Lords Sitting of 7 February 1963

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool
The Earl Cowley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

RETAIL AND FARMERS' PRICES
3.4 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the interest of producers, retailers and customers alike, they would be prepared to provide information showing the difference between prices obtained by farmers and prices charged in the shops for various commodities when such information would seem to be useful.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lady's keen interest in these matters, but must ask her again to remember that for most commodities comparative information of this kind is not easy to obtain. I explained this in some detail in the replies I gave on November 22, December 11, and on January 24 and 30. Less than one-third of the food bought by the public is de-scribably the same on the counter as it was at the farm gate—in composition, size, weight, appearance, colour, consistency, taste, smell or in other characteristics, including, of course, the effect and degree of manufacture upon the article. The noble Lady is concerned with making comparisons, and one has to be sure, as I know she would wish so to be sure, that the comparisons are of like to like, to give them any real meaning.
The difficulties in the way cannot easily be overcome, and at the present time information in the desired form is limited to only a few commodities—milk, eggs,
696
potatoes, and some fresh fruit and vegetables. My right honourable friend is ready to publish the farm or first-hand selling prices, and the retail prices of the first three of these in comparative form for any month or year for which they may be useful. But I have no evidence which would confirm that publication of this material as a regular and continuing service would be of particular use to farmers, retailers or customers. But I hope that in what I have said I have given satisfaction to the noble Lady.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in view of all the difficulties which he cited at the beginning, I am most impressed and encouraged by the final part of his statement? Is he further aware that I should like to test that and see what further use could be made of it? Does he realise that what I am really anxious to know is whether he can find a way in which the prices paid to the farmer for any particular commodity—one he has mentioned, if he likes—and the prices paid by the shopper in the shops can be listed so that, in between, the wide angle of distribution can be seen in its true nature?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in line with my undertaking I will certainly seek to produce dependable figures which will have that effect. The noble Lady asked for potato figures in particular. If she would like to put down a Question, perhaps for Written Answer, I will repeat the process we went through last week and to-day.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, with his help, we shall be able to go through all the commodities listed, which should be of great help to the consuming public?
LORD WALSTON: Would the noble Lord consider it possible to encourage retailers of the particular commodities he has mentioned (eggs, milk, potatoes and certain fresh vegetables, I believe) to exhibit in their shops the percentage increase or decrease in farm prices of these commodities during the current or preceding month from prices supplied by his own Department?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am not quite sure what encouragement the noble Lord has in mind, and I am not sure that it

697
comes within the context of the Question, but naturally I will look seriously at it, as I do any suggestion made by the noble Lord.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is rather a variety of practice in publishing prices in some cases? If we take meat, for example, we still get a weekly publication of average prices of cattle on the hoof, but they are only average prices. They go to different consumers' areas. I think that if the Minister could think of some way in which it was made clear to a fairly wide area, say a county area, what they ought to be paid for their meat it would be useful.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I will study the point the noble Earl has just made.

PURCHASES BY VISITORS TO BRITAIN
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the closest approximate total of the amount of money that is spent by visitors annually in Great Britain and also the approximate amount of English goods they buy either before or after, that can be fairly attributed to reasons created while they are in Great Britain such as clothes, antiques, et cetera.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords. It is provisionally estimated that in 1962 about £220 million was spent in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors, and a further £100 million or so for international travel to and from the United Kingdom was paid to British carriers. These are the highest figures ever recorded. The estimate of £220 million includes receipts from visitors' shopping for personal and household effects to be exported in their personal baggage. It does not include expenditure on other goods such as antiques and cars, which are not included in their personal baggage. Such items
698
are included in the totals for these items in the Trade and Navigation Accounts, but it is not possible to say what proportion of the totals represents purchases by tourists.
It is reasonable to assume that one indirect effect of tourism to this country is to increase demand for British goods among returned travellers, but it is not possible to put a figure to this.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that illuminating Answer. Is it not one of the most satisfactory exports we make? Is it likely that this will continue if our buildings of great character and charm are progressively destroyed and replaced by structures without these qualities that can be seen in many countries without people going to the trouble and expense of coming to Great Britain?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put his Question down every five years I will give him the Answer.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, has the Minister any information as to the revenue yield in the sale of castles and churches, that has become quite common in the last few years?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, would the Government look at the question of encouraging the hotel trade to deal with the very important influx of overseas visitors by helping them to overcome the disabilities of purchase tax and other matters of that kind?
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord's supplementary question will be noted, but it has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD BOSSOM: May I further thank the noble Lord; but will be get a life assurance carried out so that I shall be able to ask that Question every five years?
LORD DERWENT: Provided the noble Lord pays the premium.
LORD BOSSOM: I am perfectly willing to do that.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider a life assurance to be a guarantee of perpetual life?

DETECTION OF CERVICAL CANCER
3.11 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 how many hospital pathological laboratories within the National Health service have full-time consultants; and how many centres are now available for exfoliative cytological detection of cervical cancer.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, on the 1961 figures, the last available, there were 730 pathological laboratories in England and Wales and 403 whole-time consultant pathologists, many of them supervising more than one laboratory. Over 150 pathological laboratories are examining smears. Of these, 40 examine 100 or more a month.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this figure. Will he do all he can to encourage those other 300 or 400 pathological laboratories who do not have this technique to carry it out?—because by this means it will be possible to reduce greatly the death rate from a particularly unpleasant form of cancer.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the use of this method of detection is growing, and my right honourable friend is encouraging hospital authorities to develop this service.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that many authorities refuse because they have not enough pathologists? Is he aware that many pathologists say that this technique is quite simple; and they could teach young doctors? There are many women doctors available for part-time work. Could not the noble Lord consider encouraging pathologists to teach some of these women to carry out this technique and ultimately save the lives of many women?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the fact is that at the moment not all members of the medical profession have quite as much belief in this method of detection.
700
As I say, my right honourable friend is encouraging hospital authorities to develop this service, but I am advised that use of this method is still in its experimental stage.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, further to my noble friend's supplementary question, I think it is past its experimental stage, as shown by the fact that his own Department are encouraging it. The trouble with the method is that it is consuming of pathologists' time. Would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to give serious consideration to my noble friend's suggestion?—because the problem, as I understand it, is the shortage of pathologists' time; and that problem could quite easily be overcome, provided that the necessary money was spent in training women doctors, who would otherwise not be working in this life-saving technique.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, of course I will pay attention to what has been said, but my advice, which I accept, is that this method of detection is still in its experimental stage; and it is also the fact that some people are keener than others about it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, this is very important in the field of the prevention of cancer. Does the noble Lord not recall that, either just before the Summer Recess or just after it, when we had a debate on some subject allied to medicine, I asked him what he was doing about this, and he agreed that it was very important? Not for one moment did he then suggest that there was any doubt as to the effectiveness of this method, and he promised me that he would press in the right quarters to see that this was done all over the country.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a highly technical matter and I have to rely on the medical advice given to me by my Department, and I consider it very good advice. What I am told is that cytology is only one of the factors involved in making a definitive diagnosis, and I understand that it cannot of itself be relied upon to give a firm answer one way or the other.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord have regard not merely to the particular question of cytology in considering my noble friend's supplementary

701
question, but also to the fact that there are only four consultant pathologists in the seven pathological laboratories, and that there is also a great shortage of deputies and assistants. Therefore, in the general sense, the suggestion that has now been made might well operate to fill a gap that is very badly felt in pathology.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I take note of that point also, but it is a rather different matter from that on which I have been questioned up to now.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, with respect, it is true that there are a few people who do not believe in cytological methods of early detection of cancer, but the enormous majority believe it; and if the noble Lord refers to his own monthly bulletin, that of the Ministry of Health for December, 1961, he will find the matter extensively discussed and, on balance, supported. The evidence that it is supported is that it is his own Ministry who are supporting it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, certainly we are supporting it, and that is what I said in one of my first supplementary answers. But it was put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that the support we were giving was not strong enough. In reply to that I pointed out that according to my information, there is not yet complete agreement in the medical profession about this method of detection.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to keep pressing at this, but it really is important. The situation is that many pathologists are very willing to do it, but they have not the time, or they say they have not the time; and some have even said that if this were paid for as a supplementary service, a category 2 service, they would be prepared to do it. Really, something ought to be done about this, and, indeed, I respect the Ministry for doing quite a lot. But it is a matter of saving many lives per year. It is a laborious job. I hope that the noble Lord will be a little more pressing with his right honourable friend to get the thing moving quickly.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, again I have listened with respect, as I always do, to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, says, but he is a member of the medical
702
profession and I am not. I have found that one sometimes gets different advice from different members of the profession. I do not think I can add anything more.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION (EGYPT) (FINAL DISTRIBUTION) ORDER, 1963
3.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary made his statement on Egyptian claims on December 11 he described five proposals which he was putting before Parliament, and this Order that I am now asking your Lordships to approve covers the first two of those proposals. As your Lordships will remember, the first and most important one was the new Schedule of compensation payable to owners of Egyptianised property, and together with that there go the claims for damage inflicted upon desequestrated property which has been returned to its owners.
Under this new scale which my noble friend read to your Lordships, 100 per cent. is payable on the first £10,000 of each claimant's assessed losses; on the next £40,000, the amount payable is 75 per cent.; on the next £450,000, 50 per cent.; on the next £500,000, 30 per cent.; on the next £1 million or more, not exceeding £2 million, 25 per cent.; and on any claim exceeding £2 million, 20 per cent. That means that all claims up to £10,000 receive the whole of the amount claimed; a claim of £50,000 would receive £40,000; a claim of £500,000 would receive £265,000; a claim of £1 million would receive £415,000; a claim of £2 million would receive £665,000. Above that the compensation payable would be at the rate of 20 per cent. on the excess over £2 million; but these larger claims, of course, benefit substantially by the increased rates upon the smaller brackets of the claim when it was aggregated. As my noble friend pointed out, this new scale will give 100 per cent. payment to over 90 per cent. of the claimants; because 90 per cent. of the claims are up to or less than £10,000, and the increases to other categories will be substantial.

703
My noble friend's second proposal was to have an Order in Council that will enable the Foreign Compensation Commission to pay on the same scale claimants in respect of certain additional claims which, though arising out of the Suez incident, could only be registered and could not receive compensation under the Order in Council which followed on the Financial Agreement of 1959. My noble friend estimated that this would cost an additional £1 million for the first proposal—that is, the main increases in the schedule of payment rates he estimated at £5½ million. We have in fact combined these two proposals under one single Order in Council. I must apologise to your Lordships, because the wording of the headnote which was printed in this draft Order was found to contain a technical error in the description of the Parliamentary procedure, and it has therefore had this typed substitute pasted over it as there was no time to reprint the whole draft Order. That is the reason why, in order to save time, this correction slip has been put on.
In order to save time, the parts of this Amendment which introduce anything new that we have not seen already are printed in italics. The first of these is found in Article 2, which is on the second page, under Part II, which provides for the payment into the Egyptian Compensation Fund of the monies provided by Parliament and paid to the Foreign Compensation Commission under the Foreign Compensation Act, 1962. That is the Act which was necessary to provide for the "topping-up" provision. Then in Part III of the Order, the first paragraph introduces the new Schedule on the basis of which it is proposed that final payments out of the Fund should be made, and the Schedule itself is on page 6. I have already recited its contents to your Lordships.
Article 5, which deals with cases where interim payments of compensation have already been made under the Interim Distribution Orders, is, I think, purely mathematical. Finally, there is Article 7, which provides for the payment of compensation in respect of those claims which at the present time could only be registered under Article 8 of the Foreign Compensation Order in
704
1962. Paragraph (a) of Article 7 makes eligible for compensation all claims registered up to December 31, 1962, of which there are 983. All these claims have been carefully examined by the Foreign Office. Most of them, as I think the Foreign Secretary indicated to your Lordships in December, relate to furniture and personal effects which claimants sold under duress or on their departure from Egypt, but there is a small number of other types of claims, and we are satisfied that they are all claims which should properly be compensated from the Egyptian Compensation Fund. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Final Distribution) Order, 1963, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.24 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the Order uses the word "Final"; therefore it cannot be amended, and your Lordships must either accept or reject it. It seems to me that the curtain falls this afternoon upon a very melancholy series of events, because we are putting a Conservative Government seal on a grave injustice to many thousands of our fellow citizens. I should be less than frank if I did not say to the Minister that I am convinced that if it had not been for pressure and support, both in another place and in your Lordships' House by many of your Lordships—not least the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, who is away to-day—we should not have obtained the degree of assistance given by this Order, which has been so briefly moved—and understandably so—by the Minister of State.
Before your Lordships decide on this Order, I think it is necessary to put two things upon the Record. The first is that innocent citizens, both in Egypt and in this country, are being deprived of what is theirs by the joint action of Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government as a result of a policy—to which I gave full support at the time of Suez—the declared object of which was the safeguarding of lives and property. The second point which I should like to put on the Record is this. Some Ministers in Her Majesty's Government cannot feel very proud or happy to-day at the repudiation and evasion of pledges clearly given to Parliament. I must remind your Lordships of the Prime

705
Minister's pledge on April 11, 1957, when he used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 568, col. 1296]:
"It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure from the Egyptian Government restoration of those assets in full, or alternatively complete compensation."
There is only one other of many pledges which have been whittled away, or which have been evaded, of which I should like to remind your Lordships, and it is this. The then Foreign Secretary, when questioned about the security we held of some £90 million of Egyptian blocked sterling, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570, col. 584]:
"The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position."
I know that the Minister of State is not the Minister responsible, and that he has been speaking on behalf of those more responsible for the default by the Government.
It is necessary also to record the facts of those who are affected. There are many thousands who have been forced to live upon loans advanced by Her Majesty's Government. Their capital has been used, and to a large extent is now having to be repaid. Others still have properties in Egypt—some of it returned, some not. Much of it has been despoiled and damaged and hung about with built-up Egyptian tax charges and Egyptian ordnance regulations, the main purpose of which is to prevent that property from going back to the rightful claimants. All those who still have assets in Egypt are enabled to get out only a very limited amount in sterling. Now the Government come forward with this distribution scheme, and in it is embodied a new principle: that if you are suffering an injustice and have a small claim, it can be met; but if you have a big claim, then it must be whittled down.
The noble Earl, as has been done before in previous debates, made much of the fact that 90 per cent. of the claimants are to get 100 per cent. of their claims. That certainly is true and is good for the smallest claimants, but small people are involved with the larger claimants. Many of the larger claims are for companies which are to a large extent owned by small shareholders. Therefore, if you are a direct claimant
706
in a small category you get paid in full, but if you are an indirect claimant, but still a small man, you are to get only a proportion of your claim. Mr. Julian Crossley said, in a very powerful letter to The Times, that it is an extraordinary new principle which the Government have introduced as regards compensation. The Government say that the reason for this is that it cannot afford to be fair and just. It would need another £43 million, which the Government are unwilling to ask the taxpayers of this country to bear. In fact, in the scales the Government are weighing money against honest and just treatment of certain citizens. The Prime Minister has called for acceptance of change in our national life—and quite rightly. Here we have change, though not the sort of change we really like. Here we have a change, that of probity and justice giving way to considerations of hard cash.
I will say no more, feeling, as many other of your Lordships feel, very deeply about having to put the seal of Parliament upon this injustice, but I would ask the Minister one question. A scale is laid down here for compensation. As I understand it, approximately £35 million has flowed into the fund: £27½ million from Egypt; £1 million of interest; £5½ million in what I call "topping-up"; and an additional £1 million; making £35 million. Against this are the Egyptianised claims for some £65 million, and a further conservative estimate of £15 million for sequestration losses and damage to property. Beyond this there are probably further claims still to come in. If the "topping-up" monies, plus the other monies which I have cited to your Lordships coming into the fund, are insufficient for the scale laid down by the Order in Council, one of two things must happen. Either the scale of payments must be reduced or the Government will have to increase the figure of £5½ million. In that event, may I ask the Minister whether he will make very clear that it will be the Government who will make up the deficiency and that the scale laid down will not be reduced?
There is one further aspect which does not come directly under this Order in Council, but nevertheless I think that your Lordships will agree that we are entitled to ask and to seek information about it. There is a further £2½ million

707
which the Government are providing to make good claims in respect of damage or loss to British nationals on their sequestrated property. The value of the sequestrated assets blocked in Egypt, and thus to all intents and purposes lost to their owners who are unable or unwilling to go back, is estimated to be well in excess of £20 million. Therefore, the amount of £2½ million which the Government have set aside to make available for grants in respect of all such assets is in no way able to be considered an adequate provision, and it highlights the blatant inequality of the treatment between those British nationals who have had their property Egyptianised and those who have had their property sequestrated. My question is: how have the Government arrived at the figure of £2½ million?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt my noble friend. I will not answer the question until later, but I think he has misapprehended the data. This £2½ million is not given in order to pay for damage to sequestrated property returned, which is what I thought my noble friend said. This £2½ million is given to a new committee for the purpose of making compassionate payments to people who have been allowed by the Egyptian Government to transfer £E5,000 from their own money in Egypt, which belongs to them. but are considered on compassionate grounds to be deserving of further payment from the British Government because, although they may have a good deal of money in Egypt, they can get only £E5,000 out.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but I am fully charged with the facts the Minister has given. There is probably legitimate claim for £20 million, but do not let us argue as to what the figure is. On what basis is the £2½ million arrived at? Is it just that it might have been £2 million, or it might have been £3 million? There must be some logical basis in relation to the likely claims in respect of that particular fund. It does not come directly within this Order in Council but it does come within the ambit of this deplorable situation which is now drawing not peacefully but very regrettably to a close. And while I, naturally, as all your Lordships do,
708
absolve the Minister of State from any Ministerial responsibility for this situation, nevertheless I hope that in his reply we shall hear some word of regret by Her Majesty's Government for the position in which they have left these poor British citizens.
3.38 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down used some strong words in the early part of his remarks, and those of us who have taken some trouble to follow this subject feel that they were entirely justified. Indeed, this is a subject on which many feel strongly that the Government's honour is at stake; that a question of principle is involved, and that there are strong grounds for regret, as my noble friend has just said, that the Government have not seen fit to take a more generous line in this matter.
It is difficult to avoid repetition, and difficult to say much without almost touching on some of the ground that my noble friend has just covered. He referred to the basic reasons why, as a result of statements by the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, the belief has been encouraged that the sums finally existing in this Order in Council ought to have been different. I have been sitting in this House now for about thirty years and I think it can be seldom that a subject of this character should have been so frequently, so persistently and so passionately raised as this has been over the past three years. I think we shall all agree in our admiration for the noble Earl, whose Parliamentary skill has been much enhanced by his patience, ingenuity and great urbanity. On Questions, he has consistently stonewalled with a skill which, if he had been a cricketer, would surely have resulted in recognition from a selection committee.
But, my Lords, all that has not brought us much beyond what my noble friend has just described as quite inadequate figures. But I must refer to one point he made, very properly, with regard to blocked sterling. The whole issue arises from a belief that when the Government had £90 million of blocked sterling in hand more skilful negotiations might have resulted in more being available for the unfortunates who are affected by this case. The actual facts have been quoted so frequently, here and in another place, that there is no point in wearying your

709
Lordships by repeating them. I can quite understand that those of your Lordships who have not had occasion or desire to dig deeply into the circumstances of this regrettable history should feel, "Well, it is complicated; how boring! Why should there be so much time of the House taken up?"—as it has been in discussions and questions, and in debates, over the past three years.
There are, as I must remind you, two divisions, the sequestrated property and the Egyptianised property. On the last occasion in this House somebody said, "Cannot we change the word 'Egyptianised'? It is a horrible word". However, I think it was the Government themselves who initiated it, and so we all follow. My noble friend has, very properly, on this and previous occasions dealt particularly with the sequestration side and the many angles of hardship on individuals which that has produced. We are all moved with compassion for the unfortunate circumstances of those who have suffered. Indeed, I do not think this case could have been supported more strongly than by a former Ambassador to Egypt, the whole weight of the prestige of the noble Marquess the former Leader of our House and all those other knowledgeable people who have seen fit to follow up this matter.
I do not think it right that it should be discussed at all in this House unless everybody who speaks says, "This has nothing to do with Egypt, whatever we may feel about Egypt. Egypt is out of it. The British Government made a deal that cut Egypt out. It is with Her Majesty's Government that we are in disagreement." The noble Earl quoted again to-day that 90 per cent. of the claimants are to get 100 per cent. of their claims. It is a very tawdry juggling with figures. The argument could equally well be turned round: one might say, on the other side, that the proportion of what the larger claimants got is so small, so modest a proportion of their claims. It is that principle of discrimination which is the basis of disagreement with the terms of settlement which Her Majesty's Government have put forward. It is very unfortunate. It seems sad, as my noble friend said, that the head of a big British bank should feel impelled to write to The Times, with its great circulation and prestige throughout the world, to say that the belief in financial
710
circles is that the British Government have not acted as they should do.
The Government's defence, I feel, has been "We could not have faced payment in full. The House of Commons would not have accepted it; they would not have supported it." Those of your Lordships—and there are presumably many—who took the trouble to read Hansard, the Report of the debate in another place two days ago, will be satisfied with the depth of feeling that was expressed, the strong criticism of Her Majesty's Government, in the presence of representatives of the Treasury and the Foreign Office and other Ministers who must have felt somewhat as my noble friend said. I think that the noble Earl himself, who has so skilfully defended his case, must at times have felt slightly influenced by those in both Houses of Parliament who have taken up the cudgels in this matter.
My Lords, I have no stake at all personally in the matter—naturally, otherwise it would be disclosed. But a large firm in what was my constituency when I was in another place have suffered very unfairly. I have been kept fully informed of their experience. They are to receive about 28 per cent. of their claims. Larger claimants are to get a good deal less. Surely the principle should be that what there is available should be divided proportionately among the admitted claimants. It is said that the larger the claim the greater the capacity to bear a loss, but as my noble friend has pointed out, these companies have a great number of small shareholders. I cannot get on my feet on this matter without referring to that point. The company to which I referred, Bradford Dyers Association, Bradford, has 13,000 or 14,000 shareholders; another company has 18,000, another has 22,000, another has 200,000, and what the largest has I would not know, it is so many.
Surely it has been a policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the investment of funds in industrial companies. I suspect the Opposition, too, having abandoned nationalisation as a basic principle, will sensibly encourage investment of funds in industrial equities. And this is the sort of treatment they are going to get. How are you going to encourage firms to go and enterprisingly direct their funds abroad when they get

711
treatment like this, not at the hands of the Egyptian Government but at the hands of Her Majesty's Government? In a settlement in bankruptcy is it to be said that small people get paid in full and the larger people do not need anything but a small percentage? It is a principle of discrimination which so much disappoints, pains, surprises those who take the trouble to follow this question.
I suppose anybody might, almost frivolously, say, "Invert the flow of income tax. So long as the small people pay in full, the larger people need pay less". It sounds frivolous, but it is just the principle of this settlement inverted. Surely a minimum amount of 50 per cent. ought to have been given even to the larger claimants; the amount involved is relatively small. I will not quote a figure because I may be wrong, but the noble Earl at one time in our discussions said that something of the order of £10 million would have brought it up to that figure.
It is with strong conviction that this situation is regarded to-day with great sadness as well as disappointment. Having regard to the strength of feeling expressed in another place, one would have hoped that even to-day the noble Earl would be able to take out the word "final" and leave a loophole while getting assent to the Order for which he has asked us, as usual, so clearly. I wish it could be in that way that he sought our assent. Those of us who feel as strongly as I do have had our chance to register our disagreement, but the matter must remain in the hands of the Government and the disappointment that is created now will indeed be great.
3.52 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, whatever the result of this debate may be—and I still hope that it is not a foregone conclusion, and that my noble friend the Minister of State might be prevailed upon to withdraw this draft Order and think again—it is not an edifying story. I think the speeches of my two noble friends show that, and the reception which your Lordships have accorded to their speeches and the attention which you have given to them show a great uneasiness of mind.
It seems to me that there are two main issues involved here. The first is the question of the global amount. I do not
712
want to go into that. It is clearly inadequate, and it clearly accords ill with the grave words that were spoken in another place by the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary three or four years ago. Anyway, this afternoon I take that as final. But the second issue seems to me to be really of greater importance—the issue which my noble friend Lord Barnby spoke about a few minutes ago. The issue might be defined in this way: can a bankrupt who is forced to compound with his creditors give one creditor, or one class of creditor, preferential treatment over another? I am not a lawyer and perhaps my noble friend can advise me on this, but I would have said that he could not do so and that if he did so he would go to gaol. I may be wrong.
This, of course, raises at once the issue of the rule of law. I take it that the rule of law means that there is one law which applies to everyone—the citizen, the civil servant, the Minister; and it is the essence of the rule of law, as we understand it, that the Government should not by executive decree or ukase put itself above the Common Law of the land. That is what is happening under this proposal. The Government propose to do something which the private citizen would be legally prevented from doing—namely, favouring one class of creditor over another. I remember when I was a student reading the lectures of Lord Acton and I recall one most pregnant phrase that Lord Acton used:
"Never debase the moral currency."
I think, with great respect to my noble friend, that that is what he is seeking to do with this draft Order.
It is all very well to say that there are cases of hardship and that you must take account of those cases of hardship. If you are going to put yourself above the law, certainly you can consider cases of hardship. You may say, "We shall treat creditors with grey hair more favourably than creditors with black hair, because they have less time in which to enjoy their compensation". Or you may say, "We will treat creditors who voted Conservative more favourably than those who did not". It seems to me that once you get into the position of distinguishing between one creditor and another you are getting into dangerous water.
I can see that there is a case for dealing with hardship. What I cannot

713
see is why the burden of that should fall upon one class of creditor. If the Government in their wisdom say, "As a result of our failure to negotiate a more satisfactory settlement, or because it was impossible to do so, we cannot give equal treatment; there are bound to be cases of hardship", then it seems to me that the Government, as representing the people of this country, should deal with those hardship cases. They should not put the burden of that on what are loosely called the larger creditors, because, as both my noble friends have explained, they are in fact large in a global amount but in effect they are probably people who are just as small as the people whom the Government are trying to safeguard. If it is right to protect people from hardship in this situation—and it may be right—then that is the responsibility of the Government, of the citizens of this country; it is not the responsibility of selected shareholders. It is exactly as if there were a shipwreck and the passengers were taken off on a raft and, when they got back, they found they had lost all their possessions and the insurance money covered only half the amount, and the shipping company went to them and said, "You are well off, but you are not so well off. Therefore, you will get less and you will get more." That, I would suggest, is grossly unjust.
I think this point of principle is immensely important. It is exactly the point of principle which was raised the other day in the Richard Thomas & Baldwins takeover. I do not know what truth there is in it, but the rumour was that this nationalised industry, having made an offer of a certain figure for the shares, having got their 51 per cent., then wanted to pay the remaining shareholders less than the offer that they had made. That smelt; it stank—and, my Lords, I think this does too. But it is not just a question of principle, although that is immensely important. There is also the practical question: do you want to encourage overseas exports or do you not? Are they of value to the country, or are they not? If they are of value to the country, you really cannot treat the people who are trying to carry on this highly difficult trade in a dangerous world, in the way Her Majesty's Government propose to treat the larger creditors here. I hope very much that my noble
714
friend will reconsider this matter. I hope that he will consider withdrawing this draft Order for further consideration. If he does not, I hope your Lordships will give him advice.
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I think it would be wrong if this Order passed through the House without a few words from this side. It should not be forgotten that the whole of this problem arises from one of the most ghastly errors any British Government has made in foreign policy for many years past. I cannot match the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, or that of Lord Coleraine, in the measured condemnation of the Government and the talk of "broken pledges", of which we are hearing quite a lot in other parts of the world, too. The Government must not be allowed to get away with treating this matter as just an ordinary financial transaction that is now being wound up. It is the final winding up of a shameful episode in British history.
As to the fairness or otherwise of the settlement, I do not think that we on this side would agree with the noble Lords who have spoken about the unfairness of the division of the money. It seems to me that the test of hardship is a very fair one, and the test of the size of the fortune is also a fair one. Noble Lords talked about discrimination against the "big boys" financially, but, my Lords, is this not well accepted in our tax system to-day? The people who are well off are taxed more heavily than the people who are badly off; many people who are badly off are exempt from tax altogether. It seems to me exactly on all fours that compensation should be paid on that basis.
One can be glad that all the small men are getting full compensation. Do not let us forget that to those small men it was probably the whole of their life savings. Some of them may have been born and bred outside the United Kingdom. This was their livelihood and that of their family, and it is right that if they have had it all taken away they should be fully compensated. But I cannot look upon people who were shareholders in the big companies in the same light. Are we to suppose that any of those shareholders had the whole of his life savings in one company? Are we to believe that a lot of them were the proverbial widows

715
and orphans who have their money invested on the Stock Exchange? No, my Lords. It seems to me eminently fair that these companies should get what is, after all, a not inconsiderable payment of compensation. If they get £660,000 for a declared loss of £2 million, they are getting something, and surely it is the essence of private enterprise overseas that one takes risks.
LORD COLERAINE: Yes, my Lords, but not, surely, that they have to count the Government of their own country among those risks.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The Government might be drawn into war with a country in which British capital is invested, and that capital might be sequestrated or confiscated entirely. It is one of the risks of overseas investment. Nobody would suppose that the profits British companies have made overseas are remitted to the British Government. Indeed, some companies have been known to go overseas in order to avoid British taxation. All in all, my Lords, I think we can say that this sad episode is being wound up by the Government—given the situation in which they found themselves, and the exceedingly weak bargaining position in which they were in 1959—in as just a way as possible.
4.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not want to prolong an argument which has been recurring in your Lordships' House for the last three or four years, an argument which has been repeated many times in my hearing, without, so far as I can recollect, anything very much being added to the statements on either side. Since two of my noble friends have again raised the accusation of bad faith against the Government and have referred to the Prime Minister's statement in 1957, I must, in fairness, remind your Lordships first of what I said in our debate seven or eight months ago on this question. Last July I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 242, col. 1203]:
"I must refute and rebut the suggestion that the words used by the Prime Minister in 1957 ought to be taken, or ever have been taken, or could be supposed by any reasonable man to be taken, to involve the undertaking that the Government would be fully responsible for paying compensation, and for making up the full gap between what the Egyptian Government
716
pay and what the compensation claims amount to."
I think that would be evident to any fair-minded person who reads the Prime Minister's words, which said that we would endeavour to get full compensation from the Egyptian Government. We did not succeed.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, might I say that I never put such an interpretation to the argument? I was interpreting the Prime Minister's words as a pledge that we should get full compensation from the Egyptian Government, which the Government failed to get.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then the blame is not against the British Government, but against the Egyptian Government for not having agreed to larger compensation. I cannot see what charge of bad faith lies against the Prime Minister. I mentioned to your Lordships, too, that at that time the Leader of your Lordships' House made a statement on this matter in which he disowned any possible interpretation in the sense that the Government were under any obligation to pay full compensation to those who had suffered loss on account of the Suez incident. I also quoted what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1959, when this question was debated very fully again in another place. Mr. Heathcote Amory said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 602, col. 41]:
"… that neither this Government nor any other Government in this country have ever accepted a commitment to make good losses suffered by British subjects in foreign countries. We could not possibly accept a general commitment of that kind, but we are anxious to see a fair outcome of the matter".
My Lords, I cannot agree to discuss this matter on the assumption that the Government are under any financial obligation, and we should not be talking the same language if I were to try to argue with any of your Lordships who make this comparison between the Government and a bank which has to pay money to its creditors. That involves a legal financial obligation which does not exist in this case. What we have tried to do is not to fulfil any financial obligation, but to pay sums of money calculated and intended to relieve hardship. That is a very different thing from discharging a legal financial debt. My noble friend Lord Coleraine—
LORD COLERAINE: Would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Would the noble Lord please wait a minute? I want in this connection to consider what my noble friend Lord Coleraine said. One of the arguments he used—I hope I am not misrepresenting him—was that full compensation would encourage exporters to invest their money or send their goods to foreign countries. I just ask your Lordships to think for a moment what would happen if the Government announced to the world that, if British traders exported capital to another foreign country, and if that foreign country went to war against us, or chose to default on its obligations, or chose to nationalise or confiscate the property of those people who had sent it there, the British Government would pay full compensation to all these exporters. What effect do you imagine that would have on world trade, on our credit abroad, and on the behaviour of a large number of Governments which we can easily think of? No, my Lords.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, my noble friend was good enough to refer to an argument which I was trying to put to him, and he said that he hoped he did not misrepresent me. I think he did, if he will allow me to say so. I was not arguing at all that, in the interests of the balance of payments, invisible exports, and so on, full compensation should be paid. In fact, I said that, though I regretted it, I accepted the global amount. What I was arguing, and this was a very different point—and it seems to me to be the main issue here—was that to discriminate against these people who are engaged in overseas trade is not only morally wrong, as I believe it to be, but practically very undesirable. It is a question of discrimination—not that you should pay them in full. I never suggested that for one moment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not accept that there is any discrimination. The only principle which any sensible Government must follow is that there is no compensation payable by the taxpayer to those who lose their money abroad. In this case, recognising the special circumstances to which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has referred, and which I do not think your Lordships would wish me to argue about now, there
718
was a reason for trying to relieve hardship resulting from those circumstances. It is that which causes the exceptional character of the steps which the Government have been taking to try to relieve hardship resulting from loss of property in Egypt, or, in some cases, from the necessity of leaving Egypt. It often happens that people have to leave a country in which they have property, but in this case the departure from Cairo was due either directly or indirectly to what happened at Suez.
I fully agree with those of your Lordships who have stated that some large companies have some small shareholders. It may be that the small shareholders are rich men who have a small investment in this company, or it may be that they are poor men who have a small investment in this company and nothing else. On the basis, which is the only one I can accept, that we are trying to relieve hardship and not to give full compensation, it would not be possible, without an almost infinite amount of labour, to discover which persons who were shareholders in certain companies in 1956, and may no longer be shareholders in it—they may have sold their shares and bought something else instead—were persons of very small means.
You can deal with a company only as an entity. You treat it as an entity owning £1 million, £2 million, £3 million, £4 million or £5 million with a claim—it may be a large claim—for loss incurred in Egypt. One of the large companies whose figures I have examined had no more than 15 per cent. of their assets in Egypt. How far, if at all, their losses affected their dividends is a very arguable question. If they receive compensation you cannot, by any legal means, compel them to make a cash distribution among their shareholders. The only benefit which the shareholders could receive by giving the company larger compensation would be, indirectly, the possibility of a larger dividend; or, conversely, the possibility that a dividend might not be reduced. It would be very difficult to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the dividend of any company had been reduced as a result of losing 10 or 15 per cent. of their assets which happened to be invested in Egypt. Therefore, although I do not wish to evade the question that some large companies may have people of small means who own shares,

719
I think the only possible way in which you can deal with this is to treat a company as an entity.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked me two questions and I will deal with his second question first. I am afraid he will not be particularly satisfied with the answer to it. We have both agreed that it is not in order on this Motion, but that does not matter; we do not have such strict rules of order in your Lordships' House and I see no reason why, with your Lordships' permission, I should not deal with it. I was not at first quite sure if my noble friend had the data right, but I think he had. Of course, it has nothing to do with this Order. This Order covers only three things; first, compensation for property which has been sequestrated; secondly, damage to property which, after having been sequestrated has been given back to the owners; and, thirdly—the category mentioned by the Foreign Secretary last December—those who may have lost furniture or have been forced to sell things in an unfavourable market, and who were not previously eligible for compensation.
This sum of £2½ million, which is an entirely new thing, is for quite a different purpose. We do not think that the Government can compensate holders of property in Egypt which is still in their possession, although it is a very unfortunate and often a very hard thing that, owing to currency difficulties and the fact that they are living here and not in Cairo, they are not able to get any benefit out of that property. It might be, of course, that if trade improved and the sterling difficulties, the exchange difficulties, of Egypt and other countries were to disappear, then they would be able to get their money. Of course, any of them who are living in Egypt are able to get it now: we are considering here only those who are not able to live in Cairo but who have a very large proportion of their belongings, maybe the whole of their belongings, in Cairo.
As your Lordships know, under the Financial Agreement of 1959 the Egyptian Government undertook to allow the transfer of £E5,000, which is rather less than £4,000, by all of these claimants—I beg your Lordships' pardon; I should not call them claimants; there is no question of claims: I should say these
720
owners of property in Egypt who are now living in Britain. The Egyptian Government undertook to do that, but they did not carry out their Agreement owing to currency difficulties. As a result of the loan arrangements which were made at the beginning of last August, they are now able to carry them out. It has often been represented by many of your Lordships that the position of an owner of desequestrated property in Egypt who cannot go to Egypt himself, who has not got anything to live on except his assets in Egypt and who can get only less than £4,000 out of Egypt, is far more deserving of compassion than the position of many persons whose property has been nationalised. What the Government decided to do was to appoint a new committee called the Egyptian Grants Committee, which has now been set up under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Ellis-Rees. That Committee will examine applications based on a plea of special hardship arising from the fact that the owner of Egyptian property who can get only £4,000 out of Egypt finds it very difficult to earn his living, or to fulfil his obligations and carry on in his accustomed way of life in Great Britain.
I have often seen the estimated figures of the total amount of Egyptian property, which vary a great deal. The statements made by the owners are sometimes wildly different from the statements ascertained of their real value; and, with respect to my noble friend, I do not think there is enough evidence really to criticise the figures he mentioned, either favourably or adversely. There is not enough evidence to give what I think my noble friend asked for—I think he called it a logical, reasonable basis for this amount of £2½ million for the purpose of relieving hardship. It is what I would call an informed conjecture, based on the best information we can get, as I think the Foreign Secretary told your Lordships.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, as my noble friend says that the evidence is such that he cannot say whether the amount is too much or too little, may I assume that Her Majesty's Government are still open for representations for an increase if it is found that the figure is quite inadequate?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The answer to that at present my Lords, is certainly,

721
No; because this is a fixed sum which is paid into this fund and administered by this committee. What would happen in the hypothetical event of their determining that a reasonable performance of the duties which have been imposed upon them was incapable of being carried out, I do not know. But we do not want any delay in this matter. Any claims for hardship are supposed to be in, as I think your Lordships know, by July of this year, and the committee will then do whatever they think best with this fixed sum.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, would he be able, in this connection, to give comfort to those anxious claimants in those cases where claims have been put forward, assessed and approved, that, in the event of the sums mentioned in this Order having been used, there would still be the intention to meet those claims from a special fund?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, no claims have yet been assessed or approved in regard to this new fund, which is for a totally new purpose. My noble friend may be thinking of the other question which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked, about the Foreign Claims Commission Fund, the £35 million.
LORD BARNBY: Might I again interrupt the noble Earl? If he would forgive me, this is something which has caused great concern. I do not think he has referred to it in this House before, but in another place it was said by the Minister in charge that it is quite right that claims not yet finalised, assessed and approved will be paid according to the scales laid down in the Order.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend is, as I thought, referring to the other question, which I am now proceeding to answer. It is a different question, because it involves this sum which was £27½ million and which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye correctly totted up to £35 million, including interest and the new money. What we have done here in this Order is not to provide a specific sum of money at all, as we have done for the new Claims Committee on owners of desequestrated property. What we have done is to provide for the payment of claims by the Foreign Compensation Commission at certain rates, and no question of deficiency or surplus can arise.
722
The figures given to your Lordships, which add up to £35 million, are an estimate, and they are not a fixed sum. The claims will be paid, anyhow, and if it proves that the estimate is too little, then, of course, it will follow that more money than the amount of the estimate will be paid out. But that is the difference between the two things: one is a fixed sum and the other is a fixed amount of payments at certain rates which I have explained to your Lordships and which are contained in this Order.
My Lords, I am sorry to have been so long on this matter, which has been debated so often. I should like to say that I appreciate and understand the depth of feeling which has animated many of my noble friends who have so often spoken on this side of the House, and I am also grateful for the helpful moderation with which the views of his side of the House have been put by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. I hope your Lordships will see your way now to approve this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

PRIVATE STREET WORKS BILL [H.L.]
4.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. We have this afternoon been listening to cases of hardship in Egypt. I am now going to deal with cases of hardship very much nearer home and which I would say deserve every consideration. Before referring to the clauses of the Bill I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to various aspects of the matters covered by the Bill. The intention of the Bill is to substitute one code for the execution of private street works for the 1875 code, the 1892 code and some local government codes, too. Why has this Bill become necessary? It is, in the main, because there are good local authorities and there are some bad local authorities. Some local authorities

723
have taken steps to take over unadopted roads; others have sat back and done little or nothing about them. Perhaps I should explain that "unadopted road" is a term given to a road which has not been taken over by a local authority. I would say, in fact, that this innocuous term disguises one of the scandals of modern times.
In April, 1961, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a circular reminding local authorities of the powers that they might exercise in mitigating hardships to road frontagers. Although the Minister by his circular letter admits that hardships exist, the circular then went on blandly to say that the Minister could see no grounds for any fundamental change in the law. Since that date, and as one who lives on an unadopted road and therefore has first-hand knowledge, I have made a close study of the existing conditions under which local authorities administer their present powers, and I have been appalled at the hardship and distress which often occurs. That is the main reason for my introducing this Bill.
The Minister went on to say that 80 per cent. of street work authorities operate the code of 1892 which is a little more flexible than the one of 1875. Is it really suggested that no change is required when 20 per cent. of these local authorities operate under an out-dated code of 1875—nearly one hundred years ago? Many large land medium-sized cities have on their outskirts a number of these roads in an appalling condition and not really fit for traffic of any kind, either vehicles or pedestrians Some months ago I drew your Lordships' attention to one case where the potholes are so deep that when they are filled with rainwater there is a danger of very young children falling down and drowning in them. In many cases it is quite impossible for mothers to push their perambulators down the road, and British Railways have refused in many cases to make deliveries of goods owing to the damage to their vehicles.
For many years before 1835 a simple and logical code prevailed. The rule was that whenever a public right-of-way was established, a public responsibility would arise to keep or maintain this right-of-way to a reasonable standard. But, by
724
the Highway Act of 1835, this ancient public responsibility was abolished for all highways coming into existence after the passing of that Act. Thenceforth a highway would not become a public charge until it was adopted by the local authority. In those days the local authority would not adopt a highway until its private owners had put it in a satisfactory condition at their own expense and initiative. Why was this change in the law made in 1835? To find the answer, I think we must look also at the Poor Law Amendment Act of the previous year which abolished outdoor poor relief and established the notorious workhouses system. I would say that the motive behind both the Poor Law Amendment Act and the Highway Act, 1835, was a general policy to reduce the burden falling upon the rates. I think it should be remembered that up to this time highway expenditure and outdoor poor relief had been the chief items of local expenditure.
In the present day it is out of keeping with modern ideas that such ancient public responsibilities should be abolished merely to effect a saving in the rates. But it must not be forgotten that 1835 was the time of laissez-faire, and the Government of those days interfered or assisted as little as possible. In fact, anyone familiar with the history of the appalling conditions of many roads in the towns of the 19th century would conclude that it would have been much better if the ancient law of highways before 1835 had remained unaltered.
I would say that what may have been accepted as a rates-saving policy in 1835 requires very strong justification in the Welfare State of to-day. With the very varied and modern apparatus of State and local taxation, it is incredible that an ordinary, mundane matter like unadopted roads should be left out of the scheme of things. It is true that the Acts of 1875 and 1892 went some way to improve matters, but the fact remains that there are still some 54,000 unadopted roads in the country which have come into existence between 1835 and 1951. I think it would be true to say that what has prevented an obvious reform in this matter for so long is a deep-rooted belief in the local government mind that the making-up of an unadopted road costing, say, £10,000 must of necessity add £10,000 to the value of the frontage land; also that such land which is subject to a future

725
liability of street works must sell at a price that is £10,000 lower than the market value.
I now hope to make clear to your Lordships that these supposed effects that streets works charges have on the value of frontage land are completely fallacious. In the first place, the actual increase in value of frontage land resulting from the making-up of a private street bears little relation to the actual cost of the work. The newly made-up street may add £50 or £60 to the value of a particular piece of frontage land, but the actual cost of making-up the street may result in a charge of £500 being imposed on the land owned by the frontager. What the frontager gets by way of special benefit is not represented by a share of the cost being suddenly added to the value of his land, but merely a slight increase, depending on other facts—chiefly amenity and convenience advantages.
My Lords, as the frontager pays rates on this special benefit and he derives no other benefit, right or privilege that is not enjoyed by everyone else residing in the town or village, I would say that it seems curiously illogical that he should be singled out to pay for the whole cost of the works on the basis of alleged benefit. This is not mere abstract theory but proved fact which is deducible from what happened to the betterment charge which was levied under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under this Act, as your Lordships are aware, an attempt was made for the recovery of the cost of public works from property owners in the immediate neighbourhood, the principle being that their properties had been bettered to an amount equal to what had been spent on the work. As your Lordships are aware, it was found impossible to ascertain which properties should be charged and which should not be charged, and, if chargeable, by what amount. It very soon became clear that whatever had been spent on the local scheme had nothing at all to do with the amount by which neighbouring properties had been enhanced in value as a consequence of the works. And, as your Lordships are aware, the betterment charges were abolished.
The same course of events has occurred in the case of the coast protection charges that were levied under
726
an Act of 1949. I think it was last year that a Ministry circular advised local authorities to discontinue levying their charges and indicated that provisions by way of Exchequer grant would be made available to ease the extra burden falling on the rates. I maintain that what is true of one form of public works is true for all. There is no obvious reason why street works should differ in any way in principle from the great number of public works that were the subject of betterment charges. It is true that frontagers are a more easily ascertainable group than those who were the subject of betterment charges—perhaps that is why street works charges have lasted longer—but this reason should not, and cannot, continue to justify a principle that is fundamentally out of date and which has been shown to be so under the betterment charges Act.
There is another argument that has been put forward in the past by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It has been argued that the contingent liability to street work charges must affect the value at which frontage land sells in the open market. It was argued that in transactions relating to frontage land it must be assumed that the future cost of the street works should be deducted from the full market value of the land. I have already pointed out to your Lordships that the cost of actually making up the street does not add very much to the value of the frontage, and I would say that it does little to reduce its value before the charge is levied.
I think it is true to say that what chiefly affects the market value of land is what one can do with it: whether or not one can build on it, and, if so, whether its location and amenity is more or less accommodating. I would say that, assuming one can use the land for the purpose for which it was bought, then in all cases it will sell for its full market value, no matter what contingent liability—tax, charge or money demand—there may exist on it. I suggest to your Lordships that this fact was also demonstrated by the failure of the development charges levied under the Town and Country Planning Act to affect land values: in fact, it is well known that land is sold at its full market

727
value despite liability to heavy development charges. I can see no reason why frontagers should be treated differently from those who were the subject of development charges.
I hope that I have now made clear to your Lordships that there exists a body of people in the country who live on unadopted roads—largely retired people, and old-age pensioners in bungalows and small houses—and on whom rests the onerous responsibility for providing the community as a whole with new streets. The passage of time has not made the burden any easier. In days gone by the making up of a street to accommodate horse-and-cart traffic was a comparatively simple and cheap process; but not to-day. And inflation has made their lot all the harder. A frontager may have purchased land ten years ago when there was a contingent liability to £100 for street works charges. To-day this figure may well have risen to £400 or £500, which he is quite unable to meet; and that fact may force him to sell his house and home. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of what I mean. I have here a letter which says:
"Dear Sir, the above road is in an extremely dangerous condition.… I have lived on a pension, since my husband died, of 57s. 6d. My road charge is £150. Even to pay a small amount will leave me short of food. I only have two meals as it is on account of coal prices. I have lived on the road for 32 years and have no other place to go.… I could not promise anything."
I have beside me revised files containing many more heartbreaking letters from poor people who have been, or are now, suffering distress and hardship as a result of demands for heavy road charges. I would say that there is no branch of local government law and administration where half-truths, fallacies and historical accident combine more than in the law of private streets, The complexity of its rules are notorious, and litigation on the subject is out of all proportion to its size and significance in law.
My Lords, I must apologise for speaking so long on the general aspects of the Bill, and I will now deal only very briefly with its clauses. I think that the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill makes clear its main functions. Under Clause 1 the preliminaries to street works may be set in motion either by a resolution
728
of the authority, or by a notice served upon the authority by the appropriate majority of frontagers. It is true that under the present Acts the majority of frontagers on an unadopted road have the right to demand that a local authority make up the road and take it over, provided that recovery for cost has been arranged. But owing to the high charges that might be levied on them, and which might prove crippling, no action is taken by the frontagers, with the result that the country remains littered with these unadopted roads. I would point out that under Clause 1 the street works authority has the right to determine what length of private street shall be made up, subject to any objections which may be raised, and provided for under Clause 5.
Clause 2 deals with apportionment of charges for street works. This clause provides that the liability of frontagers shall be limited to one-third of the cost which shall be apportioned between the properties fronting the street on the basis of their rateable value. The previous Highway Acts have all dealt with the matter on a frontage length basis for apportionment charges for making up a road. Under this Bill provision has been made for the rateable value of the premises to be used as a basis. It has long been felt that the frontage length basis can operate most unfairly. For instance, a bungalow occupied by an old-age pensioner may have a frontage twice as long as that of a large house and would have to pay a much larger apportionment charge. This is, of course, quite unfair. I would take this opportunity of mentioning one obvious Amendment to the Bill, which was unfortunately not foreseen when it was drafted—no doubt it has already occurred to some of your Lordships: that is, to provide for an apportionment of charges on the owner of a piece of land with no buildings on it, and therefore without rateable value, and with a frontage to an unadopted road. It is not difficult to think of an Amendment to cover that point.
Clause 3 deals with the preparation of documents as specified in the Schedule to this Bill and the recommended provisional apportionment, taking into account certain matters, such as the greater or lesser degree of benefit to be derived by any premises fronting a private street when the road is made up, and also the volume and nature of

729
through-traffic and other matters set out thereon. Clause 4 covers publication of the resolution of approval for proposed street works; and Clause 5 allows for objections to the proposed works to be made to the street works authority. The only difference between Clause 6 and Section 178 of the Highways Act, 1959, and the Code of 1892, is that application may be made to a magistrates' court to hear and determine objections. Clause 7 allows the authority to amend from time to time the specifications, plans, estimates and provisional apportionment for any street works. Clause 8 covers final apportionment and declaration of adoption.
I would call your Lordships' special attention to Clause 9 (4) which allows a frontager to repay his share of the costs of making up an unadopted road over a period of 30 years and to be a charge on the property. At the present time the period allowed for repayment is at the option of the authority, and many local authorities reclaim this money in a period of two or three years, which creates very great hardship indeed.
My Lords, I should like to add one more thing. I had one very curious argument put forward to me by a Member of your Lordships' House the other day. It was that because many house owners have in the past, or perhaps recently, paid large sums under the existing Act to have their roads made up, it would be unjust if they were asked to make a contribution on the rates towards having someone else's roads made up. My answer to that is that many frontagers have for many years themselves been making a contribution through the rates to the public made-up roads in their neighbourhood. It is rather like the Chancellor of the Exchequer refusing to take purchase tax off lipstick on the ground that some women had paid the full price the day before.
In conclusion, I maintain that it is undemocratic and contrary to the ideas of a modern Welfare State and services for an arbitrary minority to be taxed so as to provide the community at large with a major public undertaking in the making up of a public right of way. This Bill will relieve a great deal of distress and hardship among old age pensioners and other poor people living in small houses and bungalows, who are as I have
730
indicated, being faced with crippling charges. It may well be that this Bill requires a good deal of amendment, and perhaps might be drafted differently. But I maintain that matters cannot be left as they are, and that something must be done quickly to give justice and relief to people who are suffering distress and hardship.
I ask your Lordships to bear with me one moment while I read one more letter. It comes from Staffordshire, and is written by a councillor of a local authority. He says:
"As a local councillor only as recently as this last week, despite extreme opposition from myself and one more councillor, an elderly lady in her late 70's is being forced by the local authorities to pay £900 for road making. This, however, would not have arisen if the local authority had not built a new estate and would need the road as access to this estate. This is to me entirely wrong, and will cause great hardship to this elderly pensioner who has not got this kind of money. I must state that this property has been erected for fifteen years, and until now the council has made no effort whatever to make up this road. It seems to me that this old lady is being forced to pay out all this money for the council's convenience. I must point out to you before, ending this letter that the cost per foot of this road is £9 18s., which seems to me, as a builder, simply fantastic and out of all proportion to relative costs."
I really cannot believe that any of your Lordships would wish this state of affairs to continue under the law as it stands at present. This is a humane Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships and trust that you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Teynham.)
4.54 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will join with me in appreciating the able and, if I may say so, valiant way in which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has sought to make a case for the Second Reading of this Bill. I think I shall not be alone in feeling that the noble Lord failed to do so. Nor do I think that anyone else could make a conclusive case for a Second Reading. This is a Bill which is almost devoid of merits when examined, and replete in demerits.
There are three main reasons I submit why this Bill fails to merit a Second Reading, and each of the reasons would itself alone justify that point of view.

731
The noble Lord read a letter from a councillor. I think it is apposite to say at this point that all the associations of local authorities are opposed to this Bill. I should perhaps here give notice of interest. I am a shareholder and director of a property company engaged in the development of property. As to my reasons, first of all, I would submit that there is no need for any change in the present situation and law as regards private street works. Secondly, if there were, I submit to your Lordships that the Private Bill procedure is not the procedure which is appropriate for such a purpose. Thirdly, if enacted, this Bill would in some respects permit a kind of usurpation of the functions, duties and responsibilities of local authorities. It would also cast an additional burden upon local authorities, and it would alter the whole basis of charge, as the noble Lord has said.
Take the first reason, the absence of need. As the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, the Bill seeks to replace the codes of 1875 and 1892 by one new code. Here may I interpose a comment in answer to the noble Lord's statement that 20 per cent. of private street works authorities were operating under the code of 1875? I do not think that that is the case. It does not follow that because only 80 per cent. are operating under the code of 1892 the remainder are necessarily acting and operating under the code of 1875, because many of them have local Acts which may embody some, but not necessarily all, of the code. In any case, the fact that there are 80 per cent. operating under the code of 1892—which was amended, but only slightly, as recently as 1959—seems to show that one of the alleged objects of this Bill has been achieved, because there is a pretty good rate of uniformity operating as regards this matter.
I cannot believe that your Lordships would wish to amend by a Private Bill an Act passed as recently as the Highways Act, 1959—no more than three years ago. It was passed in circumstances not very different from those of to-day. As I have said, the codes were amended and approved by Parliament, including this House. As the noble Lord said, the Minister conducted an inquiry
732
in 1961, two years ago, as to the operation of the private street works codes, and as a result of that survey the Minister issued a circular on March 27, 1961, in which it is stated:
"The Minister's general conclusions arising out of the survey are that there is no ground for any fundamental change in the law relating to the making up of private streets."
The noble Lord then went on to refer to the fact that 80 per cent. of all street works were done under the code of 1892, under which code there is, of course, the facility for the local authority to adjust the proportion by reference to the degree of benefit. There is, under the provisions of Clause 210 of the Highways Act, 1959, power vested in the local authority to bear, in certain circumstances, the whole or a part of the charges which otherwise would fall upon the frontager. It is a curious circumstance that this section would be repealed by the present Bill.
The next reason against this Bill is that a Private Bill, in our submission, is not the method by which a public national Act should be amended, especially if the amendment would result, as I have said would be the case, in casting a heavy financial burden upon local authorities. I would repeat that this would mean the repeal of many of the provisions of the Highways Act and also many local Acts, and I do not think your Lordships would agree that this matter is one for the procedure of Private Bills. The changes which it would operate are fundamental and if the matter is to be dealt with, whether in the manner indicated in the Bill or in some other way, it ought to be done by a Public Bill by the Government.
The Government took the view only two years ago that there was no case for any substantial alteration. Then we have the provision that a majority of frontagers could serve a notice upon the local authority, calling upon the local authority to make up a particular and specified road; and that notice having been served, an obligation is created, according to the Bill, upon the local authority that it shall proceed diligently to make up the road. It seems to me to be very nearly a usurpation of the functions of a local authority to place it under that obligation. Moreover, the local authority has not been heard. The frontagers serving the notice do not know

733
what the situation is as regards other roads needing to be made up. They do not know what programmes the local authority may have for dealing with unadopted roads. Moreover, the service of the notice may result in a dislocation of the plans and the programmes of local authorities to the detriment of the building of schools, of houses and of other street improvements. The whole of the works programme, as it were, of local authorities could be jettisoned as a result of the service of a multitude of notices under the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill.
I would repeat that the frontagers would be quite ignorant of the situation. Nevertheless, they would be able, by a simple majority, in fact to fix not only the priorities of the activities and functions of local government but the actual programmes. In the end of course the local authority would be so cluttered up with notices, especially if two-thirds of the cost were to be borne by the general body of ratepayers, that the whole of the work would be in danger of coming to an end. This proposal for a simple majority, I submit, is very near to democracy standing on its head.
Then there are the further changes in connection with finance. The first is that the basis of apportionment on the length of frontage is to go and it is to be based upon the rateable value. I should have thought myself that if there was ever an inappropriate time to suggest that any payment or any liability to local government should be based upon rateable value it was now, when as a result of revaluation, rateable values have rocketed in a way which is in some respects somewhat terrifying. But the rateable value is not a proper basis, I submit, for ascertaining the appropriate proportions to be borne by the frontagers; it is not relevant. There are factors which either increase or diminish rateable value which are not related in any way to the roads, to the cost of making up the roads or to the proportion which should be borne as between frontagers.
For instance, there may be outbuildings which are rateable, there may be improvements which are rateable, none of which is related to the cost and liability for making up the roads. Moreover, an undeveloped plot can easily escape any
734
charge at all—and the noble Lord has referred to that lacuna in the Bill. Nevertheless, a situation could arise, and no doubt would arise, where there was a plot which was undeveloped save as regards a very small portion and where the road was made up. The apportionment is based upon the rateable value, and the rateable value of that particular plot is very small. When later on the development takes place the owner of that plot would have escaped liability for a lot of the cost of the road charges. There is no case, I submit, for changing the basis from the length of frontage to the rateable value.
The next point is the change in the incidence of cost—a fundamental change—namely, that one-third shall be borne by the frontager and two-thirds by local authority—that is to say, it should be borne by the general ratepayer save in a case of a cul-de-sac where the proportions are reversed. With regards to hardship, it has of course been said, sometimes perhaps appropriately, that "Hard cases make bad law". But, really, the evidence which the noble Lord submitted of the incidence of hardship was not very convincing, having regard to the number of local authorities there are and the number of streets which have to be made.
LORD TEYNHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord would like to read all the letters I have here. It would take him quite a long time.
LORD LATHAM: Even so, it could hardly be said to be representative.
Moreover, this proposal to cast two thirds of the cost upon local authorities would operate very largely to the benefit of the landowner or the developer. Experience has shown that the value of properties increases, on the whole, more than the cost of the road charges, high as the cost of road charges now are, I admit. As a matter of fact, making up the road becomes a part of the value of the property, and by and large the owner or developer of the land does not do too badly out of it. This proposal that there should be a gift, as it were to owners of two-thirds of the cost, and that there should be a two-thirds levy upon the general ratepayer—including, of course, the frontager, is I submit, unfair, and no case has been made out for a

735
radical change of this character. The Bill, which casts a financial burden which may be very considerable upon local authorities, abrogates, as it were, there functions and duties, and changes the basis of an apportionment which has worked satisfactorily and was still working satisfactorily in 1961, acording to the Minister's information, as a result of his survey. It changes the basis of apportionment which has worked, as I have said, satisfactorily for some 60 years, and the Minister has formed the opinion that there is no case for a change.
The Bill is defective in many other respects. It bristles with indeterminates. Clause 3, which provides for provisional apportionment, takes account inter alia of such delightfully imprecise provisions as, for example, the following—these are considerations to be taken into account in ascertaining and preparing the provisional apportionment of the costs:
"(b) the benefit to be derived by other premises to or from which the street upon which the works are to be executed lead or may in future lead".
Who can say what will happen in the future?
LORD TEYNHAM: The local council may very well build a council estate at the end of the road.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord has just made my case. He said, "may"; it is not certain, it is indeterminate. Another factor to be taken into account is:
"(c) the volume and nature and the anticipated volume and nature of through traffic along the street".
My Lords, one needs to be a Solomon to be able to appraise that, or to estimate that. Then,
"(d) the anticipated use of the street for the parking of vehicles both by the owners of premises fronting the street and others …".
Really! As I have said, one would need the wisdom of Solomon to estimate and appraise on that basis.
Under Clause 5 of the Bill there is a provision that if there is any amendment—amendment of specification, amendment of plan, amendment of the estimate of costs—then all the rights of objection revive and the objector can, if necessary, go before the justices; or he can go to quarter sessions. At the present time, the only amendment which entitles the objector to have his position restored, as
736
it were, is if there is an increase of cost. But under this Bill, whether there is an increase of cost or not—if, indeed, there is a reduction of cost—the frontager has the right to object and to start de novo. That is also the case with regard to the final apportionment. For instance, on the final apportionment under Clause 7, if the kerbstone originally in the provisional apportionment was of a certain height and it was proposed to raise the height by half an inch, or drop it by half an inch, although it did not involve any increase of charge the frontager would be able to reopen the whole question and go again to the justices and to quarter sessions. The result would be, of course, that there would be such protracted negotiations, such interminable delays, that the operation of doing street works would be brought to an end. In the circumstances that I have indicated, I submit that there is no case for this Bill, and that if there is a case for altering the law as regards the cost and the manner of carrying out private street works, then it is a subject which should be dealt with by the Government and not by a Private Bill.
LORD TEYNHAM: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I might point out this is a Public Bill and not a Private Bill. I think he has told us four times to-day that it is a Private Bill. It is not. It is a Public Bill.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry. I should have said Private Member's Bill. It is not a Government Bill. I hope that your Lordships will take that view.
5.20 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words. Unlike the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am in general sympathy with the purposes of the Bill. One of the reasons for that is that I think it is a measure which has really become somewhat overdue now. The fact that, as the noble Lord has said, the Government and the Minister have expressed themselves satisfied with the present state of affairs does not mean that I must feel satisfied too, because I do not necessarily support the Government in everything. Even if the Government say they are satisfied, I am prepared to say I am not satisfied. Therefore I think we must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for bringing in this Public Bill by a

737
private channel, as it were, and I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading, or that the Government will say (as they did in the case of another Bill two days ago) that they are prepared to undertake the Bill themselves and therefore it will not be necessary to proceed further with the present measure. Those appear to me to be the only two alternatives which are acceptable at the present time.
I entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. It has always seemed to me strange that the value of land which fronts upon an unadopted street should be increased by the local authority by exactly the amount it costs to make the street into a good street instead of a bad street. So far as I know, those figures do not generally work out in that kind of way, and to me it has always seemed a strange form of argument that it must be exactly the same. In the same way, I do not think that local authorities can say that, by doing up a street and making it in good condition they are therefore presenting the frontagers with a gift which is exactly commensurate with the amount of money they spent in making up the street.
Of course, local authorities do not like this Bill—one would not expect them to. But surely the fact that the Bill has come along is in part the fault of the local authorities. So far as I can see, what has occurred in the past is that the local authorities have allowed or encouraged builders to build houses, and roads have been built, and the local authorities have made no objection because they were drawing rates from the houses. But when it comes to spending money on the roads to make them reasonable, then they object and begin to say that it is not fair to them. One can see their trouble. As I think the noble Lord said, there are about 54,000 private streets or roads. That is a large number with which to confront the local authorities now. I suggest that the local authorities were largely responsible for the enormous amount of ribbon development in this country which went on before the war, when people built along existing highways rather than run the risk of making new roads which the local authorities would not adopt, or which the builders would need to construct themselves.
Another point is that to make up a road is much more costly nowadays.
738
Here, again, I sympathise with the local authorities. It will cost them money. But in the old days when Acts of Parliament—I am not talking about the 1959 Act, but the other Highways Acts—came into force, it was merely necessary to make up roads to take horses and horse-and-cart traffic. At present some local authorities seem to think that a road should be made up almost to the quality of a motorway before they can adopt it. That is a most expensive and unnecessary thing to do. Again, it seems to me more equitable that the cost to the frontager should be based upon the rateable value rather than on the length of the frontage; although I must say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that the enormous changes in rateable values may lead to difficulties which cannot be foreseen. But, taking it on a purely philosophical basis, it seems a fairer way than taking the length of the frontage.
I think it is right that a majority of frontagers can petition the local authority to start work upon their road. That does not mean that the local authority has to drop everything it is doing to start the next day on the road, but it means that plans have to be made and the work has to be fitted into the work that the local authority has to do. It seems to me to be a step in the right direction rather than in the wrong direction. I also think it would be a good thing if the frontager could repay the local authority over the period of time he thinks within his means, rather than in the time that the local authority want him to pay, provided it is all done in the same full period of time, which I think is 30 years.
There seem to me to be two criticisms of the Bill which can be dealt with in Committee if it is given a Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that the division between two-thirds and one-third seems a trifle inflexible. I think I am right in saying that under previous legislation it was possible for the local authority, if they so wished, to pay 100 per cent. of the cost, whereas this Bill will tie them permanently to two-thirds. I wonder whether that could not be made a little more flexible.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, Clause 3 allows for a certain amount of flexibility.
LORD AMULREE: I thank the noble Lord. My other point is this. I think I am right in saying that there was legislation of some kind to exempt the churches. That does not appear to be the case in this Bill. I wonder whether that has been dropped deliberately or merely accidentally. With those few rather general comments, I should like to give the Bill a welcome, and I trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
5.26 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I wish to begin the few remarks that. I want to make about this Bill with a gross understatement. I feel most uneasy about this Bill, and, in general, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has said. This Bill proposes that local authorities—that is, the ratepayers—should take over responsibility for two-thirds of the cost of all private roads, to relieve hardship suffered by certain frontagers. Had the Bill been introduced a hundred years ago to provide that local authorities should be responsible for all streets, the position would have been rather different. But to-day generations of householders have paid for making up their streets, and why should the present generation suddenly be saddled with the costs of those who have not yet paid?
How many of the cases referred to are really cases of hardship? I feel strongly about this. The value of the unmade road must be reflected somewhere. Either the frontager has got his property at a value less the cost of the road, or he has paid the developer for it, or he has been badly advised and has a cause of action against the person who advised him. Local authorities who decide to make up private streets have discretionary powers to spread over the charges and in appropriate cases to postpone the charge. Where is the evidence—we have been offered none to-day, so far as I know—that they have not exercised their discretion fairly?
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I should be quite willing to supply him with a good deal of evidence. In fact, I think I am right in saying that there has been only one case in which a local authority has paid all the costs—only one.
LORD MILVERTON: I am most interested to hear that. But so far as most recent cases are concerned, estate developers have paid the cost of new street works, usually by agreement with the local authority, which means that the purchaser of the property has borne those costs plus the developer's profits. If this Bill goes through, for every case where genuine hardship is relieved I feel there will be many of increased profit. The contribution by the local authority would often be a gift to speculators, where land fronting a private street was ripe for development. Complaint is made of increased costs. But, among other things, wages have been steadily increasing too. It is alleged that the frontagers are getting nothing more for their rates. I have seen that argument produced. But, my Lords, what about education, health, welfare, fire, police, and all the other services one gets in return for rates?
I have heard the argument used about pot-holes that people cannot afford to fill them up, but apparently many such frontagers can afford to run motor cars. Further, on the proposed change of apportionment of expenses from frontage to rateable value the merits of such a change are by no means, to me, at any rate, clear, and it seems to me would be no less "rough justice" than apportionment as at present by frontage. Surely, again, in a matter which is of substantial concern to highway authorities, it is surprising that there has been no prior consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations before the introduction of this Bill.
My Lords, there are so many objections to the Bill that one hardly knows where to begin. In the first place, as has been said already, it would transfer to the ratepayers the cost of future private street works to the extent of approximately two-thirds of the annual cost of such works. The Association of Municipal Corporations is well aware of the criticisms which have been expressed from time to time about the present law relating to the making up of private streets, and in particular the complaints of burdens which fall upon frontagers in this connection. However, they do not feel that these complaints, generally speaking, are justified. In the case of most development recently undertaken the estate developer has

741
borne all the cost of new street construction, usually by agreement with the highway authority under the provisions of the Highways Act, 1959. In effect, this means that the purchasers of new properties have borne those costs, and have been helped to do so by building societies, and so forth, and the charges have been spread over such period of years as the borrowers can reasonably manage for repayment.
The Bill before us would divert a substantial part of these costs to public funds to the relief of estate developers and private purchasers. It would saddle ratepayers, who have already met the cost of street works on their houses, with the need to contribute towards the cost of making up other private streets. Further, it would operate in favour of owners in private streets the completion of which for some reason or other have been delayed, and against those who have paid their proper apportionment in streets which it has been possible to make up more quickly.
My Lords, it is felt that the proposals in the Bill would act unfairly as between ratepayers in non-county boroughs and urban districts and those in rural districts, because not only do non-county boroughs and urban districts have to share the cost of rural unclassified roads, as well as make up their own private streets, but the extension under the Bill would fall on borough and urban ratepayers. There are also doubts whether the suggested basis of apportionment of street works charges by reference to rateable value is any better than the present basis of apportionment according to frontage. It may be that the present basis amounts to rough justice, but is the suggested basis any fairer? There are cases where premises with very large rateable values have a small frontage to a street which is to be made up and a larger frontage to other streets which have already been made up. The proposed basis of apportionment does not seem likely to work fairly in such a case as that. On the other hand, apportionment as a proportion of frontage is a certain method of apportionment, and when the frontages are created the liability which goes with them can be understood. The Association of Municipal Corporations also feels that great
742
difficulty will arise in deciding what is a cul-de-sac for the purpose of the Bill: and on this point, of course, turns the question of apportioning the costs as between public funds and premises having frontages to the street. One also wonders why the arbitrary apportionments of two-thirds and one-third have been chosen as the shares to be borne in the circumstances by public funds or the frontagers.
My Lords, there are other detailed points upon which the Bill could be criticised, but I think I have said enough at this stage to indicate that I hope that the Bill will not be proceeded with and given a Second Reading, but that, if there are justifiable grievances in relation to the operation of private street works legislation, full opportunity may be given for discussion and the seeking of agreed remedies before resort is had to legislation. In my view, such a fundamental change—and here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Latham—in the incidence of the costs of highway development should take place, if at all, only after careful investigation of all the circumstances as an act of Government policy. Therefore, my Lords, I oppose the Second Reading.
5.37 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I, too, rise to oppose this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, made us weep about the poor widow, but this Bill would do credit to the Property Owners Federation. In my experience, whenever the landowner, the property owner or the employer wants to get added benefit for himself he always quotes the poor widow. As a trade unionist I used to meet the old railway companies to ask for an increase in railwaymen's wages, and it was always the poor widow who had her savings invested in the railway companies who was put forward as the reason why we could not get any more money. Therefore we could not get a decent wage.
Let it be quite clear that this is a property owners' Bill, to add values to properties and to transfer to the owner the added values the cost of which is borne by the ratepayer. It is true that considerable problems arise. If one goes to the North of England one finds back streets which were built in the 1880's and 1890's, and even now the roads have not been made up. Why?—because they

743
are rented houses and because the property owner, although he was prepared to take the rents, was not prepared to give a decent standard of roadway to the individuals living in those houses. If this Bill became law what would happen? These property owners who have had the rent from those properties for 80 or so years would want the local authority to put the road in order; and then, as one became vacant, they would immediately put it up for sale and take the added value. No, my Lords. This is a property owners' Bill. All the problems of private street works have not been, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, the fault of the local authority. They have been, in fact, the fault of the speculative developer.
LORD AMULREE: I did not say all the fault; I did not put so much burden on the shoulders of the local authorities, poor things! I put only some there.
LORD LINDGREN: The general inference this afternoon has been that where fault lies, it lies with the local authority. It does not: it lies with the speculative developer. What happened in the prewar days in the 1920's? The building speculator started to jerry-build houses, and then he started to put advertisements in the Press: "£25 down: No road charges." A person went in, and, by the time he got settled and the local authority came to him about making up the road, the speculator had finished building the houses and taken the money—because he had charged it in the cost of the house. Then the poor house-owner had to go to the local authority, to try to reach an arrangement with them to try to find the speculative builder who had been building the houses.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, did not refer to the Highways Act, 1936. and he did not refer to the New Streets Works Act, 1951.
LORD TEYNHAM: Will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening for one moment? I said that all the trouble was between 1935 and 1951. I certainly referred to the 1951 Act.
LORD LINDGREN: All the trouble then was prior to 1951. But because of the trouble which arose between the speculative builder and the speculative landowner prior to 1936, even the Tory Government of 1936 brought in the High-
744
ways Act, 1936. Under Section 40 they made it possible for the developer (and as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree said, the best type of developer has done it) to take responsibility for making up the road to the specification of the local authority. The developer, of course, then charged the cost—what he was going to pay to the local authority—to the owner who was going to buy the house; and he made an arrangement with the local authority who took it over and developed it. But good though the intention of the 1936 Act was, between 1936 and 1939 the speculators did not even then take advantage of Section 40; they left development. So the Labour Government brought in the 1951 Act, the advance payment code, which meant that before a house was built there had to be a payment to the local authority. Then, when the house was built and a road had to be made, there was something in the kitty, and the cost would not suddenly fall on the house-owner.
Let me make it quite clear here. Everybody who bought a house knew quite well, if the road was not made up when he bought it, that at some time he would have to meet road charges for that house. So to talk about this being something new, and something thrust upon the house-owner, is not quite true. The effect of the 1951 Act, because there had to be an advance payment which they could not avoid, was that it forced them—or, rather, made it advantageous for them—to go back to the Section 40 payments under the 1936 Act. Now, any reputable developer who is building an estate is doing it under the Highways Act, 1959, under the advance payment code, or under Section 40 of the 1936 Act.
As has been said by my noble friend Lord Latham and by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, this Bill means that the ratepayer will have to pay two-thirds of the cost. My noble friend Lord Latham referred to Clause 1, which requires that on the demand of the local people work should be carried out by the local authority. In fact this is just impossible. I do not want to be too controversial (it is not in my nature), and I am not going to start apologising for the Government. But because of the economic position of the country the Government have from time to time to restrict the capital expenditure of local authorities. If the

745
Government are restricting the expenditure of local authorities for reasons of the national economy, how can we pass another Act of Parliament placing on the local authority an obligation to carry out work at the request of a given number of frontagers?
My Lords, this rateable value suggestion is much less satisfactory than the frontage payment system. I am not going to say that the frontage payment system is altogether satisfactory, but the rateable value system would be most unsatisfactory. Knowing land speculators and property speculators, and having had something to do with them in local government over a period of years, I know the sort of tricks they will be getting up to, as do your Lordships. They have a plot of land. There is one house on the plot, a long frontage. There is a request to the local authority to make up the road and, as soon as the road is made up, they use part of the plot for the building of another house at increased values. I can imagine, too, estate agents saying to a person who is going to have a house built on a piece of land: "You buy this piece of land. Have your house built. Do not build your garage. Wait until the rateable value of the house is determined without the garage and until the road is made up. Then after you have the road made up, build your garage and you will get it without the rateable value coming in."
LORD TEYNHAM: But the owner would need planning permission to do that.
LORD LINDGREN: Of course the local authority cannot refuse planning permission for the building of a garage, provided the access to the road does not cause danger to the public and to other road users. In fact, there are very few houses in development districts which do not have a garage attached to the house at the present time. This would lead to all sorts of tricks in the property trade; and, my goodness! there are enough now, without adding more by legislation for this purpose.
My noble friend Lord Latham referred to the ponderables in Clause 3. And under Clause 6(1), there is power to go to the magistrates to object. This would be a holiday for the lawyers. I know that
746
noble Lords opposite ought to do everything they can to encourage full employment, but full employment of lawyers does not add to the national prosperity. It is much better to have full employment in the shipyards, than to have lawyers going to magistrates' courts with local authorities on a Bill such as this. The ponderables in that would cause a considerable amount of legislation.
There is one other aspect of the Bill to which I would refer, and that is the opportunity it gives to spread one-third of the cost of making up the road over 30 years. The property owners have not built the houses I mentioned, those up in the North of England, in the back streets, Those houses have been up for 80 years. Yet here it is proposed to give the owner 30 years in which to pay for the streets when they are made up. I do not think that is reasonable in any shape or form. My Lords, what ought to be remembered, in considering this Bill, is that any house built at the present time need not be affected. There is Section 40 of the 1936 Act; there is the 1959 Act, and there is the advance payment code. So we are dealing only with things that are of the past. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, referred to certain cases which he had heard about. I am going to suggest to him most seriously that he should list them, list the local authorities, and hand them to his noble friend at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They will then be able to consult with those local authorities who (if what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said is correct, and I am certain from the letters that it is; and if what the people of Britain tell him is correct) are not carrying out the intention of the Ministry at the present time. There is no obligation on a local authority to charge the cost of the works immediately.
Let us take the widow who has got £150 to pay, an old lady of about 70 or 80. The local authority need not take anything at all from her. All they need do is to make an attachment to the house and then, when the old lady dies and the house is sold for those who benefit under her estate, the local authority get their money back. All that is required is the payment of an interest charge; and even there, if the conditions are such that the interest charge is not reasonable for the old lady, then the local authority can waive the charge.

747
The noble Lord himself referred to the recent circular (and there has been more than one circular issued by the Ministry) of April, 1961, in which the Ministry called attention to the difficulties which may arise and to exceptional circumstances, and called on local authorities to act with leniency to those who were called upon to meet these charges. Now the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is not asking for leniency where it is necessary; he is asking for it for every property owner who has property on an unmade street. In most cases it is their own fault that the street has not been made up, and they are now to be helped by the local authority.
Then we come to the noble Lord's case of the person in Staffordshire who has his property on a street not made up and who is faced with £900 to pay. I should write to that councillor and tell him that his own local authority are not applying the rules of the Ministry in regard to the degree of benefit. It is not a criticism of existing Acts of Parliament if local authorities are not carrying out the Act of Parliament as intended, or the subsequent directions of the Minister as they were intended.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that this is purely discretionary on the part of the local authority and that there is absolutely no appeal against their discretion?
LORD LINDGREN: I agree that it is discretionary, but my experience of local authorities—and perhaps I should declare an interest, because I have been in local government for over 40 years—is that, by and large, they are reasonable; and if in fact any Member of this House or of another place has called the attention of the Ministry to a case, the Ministry has, in my experience, always been prepared, unofficially of course, to talk to the clerk of the local authority, and the local authority has been put wise as to the powers it has to deal with it.
I object to this Bill because, as I said in opening, it is a landlords' Bill. It would put up land values, because what is taken off the cost of the house by a reduction in road charges would immediately be put on to the cost of the land by the landowner. The noble Lord,
748
Lord Teynham, shakes his head, but of course all land that already has a road frontage is more valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, complained about ribbon development in the pre-war years. The local authority had no power to stop it, but the reason why ribbon development took place was that the builder building on an existing road could get a bigger price for the land. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, knows full well that backland is less valuable than land with a road frontage. If the Minister builds an arterial road, then the value of the land on either side goes up unless there is planning restriction on housing in that area.
My further objection is that this would transfer to the ratepayer a burden which should be borne by the property owner and one which the property owner knew he had to accept. There are some cases. I admit, where there is difficulty, but of course in very many cases the property owner has repeatedly put off having the work done, very often when the local authority wanted him to carry it out. Now, when prices have risen, they object. I must repeat, as my final point, the statement made by the noble Lord who preceded me. Here we have a town with 250,000 people, and the existing ratepayers or existing frontagers have all borne their own costs, whether they are owner-occupiers or tenants of houses owned by their landlords, because the landlords have reflected the cost in the rent. You are now going to allow a certain group of people to have two-thirds of their costs met by those ratepayers who have already paid their own costs. My Lords, I do not think that is fair, and this is not a Bill to which I think this House should give a Second Reading.
5.56 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, aright, one of the reasons why he did not like this Bill is that it was a landlord's or a property-owner's Bill. I am not a property owner or a landlord, but I like the Bill. Also, no doubt like the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, I dislike speculative development; but I am interested in the welfare of poor widows. Therefore I think my noble friend Lord Teynham should be congratulated on

749
bringing to the attention of your Lordships again the illogical situation which exists now concerning unadopted streets and for proposing a practical solution to this somewhat complex problem. Several of your Lordships have expressed disagreement with the wording or the drafting of this Bill; others have expressed disagreement with the principle. With regard to the wording, that is something which can be rectified at Committee stage.
When my noble friend Lord Hastings comes to reply, I most sincerely hope he will be able to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have reconsidered their attitude—that is, the one they had on May 8, 1961, which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and can be found in Vol. 231, col. 34, of Hansard. My Lords, there is a saying that Hell is paved with good intentions. I hope that my noble friend Lord Hastings fully appreciates that these unadopted streets are paved only with the good intentions of the local authorities. Discretionary powers and good intentions have in the main proved ineffective to tackle satisfactorily the dual problem of seeing that these roads are made up to a reasonable standard and that, by so doing, frontagers are not subjected to undue hardship.
On the question of hardship, I should like to be permitted to quote very briefly from two letters, one received from Odd Down, Bath, and the other from Barton-on-Sea, Hampshire. The correspondent from Bath says:
"Colite Road where I live is about to be adopted by the City Council, and they have informed me that the estimated cost to me will be £127 6s. As I am a retired pensioner I shall find it a great hardship to find that amount."
The other letter which comes from Barton-on-Sea reads as follows:
"After nearly 35 years' service with the London Electricity Board I retired and bought a bungalow here.… Being on a corner I have a double-gate in the next road which was just a 'cart track' with a farm gate and field behind my bungalow. Eighteen months ago the field was sold, a road made, and fifty-four bungalows built on the field plus six bungalows opposite my side-gate. As you can imagine, the dirt road is in a deplorable state after the builders had left and every week the holes get bigger. Now all the building is finished, our local paper quoted my part as £3 17s. 6d. a foot, so my unexpected bill, which I cannot meet, will be nearly £400 for the side and £148 for the frontage. I am 70 years of age and disabled, worked hard all
750
my life, my retirement is nothing but worry trying to make ends meet."
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the local authorities can deal with those cases. There is a minimum of seven years in which they have to pay, and there is a degree of benefit for the side road, or there can be an attachment to the property and no charge is made at all.
LORD MERRIVALE: Yes, but the local authorities are not doing it, because the powers are discretionary. But if the powers were compulsory, as this Bill tries to make them, then maybe they would do something.
On the question of making up the road to a reasonable standard, I cannot see why the local authority should have any difficulty in taking into account the volume and nature of through traffic along the road, as well as the anticipated use of the street for parking by the frontagers and others. With regard to the principle of this Bill, which I feel is worrying many noble Lords, including myself, and whether it is right or wrong that the community at large should be asked to pay for something that will benefit possibly only a very limited number of the community, I think it can be fairly said in this modern age of increasing social benefits that it is something that we are doing daily. For instance, I see that the largest single item in my rates comes under the heading of "education". I contribute to this expenditure most willingly. I do not personally benefit by it and, in fact, my son does not either, for he is at present being educated at the expense of the French taxpayer. But I feel that here is an example where one is paying for something from which one does not derive any personal benefit.
May I refer to one or two of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Latham? He felt that there were no merits in the Bill. I would not agree, but that is a matter of opinion. Maybe it is drafted not in accordance with his wishes, but I feel that the principle is sound. His attitude seems to be, "Hands off the procedure of local authorities!" I can well appreciate that, because if I understand noble Lords opposite aright they are generally in favour of extending the powers of local government and curtailing the powers of central government.

751
Also, as I understand it, their attitude is that they are in favour of granting discretionary powers to local government and not saddling them with any compulsory powers.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, does not the noble Lord know that practically all the obligatory legislation there has been as to local government has been done at the instance of Labour people?
LORD MERRIVALE: I am delighted to know it. As this Bill gives compulsory powers, perhaps the noble Lord will give the Bill his backing. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, said that the Highways Act was passed in 1959 and felt that the law regarding private street works since then has not warranted a change. I am glad that his noble Leader did not feel that way, otherwise he would not have—
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, you will forgive my interruption. What I said was that it did not warrant the changes proposed in this Bill.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood. What I am trying to say is that the noble Lord's Leader felt in 1961 that there can be cases of anomalies with respect to private street works, otherwise he would not have moved the Second Reading of the Private Street Works Act, 1961. I would add that personally I am not wedded to the rateable value with regard to apportionment of costs, but that is something which can be developed on the Committee stage. Also there is the question, which can also be developed on Committee stage, of the basis of the apportionment of charges and also the question of the ratio between the cost to local authorities and the cost to frontagers. This Bill may not be perfect, but the principle is good, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will be able to pass it to a further stage.
6.8 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Merrivale, did not think that my noble friend Lord Lindgren and myself and others on these Benches were cynical when we heard the case of the widows being brought forward. With my noble friend Lord Lindgren, I can assure the noble Lord, out of our very long experience in negotiations with employers in
752
different fields, that the poor widows and orphans were always brought forward as a reason or excuse for not doing anything that was wanted. We have had a very reasonable exposition of the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, dealing with it in a broad manner from a very long and outstanding knowledge of local government. My noble friend Lord Lindgren has also had a very long experience—40 years, I think—in local government. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, admirably stated the case of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I agree whole-heartedly with the case that he submitted in that connection. Strange as it may seem, my local government experience is not over 40 years; it is only just over 30 years. I thought it was as long as Lord Lindgren's, but it is not.
The big point made against this Bill is that a Bill of this kind fundamentally affecting local authorities should, first of all, in fairness, be discussed with the representatives of the different local authorities. I think one can take it that if there were widespread dissatisfaction with regard to the present methods of apportionment for road frontages it would find its way up, through the local representatives on the council, to the various associations of local authorities. One has to remember that the elected representatives, if there were that dissatisfaction, discontent and sense of unfairness, would voice it at their councils, and their representatives at the A.M.C. and other local authority associations would bring it up for discussion. Therefore, I suggest that the promoters of the Bill get off to a wrong start when they do not first of all consult with the people who are in the field and who know what it is all about.
Secondly, is it right to transfer two-thirds of the cost of this work to the general body of ratepayers? Is it fair to those, like many of your Lordships, who have paid for their frontages?
LORD TEYNHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I have already dealt with that argument in my speech. It has also been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and I should have thought the noble Lord might have been convinced.
LORD BURDEN: That is the point we are making against the Bill, and nothing has yet been said to cause us to alter

753
our view. The body of ratepayers ought not to be faced at this time with a Bill brought forward by a private Member enacting responsibilities of this kind. If a change is to be made in the whole basis of this apportionment or assessment in relation to road frontages, let it be done in a Government measure, after full consideration of all the issues involved.
Like my noble friend Lord Latham, I ought to declare an interest, because I happen to be a director of a family property company engaged in the laying out of streets for building purposes, though not actually building. From my own knowledge in that particular field of development, large building firms have now moved in—I will not mention any names, but they will be known to many of your Lordships. What is the advertising that one finds by these large firms when they have developed a whole estate under private enterprise? The offer to purchasers is: "All road charges paid" The wise purchaser (I am not saying anything against the integrity of the firms) will ensure that the offer is genuine and that all road charges have been paid. But if this Bill becomes law, does it mean that at some time two-thirds of what has been paid of that apportionment will pass to somebody? To whom will it pass? Will it pass to the buyer? Will it pass to the building firm that has constructed the houses? No-one can give me an answer to that question.
Speaking out of a knowledge of local council work, I can say councils are not inhuman bodies of men and women who will not deal reasonably with any case of hardship, such as has been quoted today. Our democracy is well educated to the fact that most people would not write to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, or the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in regard to this Bill, but would write to their Member of Parliament, who would get on to the local authority and see that they moved in connection with the matter. Those who have served in another place know that to be the case. Therefore, I would urge that this Bill should not receive a Second Reading, but that the Government, if they feel that there is a case here, should, after consultation with the local authorities and other people interested, bring in their own Bill, which I think would be acceptable to the House, and certainly would not be a Bill put
754
forward on behalf of sectional money interests hiding behind the skirts of the poor widow.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he thinks we ought to have a Bill. I can assure him it has nothing to do with the property dealers.
6.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I personally would not support a Bill which was hiding behind anybody's skirts. But there is no doubt that a lot of the pressure which has resulted in this Bill coming forward stems from the fact that widows, orphans, pensioners, and so on, find themselves from time to time, through no fault of their own, in an awkward financial position. Most local authorities are probably sympathetic and act according to their discretionary powers; but, as we have heard, there are others, and my noble friend Lord Teynham has cited a letter from a councillor talking about his own local council, who had refused—
LORD BURDEN: Speaking out of experience of council work, I would say that the last person a council would be prepared to help would be a member of the council.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: The writer was not asking for help himself. What he was citing was the case he was defending, of a widow who was faced with a bill out of all proportion to her capability to pay; and his point was that he could not get his own council to consider altering their views. It is understandable that back in 1835, when there was no form of planning control for building, local authorities had to protect themselves from being saddled with additional burdens by private developers and others over whose activities in those days they had no control. But the streets in those days were really required to carry only horse traffic, and the cost of their maintenance was comparatively small. The days of the horse and cart have gone. Roads have to be made up in most cases to carry private cars, certainly, if not lorries, dust carts, and so on. In consequence, the charges themselves have gone up many times.
LORD LATHAM: So have the rates.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Why an owner of property which stands on one of these unadopted roads—I do not like the phrase "private street", but it is in the official Title of the Bill—has to be faced every so often with a bill for work over which he has no control, is beyond my comprehension. All property owners pay rates. We have heard what those rates go to. The fact remains that they pay rates, and so contribute for the other householders who are lucky enough to have their houses on public streets and roads. They not only have to pay for their neighbours' roads, but they also have to pay through the nose a great deal for what is called a private road. Nowadays, that is an anomaly, if not an anachronism.
I fully realise that there is a certain amount taken off the rateable value of the house in consequence, but surely what the householder gains by paying less rates is a drop compared to the amount he has to pay when he is faced with a bill for making up his road. True, at one time it was considered that payment for public works concerned only those in the immediate vicinity of such works. But this principle in local government has long since vanished, and public works are shared by all except in the case of a private street. That in these days, the so-called Welfare Age, 19th century anomalies should be allowed to continue in existence just because those who suffer are not in a position to bring much pressure to bear, is to my mind most unfair.
It is perfectly natural that local authorities are opposed to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, said so. It is not very surprising, seeing that they may well have to face responsibilities which they should have faced long ago. It seems understandable that they are opposing it. But that does not seem to me a good argument why a Bill should not be put forward.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl suggesting that the views of the local authority associations are of no account?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: No, my Lords, I certainly would never think of saying such a thing, or think of such a thing. But it is perfectly natural that the local authorities should speak against a Bill which would admittedly make them
756
pay more money—but for something for which they should have paid money long ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said that builders and others will be up to tricks. But people will always be up to tricks whatever the law, whatever the rules and regulations, until we have come to the Christian millennium when there will be no such thing as evil. But I do not think that is an argument against what, to my mind, is a measure which will remove a 19th century anomaly; and I, for one, will vote for it if there is a Division on the Second Reading.
6.25 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, this is a very good Bill, and I think we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for having introduced it and for the very excellent way in which he explained it. There are various aspects of this measure, and I intend to deal with only a few of them. Let me start by taking a purely arbitrary date—namely, 1892 the date of the passing of the Private Street Works Act. In those days life was very different from what it is to-day. In those days, the majority of people could more or less choose where they wanted to live and how much they wanted to pay for a particular house.
To-day the situation is very different. The majority of people are compelled by circumstances to purchase a house as soon as they can in a certain neighbourhood, and to pay a price which in the normal course of events they cannot afford. Furthermore, so far as cost is concerned, I have an idea that the cost per foot frontage in 1892 might have been only a matter of shillings. To-day, the cost per foot frontage may be as much as £8. That is a tremendous burden to cast upon anybody. Your Lordships may say, in reply, that incomes have increased since 1892. That is so. But I have an idea that incomes have not increased at the same rate as expenses, and I think the majority of your Lordships will agree with me on that point.
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, took a very good point about the attitude of the private frontager which is quite justified. It may be said that a private frontager should pay for a special benefit which is accruing to him alone. He may in fact have to pay £600 or £800 for this special benefit, that is to say, for making up

757
the street fronting his own property. But, as the noble Earl pointed out much better than I can, this individual is a ratepayer who is also paying his normal share of the rate for the maintenance of all the other highways in the district, and he is not likely to be impressed by the argument that he is getting a special benefit in having his own immediate road frontage made up to standard requirements.
There is another matter to which I would refer, and that is the discretion of the local authority. The position at present is that the local authority may in effect relieve a frontager of part of the burden which is cast upon him as a result of the undertaking of private street works. The word "may" in an Act of Parliament is sometimes inclined to be illusory. I will not say any more, but I think it is sometimes inclined to be somewhat unfairly used. I am saying nothing against local authorities at all. They have no money except the ratepayers' money, They cannot be expected to spend money which they do not possess. But I say that whatever should be the ratepayers' duty in these matters should be obligatory, and should not rest partly upon the exercise of a discretion.
In conclusion, I should like to draw attention to the expression "private street". That is frequently considered in simply an academic, distant fashion, and not related to the geographical realities of the situation. In some cases people buy houses in streets which are not made up, and they are called upon to pay large sums of money for making up their immediate frontages. In the course of time further houses are built to the right or left of the existing houses, and the street is duly prolonged in one direction or the other until that street becomes what you might call, in non-legal language, an ordinary highway or thoroughfare which is used by everybody in the same way as any other principal street in the district. We must regard this question in a very broad sense. Development to-day has taken place all over the country, and it appears to me as a matter of common and ordinary justice that the making up of practically all streets should by the responsibility of the public and not the responsibility of the person who at that moment happens to be the frontager.
6.30 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, at this stage of the debate, after contributions from some nine speakers, most of the arguments in favour and against this Bill have been deployed, and I do not intend to burden your Lordships with more than a couple of sentences. But I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Teynham upon having focused attention on this extraordinary state of affairs, of which there is, I think, very little public awareness. It is surely anomalous that in a highly developed island such as this, with all our machinery of planning and controls, and all our amenity consciousness there should be today, in 1963, no fewer than 54,000 roads in urban districts which are in a more or less dangerous condition. It is indeed curious that whereas in the eighteenth century, as has been mentioned, I think, the responsibility for any established right of way was accepted by the State; yet here in the middle of the twentieth century there are these miles of roads in and around our cities which are little more—
LORD LATHAM: May I just interpose? Is it not a fact that those miles of roads have been left by the developers?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I was not dealing at that moment with how those roads came about; I was referring to the fact that there are, I understand, some 54,000 unadopted roads in and around our cities. I think it is unfortunate—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned this, too—that this Bill should include the word "private": because the streets to which it refers are, in a large number of cases, highways and thoroughfares which are in no way private to the houses which front upon them.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I do not want to contradict the noble Lord, because he is an old friend of mine and we are both members of the same "old pals'" club. But may I tell him that the Bill is called the Private Street Works Bill?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: That is exactly what I was commenting on. I think it was unfortunate and somewhat of a misnomer, because it gives the

759
impression that we are dealing in terms of the cul-de-sac, or the private street in the true sense, and not in terms of the thoroughfare through which traffic as a whole passes—indeed, including some under the county councils. There seems little doubt that local authorities, or many of them, throughout the country are dragging their feet in this matter and that the only way in which the situation can be remedied in a practical way is to give the frontagers some powers to force the local authorities to take action. The reluctance of local authorities to take action is, of course, a very commendable aim to save rates, but surely it is almost comical to find a planning authority justifying its action, or, rather, its inaction, by calling in aid the doctrine of laissez faire. I shall not attempt to argue the detailed merits of particular methods put forward in the Bill by which the frontagers should have this power of applying pressure to the local authority, but I certainly claim that some such power should be given.
The other object of the Bill, which is to limit the amount that can be recovered from the frontagers as and when the local authority makes up the road, is, of course, to obviate cases of distress and hardship, such as those of which we have heard. It is true that the local authority have been given the power of discretion as regards apportionment of these charges, but I understand that there is only one case on record where this discretion has been exercised in favour of the frontager.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred—and a slight expression of distaste was on his face—to property owners, so it requires my fortitude (although the noble Lord is not in the Chamber at the moment) to confess that I am connected with the National Federation of Property Owners; and to go on to say that this body, which has branches throughout Great Britain, has made public its support of this Bill. As a result of making public its support it has received a very large correspondence.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, seemed to be under the impression that we had at our command, so to speak, a sort of tame property widow whose distress and hardship were brought in aid when
760
ever we had a cause to plead. Let me say immediately that that is untrue. In point of fact these letters come from all over the country; from North, South, East and West, and I shall be very happy to make them available to Her Majesty's Government, as was suggested, or, indeed, to the noble Lords. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House in quoting from these letters the very pathetic stories which they tell, but I believe that they would excite the sympathy of even the noble Lord, Lord Burden, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, or the stoniest-hearted county councillor. It is not to me an impressive argument to tell me that the local governments have themselves the powers of discretion. Such powers have not been exercised and this very heavy mail is proof of that fact.
This is a Second Reading debate, and it is not my intention to argue the merits of any particular clause. I do feel, however, with regard to the two main purposes of the Bill, that the argument that frontagers of a private road should be empowered to bring pressure to bear on a local authority has been made with force; and I have heard no evidence to make me think that is an extravagant claim. Secondly, I feel that the law in its present condition does create great and many cases of hardship. I suggest, therefore, that some piece of legislation, whether it be the Bill now before the House or some other, is required, and urgently so. I hope that your Lordships will at any rate give this Bill a Second Reading.
6.40 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that I find myself in the unprecedented condition of disagreeing with practically everything said by my noble friend Lord Milverton. I have never done so before, but I hope he will forgive me for doing so tonight. I should like strongly to support this Bill. I feel that is is very necessary, and although there have been some complaints about the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill rather than a Government measure, I think the answer to that is that when the Government do not do anything it falls upon us overworked private Members to do their work for them. That is what has happened in this case.

761
I would also say that I think "private streets" is a somewhat misleading term, because these streets are not in fact private. They are not privately owned; they are public rights of way, and they are therefore as much the responsibility of the local council as any other road in the place. Some are in a really dreadful condition, as my noble friend Lord Teynham pointed out, and there is no real reason why the local council should make any difference between one road and another. A great deal of argument has been put forward that the improvement of the road should not cause an extra burden on the ratepayer. But that, I believe, is an absolutely fallacious argument; because, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords, the ratepayer is paying for everything that goes on in his district. He is paying for all the roads. And in any case, what about all the various road improvements that are going on all over the country? We all approve of those, but we do not say that the ratepayers are suffering any extra burden by that, though no doubt they are. I cannot see any real reason why the local council should not take over these roads, except the fact that it will cost them something to do so.
My noble friend Lord Teynham said at the beginning of his speech that the reason for the Bill was that there were some good councils and some bad ones. I think I would go further than that and say that the bad ones are by no means rare. I have spent many years trying to get various councils to do things, not necessarily for me but for someone in the district. I have never succeeded. The only thing in the Bill that causes me some little doubt is about the apportionment charges between the council and the frontager, as given in Clause 2(c). Is that always appropriate? The trouble is that these unadopted roads vary so enormously in character. Some may be culs-de-sac. And, apropos of that, may I say that the definition of "cul-de-sac", which I think my noble friend Lord Milverton thought was doubtful, could be quite easily fixed as being a road through which it was impossible to drive a four-wheeled motor vehicle. Some, of course, are merely used by those who live in the road and by the various tradesmen who come to them. Others are quite heavily used by ordinary traffic as a short cut. In the first case I think
762
the heavier burden should go on the frontagers and in the latter case, where the road is really to all intents and purposes a public road, I think the much larger portion of the charge should go on the council.
There will, of course, be great difficulty in the decision as to what the charges will be, and I am not enough of an expert in Parliamentary procedure to know exactly how it will be done or how it could be done. But would it be possible perhaps to form a Select Committee who could consider these cases which would be presented to them? An item that might be taken into account is the actual density of traffic that passes over the road. As to the frontagers, I should have thought that rateable value, rather than actual length of frontage, was the more suitable way in which to charge them. Apart from these points, the Bill seems to me a very logical one and a very necessary one. As for the fact that it is not a Government Bill, I cannot see there is anything in it. What does it matter? No Bill, whether produced by a private Member or by a Government, can become law without having passed through both Houses of Parliament. If both Houses of Parliament have not the power to reject or accept it, what is the point of democracy? I feel that this Bill should be given full support.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Bill, but unlike the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I do so with a certain regret, because I think my noble friend has brought things forward which should be brought forward and has made out a case for some sort of action. It has become rather fashionable in this debate to quote one's length of local government service. I think I have been 42 years in local government, and my conclusion is that the explanation may be that the older we get on this side of the House the more radical we get in local government matters, though obviously the reverse is true for noble Lords opposite.
I do not pose as an authority on this very technical and somewhat un-glamorous subject, but I happen to belong to a local authority which is engaged, I believe, in the biggest programme of street works of any county in the country. I feel that that fact might entitle their

763
views to some consideration, badly though no doubt I shall express them. I should perhaps say that we do operate under the 1892 code; we normally charge on a frontage basis, and we normally attempt to recover the whole amount from the frontagers. We do try to be humane; we frequently spread the charges over the maximum period of 30 years; in fact in the case of old-age pensioners we often defer the charge altogether until the death of that particular inhabitant, and the charge remains attached to the house. We have a normal number of appeals, most of them on the ground of inability to pay. One of the penalties of gradual inflation is that people find that their retirement pensions have not kept pace with the ever-growing cost of road-making. That point has been confirmed in the debate to-day. I would also admit that there have been some admittedly difficult cases where, in my personal opinion, my council have acted too slowly, and perhaps too ungenerously.
But, my Lords, having admitted all that, I think that our programme is proceeding well and without anything like a general outcry. I see no reason why, proceeding as we are, we should not complete our programme in the next ten years. We shall then have dealt with the unfortunate legacy of the days before planning controls were instituted, chiefly between the end of the First War and 1932, when the first Town Planning Act was introduced. I do not think that similar problems can arise to-day. Naturally, like any other authority in our position, we have tried to estimate what would be the effect of this Bill on our programme.
First, we think that some resentment would be caused in the minds of those who have already paid their charges if they were called upon to subsidise, through an increased rate, the charges levied on their neighbours, perhaps in the next street. My noble friend said that this was a curious argument. It was actually I who made it to him. I did not make it as an argument at all; I was simply putting it forward as a plain statement of fact. That is what our ratepayers would feel. They may be curious people. I am simply saying that my belief is that that is how they would feel. I believe that this would be the case particularly where in one street a man may
764
pay £200 for his frontage, but in the next street, with a precisely similar frontage, someone would be charged £70.
I think we should have some regard in this connection to the effect on capital values. I hope that my noble friend will not think me discourteous if I do not accept the figures he gave. We have had considerable experience in this matter. Our figures are checked by the valuation department and by building societies, who, of course, make advances in which the amount of street works forms a part of the calculation. Our experience is that the completion of street works increases the value of a house or plot by an amount rather in excess of the street works. For example, if a plot with a 50-foot frontage required £200, the value of that plot in the area is increased by about £250 or £300. The noble Lord may be perfectly right and these figures may not apply all over the country; but they certainly apply with us, and I should think that they would apply all over the Home Counties, where, as we have been so repeatedly reminded, there has been such a large demand for houses and land with building permission. Of course, if one accepts that figure it means an addition to the capital value of a house or plot.
So far as it relates to houses, I do not want to make a great point of it because I do not think it will lead to abuse. But I do want to make a point of this argument where it refers to the vacant plot. These partly-built streets really provide us with the greatest headache of all. Yet my noble friend has admitted that so far in the Bill he has hardly taken them into account. He has, I know, said that he thought the Bill could be amended, but I think there would be certain difficulties. Take the Bill as it stands: the frontager is given the right to urge the county council to build up the street; but unless he has premises on his plot, apparently he is not required to pay anything at all. If the Bill did go through in this form it might lead to abuse.
I rather agree with what Lord Lindgren said, that the impoverished widow figures rather largely in the Conservative argument, although I think not quite so much as the grasping landlord figures in the Labour argument. I was slightly mystified to hear in regard to three Labour speakers that they were directors of

765
property companies. I was really amazed, but one lives and learns. However, let us agree that not all frontagers are impoverished widows or old-age pensioners. I agree that there are some quite smart operators in the property world, and I think that in our efforts to help the deserving we should see that we do not have these efforts diverted to the less deserving. If I wanted to make money out of this Bill as drafted I should buy up selected plots, I should join with great alacrity in the pressure to get the council to build up the road and I should take great trouble not to build anything on them until those works had been completed and paid for; then I would sell the property and reckon to make £200 to £300 per plot. The Bill may be amended, but I see some difficulty, within the structure of the Bill, in effecting worthwhile amendment.
I think these possibilities should be considered when we come to the main feature of the Bill, the theory that dwellers in unadopted roads should no longer depend on the whims and caprices of local authorities but should have a statutory right, enforceable at law, to have their streets made up, largely at public expense. Let me say at once that, even if this theory were sound, which I greatly doubt, I could see the mechanics of it working only where there is a clear-cut case—say that of the small urban district with one large built-up street which the council had neglected over a long period of years. But I cannot see the character of this scheme working where there is a large authority already engaged in a considerable programme.
What would happen? I suppose the first thing we can do is to make an estimate of our expenditure, which would have to stand being considered with all other estimates and might quite reasonably be cut. Then we should have the quite unpredictable effect of applications from groups of ratepayers from all over the county to have their roads made up. For the reasons I have given, I think many of these applications would not be at all simple. They would not be at all clear cut and would lead to considerable argument on merits, particularly if they were taken to the courts. In any event, it is not at all easy for a group of ratepayers to take a case to the courts.
Then if all this difficulty were overcome, what sort of things would the courts have
766
to decide? Would they decide that our priorities were all wrong; that we ought to substitute a five-year programme for a ten-year programme, quite irrespective of rate burden we should have to bear; that we ought to carry out works on some different specification from what we are doing? I think before long the courts would find themselves involved not only in legal decisions but in a quite complicated administrative exercise which I do not think they are really qualified to deal with. I hardly think that a scheme prepared in that chancy way could be described as a scheme at all, and we certainly could not give any information to prospective purchasers as to what their likely liabilities would be, or when they would be likely to be incurred.
Certainly, in my particular case, I believe the effect will be to increase immensely the amount of what I would call solicitors' work, the legal side of the work, and possibly substantially to diminish the amount of actual street works that are being carried out. For that reason I must oppose the Bill. I do not know whether we differ from other county councils, except possibly in that we have a larger programme than others, but I imagine the same argument would be advanced by them. In any case, this Bill seeks to legislate for all and sundry.
My noble friend may ask: What positive suggestions have you got? I think that would be a fair question. As I have already said, I think some action is demanded. In the first place, I agree with noble Lords opposite that, if there is any merit in democracy at all, in whatever you do you must carry the majority of local authorities with you. I agree that, on occasion and as a last resort, a local authority must be coerced. But I do not think that we should turn into a principle the theory that all local authorities should be coerced all the time. To my mind it just does not have the ring of reality about it. If this idea of giving an individual a legal right to a local authority's service at the expense of the rates is a sound principle, why confine it to street works? Why not apply it to education, public -health matters, and so forth? I am no lawyer, and, for all I know, we may all have a legal right to have the snow removed from our doorsteps; but I think anybody who suggested that the right way to deal with the snow menace was by a series of indi-

767
vidual actions in the court would be thought rather eccentric.
It is four years since an Inquiry was hold, and there might well be another, with an independent element in it. I think this Inquiry should be followed by some changes in the law, one of which should be to extend the existing power of the individual to appeal to the Minister, to have a more comprehensive type of appeal, and to arm the Minister with more specific powers Chan he has of enforcing his views after a public inquiry. This may sound a rather hackneyed suggestion, but the Minister has administrative knowledge, he has frequent dealings with local authorities, he has knowledge of conditions all over the country and of methods employed, and I think that his contribution would be mulch more effective than the unco-ordinated efforts of a large number of counts of law.
My Lords, I think there might be other changes, too, but I hope that these would not mean increasing the amount of legal work to be carried out by local authorities. I feel that already the volume of existing legal obligations contributes to inertia and inaction, particularly in the case of small authorities with limited staffs in which the burden of this work becomes excessive. Finally, having said that I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord for his labours, I, for one, hope they will be rewarded by some sort of action, though I confess I also hope it will not take the particular form he is now proposing.
7.3 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, I think I can safely say that we have had a most interesting and, at times, exhilarating, debate. It has certainly been controversial, and the speakers have been evenly divided for and against the Bill. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill did so not only with his usual clarity, but with a burning conviction and depth of sincerity that must have impressed some of your Lordships, and which clearly earned for his Bill, or at any rate for parts of it, a good deal of sympathy. I am sure we were all touched by the noble Lord's account of individual hardships suffered under present legislation affecting private streets.
768
I would be the first to admit that the law as it stands is not quite perfect and that it does not always operate as intended. Nevertheless, it has also become clear during the course of the debate that the arguments are by no means all on one side. Indeed, I would suggest to your Lordships that the noble Lord's Bill is itself possessed of a number of flaws, some of which have already been pointed out in some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon.
As befitting a Second Reading speech, I will largely confine myself to discussion of the main principles of the Bill before the House. There are, in fact, only two such principles which are new and which form the basis of the Bill. The first is to be found in Clause 1, where it is laid down that a majority of front-agers should be able to compel the street works authority to make up a private street at any time they (the frontagers) so choose. Before I comment on this principle, I think it may be helpful to your Lordships if I set out briefly the present situation, in so far as we have reliable information about it, and describe the action that has so far been taken to deal with the problem of private streets.
My Lords, about three years ago the Minister of Housing and Local Government had a survey carried out, and this revealed that there were then, as we have heard in one or two speeches, about 54,000 private streets in England and Wales, of a total length (this figure has not so far been quoted) approaching 6,000 miles. This represented about one-tenth of the total mileage of urban roads of all kinds. Authorities with the highest mileages fell mainly into two categories: old industrial towns where there had been a lot of housing development in the 19th century, and modern residential areas which grew rapidly between the two world wars. The condition of these streets varied a great deal, some being almost fit for adoption as a public highway, others being broken stony tracks or rutted mud and gravel left behind by the builders.
Meanwhile, Parliament had not been entirely unmindful of the situation. Due to the initiative of a private Member in 1951, a short Bill was passed and became known as the New Streets Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred at some length. It has since been

769
absorbed into the consolidation Act on Highways in 1959, and is now better known as the Advance Payments Code. Under the 1951 Act, which was made compulsory in all urban areas and is in force in one-quarter of all rural districts, any person building on an unmade private street has to pay or secure to the street works authority a sum sufficient to cover the charges estimated to be recoverable from him if the authority were to make up the street. The important exception to this rule is, of course, the case of the building developer who has agreed with the authority to make up the street or streets himself and to hand them over in a condition suitable for adoption as a public highway.
Now I come to a very important provision of the 1951 Act which, as I shall explain, has a direct bearing upon the Bill before us to-day. Where a sum had been deposited or secured, even by one person, as a result of this Advance Payments Code, the majority of frontagers on any street which was at least half built up could then require the street works authority to make up that street. Furthermore, this requirement applied not only to completely new streets, but also to old streets where building development took place after the Act came into force, subject to a number of exemptions set out in the Act. The effect of the 1951 Act has been, and is, to safeguard the future, to prevent any general deterioration of the present situation and to bring about some improvement in respect of the legacy bequeathed to us by past development.
There is, in addition, one other effect—and this is why I have dwelt on the 1951 Act at some length. The responsibilities laid upon street works authorities as a result of the Advance Payments Code are of such an extent that some are already finding it physically impossible to do more than this code compels them to. Many others have a full programme of old streets as well as new. The House has heard from my noble friend Lord Gage how his county council has a full programme, which includes the making up of old streets as well as now working off some of the backlog. So it is in many cases. Clearly, none of these authorities could increase their programme, even if we were to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and to make it a statutory obligation
770
that all local authorities must comply with any and every request by a majority of frontagers to make up any, and perhaps even every, unmade private street in England and Wales. Present plans of local authorities are to make up 24,000 of the 54,000 streets over a period of ten years from that survey which was made three years ago, so that in the next seven years nearly half the problem should have been solved.
It may seem unfair that those who occupy houses in private streets fully developed before the 1951 Act must wait upon the pleasure of the local authority before having their street made up, while others lucky enough to come under the 1951 Act go to the head of the queue. But I suggest very respectfully to your Lordships that that is neither a logical nor a fair argument for turning the tables completely and putting the hard-pressed local authorities at the mercy of the frontagers in regard to the time factor, quite apart from the fact that to do so would produce a chaotic situation.
I do not wish to appear unsympathetic to the pleas that my noble friend Lord Teynham has made on behalf of a number of unfortunate people, but at the same time it is necessary to be practical. My noble friend has implied that many local authorities are falling down on the job but, my Lords, I really think this is a considerable exaggeration. The vast majority of authorities are tackling this problem conscientiously and efficiently, and we really cannot place upon them a statutory obligation which they do not deserve to have placed upon them and which they would in any case be incapable of fulfilling.
If I may, at this point, I will refer to a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who said that it was the fault of the local authorities that this situation existed. Without following up or agreeing with the disquisition of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, upon speculative builders, I nevertheless agree when he says that the people who put those houses there are those who are responsible. I would not say that it was their fault, but it was their wish that the houses should be built—either the building contractors, the developers, or the people who lived in those houses. We must remember that in those days—and we are really talking about the period between the wars—there

771
were not the post-war Planning Acts controlling development in accordance with a development plan. By and large, people could build houses where they liked, and the local authority could do little, if anything, to stop them.
I would ask your Lordships if, in the climate of opinion in those days, there would have been any justification for the local authorities trying to stop development. Indeed, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Teynham: would he not have been very annoyed if he had wanted to build a house in a certain place and had not been allowed to do so? That, in fact, was the situation between the wars, and it was quite wrong to blame the local authorities for that development.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord admit that between the wars the frontagers objected to the roads being made up?
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid I do not know whether or not that is true.
As for any local authorities who may be really idle in this matter, I agree with the noble Lord that they deserve no sympathy, but only castigation and condemnation. They have no excuse, for in the first place they cannot say that further private street works will push up the rates (where the frontagers pay the full costs), and in the second place I can give an assurance that the Government will not restrict them by refusing or limiting loan sanctions in present circumstances. To those local authorities already doing a good job I would just say this: "Press on, do not slacken your efforts; increase them if you possibly can, and we will give you all the help we can".
My Lords, I now turn to the other main principle of the Bill, which is to be found in Clauses 2 and 3. This is the principle that, in general, frontagers should pay only one-third of the cost of making up private streets. This would be a radical change and would overturn the existing principle that frontagers should in general pay the whole cost, a principle long established and generally accepted as fair. If the noble Lord wishes to challenge the existing law and accepted practice he must surely make a very strong case for doing so.
772
I listened carefully to the noble Lord's arguments on this point, and it seemed to me that he based his case on a number of hardship cases, upon the general premise that it would be in the public interest, and upon a somewhat intricate argument relating to betterment charges. There is already provision in the law for dealing with cases of hardship and I will refer to that later. As for the public interest, that is looked after when the local authority adopts the private street as a public highway and the maintenance of that street becomes a charge upon the rates.
Here I think I must refer to complaints by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, who seemed to think it unfair that the people who had not got their streets made up should have to contribute towards the rates for other road maintenance. But my noble friends are under a total misapprehension as to the real situation. The roads whose maintenance the property owner is paying for through the rates are roads which were made up in the first place at the cost of the frontagers. It is when the roads are made up that they fall upon the rates, and not before; and in that respect everybody is in the same boat. Those frontages were not made up free for the people who are living in the houses where the highway is now a liability of the local authority.
It really cannot be seriously argued, in my opinion at least, that it is in the interest of the public to incur capital expenditure in order to enable a private developer, whether he be building contractor or individual house-owner, to improve his property at the public expense. Yet that is what the noble Lord is asking us to do in this Bill.
In respect of this question of betterment charges, which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, argued about, there is really no question of betterment in the charges made for the making up of private streets; nor is it a question of increasing the value of the property. The charges are payments for work done for the benefit of the property.
LORD TEYNHAM: But, my Lords, if I may intervene for one moment, there must be a betterment charge there because you can do the work on the road. It is

773
a question of whether or not the land increases in value. I discussed that very fully in my speech.
LORD HASTINGS: I know, my Lords. But I am saying that the question of a betterment charge is not considered when private streets are being made up. All that is considered is the cost of the work, and the work is being done for the benefit of the property. When the charge remains to be paid in the future, the buyers of property naturally take into account, in deciding what they will pay, the future liability. Our information is very much that given to the House by my noble friend Lord Gage; and it is that the difference in the value of property, due to the road being unadopted, approximates closely to the foreseeable cost of street works on the frontage. That is the general information that we have upon that subject.
After all, my Lords, private streets come into being largely because somebody wants to build a house or a group of houses, and he or they, as the case may be, need a road for convenient access and for services to that house or those houses. The general public did not ask that a house or houses should be built there. In the course of time houses may change hands and the origin of the private street tends to be forgotten. But in the first instance, and subsequently, the lack of a made-up street is reflected in the price paid for the house, as I have just pointed out. Other noble Lords, too, have insisted that that is so, and I am sure that it is quite true.
Nowadays, of course, when a new housing estate is developed—and this really illustrates the argument forcibly—it is a common practice, thanks to the Advance Payments Code, to make up all the streets to standards which fit them for adoption by the local authority. The costs of doing that are charged to the general costs of building the estate and apportioned among the individual house purchasers. Nobody complains that is unfair; everybody expects it and accepts it, and pays a price to cover the making up of those roads.
How then can we reasonably change the law and thereby upset in many cases the present value of houses and land, both intrinsically and relatively, and at
774
the same time cause hardship—and this point has been made by various speakers—to those who have already paid the full costs of having their private streets made up and who would now be asked to bear the additional burden of paying two-thirds of the cost of making up their neighbours' private street? Noble Lords have referred to the inflated price of making up roads since that house was purchased. But I think we have to take into consideration at the same time that, if the cost of making up the frontage has increased by three times, then the value of the house itself has increased enormously also.
My Lords, I have dealt with the two main principles of the Bill. I have told the House why Her Majesty's Government cannot accept either of them judging them on their individual merits, although it may be admitted that our objection to Clause I is based as much upon practical grounds as upon grounds of equity. But when we see these two principles in juxtaposition, and when we take them together, our objections become even more emphatic. Because not only would the Bill give a majority of frontagers the right to force the local authority to make up private streets in its area immediately those frontagers require it, but it would give them the right to do so mainly at the public expense. It seems to me that if we were to agree to that, our ideas of equity and fairness would be becoming somewhat topsy-turvy.
My Lords, I do not propose to go into any of the details of the Bill, although I could make criticisms of the proposal to adopt rateable value as the basis of apportionment of costs. We believe that that would lead to more anomalies than it would solve. On the other hand, I could speak with approval of some of the factors of indirect benefit to be taken into consideration when apportioning costs, or it could be that a reconsideration of the possibility of frontagers having an option to pay by instalments could be investigated—not necessarily on the basis of 30 years—although, I am informed that the local authorities are generally very reasonable about this particular matter.
Before closing—and I will not weary your Lordships more than a minute or two longer—I want to return to this question of hardship, and to say a few words

775
about the existing law and the way in which it can be used. For it seems to me that if there is anything wrong at present, it lies less in the legislation than in the way it is administered. This point has been made by several speakers, notably, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Lind-gren; and we had an excellent example, which reinforces this argument that it is a question of administration, put to us by my noble friend Lord Gage, whose kindly council is obviously performing its duties admirably and is administering the legislation as it is intended to be administered. And that just shows what can be done.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the survey carried out three years ago by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Following the survey, and consideration of its results by the then Minister, the circular which has been referred to by noble Lords was sent out to authorities, and contained this passage:
"The Minister's general conclusions arising out of the survey are that there is no ground for any fundamental change in the law relating to the making up of private streets, and that if it is administered sympathetically it enables equitable results to be secured and provides means of mitigating the relatively few cases of hardship. The purpose of this circular is to remind local authorities of the various means by which they can ensure that private street works charges are apportioned on as equitable a basis as possible: that all that can be done is done to make frontagers feel they have been fairly dealt with: and that financial hardship is mitigated as far as is reasonably possible."
That was the circular I referred to.
Therefore, my Lords, I would ask all local authorities to ponder the criticisms which have been made to-day, even though much of that criticism is not justified. The point is that strong criticism has been made, and there must be a reason for it. So I would urge local authorities to look again at that circular (No. 11/61, dated March 7, 1961) and to ask themselves what changes they have made in their approach to the problem of private street works as a result. Have they adopted the 1892 code yet—if they are an authority to whom the 1875 code then applied? Do they use their discretion as frequently as equity demands to take into account degree of benefit? Do they always contribute from the rates to the cost of street works where it is equitable that they should? In reference
776
to these last two points, it is difficult to make a judgment, without knowing the full facts, on a letter such as was read out to us by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, but it would seem that in that case these two questions would have to be answered in the negative when they should have been answered in the affirmative; but, without knowing the full facts, I should not like to say more than that.
Then I go on with further questions. Do they use their power to contribute to the charges which would otherwise fall on a flank frontager in circumstances where he obviously can derive little or no benefit from the works? Do they grant facilities to pay the charges by instalments over a reasonably long period? I do not share the congenital antipathy of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in respect of poor widows, and I would point out that there are merry widows, and even scheming widows.
LORD LINDGREN: I am not concerned with widows; I am concerned with wives.
LORD HASTINGS: There are also, of course, the cases of old age pensioners. As we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, his council does not make old age pensioners pay—I think he said that—and that is an admirable example to follow. To go on further, I would ask local authorities, are their public relations in this matter all that they should be? I would add another question to these: are they tackling the job of making up the private streets in their area with the vigour that they should?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, I would say that he has addressed some powerful questions to the local authorities, and has convinced me of his case, but what steps is he going to take to bring his speech to the notice of local authorities? The circular letter to which he referred is three years old and they have probably lost it by now. What new move is he going to make?
LORD HASTINGS: I hope, in the first place, that the local authorities, who evidently, through their representatives, have been taking a considerable interest in this debate, will read Hansard first thing to-morrow—and possibly a headline in the Daily Express; I do not know.

777
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord. Lord Teynham, will not think my reply has been either unsympathetic or unfair. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, who told me that he could not remain in his place, suggested that I should take a road paved with good intentions and should indicate the acceptance of Her Majesty's Government to the Second Reading of this Bill. I would remind the noble Lord that the only road I know that is paved with good intentions is the road to Hell, and therefore I trust he will excuse me for not walking in that direction, whether it is made up or not.
I have tried to indicate the Government's true feelings in this matter. I have tried to indicate to this House and to the local authorities not only what has been and is being done but also what can be done and what should be done—but, at the same time, I have had to make it perfectly clear that there are too many objections of a fundamental nature to this Bill.
Although the noble Lord and his friends may have made out a case for the minor amendment of existing legislation, they have not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, made out a really good case for the drastic alteration that they have proposed. Therefore I am not able to recommend to your Lordships' House that you should give this
Bill a Second Reading, and I ask your Lordships to reject it.
7.29 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I appreciate the views of Her Majesty's Government and of the noble Lords who have been kind enough to take part in criticising this Bill and putting forward suggestions. I do not propose, at this late hour, to go over all the arguments again. There is no doubt that a great deal can be done in Committee to improve the Bill if it is given a Second Reading.
I cannot say that I was very impressed by the arguments of those of your Lordships who were members of local authorities. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was kind enough to say that there should be some changes in the law as it is at present. But, whatever happens, I do not propose to be sidetracked so that nothing is done to relieve the distress and hardship which occurs under the present law. I feel it my duty to return to the battle again and again, and to keep my powder dry until a final broadside may bring relief to those sorely tried people who live in unadopted roads. Therefore, I feel that I must press this matter to a Division.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Gosford, E. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Amulree, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Swansea, L.

Broughshane, L.

Meston, L.

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Latham, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian. M.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Lucan, E.

Burden, L.

Goschen, V.

Milverton, L. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Newton, L.

Craigton, L.

Hawke, L.

Peddie, L.

Crook, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

COUNTY COURTS (JURISDICTION) BILL
7.39 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order):
House resumed. Bill reported without amendment: Report received.