Lords Sitting of 3 December 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol
The Viscount Falkland—Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Peerage Act, 1963.

A.30 ROAD AND RAILWAY CLOSURES
2.36 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 have any measures in mind to ensure that if and when the Okehampton to Padstow railway is closed, traffic on the narrow winding section of the A.30 road is not unduly delayed by motor vehicles whose engine power is insufficient to move their loads up the hills at a reasonable speed.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the Railways Board has not yet given the statutory notice of its intention to withdraw passenger services on this line, so to that extent the Question is at present hypothetical. But, on the general issue, my noble friend no doubt knows that my right honourable friend has set up a Committee which is considering the prescription of maximum weights for individual goods vehicles, and I know that they have the question of a power/weight ratio very much in mind.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his hopeful and helpful reply. Has he any idea when this Committee is likely to report?
LORD CHESHAM: That I cannot tell my noble friend, because, as I have explained to the House before on the
896
question of the introduction of a plating scheme, to prescribe the individual weight limit for individual vehicles is very complicated and bound to take some time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst I welcome the second part of the noble Lord's Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that it is not only a question of the weight and power of these lorries, but of the suitability of roads? This particular road, 68 miles long, is on the edge of Dartmoor and is frequently impassable in winter, with gradients of one in eight and one in ten. Are these also not important considerations to take into account?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that they are questions to be taken into account, but I was relating the Question to the power/weight ratio of lorries.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Committee which is looking into the plating system and to which the noble Lord referred was set up some twelve months ago? Can the noble Lord say why it is taking so long for this Committee to report, and can he say how often this Committee has sat?
LORD CHESHAM: Off hand, no, I could not, but I have explained this to the House before. A system has to be devised whereby every existing vehicle can be plated, and the administrative part of this task is formidable.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, to move from the general to the particular, although the measures outlined by my noble friend undoubtedly may prove a palliative in the rest of the country, would he also bear in mind the necessity, on this particular hilly and narrow road, of trying to do a bit of widening on the hills in order that there are passing places?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, indeed; that is why one such improvement has already been carried out. Two more are in the programme, and two or three more are contemplated but not yet in the programme.
LORD STONHAM: Reverting to plating, the difficulties of which the noble Lord explained at considerable

897
length in a debate during last Session, can he say whether the reference he made to this subject in a speech made, I believe, last week means that we are likely to have an announcement fairly soon?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, I cannot say that. All I can say is that we do regard this matter, as do your Lordships, as of considerable urgency.

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE
2.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the appeal of the Prime Minister to trade and industry to keep prices down, they will repeal legislation which gives sanction to resale price maintenance, the object of which is to keep prices up.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade, Industry and Regional Development has said in another place that he hopes to be able to make a statement before long about the Government's conclusions on resale price maintenance. This is a matter which affects the interests of all sections of the community, and it is necessary to weigh all the considerations involved. These naturally include the effect of resale price maintenance on prices.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him for the helpfulness of his reply, but will he bring home to his right honourable friend (whose long title I cannot remember) that it is because of the persistent and stubborn continuation of resale price maintenance that the pernicious system of stamp trading has grown? Does he not think that it would be far more fair to the trading community of this country if they were given the freedom to reduce their resale prices for the benefit of the public, instead of having to resort to what even the Consumer Council call
898
a gimmick, deluding the public into thinking that they are getting something in place of an honest reduction in prices?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not certain there is a real correlation between the practice of resale price maintenance and the practice of giving trading stamps. I have the impression that there are parts of the world in which resale price maintenance is not permitted, but nevertheless, trading stamps are given. Nevertheless, I take note of what the noble Lord says and it is one of the considerations we will take into account.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could I impress on the noble Lord that I am not talking about other parts of the world. I am talking about this country. The sole object of resale price maintenance is to keep prices up. Resale price maintenance is a sanction against those who want to pass on the benefit of their efficiency to the public—
A NOBLE LORD: Question!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am asking a question all the time. Is the noble Lord not aware that gimmicks such as stamp trading are the direct result of the inability of honest and conscientious retailers to pass on the benefit of their efficiency to the general public? It is correlated all the time.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the Minister replies may I ask whether he would not agree that, in a free-enterprise country with a market-place economy—with respect to my noble friend whose Question says that resale price maintenance keeps prices up—the price at which an article is sold by a manufacturer is settled by the manufacturer? If it is not a viable price, it will automatically correct itself.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. I agree with my noble friend. I do not think one can regard these two matters as strictly correlated. It is quite possible to treat the trading stamps simply as a means of giving a rebate, quite irrespectively of whether or not the manufacturer has fixed the resale price for his products. I think we must treat these as problems that are connected though not necessarily correlated.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to underline the freedom of people to charge what prices they like, why do the Government perpetuate a system which takes away the freedom of the retail trader to charge what price he likes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the provision of resale price maintenance is a long-standing practice, and it was, of course, strengthened by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. I think the suggestion underlying the noble Lord's question is that, if we were to repeal Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, that in itself will necessarily bring entirely to an end the practice of resale price maintenance. With respect, I do not think that that suggestion is correct.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it that it will be the policy of the Government, in their further inquiries, to make sure that they do not do anything to disturb the reasonable stability, and the wage, labour and employment questions wrapped up in the matter?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes. This, again, is one of the considerations which Her Majesty's Government have in mind. It must certainly not be thought that all the advantages are in favour of abolition of resale price maintenance, and that all the disadvantages lie with not abolishing it, or vice versa. There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides, and this is why the matter has to be so carefully weighed.

PICCADILLY TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEDESTRIANS
2.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossings in Piccadilly, promised in a Government statement on June 17 last, will be operating.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend understands that Westminster City Council expect to receive the controllers for these
900
pedestrian signals next month. He has asked the Council to install the crossings as soon as practicable thereafter, but they are unable at present to give a date of operation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the helpfulness of his reply. They are in sight. Might I ask the noble Lord whether he will give the House his assurance that the erection of these traffic lights in Piccadilly, which are necessary for the safety of the lives and limbs of those who have to cross Piccadilly from one side to the other, will not be delayed until his Ministry, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the L.C.C. have decided the future of Piccadilly Circus?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there is no question of that. There is no connection at all.

AFTER-CARE OF DISCHARGED PRISONERS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at some suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Derwent will be making a statement on after-care.

KENYA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ZANZIBAR BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

BAHAMA ISLANDS (CONSTITUTION) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND DEFENCE ORGANISATIONS BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the main purpose of this Bill is to enable this country to fulfil our obligations towards our fellow members of NATO; that is to say, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal German Republic, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey and the United States of America. An Agreement was signed between the members of NATO in June, 1951, under the title, "Agreement regarding the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty". That was Cmd. 9363. This empowers the Service courts and Service authorities of member countries to exercise jurisdiction, in some cases exclusive jurisdiction, over members of their armed forces and the civilian components of those forces when stationed in the territory of other member countries. It also confers on the military authorities of member countries certain privileges and exemptions in relation to these, forces similar to those enjoyed by the military authorities of the host country.
The Visiting Forces Act, 1952, was passed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Agreement. The United Kingdom, however, has not yet ratified the Protocol to the Agreement, which was signed in 1952 and is entitled "Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up
902
Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty" that is Cmd. 8687. This Protocol applies the 1951 Agreement to certain Allied headquarters under NATO, and provides for certain other privileges to be conferred on those headquarters. Apart from Canada, which has no NATO headquarters in its territories, and Western Germany, which joined NATO some years after the original members and hopes to accede to the Protocol shortly, we are the only country which has so far not given full effect to its provisions. The Bill will enable us to do so by extending the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, to headquarters and defence organisations to be specified, and for enabling the necessary privileges to be conferred on them by Order in Council. The Bill has been so drawn as largely to confine its scope to the application of the Visiting Forces Act to headquarters and defence organisations designated under the Bill. There are at present no NATO "defence organisations" in being in so far as this Bill is concerned, but Article 14 of the Protocol requires us to be able to designate them should any be established.
There are two preliminary points which might be made. The first is that since the main effect of the Bill is simply to extend to headquarters privileges which Parliament has already agreed to grant to members of visiting forces, the Bill does not raise any new points of principle. Secondly, although the Bill is concerned with headquarters and establishments in United Kingdom territory, the Protocol which we shall be enabled to ratify also affects—and this is important, my Lords—the position of those members of our own forces who are members of NATO headquarters abroad. It must be remembered that the other NATO countries in whose territory international headquarters have been set up afford substantially the same immunities and privileges to members of the United Kingdom forces serving in headquarters in those countries. Thirdly, although the main purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the NATO Protocol, it is so drafted as to be capable of extension to any other international headquarters set up in connection with our defence arrangements should this become desirable.

903
Clause 2 enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to direct that the provisions of the Bill shall extend, subject to modifications, to the Colonies and other Territories. If the Bill is passed it is intended to extend it (provided that the colonial Administrations agree) to Malta and Gibraltar, where NATO headquarters are already in being. Since the principles embodied in the Bill have already been accepted by Parliament in respect of visiting forces, it may not be thought necessary to refer in detail to all the provisions of the Bill. There are, however, certain points to which attention should perhaps be drawn.
First of all, my Lords, as regards immunities and privileges, subsection (1) of Clause 1 empowers the designating Order in Council to confer on a headquarters
"the legal capacity of a body corporate"
and certain other immunities and privileges. The wording is similar to that of Section 1, subsection (2), of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. Mention should also be made, I think, of paragraph 7 of the Schedule, the effect of which is that laws which confer privileges and immunities on the home forces can be applied by Order in Council to Allied headquarters as they can be (and have been) applied to visiting forces in Orders in Council made under Section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. Orders in Council under Section 8 of the 1952 Act are subject to Affirmative Resolution, and Orders under paragraph 7 of the Schedule of this Bill will also be so subject.
Now a word about jurisdiction, and about the provisions of this Bill which will probably be of the greatest interest to your Lordships, and to others. These are the provisions of the Bill which relate to the powers of Service courts and Service authorities, and to the restriction of trial by United Kingdom courts. The powers of Service courts and Service authorities are granted and defined in paragraph 3 of the Schedule. The position is that the Service courts and Service authorities of a country to which Section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, applies are empowered by that section to exercise their jurisdiction over military members of any visiting force of that country. Paragraph 3 of
904
the Schedule to the Bill provides that the Service courts and authorities of such a country may similarly exercise their jurisdiction over military members of a designated headquarters who belong to that country—that is, who are members of that country's forces and are appointed to serve under the orders of the headquarters.
I turn now to paragraph 4 of the Schedule, and I think that at this stage, perhaps, it may be thought sufficient to explain that, apart from offences arising out of the offender's duty, the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts will be excluded only if the offence is committed against the person or property of a person belonging to the same country as the offender, or a dependent of such a person, or against the property of the offender's country or of the headquarters. It will not be excluded if, for example, a Belgian member of a headquarters commits an offence against a Canadian member of a headquarters or of a visiting force; nor if a member of a Belgian visiting force commits an offence against a Canadian member of a headquarters. In other words, the offence must be an offence by a citizen of one visiting country against the headquarters or citizen of the same visiting country. Offences against the person or property of a dependent who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, are not excluded from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts; nor are offences against the person or property of any member of the home forces who may be attached to a visiting force or a headquarters.
There is one other point, my Lords, that I should like to mention. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule the provisions of the Bill will not apply as regards any members of the home forces who are serving at a headquarters, or as regards any dependants of a member of a headquarters who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
The Bill is of a somewhat technical character, and is not very easy to follow. It is, however, essential that it should be enacted so that the United Kingdom can fulfil its obligations as a member of NATO. We are dependent for our defence on the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance,

905
and it is an inevitable consequence that Allied headquarters should be established on our territory and that members of our forces should serve on such headquarters abroad. Until the Bill is passed, this country cannot ratify the Protocol and we are not fulfilling our obligations. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words about this Bill, because, while we on this side of the House have no objection to it—in fact, we accept the necessity for it—there are one or two points that I think ought to be clarified. The first is: why this delay? Why twelve years' delay in ratification? Why are we the last country to ratify? Apart from Canada and Germany, which came in late, all the other countries, apparently, have ratified—and, I presume, some time ago. Now the noble Lord comes along and tells us that it is urgent. I should think so, after twelve years—which happens to be exactly the time the noble Lord's friends have been in office. So will he explain why there has been this delay?
The second point is this. Of course, we are all interested in the question of diplomatic immunity. We recognise that there must be diplomatic immunity, but to how many people will it apply? The noble Lord did not tell us that. Then, I did not quite follow his explanation as to whom it will apply. I do not know whether he followed it himself, but it was not easy to understand. Let me give one or two examples. Suppose a civilian member of a visiting force commits an offence against a British subject in this country. Will he be dealt with in the British courts, or will he be dealt with by the domestic tribunal, under the Visiting Forces Act? Supposing that the same person commits an offence against a subject of a country which has already ratified the Protocol—say France—in this country; that is to say, commits an offence against a Frenchman in this country. Will he be dealt with
906
under British law, in a British court, or by a visiting court? Perhaps the noble Lord could give us a generally somewhat clearer explanation of how these matters will be dealt with.
Finally, my Lords, I would ask the noble Lord when he anticipates that the Order in Council will be laid. There is some urgency about the matter, and I take it that until the Order in Council has been laid, and the Affirmative Resolution passed, it will not be effective. Can he assure us that if we expedite the passage of this Bill the Order in Council will be laid very quickly? I think that that is all I wish to say on this Bill. We approve it in principle, but I should like to be clear about the various points that I have put.
3.1 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of myself and my noble friends I, too, agree with this Bill and support it; but, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I am very much surprised to find that the Protocol entered into on August 28, 1952, has only now been ratified by the Government of the United Kingdom. This does not seem to me to be particularly strong support of NATO. Unhappily, it is by no means the only case where this sort of luke-warm attitude to NATO is apparent, not only by this Government but by other Governments in NATO. The NATO organisation is supposed to be, to a large extent, a pooling of our resources and a standardisation of those resources; yet we find in NATO constant complaints by the Supreme Commander and others that there has been very little standardisation and very little pooling. I remember that a year or two ago, when I was at NATO, the Supreme Commander said that about the only thing that was standardised in NATO was the air in the tyres of the vehicles. That does not seem to me to show any great desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or of other Governments, to create the really international organisation which is what we want. The day of the nation-State in international affairs is almost gone; the day of the nation-State in defence affairs should have gone. It is impossible to-day to try to develop and, pay for these vast defence installations and organisations on a national basis; even the United

907
States of America finds difficulty in that. Certainly no other country can do so.
I am very glad that this Bill has been introduced, because not only does it give status to NATO headquarters here which it renders immune from suit, but it also (and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, rightly stressed this) affects the status of the members of our forces when they serve abroad—as a number are doing, in France and elsewhere in NATO. At the last meeting of the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference, which was attended by representatives of all the Parliaments of the fifteen NATO countries—and to which, I may say, a strong body of representatives from your Lordships' House goes every year, and where last year we had the signal honour of providing, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, the President of the Conference (and very able he was)—there were made certain recommendations on this very point: the point of the desirability of a unified system. The Political Committee, of which I am the chairman, recommended that there be developed under the NATO Council a unified strategic planning system aimed at the development of a full strategic consensus among the members of the Alliance in order to establish an effective basis for discussion regarding the use of nuclear and non-nuclear forces.
Furthermore, to this end, the NATO Governments should undertake consultations towards the elevation of the NATO Council into a high-level Allied forum for unified strategic planning; membership of such a revised NATO Council should be drawn from the highest levels of Government. Finally they suggested that the revised NATO Council should engage in world-wide strategic planning in the broadest sense, political as well as military, on questions affecting war and peace. The Military Committee recommended that the Alliance should take all possible steps to increase still further the co-ordination of research, development and production within the framework of NATO and to organise an integrated logistics system. If this comes about, as it must if NATO is to be a realistic international defence organisation, this Bill to-day is absolutely essential. For these reasons, my Lords, I welcome it; and I hope that the Government
908
will not in future drag their feet as they have done in the case of NATO and other international organisations of which we are members.
3.5 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Derwent would enlighten me on a point when he comes to reply. We in your Lordships' House, after impassioned debate, have passed a number of Orders conferring immunity and privilege on various international bodies—such bodies as Wheat Commissions and coffee organisations and so on. In all these cases I have always understood that we were conferring complete immunity on them; in other words, that they were not subject to our courts at all. I may be wrong about this; but as I understand it from the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, we are here not conferring so great an immunity as that. In other words, these people can be sued in our courts if they wrong some British citizen. I should like to be enlightened as to whether there is, indeed, a difference; and, if so, why. If they will be able to run down in one of their motor cars a British citizen—as I understand members of the Diplomatic Corps can do—without risk of being sued, I should like to know. The other point is that if they have a particular form of immunity, I think there should be some publicity given to it, because it becomes important to tradesmen, in the giving of credit, and so on, to know whether or not debts can be recovered.
3.7 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I will try to answer the questions that have been raised. On the legal matters I am subject, of course, to immediate correction as I go along by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. The first question was why we had not done this before. I regret that I cannot tell you. There has been a considerable shortage of Parliamentary time, but apart from that I do not know. But that fact, I hope, will not stop noble Lords from giving the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, surely the noble Lord can find out, perhaps he himself might be interested to know.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I believe that the official answer is "lack of

909
Parliamentary time"; but if I find out any other reason I will let the noble Lord know. That may be the right answer.
I will deal first with a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The people with whom we are concerned are not given diplomatic immunity as such. They have immunity in certain circumstances from trial by British courts, which I will explain in a moment; but it is not overall immunity. This Bill applies what is at present in force under the Visiting Forces Act, with certain modifications, to international headquarters. So I had better repeat, in part, what is the case. British courts are excluded from trying a case involving designated headquarters—which we designate, of course—only when a foreign member of that headquarters commits an offence against another member of the headquarters who is of the same nationality as the offender; in cases where the person concerned is a British subject, or a subject of the United Kingdom or Colonies, or a dependent of a United Kingdom subject, then the British courts are not excluded. This is intended to deal only with nationals of a NATO country who commit offences against nationals of the same country. This may not be legal terminology, but I hope that it is clear. The only other question the noble Lord asked was about the date of the Order in Council. It is our intention to issue the Order in Council as soon as possible after the Bill has gone through Parliament.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord did not say how many people this is likely to affect.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry that I forgot that point. At the moment there are 37 people involved in this country, of whom 11 are civilians.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, does this confer immunity from British municipal taxation?
LORD DERWENT: No, my Lords, the Bill certainly does not.
LORD KILLEARN: I ask this question because this immunity is becoming larger and larger. The number of
910
strange bodies who are being given diplomatic immunity has grown year by year and the number of people involved has reached some colossal amount, thousands. I think that immunity would be all right if it were limited to a select number, as it used to be, but when it is granted by and large it is a different story.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, if my noble friend will look at the Bill he will see that it has nothing to do with immunity from taxation. Indeed, to introduce this concept into diplomatic immunity is somewhat in the nature of a red herring.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say that I have started a red herring. I am glad to know that it is a red herring, and am delighted to be "ticked off".
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. Perhaps this may give my noble friend the information he is seeking. Immunity from taxation is given by Sections 73 and 74 of the Finance Act, 1960, so far as is necessary. I was saying that the Order in Council will be issued immediately this Bill has gone through Parliament. I think that I have answered the question of my noble friend Lord Hawke about those to whom the Act applies.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think that my question was the red herring, but my noble friend might answer the point about publicity, because the wretched tradesmen in this country ought to know whether or not they can sue for debt.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this again does not come under this Bill, but I think that tradesmen are well aware of the position by now under the Visiting Forces Act, and this Bill is really an extension of that Act. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords for giving the Bill a welcome.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.14 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this Bill has its origin in the Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was held at Geneva in 1958. That Conference resulted in the signing, by this country and others, of four Conventions, and two of those Conventions concern us to-day, the Continental Shelf Convention and the High Seas Convention. The Continental Shelf Convention clarified international law regarding those large submarine areas outside the territorial seas where the depth of the water allows the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil to be exploited. If this Bill is passed by your Lordships, and eventually becomes law, the Government intend to ratify the Continental Shelf Convention. Broadly speaking, the Convention deals with the division of the shelf between neighbouring States and with the sovereign rights of each State to explore its part of the shelf and to exploit the natural resources there. Before asserting our rights and assuming our obligations in international law, however, the law of this country needs to be brought into line, and that is the main purpose of the Bill.
The exploitation of the continental shelf is a new development in most parts of the world, and certainly around the British Isles. Though it presents obvious technical difficulties not encountered on dry land, it offers the opportunities and challenge of the unknown. For this country, with its limited indigenous resources, it offers in particular the attractive possibility of finding oil and natural gas close at hand and under our own control. Our present indigenous production is meagre: one part in five hundred of our oil requirements and a negligible quantity of natural gas. The economy is becoming increasingly dependent on oil and the cost of oil imports rises year by year, both absolutely and relatively to other imports. Last year retained oil imports were valued at about £420 million, which was over 9 per cent. of all imports. A substantial home production would offer prospects of savings in foreign exchange and in
912
fuel costs: and it would lessen our dependence on foreign supplies.
As regards the North Sea, which is the main area of interest at the moment under this Bill, this country will have rights over any deposits up to a line half-way across to Holland, Belgium and the other coastal States, subject to any adjustments agreed with those countries. I cannot, of course, tell your Lordships at present what the resources in that area will amount to, but the Government are much encouraged by the interest shown by about twenty major oil companies of international standing, and by their willingness to spend substantial sums on seismic and other surveys. Before proceeding to the drilling of exploration wells, which is the next stage, and a very expensive one, the companies reasonably require the legal protection given by exclusive licences, which the Minister of Power will be able to issue under this Bill. There are also possibilities of finding coal and other minerals in useful quantities. The National Coal Board, of course, are already concerned in developments in the North Sea.
I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Having by subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 vested our rights under International Law in the Crown or the National Coal Board, we provide by subsection (5) of that clause for the designation of areas over which those rights are exercisable. These areas are referred to in the Bill as "designated areas" and will be established by Orders in Council. In passing, I would remind your Lordships that our rights under International Law do not amount to full sovereignty, which would be inconsistent with the legal status of the waters above the shelf as high seas and of the air space above those waters.
When we have ratified the Continental Shelf Convention we intend to undertake negotiations with neighbouring States to settle our common boundaries on the shelf. That has not been done in detail at the moment, but only approximately to the half-way line. These negotiations will take time, but meanwhile the position in International Law is clear enough for us to identify large areas of the shelf which undoubtedly appertain to the United Kingdom. These we shall designate as soon as may be after the Bill becomes law, so that prospective

913
developers of oil and natural gas may proceed. In other words, there are certain areas which are obviously not going to be in dispute as to the actual boundaries between countries, and these areas will be designated at once because we will not eventually have to negotiate them. The means of regulating the activities of oil companies and the National Coal Board within these areas is provided for in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 1.
As regards the search for petroleum and natural gas, the extension of the relevant sections of the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, will enable the Minister of Power to make regulations and grant licences to prospective developers to govern the way in which these developers will conduct their operations on the continental shelf. This system of control is well established under the 1934 Act as regards the land and territorial waters and we shall draw on experience under that Act, and experience in other parts of the world, in adapting the control to the special circumstances of underwater development on the continental shelf. The statutory regulations will be subject to Negative Resolution of either House of Parliament. Rights in respect of coal are vested in the National Coal Board. This follows the precedent of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, as regards coal in Great Britain, but the Board's operations on the shelf are to be subjected to Ministerial consent. The reason for this is to enable the Minister of Power to exercise his co-ordinating powers to ensure that the exploitation of any coal, oil or natural gas resources that may exist in close proximity is controlled in the national interest.
The natural resources of the shelf, apart from oil, natural gas and coal, will be managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners by virtue of powers derived from Section 1 of the Crown Estate Act, 1961. These other resources include such things as gravel and other non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil, and living organisms belonging to sedentary species. They do not include fish.
The next important provision is in Clause 3 and concerns the extension of criminal and civil law to the United
914
Kingdom part of the shelf. The protection of criminal law of each part of the United Kingdom is extended to installations and to waters within five hundred yards of them by subsection (1) of Clause 3. At this juncture it may we helpful to your Lordships if I say a few words by way of explanation about the term "installation". In this Bill the term is used generically and includes such things as drilling platforms situated above the surface of the sea and connected to the sea-bed by legs, and also barges which are anchored to the seabed and from which drilling operations are carried out, either over the stern or through the barge bottom. These installations are often large and many men may live and work on them for long periods. It is therefore necessary to ensure that law and order are maintained. Clause 9 deals with questions concerning the prosecution of offences committed on the shelf and amongst other things, extends the powers and privileges of constables to installations on the shelf.
Subsection (2) of Clause 3 provides for the extension of civil law to the whole of the designated areas in so far as it is necessary to deal with questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place in connection with exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the shelf. An Order in Council made under this subsection will also confer jurisdiction on courts in a specified part of the United Kingdom. Orders in Council so made will be subject to Negative Resolution of either House of Parliament.
By virtue of Clause 4 the Minister of Transport will be able to ensure that installations are sited at locations where they will not interfere with shipping using recognised sea lanes, and under Clause 2 the Minister of Power will be able to protect these installations by prohibiting ships from entering specified areas surrounding them. This protection will not necessarily be needed to the same extent in all cases, and each will be judged on its merits to determine the degree of protection, and interference with shipping, which can be justified. We shall, of course, observe the maximum distance laid down in the Continental Shelf Convention, which is five hundred metres from the installation.

915
The Postmaster General, by virtue of powers granted under Clause 6, will be able to control the use of wireless on or near installations. The question of the status of men employed on installations in relation to the National Insurance Acts is dealt with in Clause 8 which will enable the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to extend insurance cover to such persons and to modify the Acts as necessary.
The remaining clauses, Clause 5, which relates to the discharge of oil from pipe-lines and installations, and Clause 7, which provides for the protection of submarine cables and pipe-lines, give effect to the obligations undertaken by the United Kingdom in ratifying the High Seas Convention. The legal issues raised in bringing our municipal law into line with international instruments such as these two Conventions are necessarily difficult, and it may well be that some of these issues will need to be clarified during the passage of the Bill. I would ask your Lordships, however, to bear in mind the main purpose of the Bill, which is to enable the natural resources of the continental shelf to be exploited for the benefit of all concerned. The Government believe that this is a highly desirable object, and I hope your Lordships will agree.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, what he has said does not make quite clear the demarcation line between different countries. Can he explain how it will be managed between the North coast of Shetland and the coast of Norway—like Fladder?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, under the Convention there is an agreement of a rough half-way line. At so where the actual border comes will be dealt with by negotiations between the countries concerned. If we are negotiating the half-way line between ourselves and Holland it may affect Belgium but it may not affect Norway. These things will have to be negotiated individually. For the purpose of the Convention, there is a rough half-way line. Anything on our side of the half-way line—and it must have been negotiated—we can get busy with at once. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it would help us all a great deal if the Minister were to put in the Library a map showing what the continental shelf is. Indeed, I think it might even have helped the noble Lord to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, because I personally thought that he gave the wrong answer, and I shall be interested to press this particular point. The noble Lord has not said much about it, but I have always understood the continental shelf to end roughly at the 100-fathom line, which is, in fact, consistent with the Convention. Of course, all the enclosed waters and the North Sea are really a part of the continental shelf, and it is not until you get down to the West of Ireland that you suddenly come to that gigantic cliff and down it goes. It is an interesting phenomenon. Odd things happen on the edge of the continental shelf. I remember that during the war we were very mystified by strange foam lines, which we at first thought were "Snorkling" submarines; but there were too many of them. One gets odd ASDIC echoes as well.
I am not absolutely clear (perhaps I may deal with this point before coming on to the Bill) about the interpretation by the Minister of the provisions of the Convention which relate to the median line between two States. I thought the question the Minister was asked related particularly to Norway. As the Minister knows, the continental shelf comes to an abrupt end about 50 miles, or a little more, off the coast of Norway, and there is then a great deep. I should have thought that the British area extended right up to that deep, and that Norway, which none the less seems to have signed the Convention, would virtually have no continental shelf at all. It is rather important, when we are debating a matter which involves great national interests and an extraordinary departure from previous law (and it is fortunate that we are also to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, to comment on some of the international aspects) to know what we are talking about.
As I understand it, also, this Convention has not yet been brought into effect. We are a laggard, and this Bill is laggardly in coming in. The 21 other

917
countries have already ratified, and ratification by us, the 22nd, will in fact make it possible for the Convention to come into force. But there are certain countries that certainly did not sign the Convention at the time. Belgium did not sign; and, more important, France did not sign. It would be helpful to know whether France has yet signed, because there is also a median line running down the Channel. If France has signed and has ratified, the position is clear. As I understand it, until they have done so, they will still be able to dispute our claims in areas which the noble Lord said were so clearly ours. They are clearly ours so far as those other countries who have ratified the Convention are concerned, but I am doubtful whether they will be ours so far as France and Belgium (who signed the High Seas Convention, but did not at the time sign the Continental Shelf Convention) are concerned.
It would be helpful if, before the Committee stage comes along, we could have a map, preferably in colour, because it is much easier to see the lines. Also, when the Minister comes to reply, perhaps he could answer this question about the Norwegian deep, and whether or not the median line runs where the continental shelf, within the definition of the Convention, is not adjacent to one of the countries. I would argue that the North Sea continental shelf in relation to the question is not adjacent to Norway and will, in fact, be decided by other countries that do not have this deep. However, I may be wrong, and it will be interesting to have an answer on this point.
There is no doubt that there is an urgency for this legislation. Exploration for oil and gas in the North Sea is now going on fast. We are entering the third year, I believe, of a major British investigation, and it is obviously important that the position should be clarified. This Bill, of course, also gives effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the High Seas. I know that it has sometimes been the practice in the past, when ratifying certain Conventions, or when passing Bills which subsequently make it possible for the Government to ratify, to attach the relevant Conventions as an Appendix to the Bill. I should have thought that, in so far as the Bill also gives effect
918
to the Convention on the Continental Shelf, the long Title of the Bill should have included some reference to it.
If I may (and I apologise for it), I should like to make a certain number of points which are, in a sense, Committee points, but which it may be helpful to get out of the way to-day. Or, if we cannot deal with them to-day, the Minister can consider them before we come to the Committee stage. If I could now look at some of the clauses in the Bill, it is clear that the rights in the case of coal will be exercised by the Coal Board. All other rights will be vested in Her Majesty; and this is, of course, part of the public domain, if that is the right term. Certainly no private property rights exist. Presumably, both under the Petroleum Production Act, 1934, and under this Bill, it will be possible for the Government, in licensing the oil companies, to make proper provision for the payment of royalties. After all, we pay pretty heavy royalties—and rightly so—to certain other countries whose territory we exploit. This is territory which belongs to no one, and I take it, therefore, that suitable arrangements will be made.
At the same time, one has to recognise that it will be a most prodigiously expensive undertaking, and that the building of merely a drilling rig, let alone the equipment, if the oil well comes into production, will be prodigiously expensive. I think it is technically possible. I believe that wells have been put down at depths comparable to those which might be put down in the areas at present under investigation. We should therefore like to know how the Government intend to interpret the application of the Petroleum Production Act, 1934, in this wholly different context.
I take it that a number of Government Departments will be involved in administering this Bill. In some cases, it may be the Minister of Power, but in this question of the rights that belong to the Crown Commissioners and the living organisms to which he referred (this, I take it, could apply to under-sea farming of some kind; and although this may appear very futuristic, it is not so futuristic as all that), I presume that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also will be involved, and I hope he does not use some of his noxious

919
toxic chemicals under the sea. But perhaps that is less likely. I should like to know what these animals are—these organisms that are either mobile or under the seabed; or unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil—it sounds rather like a description of an outgoing Government. But clearly since they are included something must be in the Government's mind (I take it that we are not referring to lobsters because they swim—at least I think they do) in making provision for this in drafting the Bill giving effect to the Convention.
I should like to turn to Clause 2, the power of the Minister to designate areas which are closed to shipping. This again gives effect to the provisions in the Convention on the Continental Shelf. It is, of course, a most radical departure from previous practice with regard to the high seas, and it would be interesting to know whether the Government can throw any more light on how they propose to give effect to this. I suppose it will be published in a Notice to Mariners, and that in due course these installations, which do not rank as islands, will appear on the charts and maps. How big is the area? Is it, in fact, the safety zone of 500 metres mentioned in Article 5? If so, why have the Government, in their present non-European mood, preferred to use the term "500 yards"? I admit that 500 yards is less than 500 metres; I reckon it is about 40 yards less. Is there not something to be said for having the word "metres" in the Bill, since it is used in the Convention; or is there some deep significance in referring to yards rather than metres? We should like an explanation of this. It may even cause anxiety, I would say, to foreign shipping, who may not have a conversion table and may feel that yards are longer than metres. I do not press this point seriously, but it would be interesting to know why there is this small difference.
When we come to Clause 3, which the Minister says is to ensure that the criminal law and the civil law apply, I must say that I am not quite clear about the civil law. I hope it may be that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, or the Minister himself will be able to answer this question. I should have thought that any criminal act could
920
be taken care of, and there is provision elsewhere in the Bill for the application of certain measures, such as the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and other National Insurance Acts, to people working at these particular installations. But what about all the other legislation which governs the safety of British citizens?—the Factories Act, the Young Persons Acts and provisions with regard to health. Are they to be applied? If so, how are they to be applied? Ought there not to be a general enabling power? There may be a simple answer, but I have asked a distinguished international lawyer on this point and he thought I had better ask the Minister as he was not quite sure of it himself.
There are, of course, provisions for inspections. It may be that the 1934 Petroleum Production Act, which has certain provisions for inspection—at least, if I recall aright, it does—covers this. Are those to be applied? Because safety considerations will be important. We have a huge area of legislation which operates well in this country, and the Government have churned out quite a lot lately, some of which is very valuable, and we should like to know whether this will be applied. These installations may in time become very big, and if there are big oil fields one will almost get a town of oil wells. Whether people will be living each on their separate little island I do not know. The safety provisions and controls with regard to shipping will presumably not apply to these.
Clause 5, which requires the particular owner of the pipeline to prevent any escape of oil, is a little worrying. It seems to me that an escape of oil from an oil well at sea is potentially very much more serious than it is on land, and I am wondering about the part of this clause which says that in the case of an escape it shall be a defence
"that he took all reasonable care to prevent it and that as soon as practicable after it was discovered all reasonable steps were taken for stopping or reducing it."
Blow-outs are fairly unusual these days but they do occasionally happen, and it would be particularly serious if one occurred at sea. I am wondering whether this particular clause is strong enough. It would be intolerable if oil, which is already spoiling so much of life around

921
our seashore, were to be added to by the product of a new oil well.
There is one other question I should like to ask. Is it possible, and is it proposed either publicly or secretly, to use these installations for defensive purposes? I suspect that they will look something like some of those strange forts we see in the Solent and elsewhere. Are there likely to be radar installations on them? It may be that this is not an appropriate subject to pursue now but one can see that they are liable to become very interesting and unusual places. Will it be possible, therefore, for them to be so controlled that people will not be able to visit them on sightseeing holidays? Is it possible also that such installations might be set up for any purposes other than those already visualised? I take it that the Government will have power to control the building of a casino outside the three-mile limit but within the controlled areas. But that is only a very small point.
This is really a significant piece of legislation. It is a difficult one to understand, and I think it is important to stress that our sovereignty, if that is the right word, as such applies only at the seabed level—I believe I am right—and even though we have an oil-well coming out on the surface, this is in a different category and the general provisions for the high seas still apply.
With those certain hesitations and one or two criticisms, we are inclined to welcome the Bill. It is clearly a Bill that will need as quick passage as possible. I fully accept that it is urgent. But, equally, it is a Bill which raises much wider issues than at first appear, and, therefore, we ought to have a very careful look at the various provisions.

AFTER-CARE OF DISCHARGED PRISONERS
3.45 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think this might be a convenient moment for me to make the statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place in reply to a Question which asked whether he has completed his consideration of the Report on the Organisation of After-Care made by his Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. I will repeat
922
his statement to your Lordships using his own words:
"Yes, Sir. I have for some time been convinced that an essential part of the campaign against crime must be a more systematic development of after-care, to help those discharged from prisons and other establishments to withstand the temptation to revert to crime. The Government accordingly welcome the valuable study on the Organisation of After-Care made by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, and accept in principle their recommendations, including their emphasis on the continuing need for voluntary effort as well. On some specific matters arising from the Report I want to consult further with those particularly concerned."
That, my Lords, is the statement.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for giving us this statement, but at this stage it certainly does not mean very much. We shall all need to make a good deal more study of the Report of the Advisory Committee. What exactly does it mean, in view of what is involved, by saying that the Government "accept it in principle"? Is it mostly in principle from the point of view of the need of a great deal more State concern with after-care? Or is it only just on the point of principle with regard to the continuance of the good work done by voluntary organisations? I do not know whether the noble Lord can give us more information on this point at the moment, but certainly this statement tells us very little indeed.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I can perhaps tell the noble Earl this: that up to this moment Her Majesty's Government have not said whether they accept the Majority Report at all and we thought it was essential that, before actually working out the details of how we are going to do this, we should announce that we do accept this Report in principle. The details must, of course, still be negotiated. But there was, as your Lordships will remember, a Minority Report, and we thought that at the earliest possible moment we must say that we do, in fact, in principle accept the Majority Report. That is the

923
object of our making this statement, and it goes no further.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I, while supporting my noble Leader in the gratitude that he expressed, ask whether "acceptance in principle" means acceptance of the proposition in the Report that there should not be a special new service for after-care but that there should be a combined probation and after-care service? We shall be discussing all this subject on Thursday, but at least one wants to know whether that particular aspect, which certainly cannot be called a "detail", has been accepted or not.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, that, of course, is one of their main recommendations, and that we accept in principle. Details of how we are going to put the recommendation into effect still need discussion, but we do accept it in principle.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself I should like to welcome this statement as far as it goes. I think that in the supplementary questions the Minister has filled in some of the information that was lacking in the statement. We should like to have it known that we are convinced that this development of after-care is not only an essential part of the campaign against crime but also essential for the sake of the former prisoner as a human being. It is not just society but the individual who is concerned here. We feel, too, that the development of the probation service is very important. We realise the great help the probation authorities very often give to the people who come before the courts, and we should not like anything to be done which would in any way interfere with this system or reduce its importance. We shall await the debate on Thursday, and perhaps the Minister can then give us even more information than he has to-day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether his answer means that the Government are in favour of the decentralised after-care service and that they reject the suggestion of the Minority Report that there should be a centralised direction of after-care?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think it may perhaps be better to leave this till Thursday. But in fact the noble Lord will remember that there were two Reports. The Minority Report said we should separate after-care and the probation services. That is not the one we accept. We accept that there should be an enlarged probation and after-care service together.

CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD MCNAIR: My Lords, I wish to say a few words of welcome to this very necessary Bill. I should like to begin by trying to deal with two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He questioned the fact that there was no incorporation in the Bill of the definition of "continental shelf" contained in the Convention. I had exactly the same feeling when I read the Bill for the first time; I was surprised to find that the Convention was not scheduled to the Bill, as frequently happens, and that not even the definition of the continental shelf was incorporated in it. But, on reflection and on examination of the Bill, it seemed to me that on the whole the draftsman was wise in not doing more than he has done, because the moment the Convention or any part of it is incorporated in the Bill it is immediately exposed—if I may say so in the absence of the noble and learned Lords of Appeal—to opportunities of decision by national tribunals, and in that way, if that is so in every country adopting the Convention, one can see that we run a very considerable risk of a whole crop of diverse interpretations being given by the courts. It therefore seems to me quite prudent not to incorporate into the Bill more of the Convention than is actually required.
Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—or should I say a question addressed to me?—was this: what is the international law on the continental shelf? The answer to that is that the continental shelf is such a new concept that it is difficult to say that there is any international law upon it. It is for that very reason that this Convention is being entered into; thereby we are now engaged in the process

925
of making by agreement new international law to cover a new concept.
Just let me, if I may, go a little further back than the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did into the history of this matter. The term "continental shelf" was used in a geological and geographical sense as early as the 1870s, but in a legal sense I do not think it was used until 1945, when President Truman published a very important declaration establishing the claim of his country to exploit the resources of a large area described as the "continental shelf" adjacent to its shores. That, I think, was the dawn of this idea upon the legal horizon, and I remember that at the time it was regarded as quite new and unfamiliar. That declaration by President Truman was very naturally followed by a whole crop or rash of similar unilateral declarations made by a large number of countries, notably Latin America countries, and for a time it looked as if the situation was pretty chaotic; that is to say, different countries were making claims of different extents and different legal theories were being evolved as to the exact legal nature of the interest of the State in the continental shelf. Is it property, or what is it?
It was for that reason that the United Nations, in pursuance of its task of the codification and progressive development of International Law, instructed its appropriate organ, the International Law Commission, a body now of 25 persons, I believe, to study this new concept. This body, the International Law Commission, comprises many of the leading international lawyers of the world: and we are, of course, represented upon it. It sits for some eight or ten weeks of the year in Geneva, and has spent many sessions studying the whole question of the law of the sea, including this new concept of the continental shelf. It prepared a report of great value. Thereupon the next stage was that the United Nations summoned an international Conference for the purpose of considering this report and, if possible, embodying it in one or more conventions.
That Conference look place in the year 1958. It was attended by the Governments of 70 States, and although they failed to reach agreement on a point
926
which we considered of great importance—namely, the extent of territorial waters and your Lordships will recollect that there was a very close vote on the question of the six-mile-limit—over a very large area of the law of the Sea, including the continental shelf, agreement was reached and embodied in the Convention to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has referred. That was a very important achievement and a useful illustration of the way in which new International Law can be made and of the very essential part the United Nations takes in the making of it.
Turning to the Bill, may I just mention one point? I do not think it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—indeed, it is irrelevant to the Bill; but it may bring balm to the minds of those of your Lordships who are keen on the Channel tunnel. The Convention contains an Article 7 to this effect: "The provisions of these Articles shall not prejudice the right of the coastal State to exploit the subsoil by means of tunnelling, irrespective of the depth of water above the subsoil."
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, because I am interested in his interpretation? I was wondering whether he is satisfied that putting a tunnel through the subsoil is in fact exploiting it? I personally thought that "exploiting" meant something other than "transiting" through an area.
LORD MCNAIR: Well, I cannot claim any responsibility for the Convention, but I should have thought that there would be little difficulty in holding that by making use of the subsoil you were exploiting it for a particular purpose.
Now to come to the Bill. May I venture to make one or two points which may at first sight appear to be more in the nature of Committee points, but which perhaps if raised now can be more easily dealt with at the Committee stage? The first is this: that Clause 2 relates to offences that may be committed as a result of a ship's entering any part of a designated area. My recollection of the oil installations—I think I have seen photographs of them in the waters of the Middle East—is that there are a series of what look like Eiffel

927
Towers sticking out of the water, some of them quite high. I should have thought that low-flying aircraft might present a certain danger to those installations and that it might be helpful if power were taken to stipulate a certain height for aircraft when passing over these installations. I do not think that that is dealt with in the Bill at present.
My second comment on the text of the Bill is this—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton evidently had some apprehensions on this problem. Where one is dealing with an attempt to exercise criminal and civil jurisdiction over something in this country, or some act or omission outside, careful language has to be chosen in order to make sure that that jurisdiction is vested in our courts. In the case of crime, of course, it is much more important where the crime is going to be committed by a foreigner, because if it is being committed by a British subject then the courts may have a personal jurisdiction over that person. Therefore, on various occasions in our history when we have needed any such powers, we have had to legislate. Take, for instance, the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878, where as the result of a most important decision it was found that there was a certain gap in our law which it was necessary to fill up by making it quite clear that an offence committed in territorial waters was justiciable in the English criminal courts. I need not read the whole of the section, but Section 1 of the Act of 1878 stated directly that
"An offence committed by a person, whether he is or is not a subject of Her Majesty, on the open sea within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions, is an offence within the jurisdiction of the Admiral."
The rest of the clause I need not read. There we get the positive statement that an offence committed within territorial waters is an offence within the jurisdiction of the Admiral.
When I look at Article 3 (I must say that our Parliamentary Counsel are so highly expert that one hesitates to raise any question on their drafting in a matter like this), I would point out that there have recently been some most troublesome decisions on the question of jurisdiction arising under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949.
928
There was The Queen v. Martin and The Queen v. Naylor. I would refer to Article 3, and Article 9(1), the last sentence of which is:
"and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed in any place in the United Kingdom."
I am not sufficiently expert in these matters to go further than to say that I feel that this question of whether the words of the Bill are adequate for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction in crime, and for civil purposes such as an action for damages is very difficult. One must remember that in criminal cases the burden of proof is on the Crown. If there is any doubt about the jurisdiction of the court then the court will not act. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and his legal advisers could have another look at that.
One of the difficulties that arose in the recent cases to which I have referred was the question whether a particular clause in the Statute dealt with the creation of a new offence, or whether it related merely to what lawyers call the venue, the locus within which the offence could be tried. I think that is all I need say. I welcome the Bill as an illustration of the task that the United Nations performs in the progressive development of international law: and of course I also welcome the Bill as marking accessibility to a new source of wealth for this country.
4.9 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the introduction of this Bill, first of all in view of the expansion of demand, which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Derwent, in this country for petroleum products, and secondly on account of the increasing demand for higher revenue by the oil-producing countries. In the words of Mr. Fuad Ruhani, Secretary-General of OPEC (the Organisation of Oil-Producing Countries) the aim of that organisation is "getting the most in accordance with equity from our oil for our people." I understand, too, that this organisation is now only three years old, and another of its aims is to put pressure on the oil companies. It is interesting to know that about 90 per cent. of the oil in international markets comes from countries which belong to or are affiliated to OPEC.

929
To deal with Clause 1 of the Bill, concerning exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf, I can imagine that certain Members of your Lordships' House, or members of the public, at first sight might feel anxiety at the thought of numerous drilling rigs being set up off our coasts involving risks of pollution, navigational hazards and safety considerations. With regard to the risk of pollution and safety considerations, modern practice has to a great extent nullified them by the use, for instance, of what are termed "blow-out preventers." I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the question of blow-outs, and believe that to-day a "gusher," as I believe it is known technically, is a very rare occurrence indeed. Furthermore, there is adequate protection afforded by the penalties which can be imposed under Clause 5.
With regard to the question of safety of navigation, this should be guaranteed by the application of Part II of the Coast Protection Act, 1949; by the establishment of safety zones (which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Derwent and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton) around the necessary installations; and also by the fact that such installations cannot be set up in an area which could cause interference to the use of recognised sea lanes. So that there are a number of safeguards on these safety aspects. I agree that the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Continental Shelf are also very clear indeed. Offshore drilling is not new to this country for the BP Exploration Company undertook drilling two and a half miles offshore from Lulworth Cove, in Dorset, at a depth of 60 feet below water. I am sorry to say that they did not strike oil, and I understood that they had to abandon operations.
In May of last year your Lordships passed the Pipe-lines Act, and there are two points I should like to raise which may be relevant also to that Act. The first is the question of protection of pipelines under territorial waters—not under the high seas, but under territorial waters. The provisions of the Submarine Telegraph Act, 1885, would appear to cover submarine cables in territorial waters as well as under the high seas. Under Clause 7(1) of the Bill we are discussing, this protection would appear to be extended to pipe-lines
930
under the high seas only. I am wondering whether such protection is afforded to pipe-lines under territorial waters. Assuming that the Pipe-lines Act, 1962, extends to the limits of our territorial waters, I can find no reference in that Act—or, for that matter, in this Bill—to provisions for punishment for damaging pipe-lines under our territorial waters, or for liability to pay compensation for damage. This is surely an omission which deserves consideration, and possibly rectification; for when this Bill comes into effect there will certainly be a number of pipe-lines which will come into our territorial waters.
Secondly, there is the question of compulsory acquisition of ancillary rights. Clause 1(3) of this Bill states that Sections 2, 4 and 6 of the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934 shall apply, but Section 3 of the 1934 Act has not been incorporated in this Bill. That Section 3 contained provisions enabling a licence-holder to acquire certain rights appertaining, for instance, to the storing of petroleum. Section 60 of the Pipelines Act specially excludes petroleum depots from the provisions of that Act. The type of storage which I have in mind is the storage which would be just by the shore—in other words, where the pipe-line under the territorial waters would end. The result of this lack of rights of compulsory acquisition for the establishment of shore facilities will be to hinder the efficient and economic conduct of offshore operations. Storage facilities for oil, possibly quite extensive ones, would then have to be provided, not on the shore, but off the shore, at very great cost.
It may also not always be possible to provide the necessary facilities for the storage of equipment and machinery on the installations themselves. My noble friend Lord Derwent referred to barges and platforms raised on stilts, but there is a question of the storage of extensive machinery and equipment, and so forth. This could be done only on the shore and in the proximity of, or at the nearest point to, the point where the drilling is taking place. It seems to me that at the moment the only way in which the companies could get round this difficulty would be by going through the expensive and prolonged Private Bill procedure. Apart from this question of the shore storage facilities, it is also

931
economically sound and desirable that the pipe-lines from where the drilling has taken place to the shore should be as short as possible.
There is one final point to which I should refer: I apologise if these are to some extent Committee points, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would agree that this might be an opportunity to air them now, so that the Ministry may give them consideration. I should like to refer to a point which I feel may not be covered by the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill; and that is the question of remedies in the case of the criminal violation of such rights as Her Majesty may by licence confer on a company. There would seem to me, my Lords, to be no mention of what action could be taken in the event of secret information, which was gleaned on the drilling site or in the area, being divulged to a third party. It would appear to me desirable, therefore, for Her Majesty's Government to attach a criminal penalty for unauthorised exploration, removal or extraction of resources from a designated area. I can imagine that in the cases we are concerned with now competition can be great, and it may well be that some person may be in a position, through study of the products of the subsoil and so forth, to sell information to some other competitive firm.
I also feel that consideration should be given to the question of conferring upon Her Majesty's ships powers, within the designated area, to intercept, board and inquire upon vessels which Her Majesty's ships may have reasonable cause to believe are carrying out unlawful operations in relation to the exploration or exploitation of the continental shelf. My Lords, if I understand Article 23 of the Convention of the High Seas aright, the hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be started only within our territorial waters, or, at most, twelve miles out; that is, within the contiguous zone. My Lords, I end by reiterating my welcome to this Bill, for, apart from providing greater facilities for the acquisition of fuel and wealth to this country, I feel that it will also provide further opportunities for the development of pipe-lines for the conveyance of oil, gas, feedstocks and the hydraulic transport of coal.
4.24 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. As all noble Lords have stated, in many cases they have dealt largely with Committee points or, at any rate, partial Committee points—and we are none the worse for that. But it does mean that although I shall answer some of the points now I shall leave some to be answered at the Committee stage. I am certainly glad that those points have been aired, as it will allow me to have a look at them before the next stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, went rather fast with his points. I may have missed some of them, and I may wait till the next time to answer some of them, but I feel that on some he went a little outside the scope of this Bill. Many of his questions were directed to the Convention rather than to the Bill. With all respect, I felt that they went a little wide of this Bill because as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said, there are many points which must be open to discussion still. If you try and put the whole results of the Convention into a Bill, it leaves you no latitude for negotiation. The object of this Bill, of course, is to try to bring in a municipal law, as I believe it is technically called (though the word "municipal" means something different to non-lawyers), so that we can operate the Convention.
My Lords, the first point the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised was about an accepted map illustrating the extent of the continental shelf. I suppose he means a geological map. If such a map is available, I will do my best to get one; and if I succeed I will have it put in the Library. But I do not know at the moment whether I can get what he wants.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the Minister is unable to find one, I will provide him with a map. I do not want a geological map: I want a map which shows what the continental shelf is. It is a question of recording depth, and there are suitable maps available.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I shall do my best to get one, and have it put in the Library.
May I just say one word about France, which the noble Lord raised? France has not signed, for reasons which she

933
thinks good ones. They have really nothing directly to do with this Convention; but for certain international reasons she is unwilling to sign. She has indicated that, sign or not, she will operate, or intends to operate, the Convention, and our own opinion is that we have nothing to worry about on that at all. I cannot go into further details, but she has reasons of her own, which have nothing to do with us, which make her unwilling to sign and create a precedent.
Perhaps the easiest way of answering this debate, which raised so many points, is by taking them bit by bit. I should first like to repeat again that there are many negotiations to be carried through. Negotiations will be necessary as to the actual de-limitation of the frontier lines—I cannot go further than that to-day. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who raised the question of royalties. The question of royalties is a matter for the regulations which will be issued. What I will say at the moment is that we accept in principle that there shall be royalties, which I think may be as much as the noble Lord wants today. He mentioned the question of visits by members of the general public to these installations. It is the intention that visits to the installations will be subject to immigration control. I think the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and my noble friend Lord Merrivale raised the question of the high seas, the law of the air, and so on. These rights are expressly reserved by the Convention, so that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, about aeroplanes flying over an installation, is in fact covered under existing international agreement.
There was a question about mariners and shipping, which I think was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Merrivale. The installations will be notified in Notices to Mariners, which is the usual way of notifying shipping. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised the question of inspection. The inspection will be covered by regulations, on the analogy of those existing under the 1934 Act. There was also a question about these organisms which are tied to the bottom. Perhaps, the simplest way of explaining it to the noble Lord is to say that lobsters are not and crabs are. Without going into greater detail that is probably
934
as near as we can get this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also raised the question of escapes of oil. I will have a look at what he said, and we will certainly have a look to see whether the penalties are appropriate and adequate. We will go into that question more fully. It is a point that we were looking at, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising it again.
My Lords, I have noted the point about 500 yards and 500 metres. If the noble Lord would leave it with me for a while, I will let him know. There may be some adequate reason, although I have not got it, why it is in yards, but, if there is not, we will have it in metres. I will tell him before the Committee stage whether we intend to do anything about it, and, if we do not, I will tell him why. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who also raised the question of factory laws as they apply in this country. The ordinary law—factory laws, we may loosely call them—could not be applied without a very elaborate scheme of inspection, and what we have in mind is that the licence to the company should include any necessary conditions about this so as to secure safety. I think that is probably the best way of dealing with it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for the things he said, and for the support he gave to the Bill. I perhaps might just say this. The provisions for criminal jurisdiction, which are Clause 3, subsection (1), and Clause 9, subsection (1), have been drafted very carefully in order to secure that there can be no difficulty in our courts dealing with offences on installations. We think they are all right, but we should very much like to look carefully at what the noble Lord has said to-day, and if he has raised any doubts in our mind we will certainly take the matter up. But I am grateful for the points that he put.
There were certain questions raised by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, some of which I have dealt with. There was the question of pipe-lines which he raised, and perhaps I can go into a little detail on this. Pipe-lines coming from the continental shelf will be subject to control under the Pipe-lines Act, 1962, from the point at which they enter territorial waters to their destination on land. The

935
Minister of Power will thereby be able to regulate them, if necessary, in the national interest over the area where conflicting claims are most likely to occur—that is, when getting into shallow water. Incidentally, as a result of Clause 3, subsection (1), the Pipe-lines Act also applies within 500 yards of an installation—so that, again, might be in shallow water. Moreover, the provisions of the Act relating to pipe-lines less than ten miles long are not very onerous, and it may be convenient to have available powers to resolve any conflict of interest which might arise over pipe-lines in the neighbourhood of installations. We realise that point. In the intervening space there will be no statutory control as we think there should be room for everybody—that is, in the deeper water. Under this Bill, a licensee will have no right to obstruct the passage of other people's pipe-lines through his licence area, but it will only be within 500 yards of an installation—that is, as you get into territorial waters.
The other main question my noble friend raised was I think about ancillary rights, storage and so on. I think perhaps I might say there that he is quite right: subsection (3) of Clause 1 does not extend Sections 3 and 7 of the Petroleum (Production) Act. That is stated. I think that all I can do at this moment is to say that we will consider the points that the noble Lord has raised and see if we want to take any further steps. We will certainly consider them, and I am glad he has raised the points. I think I have answered all the questions I am capable of answering this evening—at least, I hope I have. I am grateful for your Lordships' general acceptance of the Bill. Doubtless there will have to be alterations on Committee, but they are, I think, definitely Committee points. I hope I have been able to satisfy your Lordships that this Bill should have a Second Reading.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one thing? He did rather chide me with dealing with the Convention rather than with the Bill. Of course,
936
all the "meat" is in fact in the Convention. But I do not think he answered my point. I do not blame him if he does not know the answer on this, but I think we ought to know whether his statement with regard to the median line between Scotland and Norway was correct. This was a particular point on which we pressed him, and he did not refer to it. Because, as I understand it, a non-exploitable area does exist off the Norwegian coast which is certainly far below the 100 fathom line, the 200 metre line.
May I also ask him, with a view to trying to get through a very difficult bit of legislation, whether before the Committee stage he could let those of us who are interested—I realise we could build it up into an enormous Act—know how in fact the Government are proposing to exercise powers of inspection? I should have thought that the 1934 Act was not adequate for this purpose. It would be helpful, therefore, if he could find out—because it would be much better if the Government could do it—whether they ought not to take powers in the Bill to apply Acts of Parliament, or sections of Acts of Parliament, rather than reckon they are going to put the whole thing in the licence. If the noble Lord could let those of us who are interested know before the Committee stage, it would help us to decide whether we have to develop this.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot answer the first question, but what the noble Lord asked for in his second request I will most certainly do. We should like to have another look at it all, and we will let the noble Lord know.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

THE LONDON GREEN BELT
4.39 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they reconcile recent decisions on appeal permitting development within the London Green Belt with the advice previously given by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the planning authorities and on which they had acted; and whether such recent decisions imply a new policy for the area.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to ascertain exactly what is the official policy of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, I have had recourse to that Ministry's publication issued in 1962 called, The Green Belts. It explains what green belts are, their origin, how the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 made them possible to introduce, and how it comes about that, of all the green belts proposed, only the London Green Belt has so far been finally approved by the Minister.
Page 7 of this publication states as follows:
"It is very difficult to get permission to build in the green belt. Anyone who wants to do so must be prepared to show either that the building is required for purposes appropriate to the green belt, for example, for agriculture, or that there is some special reason why it should be allowed despite the general presumption to the contrary. A cottage which simply fills a gap in an established village may well be permissible but it is not to be assumed that further houses mill be allowed on land adjoining any that already exist; nor is it enough to show that the building will be inconspicuous or will do no harm on the particular site, though these arguments can reinforce a case which has other merits. The green belt conception implies no further building except where there is a positive argument for allowing it."
The village of Bayford in the Hertford rural district is one of seven villages described as "pure green belt"; which means that they should have neither new building nor even in-filling. When a certain Mr. Berry applied for permission to build on his land, it was very proper, therefore, that the local planning authority refused him permission. He appealed to the Minister, who sent down an inspector to hold an inquiry. It was not surprising that the inspector recommended to the Minister that he should uphold the decision of the planning
938
authority. What was surprising was that the Minister overruled his own inspector and the local planning authority. In this case no special reason was advanced why building should be allowed; but the Minister justifies his decision on the grounds that the site is central and its development would not have much effect on the Green Belt. In that connection I will quote again the sentence that I have just read from the authoritative booklet issued by the Ministry:
"… nor it is enough to show that the building will be inconspicuous and will do no harm on the particular site, though these arguments can reinforce a case which has other merits."
Perhaps I ought also to quote from a paragraph of a circular issued as recently as 1959 for the guidance of planning authorities in the London Green Belt. Paragraph 3 sub-paragraph (a) reads:
"In settlements not distinguished from the green background, the strict green belt policy is the rule and not even in-filling is normally allowed other than for green belt—for example, agricultural—purposes."
From these two quotations from publications issued by the Ministry, it is surely quite clear that the local authority's decision was in accordance with their advice and also with the Development Plan. I am glad to have this opportunity of asking my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how it came about that, on appeal, this decision and this recommendation by the inspector were overruled by the Minister.
I want also to refer to the case of a former farmhouse with one and a half acres of orchard and paddock on the edge of Limpsfield. An application for permission to build twelve maisonettes and garages on this agricultural land was refused by the planning authority; but the Minister allowed an appeal against that decision. In this case, the feeling of the local authority that it had been badly let down by the Minister was increased by the reasons given by the Minister for his decision in a letter written to the Member of Parliament for the local constituency, Sir John Vaughan-Morgan. In that letter the Minister wrote:
"However, the increasing pressure for houses calls for an economical use of land, and I came to the conclusion that the proposed density of development at 10 dwellings

939
an acre was not excessive for the site and that the development need not harm the area, having regard to the fact that approval of the appearance of the building would be reserved to the council."
This is almost an admission by the Minister of "nibbling", which is exactly what the Minister was understood to say, in paragraph 66 of the White Paper of last February, he did not intend to do. These decisions will inevitably encourage landowners to appeal to the Minister against local decisions and will discourage local authorities—who have, so far, shown great courage in upholding the principle of the Green Belt—from standing firm any longer. These decisions on appeal make one think that the Minister is using his appellate position in order to alter the existing rules in the direction indicated by paragraph 65 of the White Paper without going through the appropriate procedure for doing so. This is exactly what I thought he undertook, by paragraph 66, not to do.
Many of us object strongly to paragraph 65 which reads as follows:
"Not all of this is essential"—
this is referring to the Green Belt—
"to the purposes of the green belt nor has it all high amenity value. It cannot reasonably be maintained that none of this land should be considered for development, however serious the housing shortage may be and whatever this may mean in terms of hardship. The Government feel it inevitable, in the light of land demands that have to be met, that some changes may have to be considered. Any modifications which may be necessary are likely to be small in relation to the whole area of approved green belt and should, in the main, be on land with little amenity value. There is no question of allowing development on the fine countryside which forms an important part of the Green Belt."
The Green Belt is a different thing from the preservation of land of outstanding beauty. The idea of the Green Belt is that it should be kept as open land in the vicinity of towns. It is no adequate compensation for giving up land close to the built-up area to add additional areas, even though larger, if they are farther away. From the point of view of the Green Belt the value of land depends very largely upon its proximity to the built-up area.
Now, in addition to the general arguments against interfering with the Green Belt, I want to put forward a
940
special one based on considerations of Justice and equity as between man and man. Ever since the 1947 Act came into force, there has been land where building has not been allowed, which has often been close to land where building has been allowed. It has always been one of the difficulties of those who supported planning legislation to justify the fact that under these plans the land of one owner might rise substantially in value because it was available for building, while the land of his neighbour did not increase in value because it was reserved for agriculture and for the Green Belt. But this anomaly has diminished steadily as time has gone past. Where land has been sold, the anomaly disappears entirely. The new purchaser has bought in the Green Belt, understanding that it is Green Belt land which can never be used for building. The purchaser of building land has paid a higher price, knowing that the land can be used for building.
If, after the Green Belt has been introduced, the Minister arbitrarily alters the Green Belt, and allows land which previously had always been assumed to be (to use an abominable word) sterilised and may not be used for building to be transferred from the Green Belt to building land, this means the sudden and arbitrary transfer of wealth into the pocket of the owner of that particular site. And this is exactly what happened in the Bayford case. Mr. Berry was quite frank about it. He did not like Bayford. He wanted to make money out of his land. He was prompted to apply for planning permission by the White Paper issued by the Minister in February last and, having won his appeal, he proceeded to sell land to a local builder at the enhanced price of £8,000 per acre.
Much harm has already been done by these two decisions. Much more harm will be done if the Woldingham appeal is decided in the same way. If the Minister wants to alter the London Green Belt, let him do so in a constitutional way by amending the development plans in due course, after due consultation with the local authorities and after going through the procedure laid down by Statute. I hope that the Government this evening will give an assurance that the Minister will not in

941
future seek to amend existing rules and principles by decisions, given in his capacity as a court of appeal, reversing proper decisions given by local planning authorities in full accordance with the existing development plans and the advice given by successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government.
4.54 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for having put this Question and for having given the House the facts on which the Question is based. It is most important to those of us who are concerned with planning and the preservation of green belts that we should be vigilant about any breach, or apparent breach, on the part of the Minister. Subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, may say, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has made an unanswerable case and one which is going to be very difficult to justify in respect of these two breaches of the general provisions.
I would emphasise one aspect of what the noble Lord said. The London Green Belt was created as the result of a series of development plans, which were decided upon, as the noble Lord said, after full inquiry, after opportunities had been given to the public to make representations and to oppose. The result was that substantial areas were defined and accepted as the Green Belt. It may be that the answer to these two inconsistencies is that they are not actually in the Green Belt but are in the proposed Green Belt. There is a very large area, equal in size to the Green Belt, which is shown in this White Paper Road Improvement, Housing and Land, dark green showing the actual Green Belt and light green the proposed Green Belt. It is just conceivable that either one or the other is in the proposed Green Belt; but, if they are not, then I would submit most strongly that the Minister is acting arbitrarily in departing from the plan that he himself has approved.
If he wants to depart from the plan, then he should have another public inquiry, give the public the opportunity of making representations once more, and then decide, in the light of those representations, whether the development plan should be amended or not. But to take it upon himself arbitrarily to
942
amend the plan, which has been approved after full public inquiries, many of them lasting many days, and after a great deal of money has been spent by interested parties in putting their cases, is quite wrong, I think, on the part of the Minister. I would submit that this is the case, whatever may be the actual merits of the decisions. It could be that on merits the Minister might make some sort of a case, though on the facts which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, gave us I find it difficult to understand. But even if there were a case, I submit that the development plan should not be departed from without a further inquiry.
This debate could have been much wider, so that we could have discussed the whole question of Green Belt policy, but the noble Lord has wisely restricted it to the actual breaches to which he referred, and I do not propose to go wider than that. I would, however, refer to the inequalities between one person and another. In one case which the noble Lord mentioned, land which had been worth, presumably, £100 to £150 an acre as agricultural land became worth £8,000 an acre as the result of the decision which was made. Can there be any possible justification, from the point of view of public policy, for putting £7,850 into the pocket of an individual purely as a result of a planning decision?
If that land has increased in value, it is not as a result of the efforts of the applicant for planning permission—except in so far as he has made an application. It is due to the fact that there is a shortage of houses, that there is a public demand for houses, and that people are prepared to pay high prices for their houses. It has nothing to do with the individual owner of land. It makes one wonder why the present Government repealed the provision of the 1947 Act which gave to the community the actual increase in the development value of land. Why that was repealed I could never understand. This is one more forceful example of what that has meant. However, this is incidental to the main purpose of the noble Lord's Question.
While it is a serious matter if the breaches in the Green Belt are going to be substantial, as appears to be indicated, the real question is: having regard to the Minister's own policy, how has it come about that he commits these

943
breaches, in one case even against the advice of the inspector who had actually seen the site and reported against giving permission and, as the noble Lord said, against the advice of the local authority itself? I hope that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, may say—and I am sure he will make the best of a bad job—he will report to the Minister the feelings of those in this House who are concerned about the Green Belt and ensure that such things do not happen again.
5.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I have no particular knowledge of the London Green Belt, but I am much concerned with the principle that my noble friend Lord Molson has raised. I think it is quite wrong that a planning authority, either in the Green Belt or elsewhere, should be encouraged to base what is sometimes a quite elaborate policy on assumptions which they have reason to believe are acceptable to the Ministry, and then, almost in a chance way, as the result of an appeal or some other inquiry discover that it is not acceptable to the Ministry. I speak here with some sympathy for my noble friend, because the authority to which I belong has had certainly one case rather analogous to that described and another partly of the same character.
I do not want to exaggerate my feelings. I am quite ready to agree that in 99 per cent. of the numerous appeals that every planning authority has to face the appeal machinery works perfectly smoothly. I am also prepared to admit that there are cases, often connected with some new technical development, which no Minister could be expected to foresee several years in advance. But, having admitted that, I still feel that there are cases when the only real change of circumstances that has occurred is a change of mind within the Ministry itself. There I feel that there ought to be better liaison than there is between the Ministry and the planning authorities.
This difficulty, it seems to me, may arise partly from the fact, as has been pointed out, that the Minister has the two functions; that is to say, he has the function of policy-making and also the judicial function I do not think
944
these two functions always combine very happily. For example, if one gets one of these rather disconcerting decisions, it is no use going to the Ministry to try to discover the full significance of the decision: because one is told simply that the Minister cannot give guidance on a matter in regard to which there may be other appeals coming from the same neighbourhood. So one is driven to try to discover what the policy of the Ministry is by a process of trial and error. You put up a proposition, and if that is shot down, you put up another; and eventually you have some idea of what the policy of the Ministry is for the time being. But this is an expensive, wasteful and unscientific way of doing things.
I agree that in theory these doubts ought not to arise. In theory, we are all supposed to administer development plans. These development plans are often approved by the Minister, possibly after amendment, and they ought to provide fairly detailed guidance of what we should and should not do. But the trouble is, as everybody concerned with planning knows, that the whole process of making a development plan and getting it approved after inquiry is so long drawn out that by the time it is approved it is probably out of date in several important particulars and the time has come to make a further revision of the plan. Both my noble friend Lord Molson and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to these development plans, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree that it is not the entire answer, because the length of time may be anything up to five years. They really cannot provide for everything that can happen during that time.
LORD SILKIN: Does the noble Lord not realise that provision is made in the 1947 Act for a quinquennial review, and that if it becomes necessary to alter the development plan, the local authority are under a duty to make fresh submissions?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I realise that only too well. What I am saying is that by the time the quinquennial review or the original review, is approved, five years may have passed, and it may then be time for the next quinquennial review. I think that most Members of

945
your Lordships' House who have had to deal with practical planning difficulties will agree that the period involved is usually quite a long one though perhaps not always five years.
I was going on to say that, as often as not, what the Minister is really interpreting is a White Paper which he himself has composed, and it is drafted in such wide terms that it might be capable of various interpretations. I think that is where the trouble arises. It is difficult for a Back Bencher to know exactly what the remedy would be, but I am hoping that, as a result of these regional surveys which I know the Minister has been conducting, he will be able to give local planning authorities a form of guidance of a much more specific nature—perhaps in the form of a regional White Paper. At any rate, I do not think the present system is working entirely satisfactorily, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for bringing up this matter and lending his authority to its elucidation.
5.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I take a rather wider sweep. The noble Lord's speech was particularly effective in the strong but narrow instances which he produced, but I think it would be valuable perhaps to look at this matter in rather wider terms. As some of your Lordships know, I have been in the amenities movement, as it is called (it is rather an unfortunate term, but one which has came to stay), for more than thirty years, and I think it should be realised by the Minister and his civil servants and by Parliament that there has been over the last months a growing despondency among all those of us who have made the preservation of England's green and pleasant land one of their main objects of public work over these last years. I think this is a most unfortunate thing.
The conception of the Green Belt to a large extent arose in the imagination of Sir Patrick Abercrombie, whom I had the honour of numbering among my friends, perhaps the greatest of our planners. When Mr. Duncan Sandys was at the Ministry, he took a strong line in his Circular to the local authorities,
946
which gave heart to all of us. I should not like to say that the succeeding Ministers had done quite so well. Until the present one, I think most of us felt that the Green Belt project, not only in London but in other parts of the country, was being reasonably well carried through. But under the present Minister undoubtedly there has been a falling away, and I think that is the view of practically everybody who has given much attention to this matter.
As Honorary Secretary of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, I am in touch with the local branches of that organisation, who are closely in touch with the local planning committees and the planning officers. Our reports show clearly that all over the country there is the feeling that there is a recession in the Ministry at the moment, and more and more cases where the local planning authorities, having taken a decision in support of the amenities, are finding themselves overruled, which is very unfortunate. It is true that the Minister has uttered comforting words, as no doubt his representative here this afternoon will in due course utter. The trouble is that his decisions and his acts belie these words. It is quite clear that this is not only the feeling in the C.P.R.E. and the other amenities movements, but the feeling among many of those actually engaged in the work of planning. We heard this from the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who we all know is very much concerned with these things. Again, the Chairman of the Hertford Rural District Council said in a recent letter to The Times that his Council, after loyally upholding the Green Belt for many years in accordance with Government policy, now felt that they were being betrayed and did not know where they stood. I suggest this is typical of the feeling which is prevalent all over the country, and it is a most unfortunate thing that that should be so.
On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and my noble friend Lord Silkin have pointed out, the land speculators and the builders are overjoyed at what they also clearly recognise is a change in the policy. In this Woldingham case my recollection is that the appellant in his argument made this very clear. He said that it was common

947
knowledge that Government policy had been changed, and it was the general expectation of himself and people like himself that in effect the Green Belt was no longer in any sort of way sacrosanct, and they proposed to cash in on this new policy. Some of your Lordships may remember that not so long ago a speculator purchased a large area of land in Surrey in the Green Belt area, and he said in an interview with the Press that he and his fellows would in due course force the Minister out of this stupid policy of protecting all this land from the building which he and his fellow building speculators were proposing to put up. That, of course, was denied at the time, but it looks as though the wheels are turning in that direction, and this man is no doubt chuckling that the speculation he made at that time will shortly be bringing him in an enormous profit.
Various cases have been referred to, but I imagine that almost every one of us who lives in the Green Belt area around London could give more than one instance of his local authority having been overruled by the Ministry. I live in Stanmore, which is under the Harrow Council, which has a good record in these matters but which has, unfortunately, found itself turned down time after time. Almost our last farm, on which the speculators have naturally had their eyes, has gone the same way within the last twelve months, under the specious plea that it is just in-filling. You can nibble out practically every hit of land there is left in any area in which there is housing by treating it as in-filling, until there is not much left to in-fill.
If what has been going on in the London Green Belt is typical—and what has been said this afternoon shows the position is slipping away—what is going to happen in other parts of the country?—because the London Green Belt is the only one which has legal protection. If the protection under the law is as uncertain as it is quite clear that it is here, what about Sheffield and Birmingham and the other great cities which have attempted to establish Green Belts around their own urban areas? These other Green Belts, of course, have not yet the support of the law, and in a copy of a letter which I have from the Minister to
948
the Chairman of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, he refers to these other Green Belts as mere sketch plan proposals.
I know something particularly about the Sheffield Green Belt, because I have had the honour for a long time to be president of the Sheffield and Peak branch of the C.P.R.E. The Sheffield Green Belt goes back a very long way, and was in fact planned by Sir Patrick Abercrombie himself. It is quite true, of course, that it has not got the sanction of the development plan yet, and therefore is open to be hacked, cut and nibbled; and as the local authority find that they need houses, of course that is exactly what they tend to do. The Minister, as a rule, does not give them all they ask for, but he usually gives them a good slice, and by the time this compromising has gone on for another twenty years there obviously will not be much of the Sheffield Green Belt left to eat up. What there no doubt will be is a series of metropolitan parks, surrounded by dwelling houses on all sides. A sort of urban park area will have been secured instead of this very fine Green Belt which was proposed by Sir Patrick Abercrombie under the original plan.
One of the main reasons for all this is that we lost the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, over which my noble friend presided with such distinction in the early years after the war, and we now have a Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which includes as one of its least important functions the function of planning, which, to many of us, is at least as important as those other functions. I think the trouble is that to a large extent the Minister is a Minister of Housing first, and naturally, because of its political significance to any political Party, the function which appeals to him most is this function of housing, which is not always easy to reconcile with the most far-sighted and wise planning. Very often there is conflict between the needs of recreation and the wide conceptions of planning and the immediate pressure of people for new houses to be erected in the places where they can be built most quickly and at the least expense, which is very often in a Green Belt or some other area which should be protected for the amenities of

949
the public. Therefore, I myself feel that until we get back to a position in which we have an independent Ministry concerned with planning, this situation will not be effectively handled.
One further point which I should like to make is that the Minister has from time to time said that for every piece of land which is taken away from the Green Belt other land will be given. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred to this, and said that it is not much use if you provide land which is too far out. That, of course, is true. But these again are rather specious promises. If every time a piece was nibbled out of the Green Belt another piece quite contiguous had to be provided before the original piece was, in fact, built over or taken out of the Green Belt, a certain amount of progress would be made. But these promises have now been made for quite a long time and very little has been done to implement them. I hope that the Minister will see that we cannot continue to accept his assurances unless he carries them out in a practical and more forthright way than we have experienced in the past.
5.23 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I intervene only for a very short time on one specific case. I wish most strongly to support what has been said on all sides on the importance of the Minister sticking to principle in this matter of the Green Belt. The case where we have, it seems to me, the greatest detail and the greatest cause for alarm at what is happening is this case of Bayford, in Hertfordshire. Here we have the advantage of the information which has been given us in two issues by The Times, in the first case by a letter—none of the facts in which has been subsequently called in question—from the Clerk to the Hertford Rural District Council. I think it is important to see what, in fact, happened. If I may, I shall quote short passages from that letter.
He explained that the Rural District Council contains sixteen villages; five, in planning language, are "white"; four are Green Belt, but "listed", which means earmarked for a small degree of in-filling or central development. The remaining seven are described as "pure Green Belt". The letter goes on:
950
"The instructions received from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government via the Hertfordshire County Council for these seven villages are that there is to be no development at all except where it is justified by special personal or public reasons, as in the case of farm cottages and houses for police, district nurses, &c. These instructions have been followed for the last three years."
That is the standing instruction. The letter continues:
"Bayford is the smallest but one of the seven villages and is included within a Special Scenic Reservation'. The Minister has just allowed, on appeal, development of a single site for which no special reason has been advanced. He comments that the site is central and its development would not have much effect on the green belt. (It was sold within three weeks by public auction for £2,000.)"
I think that the figure of £8,000 mentioned by my noble friend Lord Molson is the rate per acre. The site was a quarter of an acre, and it was sold for £2,000.
My Lords, those facts are given authoritatively and publicly by the Clerk of the Council, and not one of them has yet been denied. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister specifically whether any of the facts that I have just stated are now disputed; because, if they are not, the case becomes very serious indeed. It is perfectly clear, is it not, that if those facts are correct, the decision is not a decision which ought to have been taken, if the Minister was governed by the previous instructions from his Ministry which the letter cites. Nor can it be justified if the Minister pays regard to his own recent White Paper.
The relevant extract from paragraph 65 has been quoted by my noble friend Lord Molson, but, although he mentioned paragraph 66, I do not think he quoted it, and therefore it may be advantageous if I quote it, so that the House may be in possession of what the Minister specifically undertook on this subject, when describing his policy on the relaxation. This is what paragraph 66 said:
"They do not propose to allow 'nibbling' into the belt; a more selective approach is needed. The intention is that the planning authorities themselves should be asked initially to consider, in the light of the needs set out in this Paper, what additional areas would be suitable for housing. Any proposals put forward would be the subject of a public local inquiry."

951
That is the Minister's own description of how the modification proposed in paragraph 65 is to be operated. But, of course, it does not go anywhere near foreshadowing, still less justifying, bringing in such a policy by allowing an appeal which, on the policy previous to the White Paper, would not have had any merit.
The depressing effect of this decision, which has been emphasised, I think, by all speakers who have hitherto spoken, is this. There were those who had the greatest fears for the Green Belt as a result of this White Paper, but they, at least, had the reassurance of paragraph 66. But what has happened in this case? In this case the applicant who eventually triumphed was inspired to put in his application by what he understood, and, as we all hoped, wrongly understood, to be the Minister's new policy. That was why he put in this application. The application was refused by the planning authority, and the Minister's own inspector advised against the grant of the appeal. I have given the facts as accurately as I can, on the basis of the documents that I have seen and the hitherto undisputed assertions by the Clerk of the Council concerned. If things of this sort can occur, what security remains for the Green Belt? I find it hard to discover anything.
My Lords, I would only say what my understanding is, as hitherto I have spoken only on the information that I derived from what has appeared in the Press. But I understand that Bayford is in the original Green Belt suggested by Abercrombie in 1944. I shared with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others a long acquaintance and friendship, and, as a Minister, frequent consultation, with Professor Abercrombie. The inclusion in the Green Belt was confirmed in the Greater London Plan in 1948. It was included in the Hertfordshire Development Plan which was approved by the Minister in 1958. You could not get, it seems to me, a stronger case of an apparently safe village than Bayford. I understand that the owner of this property (I think it was his garden) saw a chance of making money, if he was allowed to sell it for development. On every public declaration previously made he had no hope of being given
952
permission. He was refused permission. The inspector reported that the decision of the planning authority should be upheld. It was, in fact, reversed. I share the hope expressed by others that we shall receive an explanation.
5.30 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, the noble Lord's Question which he has put to Her Majesty's Government this evening touches upon a subject of extreme complexity and one also of considerable sensitivity, touching, as it does, the lives of many individuals who live in the countryside and also the preservation of the natural beauty and general amenities of the countryside itself. Yet this subject is, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, but one aspect of the whole problem of town and country planning which affects now, and will in the future affect more and more, both the housing of our great population and the amenities which they will be able to enjoy.
The noble Lord has asked how Her Majesty's Government can reconcile recent decisions on appeal affecting the Metropolitan Green Belt with advice previously given to the planning authorities, and whether such decisions imply a new policy for this area. The short answer to the last part of the Question is a categorical "No"; but, of course, my noble friend will wish for a much more detailed explanation, and I therefore propose to analyse this problem and to clarify it as best I may.
I think the right starting point is the circular letter sent out to local authorities in the Metropolitan Green Belt from the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the 31st March, 1959, to which my noble friend referred in his opening speech. Paragraph 3 of that circular letter deals with villages and hamlets within the Green Belt and not covered by town maps. The aim of that paragraph was to produce a greater degree of consistency in the policy being pursued by different authorities at that time, and the Minister set down his views on the matter by way of guidance. It is in the cases that fall under paragraph 3(a), quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, which refer to pure Green Belt villages,

953
that local planning authorities sometimes find the Minister's decisions on appeal hard to understand. General advice to local planning authorities, as laid down in the letter quoted and supplemented from time to time in discussion and by personal contact, has suggested that the strict Green Belt rules should apply to this type of village and that in-filling should not be allowed as a matter of course. This is what is meant by the advice in paragraph 3(a) that not even in-filling is normally allowed other than for Green Belt purposes. Then my noble friend quoted from page 7 of The Green Belts, where it is said that it is not to be assumed that further houses will be allowed on land adjoining any that already exist.
Some local authorities have tended to take this advice literally, and they have, in fact, refused planning permission as a matter of course, even where in-filling in obviously suitable sites was involved. I think that the circular letter which has been quoted, and what I have just said about it, must be taken in conjunction with the White Paper on London to which my noble friend has referred. The Metropolitan Green Belt is dealt with in that White Paper in paragraphs 64 to 67.
The first two sentences of paragraph 64 are of supreme importance and I will quote them again:
"The Government believe that the green belt should remain a permanent feature of the planning policy for London. They will maintain the approved green belt without substantial change and they will make extensive additions to it."
Paragraph 65 points out that the approved Green Belt covers 840 square miles and that the proposed extensions would bring it up to nearly 2,000 square miles, and then it is stated—and I am repeating here what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said; I think it is worth repetition:
"It cannot reasonably be maintained that none of this land should be considered for development however serious the housing shortage may be and whatever this may mean in terms of hardship."
It is then made clear that any modifications that may be necessary are likely to be small, and on land with little amenity value; and it is added in paragraph 66 (which has been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford) that it is not proposed to allow nibbling into the
954
belt, and that is an important point to which I shall certainly return in due course and about which Lord Molson has expressed grave anxiety.
It is here, in this paragraph 65 of the White Paper, that we come up against the realities of the situation as they have been revealed since 1959. They are too well known to require repetition. The increasing population and the pressure on land, especially in the South-East, and the problem of London itself in particular, are clearly revealed in that White Paper. The overall problem in the South-East will soon be made known in the Regional Study for that area. This is the general background against which Her Majesty's Government have to consider their policy on the Metropolitan Green Belt.
On the one hand, the Government will ask local authorities, as has already been stated, to re-examine the Green Belt in their area with a view to discovering whether there are any parts of it of negligible amenity value which can be made available for housing. The choice will be that of the local authorities, and it will be on a deliberate and highly selective basis.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in this case it obviously was not. The local authority refused planning permission and they were overruled by the Minister.
LORD HASTINGS: I shall, if the noble Lord will allow me, make my own speech in my own time and in my own way. There is nothing arbitrary about this policy because the local authorities will be reviewing their own areas and they will be making the choices, which will be subject to public inquiry. And as to the question of the value of land, which, of course, was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this is not an arbitrary decision on the part of the Minister which is going to put money into the pockets of individuals. I want to make that quite clear. There will be no question when the local authorities are carrying out this review and this policy, of allowing a general demand for more and more land for housing to take charge of the situation and no question of allowing a policy of nibbling into the Green Belt to develop as a result.

955
On the other hand, the Government themselves are aiming to integrate the Green Belt policy into the general framework and into the general context of the need for housing the increasing population in the South-East. Their aim is to integrate the Green Belt policy into this framework in such a way that the importance of the Green Belt will become more rather than less relevant, and that the quantity as well as the quality of the Metropolitan Green Belt will be both increased and improved. In short, the Metropolitan Green Belt will be strengthened not weakened. So far I have dealt with general principles and with policy. These principles and this policy have not been changed. They have merely been brought up to date and integrated into the general picture of the South-East which is now available to the Government, and which calls for action.
I will now turn, if I may, to the applications of these principles and this policy to the cases to which noble Lords have referred. In the Bayford case the applicant, Mr. Berry, had applied for both a house and a cafe. The Minister agreed with the local planning authority that the cafe was undesirable in this pure Green Belt village; and he also agreed with the local planning authority that the site was in every way suitable for a house. I repeat that the local planning authority thought that the site was suitable for a house. They, however, refused permission because that house was not reserved for local needs. But the Minister took the view that refusal could not be justified solely for that reason. This was not at all an arbitrary decision. None of the Minister's decisions is arbitrary. Every case is dealt with on its merits and it is not always possible to fit individual cases neatly into the rules of a general formula. The background may be the same; it may be different. The details are invariably different. Every case is considered as an individual case on its merits, and the decisions are reached on that basis. That cannot be described as an arbitrary decision, because the Minister has a judicial capacity to fulfil. If decisions that he has taken are to be attacked as being arbitrary, it is virtually asking that the judicial position shall be taken away from him.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the careful answer that the Minister is giving, but for clarity may I say that I quoted from the Clerk's letter in which he said that the previous instructions were that they should not grant such an application
"except where it is justified by special personal or public reasons, as in the case of farm cottages, and houses for police, district nurses, et cetera."
If the Minister wishes to alter that ruling, surely he ought to inform the planning authorities and not merely allow an appeal against a decision given in accordance with his previous instructions.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the earlier remarks in my speech, where I was dealing with the literal interpretation of the advice which had been given in the original circular letter of 1959, and subsequently in discussion and private advice. I drew a slight distinction between not allowing a development as a matter of course in such places, and refusing it as a matter of course, even where the site was suitable, and agreed to be suitable, for a house. If I may turn to the case of Limpsfield, this is really—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on with the other case, I would point out that he has repeatedly remarked that this case was dealt with on its merits, but he has not shown that there were any merits so far. Will he indicate what the merit was?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the merit was that it was generally agreed that this site was suitable for a house, and the local authority agreed that that was the case.
LORD CHORLEY: That can be said of any case.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the case of Limpsfield is really not a question of a decision being taken which goes against the Minister's declared policy for the London Green Belt. In this case the local planning authority had agreed that this site might be developed. Here the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said that that was not so; he said that they had refused planning permission for this site. Of course, if I am

957
wrong—and I will inquire again—I will certainly inform the noble Lord at once, but my information is that the local planning authority had agreed that this site might be developed, and the only point at issue was the density of that development.
In view of the intense pressure on land in the London region as a whole, it is necessary that land should be used in the most economical way. It is therefore desirable that densities should be increased, where this is possible, by the use of good layout and good design without spoiling the amenities or character of the particular village. This is, of course, a problem which my right honourable friend has had to meet not only in the Green Belt, but also more particularly in urban development as well.
My Lords, I have a file of a selected number of cases where my right honourable friend has allowed appeals in the London Green Belt against the decisions of local planning authorities, cases which I understand have caused a certain amount of anxiety among those authorities, and about which we have received some complaint. I can find only one instance which could be described in any way as an expansion of the boundaries of a Green Belt village, and that instance was a case of allowing nine bungalows on a site of 1·86 acres at the edge of the village, a site which had been cut off entirely from farmland by a new road and which had become virtually useless to the farm in question. The site was also defaced by a particularly unattractive electricity sub-station. Nowhere, can it be said that a process of nibbling has started. And certainly nobody should believe that nibbling around pure Green Belt villages, in particular, or in the Green Belt as a whole will be encouraged, because precisely the opposite is the truth.
To sum up, my Lords, I have said that when the South-East Study is published, my right honourable friend will tell the local planning authorities that in the light of the problems presented to us they must take another look at their sections of the Green Belt, but only on a deliberate and selective basis, and without allowing a process of nibbling to develop. Meanwhile, we have to take appeals as they come along, and we have to decide them on their merits. I think that is the answer to my
958
noble friend Lord Molson, when he says that he objects to individual decisions on appeal expressing a new outlook (he wrote this to me in a letter; I am not sure that he said it this evening) without a change in the development plan.
My noble friend Lord Gage made some relevant remarks about the development plans and the difficulties of review and keeping them up to date. I must demur, of course, about the expression "a new outlook", because, in point of fact, as I have tried to show, the decisions we have taken are still based on the same principles and policies enunciated in 1959. There must, I think, inevitably be room for disagreement in a small minority of cases. The whole purpose of town and country planning is to get the right development in the right places. But the purpose of the somewhat lengthy procedure is also to protect the interests of the individual.
We believe that in respect of the, Metropolitan Green Belt the local authorities are doing a first-class job, and we certainly do not wish to discourage them from continuing to do so. This point was brought out rightly and strongly by my noble friend Lord Gage, and emphasised by my noble friend Lord Conesford as well. In fact we hope that they will carry on in the same way, but exercising their discretion, as they think fit, in the light of what I have stated quite clearly is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
There will no doubt continue to be a small number of cases where individual interests may prevail against the local planning authorities, but surely it would indeed be an unhappy situation, and an unhappy country, if the individual were never to stand a chance against any public authority, whether of local government or of central Government. That said, however, Her Majesty's Government are firmly behind the local planning authorities in carrying out the basic policies and principles of town and country planning within the Metropolitan Green Belt; and, as I stated, the Government are firmly determined to improve both the quantity and the quality of that Green Belt, not in spite of, but as a result of, the comparatively small modifications which I have indicated it may be necessary to make.
My Lords, I hope that my Answer will allay any anxieties felt by noble Lords.

959
This debate will, of course, be given careful attention by my right honourable friend. If possible we will take even greater care in coming to our decisions in appeal cases, and we will consider whether it may be possible to give guidance of a more formal and specific nature to the local authorities concerned, as requested by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. However, on the whole, I hope that I have managed to convince the House that your Lordships' anxieties, and those of the local authorities, are indeed not justified.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Kenya Independence,

Zanzibar,

Bahama Islands (Constitution).

House adjourned at eleven minutes past six o'clock.