and in half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour that witness has been demolished.
So, however expert the evidence may be which comes from the Ministry of Agriculture or from the Board of Trade, or, as it may be, one of the other Departments, one cannot be certain that it is going to carry the day until it has been subjected to the searching type of cross-examination which is at the disposal of those who themselves have consulted their own experts and have had the assistance of able and distinguished counsel. That is why it seems to me that the Council on Tribunals has put forward in this suggestion a very practicable and sensible way of getting over this difficulty.
1148
If the agricultural expert from the Ministry had gone into the witness box at the inquiry and expressed this opinion and had been able to stand up to the cross-examination of the distinguished counsel who were representing Major Buxton on that occasion, and had remained unshaken, then there would not have been any question about it, and all this trouble would have been stopped at that stage. It seems to me, therefore, that here we have an eminently practicable and reasonable suggestion for getting over that difficulty. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell your Lordships that he accepts it, and, in the light of that, that Major Buxton's grievance will be looked at again. If he has been wronged, even if it costs some tens of thousands of pounds to put it right, obviously that ought to be done. If, in the end, after a full inquiry has been made, it appears he has not been wronged, then that is obviously all to the good, and I am quite sure Major Buxton himself would accept the decision in the gallant way one would expect from a distinguished member of that very honourable family.
4.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for his very kindly references to two qualities of mine. The first was my keeping a straight bat in the course of the debate. I may tell him that one of the few things about which I boast is that I am the only Lord Chancellor of Great Britain who in the course of the last 1,367 years has, when in office, hit an England bowler for four. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, saw me do it. Therefore the cricketing background of that compliment recalled one happy event. I shall say nothing about his other compliment about my cross-examination, except to thank him for paying it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for giving me this opportunity of stating the Government's views on the recent Report of the Council on Tribunals in handling new factual evidence which comes to light after an inquiry. As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth when he mentioned this matter during our consideration of the Pipe-lines Bill, we owe a debt of gratitude to the

1149
Council for all the work they have done in studying this important and difficult problem.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, have spoken of the sphere of policy. I want to say a word about that, and I think it would be clearer, since that matter has been raised, if I reminded your Lordships once again how the Council on Tribunals under my noble friend Lord Tenby put this matter. They made two recommendations, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, indicated in his speech. The first is that where the Minister proposes to disagree with the inspector's recommendation, either because of some factor not considered at the inquiry or because he differs from a finding of fact made by the inspector, he will notify the parties to the appeal of his disagreement and the reasons for it and afford them an opportunity for making comments and representations in writing before finally making his decision. The second is that where the Minister proposes to depart from the inspector's recommendations, because of (a) fresh evidence on a question of fact, or (b) fresh expert evidence (including expert advice), or (c) the introduction of a fresh issue, the inquiry should (if any of the parties so desires) be reopened and the new evidence or issue should be produced at the reopened inquiry.
I want to say at once that the Government accept the justice of these recommendations, and I am at present studying with the Council the best method of giving effect to them in the draft Rules of Procedure for Statutory Inquiries, which were submitted to the Council some time ago. As your Lordships know, I am given a very wide power to make rules of procedure for statutory inquiries, but it is plainly necessary to start with the most important. The rules at present in draft therefore deal first with inquiries into proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities and, second, with inquiries held by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in connection with appeals to him under Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. These inquiries cover the greater part of the field, and when rules have been made
1150
for them I shall be in a position to consider what rules are needed for other types of inquiry.
All these rules of procedure have to be laid before Parliament, and when I have settled with the Council the best form of words to give effect to the recommendations in their recent Report your Lordships will, of course, have an opportunity of considering them when the rules are laid. The form of the rules at present under consideration will, of course, be a guide for the further sets of rules for other types of inquiry which I shall have to make in the future. I have dealt with that matter in some detail, because I wanted my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth to appreciate that I was not resiling in any way from what I said to him in the course of the debates on the Pipe-line Bill.
I just want to say a word about policy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that it is very important that the parties at an inquiry should know as fully as it is possible to let them know what the Minister's policy is. Otherwise—for example, on issues of amenity, or on issues of traffic, to take two very practical examples—they might let a point go which, if they had known the full policy, they would have developed at the inquiry; and it is in that sense that one wants the policy to be known. May I remind your Lordships how Lord Tenby's Council put it in the Report? They say that:
…. complaint understandably arises where a Minister rejects the recommendation of an inspector who has both heard the evidence and seen the site … if the rejection is based on Ministerial policy which could and should have been made clear before the inquiry…."
I think that, on reflection, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will agree that, in the way I have put it today, it is desirable that, to use the Council's words, it "should have been made clear before the inquiry" because then the parties to the inquiry know exactly to what to direct their minds and arguments.
I turn to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, in which he asks whether the Chalk-pit case can be reopened in the light of the recommendations now made by the Council. Here I should like to remind your Lordships of what I have said on previous occasions about this case. In answer to

1151
a Question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in April, 1961, I explained the change which had been made in the procedure, following the Franks Report, in relation to new factual evidence. The Minister had undertaken, in his Circular No. 9/58, that if such evidence was brought to his notice from any source after an inquiry, and in his view it might be a material factor in the decision, he would give the parties an opportunity of commenting upon it. I went on to explain that the Franks Committee had recommended that "factual evidence" should include "expert opinion on matters of fact", but not "expert assistance in the evaluation of technical evidence given at the inquiry", but that the Government had been unable to accept this distinction, and were clear that both technical and other advice given by Government officials about the issues raised at the inquiry ought not to be disclosed. The Minister had acted in accordance with this view.
The recent Report by the Council on Tribunals recommends a change in this practice, and its effect will be that in future, where the Minister is disposed to disagree with his inspector because of, inter alia, fresh evidence on a question of fact, or fresh expert evidence (including expert advice) the parties will be given the opportunity of commenting on this evidence and, if they so request, of being able to test it at a reopened inquiry. If therefore the Chalk-pit case had occurred with such a rule in force, the Minister would have been obliged to disclose the expert advice which he received from his alkali inspectors about the likely effects of chalk dust. But even if the rule had been in force, Major Buxton would not have been a "party" to whom the advice would have been directly disclosed, as he was not a party to the appeal. The disclosure would have been to the appellant and to the local planning authority only, though no doubt—I make no sort of point, except for what I say now—the planning authority could, if it wished, have informed Major Buxton, and probably would have done; and if the inquiry had been reopened he would have been able to appear there, as he did at the original inquiry, as an interested third party.
1152
I think that, in that sense, in this situation where the person in the position of Major Buxton is taking the same view as the planning authority, then of course they would inform him and he would be able to appear at the reopened inquiry. If, on the other hand, it is the appellant who wishes to have the inquiry reopened, then of course he will hear about it as the appellant. I should have thought that would have covered the position in view of the change in the rules. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was good enough to say that that was not part of his Question and that it may be that I could only go some length. I can go that length to-day, but if he would like to discuss it again I think it is a subject well worth discussing and we might profitably occupy a portion of a day like this at work on it, if he would be kind enough to give me his views.
I come back to the point as to whether the Chalk-pit case should be reopened. The Chalk-pit appeal decision was given on September 17, 1959, over two and a half years ago. Having given the decision, the Minister is functus officio and cannot reopen it. It is true that it is in theory possible for him to obtain the effect of a reopening by invoking the powers of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, enabling planning permissions to be revoked. The local planning authority may revoke by order, subject to confirmation by the Minister under Section 21 of the Act, and the Minister has power under Section 100 to direct them to make such an order, or to make one himself. As a matter of policy, revocation is rarely resorted to: once a developer has received his permission he ought to be allowed to exercise it unless the circumstances are quite exceptional.
It might be justifiable to consider it in certain cases where procedural improprieties have been found, but, for the reasons which I have given more than once, in the Chalk-pit case there were, on the basis of the rules then obtaining, no procedural improprieties. As the noble Lord himself said, retrospective legislation is generally abhorrent, and the same philosophy must apply to administrative procedures. If changes are made they should not disturb proceedings carried out in accordance with the rules in force

1153
at the time. It would be grossly unfair to place Messrs. Heath, or anybody else who has already received a planning permission, at risk of losing it because of an ex post facto change in the rules.
In a letter dated July 12, 1961, sent by the then Minister, my right honourable friend Mr. Henry Brooke, to Major Buxton, and released to the Press, Mr. Brooke said:
" The Lord Chancellor has told me that he had a long discussion with you recently, and I do not think that a further personal discussion would be likely to serve any helpful purpose."
May I explain? I did ask Major Buxton to come to see me, and in fact we discussed this matter for some two and a half hours. Then, continuing Mr. Brooke's words:
"I shall not be persuaded to revoke the planning permission which I gave in 1959, subject to strict conditions, to work chalk out of that large sand and gravel pit near your property in Essex. As to my powers of revocation in Section 100 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, I very occasionally have to use them to revoke a planning permission granted by a local authority, but there would be absolutely no justification for using them to revoke my own decision in this case."
Lord Silkin, I know, had this point in mind. It is a difficult one, but I submit to your Lordships that it would be impossible to single out one case for exceptional retrospective treatment in the light of the introduction of
1154
new rules. It is a common practice for new rules to be introduced at a current date without retrospection. One example is the introduction of the practice to publish inspectors' reports which, in spite of representations to make it retrospective, was applied from a current date. If the Chalk-pit case were thus treated, it would in equity be necessary to do the same for others, and it would in practice be impossible to draw a line as to where retrospection should cease.
My Lords, I have tried to deal fully, and I hope clearly, with both points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I am sorry, from his point of view, that he has been only 50 per cent. successful. But he has often said that long political experience has made him reconciled to a 50 per cent. success. I want him to know that both points have been considered. I have intruded for rather a long time on your Lordships in order to make clear that we had. May I conclude by again thanking him for raising these points?

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH, NOTTINGHAM, CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at one minute before five o'clock.