Lords Sitting of 21 February 1963

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
The Lord Belper—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 they are prepared to publish the farm or first-hand selling prices and the retail prices of some fresh fruit and vegetables where requisite information in the desired form is available to them.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, in my answer of February 7 I mentioned fresh fruit and vegetables as examples of commodities which change less than others and in fewer characteristics between the farm and in the shopping-bag. But I refrained from undertaking to publish statistics of the retail prices of these because they vary so greatly from week to week and place to place. I am afraid I see no prospect of working out reliable averages of retail prices for the country as a whole, nor of making reliable farm and shop comparisons. The available information is insufficient for either purpose.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry, but I find that Answer quite unacceptable. Does the noble Lord recall that on February 7 he told the House that information in the desired form was available for some fresh fruit and vegetables? Is he aware that I am quoting from Hansard and those were his exact words? May I ask, arising out of that, if information in the
1438
desired form is available, why it cannot be published? May I ask, secondly, whether the noble Lord is aware that I have not yet asked him to publish the information which he was good enough to say he would?—because I wanted to clear up this mystery about the fresh fruit and vegetables and, when we had cleared that up, I was hoping that, with his collaboration, to embark on stage two of the operation.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, to answer the second question first, I am aware that the noble Lady has not asked me for the answer that I could give, and she has asked me for the answer that I did not say I could give. The difficulty in this whole question (I know the noble Lady appreciates it up to a point) is that of comparing like with like. In trying to attend to the noble Lady's requirements, I recalled a piece of legislation, which caused me a great deal of mental anguish at the time and which I had hoped never to have to recall, and, in particular, I recalled a certain amiable passage of words that I had in Committee with the noble Lady's noble friend Lord Stonham. I am thinking of the Weights and Measures Bill, 1961. I have looked up the passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT of November 22 of that year, at column 771 [Vol. 226]. In moving a particular Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, reminded us
"that vegetables consist of from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. of water, and thus … not only will fruit and vegetables lose weight relatively quickly, but their living nature precludes any method of pre-packing to prevent it".
He gave results, in his indefatigable way, of actual tests on various vegetables showing the amount of evaporation in 48 hours after packing when wrapped in polythene packages. This is what he then told us [col. 772]:
"Brussels sprouts consist of 80 per cent. water. After two days in cotton netting, they lost 8 per cent., that is, 1¼OZ. in the pound. Spinach has a moisture content of 85 per cent., and it loses 7 per cent.—1 oz.—in 48 hours after being packed".
The noble Lord gave us other examples, all of which underline and document the difficulties I would have in meeting the noble Lady's wishes to-day, or, I fear, at any other time.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I, with true feminine tenacity, stick to the point which I think

1439
is embarrassing the noble Lord? May I ask him why, as he told me on February 7 that this information was available, and, furthermore, was available in the desired form, it cannot be published?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, possibly I do not recall as well as the noble Lady does my exact words, but my memory of what I said is that fresh fruit and vegetables were among those which change less than other commodities. I do not think I said that figures for them were available or could be made available. But in further answer to the noble Lady's question (and I will try to be brief), I have looked at this and, as to the pith of her question, what I will try to do is to find certain picked commodities which lend themselves better to such figures. I have had in mind, as a matter of fact, rhubarb and swedes, which seem to be the least volatile of the commodities for our joint purpose, and I found to my surprise that swedes varied in the course of one week between 8s. at Newcastle and 24s. in Cardiff per cwt., and rhubarb, 85 per cent. of which is grown for a rather gloomy reason in my own neighbourhood of the West Riding of Yorkshire, varied from 7d. to 1s. 2d. per lb. wholesale, in the very neighbourhood of Leeds in which it is produced in the period of one week. I am not trying to bamboozle anyone, and least of all the noble Lady, but I am endeavouring to point out the difficulties which face us in trying to give her figures which will be anything but misleading; and the last thing I want to do is to mislead the noble Lady. I will do my best to pick out commodities.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while realising that Question Time is not a time for debate, may I ask whether it is not true that the noble Lord has erred on this particular occasion more than I have? May I ask him why he has still not answered my Question? I assume that he cannot. The words that I quoted are from the OFFICIAL REPORT. To bring this point to a close, might ask the noble Lord whether, if I put down a similar Question next week, he could answer the point I make: whether the information that is now available in the desired form will be published?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it depends what the noble Lady means by
1440
"the desired form". I have tried to make plain—it would seem without success—that the form of information which the noble Lady desires is not available, and I do not think the form in which it exists is the form in which she would desire it. I will, however, try to pick out certain commodities to see whether the figures we have or can obtain on this matter will be of any use to the noble Lady. If she puts down a Question next week, I will try to go as far as that.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has made very heavy water of this? Before he answers my noble friend's Question next week, will he look at the Fruit Traders' Journal, which gives the market wholesale prices payable for the main fruit and vegetables, and, at the same time, in the London area obtain retail prices for similar goods from reputable sources? I think that this would give all the answers that my noble friend, and indeed all of us, want.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am only too anxious to help, but in point of fact I do not think the method of finding or presenting figures that the noble Lord has in mind is in any way comprehensive. Unless we can offer comprehensive figures, they are liable to be misleading, and, as I have already said, I am trying to avoid misleading anyone.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, are not all figures liable to be misleading? I really think that that is a very poor answer. Surely it is possible to put a little footnote at the bottom of each table of figures saying "Possible sources of error".
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, were we not told during the passage through this House of that ill-fated Weights and Measures Bill—from which the noble Lord has quoted from Hansard this afternoon—that the one thing that Bill was not was a prices Bill? How, therefore, is that matter relevant to this Question, which is about comparative prices?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Simply because, as I tried to make the point, it is very difficult to compare like with like in weight of fruit or any other commodity.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PRISON COMMISSIONERS DISSOLUTION ORDER 1963
3.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, this Order, for which I am seeking the approval of your Lordships to-day, is designed to achieve the full integration of the Home Office and the Prison Commission. The reasons for this were fully explained to Parliament during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, and the principle of integration was end-dorsed by both Houses after much careful discussion. Your Lordships doubtless may recall that this matter was fully debated at the Committee stage in this House on the May 18 two years ago and that the principle of integration was then approved by a vote of 50 to 18. The reasons for integration have not changed since then. Your Lordships may nevertheless wish to be reminded of them.
At present my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, has a two-fold departmental responsibility. He is responsible for the Home Office and for the whole range of subjects covered by that Department. He is also responsible for the Prison Commission which, since the Prison Act, 1877, under which it was established, has had a separate statutory existence. The reasons why we now wish to bring that separate existence to an end can be summarised under three main heads.
The first and, indeed, the most important consideration in our mind has been the need to tackle the manifold problems involved in the treatment of offenders on the broadest possible front and in the most coherent and comprehensive manner practicable. The more we learn about the causes of crime, and the further we advance in our treatment of it, the more one need becomes increasingly apparent. That is this need to diagnose, and then to deal with these problems as a whole. The treatment of the offender does not begin and end in prison.
1442
While there is much that is baffling and mysterious about juvenile delinquency, your Lordships will know, if only from our recent discussion of the Children and Young Persons Bill, that the seeds of delinquency can often be sown very early. To-day, penal treatment, especially among young offenders, cannot therefore be considered sectionally. I think your Lordships also recognise—and none better than some noble Lords opposite and, indeed, none better than the right reverend Prelate who will be speaking in this discussion—that the treatment which an offender receives from his fellow men after he leaves prison is no wit less important than the treatment which he receives from society while he is in prison. The more, therefore, that we can look at this problem as a whole, and not in a series of departmental boxes, the better. Increasingly, therefore, we need to look at the whole range of these problems, to learn from our experience in the different fields and in the light of that, and in the light of the best possible research, systematically applied, to shape our policy and to allocate our resources to the best advantage.
If this is right, as I am sure it is, there is, I suggest, no more case for a separate Department for prisons—outside and distinct from the Home Office—than there is for a separate Department for children, or for criminal justice or for the Probation Service. In saying this, I am not suggesting that there is not already close liaison between the Prison Commission, the Home Office and the constituent branches of the Home Office. Of course there is. But I am claiming that when the successor to the Prison Commission is no longer a separate and statutory body of its own, the relationship between it and the other branches of the Home Office will inevitably become still closer. In our view, my Lords, that process is not only inevitable but right.
I would suggest that this Order is also desirable on constitutional grounds. The plain fact of the matter at present is that the Home Secretary is responsible in exactly the same degree for the work done by the Prison Commission and for that done by the Home Office. The Prison Commissioners, equally with officers of the Home Office, act under his direction, both generally and in specific matters, and it is

1443
anomalous and misleading that they should exist as a separate statutory body and should thus be set apart and differentiated from the Home Secretary's other advisers. My right honourable friend, the First Secretary of State, speaking as Home Secretary in another place on April 12, 1961, quoted the Report of the Departmental Committee on Scottish Administration of 1938, which resulted in the amalgamation of the Prisons Department of Scotland with the Scottish Home Department. This is the extract which he quoted and which I should like to read to your Lordships:
"It is a constitutional principle that a Department and its Minister are indistinguishable, but a Department incorporated and established by Statute to carry out specified functions in the name of the Department, although acting under the control and direction of the Minister, is necessarily regarded as a separate entity. We consider that this is an anomaly which should be rectified. The responsibility of the Minister to Parliament is inconsistent with any measure of independence (even if only apparent) in any Department for which he speaks."
My Lords, so far as I know, that amalgamation has worked perfectly well in Scotland. I am not necessarily suggesting that we should always follow Scottish precedent, and I recognise that as a nation—I hesitate to say as a House—we may have a certain addiction to constitutional anomaly. But one thing has become quite clear to me in reading the debates in both Houses of Parliament on this subject; and that is that the constitutional position is not, in fact, clear in certain quarters. For example, some people credit the Prison Commission with an independence which in fact it does not have. I suggest, therefore, that it is right that we should recognise, as this Order does, the true constitutional position and make clear beyond doubt the true responsibility on my right honourable friend. It is usually best to recognise facts as they are.
Thirdly, I would suggest that integration is in the interests of better organisation and the more effective use of the resources available to the Home Secretary. Much has already been achieved in this direction. The headquarters staff of the Prison Commission has been progressively strengthened in recent years by the secondment of administrative staff from the Home Office. Certain of the specialist departments of the Home Office already serve the Prison Commission
1444
as well—for example, the Legal Adviser's Department and the Public Relations Department. In addition, the Chief Architect's Department of the Home Office and the Department of the Director of Works of the Prison Commission have already been combined under the former Director of Works of the Prison Commission. There is a limit, however, to what we can do without alteration to the statutory position. In all of the special arrangements which have been made, we have had to pay due regard to the existence of two separate Departments, and this is inevitably a hindrance at times.
I would claim therefore, my Lords, that there are clear and definite advantages to be gained from integration. Nevertheless, the discussion of this matter, both inside and, indeed, outside Parliament, shows that misgivings undoubtedly exist in certain quarters. It has been suggested, for example, that integration must inevitably diminish the standing of the prison service and may worsen the prospects of its members. The quality of this great organisation depends, as does the quality of any organisation, on the quality and keenness of those who serve it. Were these misgivings based on fact, this would indeed be a serious matter. But, my Lords, I wish to state quite categorically, and with conviction, that they are wholly misplaced.
Here I think it is necessary to distinguish between the professional Prison Service, from the prison officers up to the senior professional officers in the headquarters office of the Prison Commission, on the one hand, and, on the other, the ordinary Civil Service grades, executive, administrative and clerical, who work in prisons and other establishments or in the head office. It has been suggested that integration may mean a take-over by administrative and executive civil servants of the functions of the professional staff of the Prison Service. Any such suggestion, my Lords, is quite wrong. Those of the Prison Commissioners, and the Assistant Commissioners, who have the special experience and the knowledge gained from service in senior posts in prisons and other institutions, the Governors and the officers of the prison service, will continue to carry out their duties as they do now. No-one has any intention of replacing them by Whitehall warriors or clerics. Thus, in the future, as in the past, Governors will be able to

1445
make a valuable contribution to the general administration of the Prison Service.
In fact, my Lords, the position of the professional Prison Service will be wholly unaffected by integration. Their conditions of service and their prospects of promotion will not be affected. The highest posts in the Service will continue to be filled in the same way as they have been up till now. Thus, the young prison officer enlisting in the Service today and going on his course to the training college at Wakefield, will have just as much chance, after integration as before, of rising right to the top, to Governor and, indeed, beyond Governor. Indeed, my Lords, I would suggest that integration will, in fact, widen the opportunities open to the bright young prison officer. I would remind your Lordships that since 1895 the post of Chairman of the Prison
Commission has always been filled by a Home Office official. It is not impossible, in my view, to conceive of that imaginary young officer at Wakefield one day becoming head of the Prison Department or, for that matter, permanent Under-Secretary—a future John Anderson.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? Is he saying that the professional prison staff will in fact be eligible for admission to the administrative grade of the Civil Service?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am saying that for the exceptional young prison officer there will be no limit to where he can get; although that type of class-to-class transfer would, of course, be exceptional.
LORD TAYLOR: But it will be possible.
EARL JELUCOE: Certainly, yes. May I now turn to the purely Civil Service aspect of this matter? I would remind your Lordships that the Commissioners and their staff are already civil servants. As a result of integration they will come under no different code of behaviour or method of control than hitherto. Moreover, their tenure of office, their salaries and their pension rights will be quite unaffected by this Order. So far as ranks are concerned, the three Commissioners are officers seconded from the
1446
Home Office—the Chairman, the Deputy-Chairman and the Secretary—and, on ceasing to be Commissioners, will retain their present rank of Assistant Under-Secretary of State and Assistant Secretary respectively. The two other Commissioners, the Chief Director and the Director of Borstal Administration, will retain these posts, and indeed these titles. The same will apply so far as the Director of Prison Administration is concerned. The Assistant Commissioners, for their part, will become Assistant Directors, but their status and their responsibilities will, as I mentioned a moment or two ago, remain precisely the same as they are to-day.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Perhaps I ought to know the answer to this point, and perhaps it has been made plain elsewhere. But will the Prison Commission reappear under the name of Prison Board; or will it be a department of the Home Office, like the Children's Department, for example, or will it be something else?
EARL JELLICOE: I am coming to that but I will anticipate what I was going to say. The Prison Commission will no longer exist; it will be called the Prison Department; but the Prison Board, which is a quite separate part of the Commission, will remain. But I should like to come back to that, if I may, in a moment.
The existing Civil Service element in the Prison Service is not, of course, confined merely to the senior administrative officers. As I have already mentioned, there are many civil servants in the Prison Service in executive and clerical grades. Like the senior administrative personnel, their status and their prospects will in no wise be damaged by this Order. Indeed, they can only benefit from becoming members of a larger Department. While I am dealing with this matter of staff and organisation I should like to come back to the point which was put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I would remind your Lordships that assurances have already been given that the Prison Board, which is a body on which the senior administrative and specialist officers meet to discuss general questions of policy, will continue to meet and fulfil its important part in the

1447
administration of the Prison Service. Assurances were given to that effect two years ago, at the time of the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, but I am glad of the opportunity to repeat those assurances.
So much, my Lords, for staff. I have also noted some anxiety that after integration we may be less well-informed about the problems and the prospects of our penal system. I can assure noble Lords that it is certainly not our intention that any less information should be available about the work of the Commissioners, when they become the Prison Department of the Home Office, than has been available in the past. I have seen many tributes to the full, frank and informative annual reports which the Prison Commission produces. These tributes are well deserved, and I would merely point out that the Order specifically provides that the annual reports should continue to be made and laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.
Finally, may I refer to one anxiety which I have seen voiced by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Longford? During your Lordships' debate on the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, the noble Earl suggested, (and I quote his words from column 764 of of Hansard, of May 18, 1961):
"the change proposed by the Government will convey to the public the idea that our prison services, in the widest sense, are to receive a lower priority than hitherto."
Frankly, I find that particular anxiety hard to understand. The priority accorded to these vital services is and will remain a matter of Government policy, based on the advice and recommendations of my right honourable friend. Surely what we see now—the greatest building programme in this field which this country has ever known, at least for a century, recruitment to the Prison Service running at a higher rate than at any time since the war; and I cite merely these two examples—demonstrates the priority which we are according, and will continue, and rightly so, to accord to these services.
My Lords, the Order itself is very simple, and I think I can explain it very briefly. It consists of four Articles and two Schedules. The first Article is
1448
formal, and proposes the date of April 1, 1963, as the date for its coming into operation. This is obviously convenient, as the beginning of a financial year. The second Article transfers all the powers, jurisdiction and functions of the Prison Commissioners in respect of all institutions within their purview, and all property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Commissioners, to the Secretary of State. It provides that the Commissioners and their staff shall be transferred to the Home Department and dissolves the body corporate consisting of the Prison Commissioners. Article 3 makes special provisions for the annual reports, to which I have referred, and provides for the necessary adaptations in Statutes and other instruments. Article 4 makes supplementary and transitional provisions. The two Schedules set out in detail the adaptations which are necessary in various statutory references to the Prison Commissioners, substituting the Secretary of State for the Prison Commissioners wherever this is appropriate.
I trust that in the light of these explanations your Lordships will approve this Order and will accept our considered judgment that the integration which is provided in it is not, as has been suggested in some quarters, a step backwards, a retrograde step, but a necessary forward step in the development of our arrangements over the whole field of penal policy. We all wish to move forward in this field, and we believe that these new arrangements will help us to do so in the future. In saying this I am, of course, well aware of the long tradition and the high reputation which the Prison Commissioners and their staff have built up over the years. I am well aware of the great work which great men like Lionel Fox and Alex Paterson, and many more before them, have done. Their work is rightly a source of pride to the Prison Commissioners and, indeed, I would suggest, to our country as a whole. I am convinced that those traditions and that reputation will not be impaired by what we now propose, but will be carried forward and enhanced in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Prison Commissioners Dissolution Order, 1963, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the informative speech to which we have just listened from the noble Earl is full justification for having to-day a probably short but nevertheless adequate debate on this subject, although it was discussed two years ago, rather than letting it go through "on the nod". The noble Earl has given us a great deal of very necessary information we did not have before. In particular I am grateful to him for telling us what will be the position of the Chief Commissioner and the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary. The Secretary, for example, will be an Assistant Secretary in the Civil Service. But there are other senior officers in the Commission of whom we know and whose work we hold in the highest esteem and we really do not know what their position will be. What, for example, will be the position of the other Commissioners? They will presumably hold a rank below Assistant Secretary. Will they be Principals? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be able to answer that question when he winds up the debate.
The noble Earl will be aware that we are extremely anxious about this matter not only on the question of principle, about which he has reiterated the three main arguments of the Government for this change, but also on the future position of the people in the prison service whom we know and those we do not know. I find it most disturbing that we are here to-day considering an Order which affects the future work and livelihood of 11,000 people, all of whom hold their jobs "at pleasure", and there is not a single word in this Order which says anything about these people who have no enforceable contractual security. It does not say a word about their future employment, promotion, pensions or any other rights at all. I find that quite remarkable in view of the fact that usually, when a Government Department proposes an Order which is going to have an effect of this kind on the future employment of people at present engaged in a particular service, it nearly always goes to the greatest possible pains to put such provisions in the Order. It may be argued that, because these 11,000 people are already civil servants, it was not possible on this occasion, but, for
1450
my part, I confess that there is considerable unease about it, and any further information which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can give by way of assurance or otherwise to dispel that doubt will indeed be most welcome.
My noble friends who will speak after me in the debate are, I know, very concerned to argue again the principle of this particular change. But I confess that I myself am mainly concerned to address questions to the Government on the subject of how the change is going to affect the prisons. The noble Earl gave as one of the main reasons for this Order that if the closed box of the Prison Commission were opened and it was merely a section of the Home Office, it would help in dealing with the manifold problems in the treatment of offenders, which he quite rightly said do not begin and end in prison. I therefore want to know whether these administrative changes now presage a fundamental change in prison practice and the closing of what I regard as the scandalous gap between policy and practice, as is indeed revealed and confirmed by the Commissioners' Report. In that Report the Commissioners say that behind the facts in the Report there lies a story of countless acts of personal courage, enterprise and persistence which are deserving of the highest praise. From my own knowledge I say that that is true, but also from my own Knowledge I say that it is a story of mounting and catastrophic failure.
The total prison population before the war was 11,000. To-day it is over 30,000. Part of that three-fold increase is of course due to the unhappy increase in crime, but a considerable part of it, in my view, is due to the prison system itself and the virtual absence, or at least grave inadequacy, of any serious, comprehensive, sustained effort at rehabilitation. It seems to me—and the noble Earl virtually emphasised this point in his speech—that the Government's sole answer to the problem of more prisoners is more prisons. Indeed, more than forty new penal establishments have been completed or are in course of development since March, 1959, when we had a White Paper on penal practice: a 50 per cent. increase. Are we to continue—and will this administrative change affect the position—feverishly putting up prisons

1451
to house people, many of whom, in my view, need never go there if we tried other methods? Or is the policy still to be little more than "Shut them up; keep them alive; let them out", so that the cost in money and in misery and human waste continues to rise?
To-day our prisoners, allowing for National Assistance and other grants to their families, and lost production, cost the nation over £60 million a year, some £2,000 a year each. For that tidy sum, of recent years the taxpayer has been getting a constant increase in crime and recidivism. What does the prisoner get? Page 122 of the Commission's Report tells us that about one-twentieth of the total prison budget is spent on inmate maintenance. The entire expenditure on food and drink, all forms of clothing, bedding, cutlery, crockery, furniture, medicines and medical supplies, for over 30,000 men and women for a whole year is little over £1 million. If you work it out for each men, woman or borstal boy—Bill Bloggs or Barbara Fell—you find that is 15s. for a whole week for everything, the lowest standard of living in Europe, a Hottentot standard.
The noble Earl mentioned other departments in the Home Office. Will it occur to the Home Office as somewhat extraordinary that necessarily the same Department pays £10 a week for the support of children in its care and only 15s. a week for men and women and boys in its prisons? If you split up the 15s. a week allowed for a prisoner's keep you find that for his food and drink for a whole week we allow him 11s. Many of us have been in the prisons as visitors. We have put our nose over the cooking pots. We have smelled a bit of meat and may have had our opinions on what it is. But ask yourselves—if you do not know the answer, ask your wife or housekeeper—what 11s. a week for food means. I asked mine and she told me that she spent 11s. a week on shop-bought food for our cat, and, when he deigns to oblige, he has in addition some of our own. It is about one-third of what I find it necessary to spend in my hospitals, with some 2,000 people to feed a day, for an adequate balanced diet.
Eleven shillings a week for 21 main meals is 6d. a meal, and the people who have to provide a meal for that can do
1452
so only by buying the worst of everything; and in many cases, as I well know, it is food not normally considered fit for human consumption. The best and most devoted cooks are at their wits' end to provide eatable meals, and the worst send up revolting messes. Small wonder that the Commissioners in the Report devote less than half a page to the catering services, and even in twelve scant lines they say that there was
"little change made in the dietary in 1961,"
that
"The assistant catering officer appointed in November, 1940, resigned early in 1961".
And again:
"As service is now usually by the cafeteria method, which permits inmates to reject items as they wish, there is no supervision of individual intake, but the system of regular weighing of inmates affords some check."
Any farmer worthy of the name would keep a better check on the eating habits of his cattle. I would ask, will the new régime do better?
Take clothing—and I would again remind your Lordships that these are the official figures. On underclothing, shirts, suits, protective clothing, if any, sheets, pillows, blankets, furniture, cutlery, crockery, and other equipment for each prisoner we spend precisely £7 a year—2s. 9d. a week. On medicines, bandages, surgical and medical equipment we spend on each prisoner 10d. a week—and this despite the fact that the doctor sees one prisoner in seven every day; so that, on an average, every prisoner goes to the doctor once a week. A remarkable fact about the Prison Medical Service is that there are no fewer than 122 full-time or part-time medical officers—one for every 250 prisoners. That compares with the 2,000 patients cared for by the average general practitioner—eight times as many; and he of course, if necessary, sees them in their homes.
There are just two other items of that kind that I would mention. First, a prisoner's earnings average only 3s. 1d. a week—and I know that some earn more, and that some do not earn anything at all. Secondly, on all forms of education and recreation in prison we spend precisely 3s. 4d. per week per head. These figures cover men, women and borstal boys. Will the new régime change this appalling situation? These figures from official sources cannot be

1453
refuted. Whatever your personal opinions are, these figures do not lie. Your Lordships will draw your own conclusion about what can be provided with them. I think you will agree that no amount of explanation can disprove that, with expenditure on the basic elements of life on such a low scale, it is impossible for prisoners to live other than as sub-humans. And, in my view, if people are treated as sub-humans that is what they are likely to become.
I know that it is difficult for those of us who have not served a prison sentence to imagine what such conditions are like. Everyone has a distaste for criminals, and few people believe what they say. Six months ago, however, a number of young people came to me who had been to prison for their part in anti-nuclear demonstrations, some of them as many as four times. They were young people of good character—honest, respectable and truthful. They are people that you and I would believe, as do the toughest of reporters who have interrogated them. Their experiences in twelve different British prisons shocked them into deciding to try to do something to improve things, and they came to me for advice. I advised them to submit a memorandum to the Home Secretary and the Commissioners, and to allow a fair time for a reply before they did anything else. That was done last August; and they even offered not to publish at all if it could be shown that publication was contrary to the interests of penal reform.
They had no acknowledgment at all from the Home Secretary, and nothing from the Commissioners, except a 34-word note saying that they had studied the memorandum with interest and would bear the points in mind. So last week, after waiting six months, the report was published under the auspices of the Prison Reform Council, of which I have the honour to be President. It reveals a public scandal, and it is all true. I do not propose to discuss it now, but I hope that your Lordships will read it, although, despite its most restrained language, it may, in the words of Mr. Bernard Braden on television on Saturday night, "make your hair stand on end."
My Lords, the Home Office, the Home Secretary, declares that men are
1454
"sent to prison as a punishment, not to be punished."
The facts I have quoted from the official report prove that that is a lie. Men are punished and degraded, unnecessarily and unofficially, every day of their prison lives. Four years ago we approved the Home Secretary's decision to
"Treat prisoners at all times in such a way as to encourage their self-respect."
We agreed that it was right
"to enforce a high standard of cleanliness in the persons of the inmates."
We applauded the decision
"to stimulate or awaken the higher susceptibilities of prisoners and turn them out of prison better men than when they came in."
Will that begin to be done under the new régime? The practice to-day is to awaken their higher susceptibilities by harnessing them to the chamber pot, and the shambling, humiliating 7 a.m. queue to the waste pit, every morning. Even the new psychiatric prison at Grendon, opened a few months ago, is based on the chamber-pot routine. We enforce a high standard of cleanliness by allotting 50, or even 100, men to one lavatory and one sink, and putting them on a charge if they insist on going to the lavatory at night; by giving them one tiny tablet of soap to last two weeks; by giving them one tablet of shaving soap, size 1½ inches by 1 inch, to last them three months—and no possibility of any more. We encourage their self-respect by dressing them in ill-fitting shoes, ill-fitting and often dirty clothing, by washing their shirts once every two weeks.
Finally, by using and misusing regulations over letters, visits, complaints and so on, in what are known to be pettifogging and tyrannical ways, we do not rebuild but destroy a man's self-respect and increase his feelings of humiliation and degradation. Then, when he has paid for his crime and is released, legally no longer a criminal, we send him out with a few shillings in his pocket, a railway warrant stamped "H.M. Prison", and an insurance card with no stamps on it, which shrieks aloud of where he has come from. Usually he has no job and, as the noble Earl mentioned yesterday, of 170 men and women who are coming out on March 19, 114 have no homes to go to. Then we expect him

1455
instantly to stand on his feet and become a good citizen.
My Lords, this is the naked, brutal truth; and it is these conditions, plus the lack of adequate welfare services inside, and of after-care services, outside, prison that are one of the major reasons for the constant increase in the prison population.
Recently I wrote some newspaper articles on this subject much more forceful and detailed than anything I have said to-day. The Secretary of the Royal London Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society wrote to tell me that he would find it very difficult to disagree with a single word in them, and for some years he was a prison welfare officer, living in prison. He also referred to the efforts of his devoted and energetic staff, who, though they do fine work with pitifully inadequate resources, get a great deal of criticism but seldom a word of praise. My Lords, I gladly praise them and the many devoted and enlightened governors and prison officers who spend their lives in a hopeless fight against impossible odds.
Without major Government help no radical improvement is possible. I ask again: does the ending of the Prison Commission mean that the Home Office are determined to make a complete change in the system—a reversal of the attitudes which allow this scandal to continue? Will the Home Office stop covering up, cease taking refuge in ever more Committees of Inquiry and start carrying out their own declared policy, the policy approved by Parliament four years ago? While they are doing this, will they look objectively at the constructive proposals sent to them last August?
I, who know personally a very large number of them and correspond with literally thousands more, can say that many men in prison are bad men and brutes, but vastly more are just selfish, or shiftless, or unfortunate, or lazy, or even borderline mental cases. The more we brutalise, degrade and humiliate them, the more we make certain that they will go hack to prison. The more we try to lift them up and help them, the greater is the chance that they will become decent citizens. I ask, and public decency demands—and I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell us—that from now on, for the first time in prison history, we should begin
1456
to treat our prisoners as erring human beings, but as people to whom we mean to give a real chance to become decent citizens.
3.52 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, there is so much of vital importance to do and so much that has been left undone that it seemed to me rather strange that, towards the end of the present Government, they should bring forward something which, at the best, will do little harm, and, at the worst, could considerably weaken the skill with which the Prison Commission have always performed their duties. Freedom—which is a word very badly misused in the present generation—still means quite a lot to very many of us, and this over-centralisation and complete integration with the Home Office must inevitably threaten the feeling of being their own masters which the Prison Commissioners now have—even if in fact the freedom is, to a great extent, theoretical.
I was very interested in Lord Stonham's fine speech on the present position in the prisons. May I say straight away how thoroughly I agree with practically everything he said? The point, surely, is this. Whose fault is it that things are as they are at present? Is it that of the Home Office, or of the Prison Commissioners, or is it partly the one and partly the other? In my humble opinion, the attack is rightly aimed at the Home Office not only for failing to modernise the prisons themselves (which they are attempting to do at far too late a date), but also for the way in which prisoners are treated. It is that fact which makes it even more dangerous to allow the Prison Commisisoners to be completely joined with the Home Office.
The advantages of such integration seem to me to be very slight: a tidier organisation, a very small saving of money, and a closer link with the Children's Department of the Home Office and the Criminal Research Department. Again, that is to a great extent only theoretical, because, of course, they already work closely with them. The noble Earl mentioned "departmental boxes". What a terrible expression—an expression that can only have been used by civil servants without any feeling of humanity at all. And it is humanity that we are really talking about. The only real argument I see

1457
in this proposal—and I am sure it is not one the Government would support—is that by being united the Prison Commissioners could arouse a feeling of far greater urgency in regard to the possibility of reasonable research into the whole of the prison administration.
Against all this is the concrete fact that the Prison Commissioners have always, and particularly in recent years, done an exceptionally fine job as an independent team. They now face the danger of interchange and cross-postings, and of being swallowed up in a vast organisation. They are admired by the general public, as opposed to the criticisms—and often only too justifiable criticisms—of the Home Office in regard to their conduct of prison affairs. The work of the Prison Commissioners, apart from just being a job, is one of complete devotion, arid their proper pride in having their own organisation must have helped considerably in their whole outlook upon life. If I were a pessimist I would say that this proposal, if this does nothing else, at least brings to light the greatness of the work they have done and are still doing. If I were an optimist I should hope that the Government would have second thoughts and leave well alone a body that has always done magnificent service. Perhaps, my Lords, it is more than a coincidence that the date on which these proposals would take effect is April Fool's Day.
3.57 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, it is, of course, true, as the noble Earl said, that the treatment of criminals does not begin or end with a prison sentence. Nevertheless, the time a man spends in prison is a supremely important time and gravely affects his future. So that the administration of the prisons, the drawing up of rules, the making of regimes, is a matter of supreme importance. It calls for persons in charge of it to have great experience, continuity in office, and some degree of independence with which to force policies upon the Home Office or, if need be, to resist the whims and caprices of a Secretary of State.
What prompted me to intervene in this debate was an anxiety lest, by integrating the Prison Commissioners completely into the Home Office, and so creating merely another department of the Home Office
1458
exactly on a level with, say, the Children's Department, the result would be that civil servants, in the course of rising through their careers, would spend a part of their time in the Prison Department and then be moved on to some other work, so that in time the heads of the Department—the men upon whose skill, wisdom and experience, I maintain, the successful administration of the prison system depends—would come to these posts with very little actual experience of prison administration. If I understood the noble Earl correctly, it seems I have no cause for that anxiety. It would appear that, though they will not be called Prison Commissioners, the same type of man with the same kind of experience behind him will in fact be appointed. I am very grateful indeed for that assurance. I only hope that it will be honoured by successive Governments and by successive Secretaries of State. But I can see that there will be a standing temptation to use the Prison Department exactly as the other departments in the Home Office are used. Nevertheless I am grateful for that assurance and a great deal of my anxiety is taken away.
It is really replaced by a deep perplexity, because it seems to me, from what the noble Earl said at the beginning of this debate, that this is really a change in name only. I cannot see for the life of me what real advantages it is expected will accrue from this administrative change. It looks to me as though it was simply a matter of tidying up the administration. If that is so, then I think it is due to an almost obsessive desire for tidiness. For, after all, the only virtue of tidiness in administration is to increase efficiency, and is it really argued that this will in fact make the administration of the prisons more efficient? In what respect is it argued that the Prison Commissioners have been, or are inefficient?
I cannot quite grasp what are the advantages which Her Majesty's Government expect to get out of this change. Such inefficiency in the Prison Commissioners' work as there may be—and at one time I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was turning into a fierce attack on the Prison Commissioners—is not, I am sure, due to the Prison Commissioners themselves. I am not at all sure, indeed, that they are due to the Home Office. I think

1459
that they are due to the cramping restrictions imposed upon the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners by Her Majesty's Treasury.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate allow me to intervene? I thought I made it quite clear in the opening sentences of my speech that I was making no kind of personal attack at all, and that I held the Commissioners in high esteem. But I did, and do, attack the system, and I agree with the conclusion which he has just reached.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, perhaps I ought to have made myself clearer. What I meant was that the noble Lord's description of our prisons as they now are, the greater part of which I believe to be true, means that, for one reason or another, the Prison Commissioners have not been so successful as we should all have liked them to be. If this change means in fact that the Home Office will be able to extract a great deal more money from the Treasury, then indeed I shall welcome it; and I should hope that the first thing that would be done would be to remove that blot upon our culture and civilisation in England: Her Majesty's Prison on Dartmoor.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think it is rather striking that all the speakers in this debate are speaking not from the point of view of the Party they represent in the House but from the point of view of their own experience in dealing in one capacity or another with these problems of our penal system. Another thing that is striking is that there are six speakers this afternoon, apart from the two Government speakers, and all of these speakers are asking the Government to pause and think again before making this Order. Of course I have not heard the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, and my noble friend Lord Longford, but I have spoken to them and I know they will take the same point of view as has been taken by other noble Lords and by the right reverend Prelate. So I hope that the mere fact that there is considerable doubt about the advisability of making this Order in this House now, and dissolving the Prison Commissioners, will
1460
cause the Government to think very carefully before proceeding with it.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who has taken such a great interest in these matters since he took office, that it is most desirable that there should be an integration of our whole service for the treatment of offenders, adult and juvenile; and that the prison system is a hotchpotch, partly voluntary, partly statutory, partly under the Home Office, partly under the Prison Commissioners. But, my Lords, it seems to me that the real question is whether this integration should take place under a statutory body like the Prison Commissioners, or under a Government Department such as the Home Office. That is the question that has to be decided, and all I am asking the Government is not to decide that question here and now. I will try to give reasons why I think it is advisable that there should be a delay before any final decision is taken. I am not saying that, when the final decision is taken, it may not be in favour of integration within the Home Office, although I myself would be against it, but I am saying that to take that decision now would be premature.
I can see that this is a question of balance; there are arguments on both sides. But may I give two arguments which the noble Earl did not mention, in favour of not integrating tht service under the Home Office? First of all, there is administrative efficiency. The noble Earl did not make as much of a point as I expected him to make of the advantages of administrative efficiency in bringing this under the umbrella of the Home Office. Of course there are advantages, and there might be a saving of money; but I would point out that there would be one considerable disadvantage, and it is this. If the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners and the Deputy Chairman become Assistant Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Office, as they will do, then it means that any decision of importance has to be referred to the Permanent Under-Secretary. Noble Lords know perfectly well from their own experience the delay that is always caused if you have to refer a matter for decision to a senior official in a Government Department. So this would add to the delay in administering the prison system. Quick decisions are often called

1461
for. They are now made by the Prison Commissioners. In the future they would have in many cases to be referred to a senior official in the Home Office, and possibly after that to a Minister.
But these administrative arguments are arguments of an entirely secondary nature compared with the primary concern for all of us, which is the efficiency of the prison service. It seems to me that the prison service needs a continuity of career. That is the first and most important consideration. The noble Earl said that in this respect the prison service would continue as at present, but then he answered a question by my noble friend Lord Taylor which showed quite clearly that it would not necessarily continue as at present. He said that in some cases, for the sake of promotion, a man might be taken from, say, the governorship of a prison and transferred to the administrative grade of the Civil Service—that is to say, there might be cross-postings from the prison service to the Home Office and, indeed, presumably, to the same grade in other Government Departments. That is exactly what I think would be highly undesirable. I am certain that the noble Earl and the Government would not dream of undermining the efficiency of the prison service in that way, but we cannot guarantee that there will always be the same Ministers in charge or that the intention of every Government will be the same—a point which was made with very great force, I thought, by the right reverend Prelate.
I think that continuity is desirable, and I also think that there are certain qualities which are needed in the prison service but which are different from the qualities needed in the home Civil Service. I am not saying that there are not some home civil servants with those qualities, but there are two qualities which are essential in the prison service and which are not essential in the home Civil Service. The first of these qualities is human sympathy. You must have a great deal of human sympathy to be a successful prison officer or prison governor. The second of these qualities is imagination. A great deal has been said about the defects in our present system, with which I entirely agree. I am not going into the question of the responsibility for this state of affairs, although personally, from my knowledge
1462
of the Prison Commissioners, I should not say they are in the least responsible. On the contrary, I think they are people who are doing a tremendous job of work, and who are doing their utmost to make the best of a bad system. I think the responsibility goes much deeper: we have ourselves to blame, and the nation as a whole has a great deal to reproach itself with over our present system. But I am not going into all that. All I would say is that these qualities of imagination and sympathy are essential; that they cut a man out for a career in the prison service, which ought to be a continuous career and which ought not to make him liable to be posted to an office in Whitehall.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Earl here. I think he misunderstood my point. All I was saying, in answer to an interjection and in explanation of it, was that a young man coming into the prison service would have in the future, as indeed he has now, a carière ouverte au talent. He could go right to the top, and right to the very top in exceptional circumstances. I think the noble Earl has misunderstood my point.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I just follow that up for one moment? The noble Earl said that it is at present possible for a person entering the prison service to go right to the top of the Civil Service. It is complete nonsense, my Lords. Are we not going to have an answer to this point? Is the noble Earl really maintaining this extraordinary statement?
EARL JELLICOE: I said "right to the top". I was not meaning right to the top at the moment of the Civil Service.
LORD TAYLOR: But it will be possible in future?
EARL JELLICOE: It would theoretically be possible, yes.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is really what worries me. This business of promotion—which is, after all, the central point of any man's career—is now going to be a ladder within the Civil Service. That is what seems to me to be undesirable. To take what I think is a very close parallel, look at the Colonial Service, or look at the Army,

1463
the Navy or the Air Force. There you get a perfectly good system of promotion, but it would be extremely bad if serving officers were to have to go into Whitehall if they wanted to move up to a higher rank, or if Colonial Service officers were to have to go back into the Colonial Office. It seems to me that here we have a body of men who ought to be independent of the Civil Service, if they are to do their job in the way their job has been done in the past by the great majority of people, and in the way which has caused certain outstanding figures to emerge who have blazed the path of penal reform.
My Lords, all I am asking the Government to do is to pause and to think. I am fairly certain that if there were a secret ballot of all those in the prison service at the present time they would be against this change. I am perfectly certain, from reading the Press, that the authorities on penal reform are against it. The noble Earl is just as aware as I am that there is going to be an enormous change in dealing with after-care as a result of the Report of the Home Office Committee which is considering aftercare at the moment. That will mean a choice between further integration with the Home Office, a Statutory Board, or the continuance of the work by voluntary bodies. It will mean an important choice which ought not to be prejudged by this decision to integrate the Prison Commissioners and the prison service with the Home Office at the present time.
All I should like to ask the Government to do is to pause, to think and to delay this important decision until they have before them the Report of the Committee that is dealing with aftercare, and until they can consider the whole of the prison service, the welfare side as well as the prison officers' side, together. I should like to see complete integration starting with the prison welfare officer and going up to the top, to the Prison Commissioners, so that you get a ladder moving up that way. But this is a matter which ought to be considered as a whole; and I am firmly convinced that the Government ought to wait until they have the Report of their advisers on the subject of after-care before deciding to integrate the Prison Commissioners and the prison service with the Home Office.
4.17 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we all agree that we want the very best thing possible to happen in regard to prison services, and I hesitate to bring forward my point, which is really a very small one, except that its influence on the whole is, I feel, of supreme importance. That is why I venture to bring it before your Lordships. So often in the very best enterprises a small item is overlooked, and eventually that small thing can, in the long run, harm the undertaking to an extent far beyond any impact ever envisaged.
The point I should like to put before your Lordships is an offshoot of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, and concerns the Prison Commissioners themselves, and the standing they have built up throughout the whole of the country. Up and down this land the names of Paterson, Fox and Mellanby have become names treated and regarded with the greatest respect—and, even more than that, looked upon with very great trust by the prisoner himself. In the past Prison Commissioners have been able to use initiative to try out and prove those things which seemed worth while and good to them—enterprises in a new shape and practices with a fresh flavour. There is nobody who would not pay tribute to Sir Lionel Fox as a man of such personal dedication that he always strengthened, just by his very presence, those who were around him. But only those of us who knew him could appreciate at what cost—financial, personal and physical—this was done. If the contribution of men like Paterson was great, so were the sacrifices demanded of him; and the need for him to turn his back on ambition and cleave only to his task was what made him so great a man. I doubt whether any noble Lord who has spoken so far has emphasised as much as it should be emphasised the fact that the men who are doing most useful work in the Prison Service are those who have again and again turned their backs on personal ambition and personal advantage in order to serve humanity in its most difficult form.
Like the right reverend Prelate, I feel that the difficulty is that the very able and promising young civil servant must, because it is imperative to his job, be given a variety of experiences to fit him

1465
for the dizzy heights which he may ultimately attain. He must of necessity be a bird of passage, plucking from each department as he serves in it experience which will, in turn, enrich his capacity and groom him for yet more difficult tasks. I have spent many years working for and with Government Departments, and I have learned much of rules and regulations. Nobody appreciates more than I do the need for some of these rules and regulations, but I would respectfully submit that they have been evolved for dealing with matters that follow certain patterns and not for the administration, control and care of human beings as prison occupants. If Her Majesty's Government insist on handing over the direction of the Prison Service to a Department, however perfect that Department may be, it must fall into the stream of the Civil Service methods, and men and women—superb men and women—will come and go. And in coming and going they will give wonderful service, but will not know their subjects except through files and the usual methods of those who occupy for a space of time the seats of responsibility in other departments—be they the Aliens Branch, the Children's Branch, the Civil Defence Section, or the Pornographic Literature desk.
There are many departments which demand the skill and the acumen, the versatility and the intelligence of the very best brains, but none which demands so great a sacrifice of personal self-participation, because of the special problems involved, as does the Prison Service. The men and women in control of the day-to-day prison work must be people who have learned through experience and who are as dedicated to their undertaking as a doctor is to his practice. Prison Commissioners have heretofore been appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and—I quote from Halsbury:
"They exercise their functions in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State and make an annual report to him which he must lay before Parliament."
This shows that the Secretary of State has the control required, but by virtue of the independence of the Prison Commissioners the day-to-day work is not subject to Civil Service procedure and the personnel are bound to be of a
1466
definitely specialised type. Reformers have developed through constant contact with, and experience of, prisons and prisoners, and I am convinced that the able and imaginative civil servant with hopes of highest office would not be the one to be weighed in the same scales as the man of great social service, prison experience, zest, hope and vision.
My Lords, I believe that a great deal more is asked of Prison Commissioners than any salary scale could meet; but equally throughout the world we can hold our British heads high because of the things these men have achieved. I am no reactionary, but I beg Her Majesty's Government to examine this side of the problem once more, recognising the human factors of a very special nature that are essential if the prisons of the future are to have the direction which very special men alone can give and through which it is hoped we can attain those things which we hope may eventually be achieved.
4.23 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if this were an ordinary coffin the noble Lady who has just resumed her seat would have knocked the last nail into it. But I am afraid that the Government will succeed in getting the lid off again. I should like to say a few words about this matter, on which I spoke at some length during the Committee stage of the Bill. The matter is one of very great importance, and one on which I feel very strongly; so I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if I intervene rather late in the debate.
The noble Earl said that some people feel that this is a retrograde step. In my view that was very much an understatement. To many of us it is not a retrograde step; it is a disaster. It is the worst disaster that has happened in the present century in connection with the whole problem of the prisons and the reform of criminals. It is astonishing to me that a Home Secretary who has been so liberal and a leader in this movement to so many of us during recent times should have allowed himself to be led up the garden path in this way by the civil servants—because this is a Civil Service scheme. It is an organisational scheme for tidying up the situation and bringing the thing into the Home Office.
I cannot bring myself to believe, as the right reverend Prelate could, that things

1467
will be carried on in the future in the same way as in the past. The change would not have been brought up if that had been the object. Obviously, the administration of prisons is going to be carried out by the Civil Service. But there are already too many civil servants in the Prison Commission. That may be one of the reasons for Lord Stonham's stricture—and it was to a very considerable extent a stricture—on the situation as administered by the Prison Commission: although I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is not only the Treasury but the community as a whole which must accept responsibility for what is going on in the prisons in this country at the present time. The Treasury merely reflect the feeling in the community, that this is a second-rate enterprise and not one which should have the strength of the community behind it. But, of course, the noble Lady who has just sat down is right: it has been built up over the past years by men of great humanity, men who have sacrificed their careers in the interests of this unfortunate section of the community.
It is a most significant thing that those civil servants who have gone from the Home Office (Sir Lionel Fox was one) into the independent atmosphere of the Prison Commission have themselves condemned this scheme. It has been condemned by Sir Lionel Fox, who, unfortunately, died eighteen months ago, and it has been condemned by his predecessor, Sir Harold Scott, in a letter to The Times. And, although I brought this up in the Committee stage, the noble Earl made no attempt to answer the point. These are the people who know what will happen to it after responsibility goes to the Home Office; for they have spent their lives there. Undoubtedly, apart from Sir Lionel Fox himself, the great innovations and progress which have been made over these last years have been due to the efforts of people brought in from outside—men like Sir Alexander Paterson—who were not civil servants, and others on the Commission at the present time.
My Lords, those who have the respect of the people working on this problem are not the people seconded from the Home Office for one or two years, but those who have come in from outside and are devot-
1468
ing their lives to it. I should like to know what real progress has been made in the Prison Commission since Sir Lionel Fox ceased to be Chairman. What progress has been made with the Norwich scheme? That was one of Sir Lionel Fox's protegés, and I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, told us about it two or three years ago. A not dissimilar scheme, under quite different auspices, has been going on at Wandsworth—the group scheme. What further progress has been made by trying to put that into operation in any of the other prisons? The open prison was one of Sir Lionel Fox's innovations; and on the whole it has been remarkably successful.
The truth of the matter is, my Lords, that the organisational mind, to which we owe this change, is not the mind which produces the great forward movements in connection with penal reform. I should have felt much happier if the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had devoted his speech to matters of this kind, rather than what was hardly better than logic-chopping—though I appreciate that that is a little unfair to him, because he speaks to a brief, as one has to do on occasions of this sort. But what earthly reason is there for combining responsibility for the Home Office with that for the Prison Commissioners? Perhaps there is a logical argument. During the war my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was, very successfully, both Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security, while at the present time another Minister is Home Secretary and Minister for Wales—which is quite a separate assignment—and he gets on perfectly easily.
The noble Earl went on to say that Departments of the Home Office do analogous work. But Departments of the Ministry of Education do analogous work. So that is not a very sound argument. There are no doubt architects and other departments in the Home Office which, for the sake of economy, also work in prisons. But that is not the main issue. The basic work of the Prison Commissioners is looking after prisoners and trying to turn them out better men than they were when they went in. That is the essential job, to which the great contributions over recent generations have been made not by Civil Service systematisers, but by men who

1469
come in with real imagination, real sympathy and real understanding. That is what this Order will remove from the administration of prisons and the service of the prisoners. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I shall certainly vote against this Order, even if nobody else will go into the Division Lobby with me.
4.33 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I feel some disquiet over this Order, for the simple reason that it appears to me that the ultimate protection for the Prison Service at the moment is the fact that the Prison Commissioners can resign and publish their reasons for resignation. If they become a Department of the Home Office and civil servants, while I suppose they could, in the last resort, resign, it would be without precedent for them to publish their reasons for so doing. For this reason, the Prison Service seems to me to be losing some element of the protection it has against starvation by the Treasury, as the Treasury appears to be doing.
We nowadays put emphasis on the training of prisoners. Is this consistent with continuing the punishment by the revolting food and sanitary conditions, which were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham? It is not only members of the Committee of 100 who have been to jail and published their conclusions. Books of this sort have been written for many years back, and all have had roughly the same story to tell. I should be greatly reassured if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he comes to reply, could tell us that there will be a little more money for the food in prisons; and, above all, for something for which Home Secretaries have been agitating for years, though they have never been able to carry it against the Treasury—that is, the provision of stamps on prisoners' national insurance cards. If a man comes out with no stamps on his card, he is a marked man. If, as frequently happens, some person of in the shop where he works discovers that he has no card, he will almost certainly be thrown out. This point has been made to me with great force by prison chaplains, and I think it is time the Home Secretary managed to put the matter right with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unless we have a better explanation of the reason
1470
for this administrative change than I have heard so far, I am afraid that I shall not be able to vote for this Order, although I may not vote against it.
4.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am glad to notice that there are 16 noble Lords sitting on the opposite Benches. I only hope that the number will not be greatly augmented by those who have not heard this debate when we come to a Division. I should like it to be clearly recorded that that is the number sitting on the Benches opposite at this particular moment, and perhaps two more noble Lords may have heard part of the debate. We certainly intend to divide the House on this question, because we are quite dissatisfied with the showing of the Government.
I take it that this is not a general debate on penal reform or prisons. I am glad to think that my noble friend Lord Stonham has a Motion down on an important aspect of this subject—namely, the report of the young people who were recently imprisoned for their political views and activities. I look forward to a full debate on that subject when the time comes. I myself can bear witness to the complete integrity of the people concerned, which, indeed, has been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. Too often prisoners are not gentlemen with much reputation for honesty, and therefore their testimony, while probably quite accurate, tends not unnaturally to be discounted; but the testimony of these witnesses has not been, and will not be, discounted. There are certainly very serious charges against the arrangements in prison which arise from their report.
I will say nothing about the general prison position to-day, except to make one point to illustrate my view that we must be profoundly dissatisfied with the progress of penal reform in recent years. Some years ago, early in 1957, Mr. Butler became Home Secretary and pledged himself to launch a new campaign for penal reform. May I say that my noble friend Lord Stonham and I, and others concerned with penal reform, have never questioned the devotion of Mr. Butler to that cause. Mr. Butler took overcrowding as one of the giants in the path of penal reform, a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who, I know,

1471
is greatly concerned about the prison situation. Mr. Butler took the number of men sleeping three in a cell as a good index of the state of overcrowding. Early in 1957, when he became Home Secretary, there were 2,000 sleeping three in a cell. The latest figure, which the noble Earl has been kind enough to supply to me to-day, is 8,498. I am not making a personal charge against Mr. Butler. He did his best.
We are aware of the increase in the number of prisoners from the crime wave. That is the direct cause. But the fact is that we have failed to cope with the great increase in crime, just as if, in the case of education, we had simply ignored the bulge in child population. Therefore, while acknowledging the sincerity of individuals, I have nothing but reprobation for our total failure to improve conditions in prisons in the last few years, bearing in mind both the increase in crime and our overall failure to cope with it.
I have asked, therefore, whether, if that is so, a change may not be desirable. Probably noble Lords will remember the exchange which comes somewhere in one of Oscar Wilde's plays—and some noble Lord more familiar with Oscar Wilde will no doubt be able to tell me from where it comes:
"What would life be without coffee?"
And then someone says:
"What is life with coffee?"
That, in a sense, is my attitude about the Prison Commission. What would life be without the Prison Commission? And what is life with the Prison Commission? I will not dwell on that further.
We are forced to ask ourselves: what is the reason for what is generally regarded by all those interested in these matters as an important change? There is something mysterious about this change, and when the mystery, after quite a lot of public discussion over a number of months, continues to inject some administrative change, one can usually be sure that there is something most unsatisfactory about it. I am sorry to say that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whose position in this House needs no bouquet from me, has totally failed to remove the air of mystery which hung over this subject after the noble Earl,
1472
Lord Kilmuir, had addressed us in such a charming way in the summer of 1961. I am sorry that I have not given notice of my remarks to the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, but they apply readily to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and perhaps one noble Earl will accept the remarks relating to another noble Earl coming from a third noble Earl, and I hope we may be regarded as being from the same trade union.
Some little time ago I went to see the present Home Secretary, and in the course of doing another kindness he asked for my views on this question. I expressed them a little casually, because I was not prepared for a full explanation of them, but I was deeply impressed to find that the present Home Secretary should have taken the trouble to write me a long letter seeking to allay my anxieties. I then wrote to him, and now, in his absence in Bermuda, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has written to me, and as the correspondence is all public, perhaps I may quote from it. The present Home Secretary informed me, in the first letter he wrote to me, that there are important advantages in the change. He said:
"There are a number of good constitutional and practical reasons for merging the Prison Commissioners and the Home Office".
To-day we have listened to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and we are all aware that if there are good reasons for a change he is the one man to explain them. But I defy anybody in the House who has sat through the debate, and still more anybody who has not sat through the debate and has just arrived in time for the Division, to leave this House and explain to a friend why this change is being made. It has, in a sense, once again been defended on two more or less conflicting grounds: one that it amounts to nothing, and the other that it is an important change producing valuable economies and integration. I do not know on which of those legs the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, prefers to rest, but I must press the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to tell us when he replies, whether, in his view, this amounts to anything very much in practice. It could be said that it is just a constitutional tidying up and we are making heavy weather of it; that it is just really assimilating the constitutional position to the actual position.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I would reassure him that I prefer to rest on my own natural legs and not on the artificial one with which he has just supplied me.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I think the noble Earl may need a third leg in the form of the Lord Chancellor. I am always excluding those who are pure Lobby fodder, because they are carried into the House, rather than make use of any legs at all. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will help the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on this point, I would ask: is this, in fact, represented as being a change of practical importance, or is it simply a constitutional tidying up? I do not think it is easy to accept the view that it is just a legal reformulation, if only because when it was discussed before the Lord Chancellor of the day, the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, attached a good deal of importance to the advantages which could come from integration. He pointed out then that there are quite a number of services connected with crime which do not come under the present Prison Commission and in which the Home Office is interested—the children's service, approved schools, probation service, and so on. We were led to suppose that one considerable advantage of this change would be that in some way or other more integrated control of these services could be adopted.
Indeed, later in that debate the Lord Chancellor of the day intervened in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 231, col. 777]:
"I attach great importance to the integration, so that the Home Office will be dealing with all matters in the field of delinquency. I do not want there to be any misapprehension on that point."
So at that time we were led to suppose (and I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, would contradict this to-day; unless I misunderstand him, he also quite favours integration) that there would be important advantages concerned with integration. We are told that some new department is going to take over the work of the Prison Commission. Does it mean that the new department, now or in the foreseeable future, will take over these other services? I do not say that that is necessarily wrong; but if it is so, then we should be told. And if it is not so, then this doubt should be removed and we
1474
should be told that there is no question of an important integration of their future.
These issues can be thought to be marginal—that is to say, one should not be unduly dogmatic as to how these matters are arranged in the Government Service. But I take the strongest exception to what appears to be an important change of this sort without any clearer explanation than we have had. I would say that the attitude of the Government, in spite of the excellent advocacy, as always, of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and of the Lord Chancellor in 1961, is completely ambiguous. I do not think that anybody here has the slightest idea whether this will be an important change or whether it will not.
I am not going to labour the point which has been put so well by other speakers as to why many of us would prefer to see the Prison Commission carry on; in view of what has been said, this would simply be impertinent. I would only quote something which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the last occasion, from Sir Harold Scott, who was Chairman of the Prison Commission a good many years ago, and which puts in a nutshell all I should wish to say further on the reasons for our disquiet to-day. He said:
"So long as the Commissioners retain their own corporate status they must feel a very special sense of personal and intimate responsibility for the prison service. It is too much to hope that there will be a similar response from a purely administrative department."
That puts in a nutshell what has been said with so much eloquence and strength of feeling to-day.
Before I close, I should like to touch on one aspect—and I am genuinely grateful to the present Home Secretary, and to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the great trouble they have taken between them to try to remove my anxieties. What worries me most, quite frankly, is not the constitutional position. In some ways it is not even the corporate value of the Prison Commissioners, which is a point that has worried most noble Lords to-day. I am concerned with another side of this question which has come out in various speeches—namely, the effect of these changes on the prospects of the young man entering the prison service. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was kind

1475
enough to write me a letter to-day, which I am at liberty to use, in which he explains the views which he feels sure would be those of the Home Secretary if he were in this country. He said this again in the House this afternoon:
"Our intention is to go on as before with a mixed team of administrators and professional officers guiding and directing the Prison Service."
Earlier he said:
"The posts to which Prison Governors can be promoted at headquarters are, at present, those of the Chief Director, the Director of Borstal Administration, the Director of Prison Administration and the Assistant Commissioners."
He has told me in terms, in a letter which I have received to-day, that three of the positions of Prison Commissioner are available to Prison Governors who have served in the prison service. That is, I gather, the present position. But if we look in Whitakers Almanack we find that there are four officers mentioned before we reach any of those who are referred to in this letter. There is the Chairman of the Prison Commission, the Deputy Chairman, the Secretary and the Establishment Officer. Are we to assume from this letter, which is carefully drafted and emanates from the Home Office, I am sure with full authority, that those top four positions in the Prison Commission are not at present open to Governors and ex-Governors? They are not occupied by them.
We are told that the remaining three positions of the seven Prison Commissioners are open. Are we to assume that the top four are not open? The noble Earl whose heart, I am sure, is in the right place—I do not want to embarrass him—went a shade further in his speech. I was not quick enough to take down the exact words, but I think he said there was no reason why a Prison Governor should not attain the position of Chairman of the Prison Commission, at any rate in the exceptional case.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think my exact words were that it was not impossible to conceive of that happening.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then I can only ask the noble Earl why he did not think it right to mention that fact in the letter which I received this
1476
morning over his signature. I give him full credit for the struggle in which he is engaged against the forces of reaction, but it has taken a great effort. I do not want to embarrass him further, but the fact is that in the official letter emanating from the Home Office to-day the first four posts in the Prison Commission are excluded from those which are open to Prison Governors. It is against that background that we are profoundly dissatisfied with the way in which this question is approached.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there seems to be some misunderstanding. I understood my noble friend to say that under the new regime the post of Permanent Secretary of the Home Office is open to any prison warder now. Is that correct?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Those officers have not been called "warders" for about 40 years, but otherwise I think that is what the noble Earl was understood to say. At any rate, I think we can take it that when he is Home Secretary he will readily give place to a prison officer. In other words, not even the highest positions will be excluded. But it was an important pronouncement, and it represents a rapid advance since this morning, when the top four posts were excluded, let alone the top positions in the Home Office which were mentioned, although I had raised them in a letter myself. So the whole position is fairly fluid. It seems clear that those who believe that at present the whole status of the prison service is disgracefully low, must make their protest this afternoon.
Some young graduate was asking me whether I thought he had a good opportunity of service in the Prison Service. Assuming that he is ready to sacrifice everything without getting a complete fulfilment, of course one should not discourage him. But if a young man goes into the Home Office, of course he could become Permanent Secretary and perhaps after to-day he will feel encouraged. But up to now the young man in the Prison Service has not had any of the highest positions open to him, either in the Home Office or in the Prison Service proper, if you count the Prison Commission.
One may say that this particular issue is not affected by whether or not we pass

1477
this Order. I think that is a doubtful point. We have not had any clarification, except the forthcoming remarks, subject to a good many qualifications, of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. But I think there are a good many of us who are disturbed at the thought that the Home Office are going to destroy the independent life of the Prison Commission. We do not feel they understand what we are driving at when we talk about the valuable services that this Commission have rendered in the past. We do not feel they understand what we mean when we still feel that the Home Office are keeping all the best positions in this field to themselves. We feel that the time has come when some protest must be made if only to extract a much clearer undertaking than has yet been obtained, that the opportunities open to young men entering the Prison Service not only are as good as but are much better than before. Unless we can obtain that undertaking—I hardly venture to think we can—from the Lord Chancellor, then we shall consider it our duty to vote against this wretched Order.
4.55 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one point which puzzles me, because like many noble Lords I find this an extremely difficult subject? I was out of the country at the time when the Act under which this Order is being sought was going through this House. At that time I had been much impressed by a friend of mine who has some experience in these matters, Hubert Secretan, who has expressed his views in The Times quite recently, and I had considerable doubt about that section, as it now is, of the Act. Nevertheless, it is now in the Act, and this Order is a not unnatural sequel to the powers there given.
I am not saying in the least that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is wrong in the attitude which he has now put forward, but I think it indicates a rather important change of policy by the Party for which he speaks. I shall tell him why. It has been represented on previous occasions on similar matters that, as I understood it, Her Majesty's Opposition did not feel it right to negative an Order in this House if the Order had passed the House of Commons. In this case, the Order has not gone before the House of Commons—and that may be a
1478
point of great importance—and I am completely baffled myself to know what prompted Her Majesty's Government to introduce this Order into this House before we had the advantage of knowing the views of the House of Commons upon it. But they have done so. I am quite convinced that the present Home Secretary believes this not to be a retrograde step at all, although I quite appreciate the reasons which make the noble Earl and others think it a retrograde step.
There is one thing I hope my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may be able to clear up in the speech he is about to make. I apologise to the House for intervening between the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
I had the advantage and privilege many years ago of knowing as a young man, and later, the late Alexander Paterson, and I shared the view of his ability in this field that has been expressed from so many quarters. I should like to know whether his view can be disclosed to the House. Though I cannot say this from personal conversation with him, I believe Sir Alexander Paterson at the end of his life was not entirely satisfied with the position of the Prison Commissioners. I do not know what the relation was that was desired between them and the Home Office, but, if it should be possible for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to indicate at all—and I daresay there are constitutional difficulties—what are the views of the Prison Commissioners on what is now being proposed, I think it might be helpful to some of us.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord speaks, may I just say one word about the position of my noble friends on this side of the House? We recognise the force of what the noble Lord has just said, and we are not proposing to make this a Party issue. A number of my noble friends feel very strongly about this matter, and I gather that there is a strong feeling in all parts of the House that this Order should not be accepted. But, so far as my noble friends are concerned, we shall regard it as a free vote. We are not putting our own Whips on, and every noble Lord will be free to decide on this matter as he thinks right.
5.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I have listened to that announcement with the greatest interest, and when one looks at the Division Lists one will be able to see what difference, in fact, it has made. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, began his speech by some comment about the numbers of your Lordships who had heard this debate and also made some comment on those who had not heard it. This is no new debate. The subject-matter was fully debated in 1961, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, the principle was then accepted by your Lordships' House that by an Order in Council the powers of the Prison Commissioners could be transferred to the Home Office.
There have been many debates on this subject. I think I have heard most of them; indeed, my memory goes back to the first debate I heard on this subject, in 1948 on the Criminal Justice Bill of that year, introduced by a Socialist Government, containing a clause similar in all material respects to that contained in the Criminal Justice Act, 1961. When that clause came to Standing Committee two Socialist Members of Parliament and one Conservative criticised it, and the then Home Secretary made a very powerful and convincing speech in favour of the proposal which is now embodied in the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, and which has been the subject of discussion again to-day. But having heard the comments of the two Socialist Members and one Conservative on the Standing Committee, Mr. Chuter Ede rose to his feet and said:
"With deep regret I recognise the feeling of the Committee"—
as I say, only three Members had then spoken, and Mr. Chuter Ede went on—
"and I shall not press the clause."
And these are the words I commend to the notice of your Lordships, uttered by a Socialist Home Secretary as long ago as 1948:
"I regret the loss of it as a very serious injury to the future efficiency of the Prison Service."
The right reverend Prelate raised a question about the effect on efficiency, and I would pray in aid those words of Mr. Chuter Ede. But, to finish off the account of what happened in that Standing Committee, I may tell your
1480
Lordships that what the then Home Secretary said so convinced the late noble Earl, Lord Winterton, and myself that we would not allow the Home Secretary to withdraw his own clause without a Division. So we had the somewhat unusual result of the Home Secretary leading his Party to vote against a clause which he regarded as important in the Socialist Government's own Bill. This unusual episode in the conduct of a Bill through Parliament in the other House is, of course, past history. But what is significant, in my submission, is the fact that at that time the then Home Secretary, with his experience of the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners, should have thought it important to make this change, and that if this change were not made it would be, in his words, a
"very serious injury to the future efficiency of the Prison Service."
The First Secretary, when he was Home Secretary, reached the same conclusion; and that sort of conclusion is not reached as a result of any kind of jealousy between the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners. It is sometimes represented as if all that the Prison Commissioners have done is good, and all that the Home Office has done is had. The truth is, of course, that while they have been in existence together they have both been working to achieve the same ends in this particular field.
In the debate to-day a number of your Lordships have spoken of the Prison Commissioners as if they were either independent or possessed a degree of independence; that they were a quasi-independent body. You have only to look back at the Prison Act, 1877, to see that that is not so. At that time the local prisons were placed under the Secretary of State, and this body corporate, the Prison Commissioners, was created to assist the Secretary of State in relation to the discharge of his functions; and this body corporate was put under the Secretary of State's power to give directions, specific and general. So, right from its inception there has not been independence. There has been a body corporate created by Act of Parliament; but that was rather the pattern in those days: that a commission or body corporate was created to assist in the discharge of functions of a Government Department. To- day we no longer do

1481
that, and surely if a proposal came forward that certain new functions should now be undertaken by a Government Department it would be regarded as a great anachronism to suggest that Commissioners should be appointed to discharge those functions, because everyone would expect them to be discharged by civil servants.
My Lords, if I may turn to just one other point in passing, before I come to the particular points raised in speeches by your Lordships, I would just say this. The link is so close that the Prison Commissioners and those who work in the Prison Service are all civil servants. I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his very interesting speech, whether I was putting forward this proposal on the constitutional ground, or on the ground that it was a most important and essential change; and on which leg I stood. My Lords, I stand on both legs. Sometimes I place more weight on one, sometimes on the other; but both legs are strong; even if I repeat some of the arguments more shortly, perhaps, than they were advanced by Mr. Chuter Ede, not only in support of this proposal in 1948 but also (and I ask your Lordships to note this) when this proposal came before the House of Commons in 1961, when he made a very persuasive and, I thought, strongly convincing speech in support of this change.
We all know the great repute rightly enjoyed by Sir Lionel Fox and Sir Alexander Paterson. We know what they did, and I should be the last in any way to seek to suggest that they were not entitled to the high reputation they justifiably enjoy. But that reputation which they earned did not depend upon the existence of a statutory corporation called the Prison Commission. What it depended on was having the right men in the right place in relation to the Prison Service.
Under the system we have now, the Home Office are responsible for the whole of penal treatment: for dealing with juvenile crime; for dealing with those who go to approved schools; for probation and after-care; while the Prison Comissioners deal with prisons. That is, in essence, illogical and wrong. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was, I think, right in saying that the real question was not whether there should be integration (if I understood him correctly) but whether there should be
1482
integration within the Home Office or within the Prison Commission; whether the functions now discharged by the statutory corporation should be transferred to the Home Office, or the Home Office's functions transferred to the Prison Commission.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one point to my noble and learned friend? I follow his point that the important thing is to get the right men in the Service, whatever it is called. I think it is a fact that when Sir Alexander Paterson, who I think we all agree was a "right man", was appointed, he was not a civil servant. Will it be equally possible, and likely, after this Order is made, that a non-civil servant will be appointed to such a position in the Prison Service?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should say that it would be just as equally likely as it is at the present moment. If some outstanding person established a tremendous reputation in a field outside the Civil Service, and were willing to come in, and the Home Secretary wanted him, I feel sure that every effort would be made to achieve that result. In fact, as your Lordships have been told, the Commissioners are civil servants at the present time.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, can he tell me how many outsiders have been appointed into the Home Office since the end of the war?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords; I am not in possession of that information. Nor, I think is it relevant to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. Perhaps I may resume the theme that I was on, because I want to deal with the various speeches which have been made. The real question is not, I submit, whether there should be integration or not, but which pattern the integration should take. I think that was the approach of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I would say that in these days, under our present system of administration, it would be a most unusual, exceptional and, I submit, unwarranted pattern to adopt to transfer more responsibilities, a wider field of activities, to

1483
Commissioners who form a body corporate but who are at the same time, like other civil servants, responsible to and under the direction of the Home Secretary. I think anyone considering the position de novo would take the view that the right way would be to create a new department of the Home Office.
Now may I turn to some of the particular questions raised in this debate? The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, began the debate from the Benches on his side of the House with a speech in which I thought he devoted more time to the question of conditions in prisons to-day than he did to the question of whether or not this Order should be made. But he did ask a question about the other Commissioners, and I hope that I shall be able to answer it correctly. The Chief Director and the Director of the Borstal Administration will, if this Order is passed, retain those positions and their titles. The noble Lord made the point that he did not know what was the position of the other Commissioners and that the Order did not say anything about the future employment of their services. The Order would not ordinarily say anything about that matter, because they are, as I have said, civil servants; and the Order will not affect the tenure of their offices, the salaries, superannuation rights of the Prison Commissioners and their staff, because they are already civil servants and will remain so.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor? We have been told that the head of the Prison Commission will be an Assistant Under-Secretary of State, that the two officials immediately below him will be Assistant Secretaries. What we have not been told, and what the Lord Chancellor has not yet said, is what equivalent Civil Service ranks directors and assistant directors will have. Obviously, we should know that because they will be in the Civil Service.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not in a position to give an answer, at the moment, but I am sure my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will gladly write to the noble Lord on that point. What I can say is that the two Commissioners
1484
now described as Chief Director and Director of Borstal Administration will retain those posts, and indeed those titles; and I think the same will apply so far as the Director of Prison Administration is concerned. The Assistant Commissioners will become Assistant Under-Secretaries but their status and responsibilities will remain precisely the same as they are to-day. I am not sure that does not answer the noble Lord's question.
The noble Lord then went on to give a somewhat lurid account of conditions in Her Majesty's prisons. We are not debating that matter to-day, but I should not like it to be thought that the Government accept the picture he has drawn as an accurate picture of the position. In particular, he drew attention to the results of certain mathematical calculations he had made as to the amount spent on food for each prisoner, which I think he said was 15s. for each week for everything, and he described that as a "Hottentot standard".
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think the figure was 11s. was it not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: 15s. for everything and 11s. for food. That, of course, ignores the value of the food produced in the prisons. The point I want to make, and I think it is the real answer to the noble Lord, is this: that the particulars of the dietary scales are set out in detail in the official publication Prisons and Borstals, and I am told that they are fully adequate for health and that great improvements have been made in recent years in preparation and service of meals.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say whether or not the two figures I quoted, which are out of the Commissioner's Report, are correct? And will he say how much food is grown at prisons like Pentonville or Wandsworth, or Strangeways, or places of that kind?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we are not debating penal reform or the Report of the Prison Commissioners. Her Majesty's Government do not accept the picture drawn by the noble Lord as an accurate picture of the present position. Indeed, the noble Lord went on to criticise efforts to provide

1485
40 new penal establishments and suggested that all we were doing was considering building more places for keeping people inside. That building of new penal establishments is part of the answer to the very kind of complaint the noble Lord made. I recognise, and I think we all recognise, there is a great deal to be done in this particular field. We are not debating that to-day. I would just say this. The noble Lord at the end of his speech put the question more than once, "Will the new regime be better?"; and that, I thought, as I think the right reverend Prelate thought, was rather a reflection on the work done by the Prison Commissioners. I do not know whether the new regime will do better or worse than would be the case if the two institutions, the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners, were kept separate in the future. But I am not sharing or joining in any implied criticism of what the Prison Commissioners have done. All I am saying is that I was convinced by the speech Mr. Chuter Ede made and by the arguments I have heard on so many occasions that the change proposed by this Order will tend to the future efficiency of the prison service as a whole.
Then Lord Moynihan made a most interesting speech. He thought that this proposal would weaken the position, I think it was, of the Prison Commissioners. I believe he was not directing his mind to whose fault the present situation was due—whether it was that of the Home Office or that of the Prison Commissioners. He thought it would be more dangerous to let the Prison Commissioners be joined with the Home Office because he considered that they had performed an exceptionally fine task as an independent team. With the greatest respect to his Lordship, that really is a misconception. It is a team of which we have known the names of those in charge, but it has never been an independent team.
The right reverend Prelate quite rightly said that administration is of the greatest possible importance. I could not; agree more; and there will still he a report similar to the Report of the Prison Commissioners for your Lordships to see. Then he asked a question: should we get the same type of men with the same type of experience? I see no reason at all to suppose that we shall get anything different in quality from
1486
those responsible for the prison service. He asked me, too, what real advantages will accrue. He said that the only virtue would be an increase in efficiency—the very test used by Mr. Chuter Ede in relation to this clause as long back as 1948.
I believe the case for efficiency can be put in this way. Think, for a moment, of the duplication which would necessarily ensue if instead of having branches of the Home Department you had separate Commissions running the Aliens Department, the Children's Department and all the rest of them. There would be a tremendous amount of duplication. To some extent there must be duplication now between the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners in relation to the field covered by the Prison Commissioners. But the real argument for administrative efficiency is that put by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who really covered all this ground. He used the phrase "Departmental boxes", to which objection was taken.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, may I intervene? I was not really talking about administrative efficiency in this respect. I was talking about skill and experience in this particular area—the important, humane and personal business of managing prisons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the right reverend Prelate in any degree, but I feel confident that this change will not lead to the slightest diminution of that. What it will lead to, I think, will be a closer degree of co-operation and so a closer degree of efficiency. I hope, too—I have no connection with the Home Office; I have never served in that Department—that when this change is made it will lead to perhaps greater speed being made with the changes in the direction that we all want to see achieved.
I have already said something in answer to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, but I should like to touch on one or two other points with which he dealt. He made the point that if this change were made, any decision of importance would have to go to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Home Office, and that that would mean delay. I am sorry to have to tell him that that is not really a sound

1487
argument, because any question of importance which comes to the Prison Commissioners already goes to the Permanent Under-Secretary. In fact those who will be at the head of the prison service after this change is made will have the same degree of responsibility for decisions as they do at present.
The noble Earl also spoke about the prison service and the continuity of a career. Some criticism in this respect was made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. But I do not think that this change will have any adverse effect. It may to some degree open the doors a little wider for a career in the Civil Service; it certainly will not shut them. We were asked to pause and think again before
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

SCOTTISH PULP MILL (WATER SUPPLY) ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
5.38 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
making this change. I can assure your Lordships that not only was this change thought about in 1948, and in 1961, but it has been thought about now. We believe that it will lead to the efficiency of the administration on which a great deal depends if we are to make progress; that it will certainly not lead to any diminution of the humane treatment that your Lordships want to see adopted and exercised in relation to those who come within the sphere of penal treatment. It is for those reasons that we believe that it is right to press forward with this reform.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ironside, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dormer, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Luke, L.

Bethell, L.

Effingham, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bossom, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merthyr, L.

Brocket, L.

Furness, V.

Newall, L.

Chelmer, L.

Goddard, L.

Newton, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rockley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Somers, L.

Craigton, L.

Hastings, L.

Soulbury, V.

Craven, E.

Hawke, L.

Strang, L.

Croft, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Waleran, L.

Devonshire, D.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Amulree, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L.

Moynihan, L,

Summerskill, B

Champion, L.

Peddie, L.

Swanborough, B

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Taylor, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Walston, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Williams, L.

Kenswood, L.

Schedule 1 [River Authorities]:
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved to omit the reference to the proposed new Lancashire and Cumberland River Authority and to substitute:

"26. The Lancashire River Authority

The Lancashire River Board area except the catchment areas of the rivers, Duddon, Kent and Leven.

27. The Lakeland River Authority

The Cumberland River Board area and the catchment areas of the rivers Duddon, Kent and Leven."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a different Amendment from the one I moved during Committee stage, but is

1489
designed towards the same end: namely, to try to get a Lakeland authority. We feel that a Lakeland authority is a very much better proposal than that in the Bill because it prevents this great National Park from being put in jeopardy. The Amendment which I moved in Committee sought to go back to the White Paper—that is to say, to make a Lakeland authority with that part of Lancashire which goes down to the Lune. This was not acceptable to the Government, or to Lancashire; and although the Minister who is in charge of the Bill has given away nothing, I feel that something must be done to try to put this matter right. It is not a "parish pump issue", not an issue of Cumberland versus Lancashire, but very much a national issue.
I consider that the proposals for dealing with Lakeland as put forward by the Bill should be totally unacceptable from a national point of view. They really are not "on". Between now and the Bill's going to another place, can we not try to devise some means which will safeguard the National Park? My earlier proposals were dealt with in very great detail by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I feel that some of the points he made were not entirely correct, and I think that those points have in fact been put right by a deputation which went to see the Ministry of Housing and Local Government about this matter. Although some of the points that lie made in answering my proposals were not entirely accurate, I want to thank him very much indeed for three most valuable concessions, which he gave in Amendments which he moved himself, which go a very long way to reinforce Clause 93. As your Lordships will remember, Clause 93 is the amenity clause and is the one which is very important from my point of view. The noble Earl not only moved these three very valuable Amendments himself, but he also allowed the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, on nature conservancy to go through. But, my Lords, I feel that this is not enough.
This is a very special case. Lakeland is a national heritage, and the various strengthenings of Clause 93 which help over the whole field of this Bill are not enough to safeguard this particular and special problem. Lakeland cannot be safe under the Bill as it stands. The control of Central Lancashire must be
1490
pre-eminent, must be paramount, in spite of what the noble Earl said to me at the Committee stage. He said that perhaps I was making heavy weather of this point, and that Cumberland and the Lake interests would not be quite so heavily outnumbered as I had suggested they were. But I am afraid this is not so. The pressure of consuming interests must prevail, and the pressure of expediency must prevail. That being so, I feel that we must ask for something more for
the Lake authority than we are going to get even with the concessions which the noble Earl has given. I feel that, if we were doing water conservancy on a great regional basis, we should have been perfectly happy to have been inside (shall we say?) the control of the six Northern counties, but I do not feel that we can be inside the control of the six Lancashire boroughs. That, I feel, is really an impossible situation.
My new proposal takes the old Cumberland River Board area plus the Furness area of Lancashire and also, of course, South Westmorland with it. My new proposal would embrace the whole of the National Park. Not only that, but it leaves Central Lancashire with the Lune and the Ribble unseparated. This was a very important point so far as Lancashire was concerned, and they felt that by separating the Lune and the Ribble we were making nonsense of the new area. I do not know how much support I am going to get from your Lordships, but from talking to people in the Lakeland area, people representing some of the interests from Lancashire and Westmorland, I feel that I have considerably more support for this new Amendment than perhaps I had for the old one.
This new area which I propose seems to me an entirely viable one. It is more convenient from the point of view of land drainage and fisheries than is the Bill's area. Apart from a very big regional area which raises different problems, the area that I am proposing is already large enough. If you consider the enormous number of lakes, the number of rivers, the number of watersheds, the number of river basins, you realise it is a formidable problem, very different from those areas which have comparatively few watersheds. So

1491
from the point of view of size alone, it seems to me that there is no special need to be thinking in terms of making it any bigger. Let me make a comparison with Cornwall. In Cornwall you have slightly more than three-quarters of a million acres and a third of a million population. So far as Lakeland is concerned, you have a million and a half acres and slightly less than half a million population. Here we have an area in Cornwall which is acceptable to the Government. Surely the Lakeland area is viable on the same terms.
Secondly, if we take rateable value as an indication of financial strength, then it is still a viable unit. Let me quote, for example, the Gwynedd River Authority, which is a tiny one but which, nevertheless, is felt by the Government to be a viable unit. Thirdly, hydro-metrically it seems to me to be perfectly all right. If you take the present Cumberland River Board area as now constituted, it is more or less equal to the hydrometric area proposed by the first Report of the Sub-Committee. But now, if you take some of the new authorities that the Bill proposes, they are so small that it takes three of them to make one of these hydrometric areas. So I think on those grounds, hydrologically and hydrometrically, that this area is a perfectly good one.
Let me take some of the points which are worrying Lancashire, which made them oppose my first proposals. First of all, the Lune and the Ribble are not separated under this new suggestion. Secondly, the Ribble is not absorbed by the Mersey. Here to some extent I feel that on both of these points a salmon fishers lobby has been brought to bear. As I said at the Committee stage, I do not really feel that the question of the fishery problem is quite as important either as the noble Earl made it out to be or, indeed, as the Lancashire lobby made it out to be. But as anyone who is on a river board knows, the fishery interest is always one of the most voluble and persistent. I think that it has been this fishery interest which pressed against my Amendment in the Committee stage. I hope that those Lancashire fishermen will feel happy about my new Amendment.
Thirdly, so far as land drainage is concerned, their criticism was that the Fylde area was a very expensive one and the Lune-Lakes authority, as I proposed at the Committee stage, would not be financially strong enough to deal with these very expensive drainage problems. Under my new arrangement the Fylde area stays with financial strength—stays, in other words, with Lancashire. Fourthly, the new Lancashire authority that I am suggesting is equally viable financially with the area that I want in Lakeland. Lastly, Lancashire itself, through the Furness part which would come into the Lakeland authority, will have a representation of something like a quarter. So it seems to me that Lancashire can hardly oppose my new proposal. I feel that every point they made has been met—as to fishery interests, as to drainage interests and, lastly, as to representational interests.
What about Westmorland? Westmorland were not with me in my first Amendment. They again felt that the area I was proposing was going to be financially too weak to deal with the drainage problems; and that Westmorland, being a very poor county, would certainly have found itself as part of this having to foot the bill for very expensive drainage operations. Well, I have met this point, again. The expensive land drainage part of the system is going to stay with Lancashire.
It seems to me, my Lords, that there is only one disadvantage to my new proposal, and that is the disadvantage that you already have 26 river authorities, and what I am proposing is going to add yet another. But does this really make very much difference? The Government have departed from the idea of treating water conservancy on a really large basis; that is to say, having, let us say, only six authorities for the whole country. So that by merely adding a twenty-seventh to the existing 26 as proposed, I do not really think you are going to upset the balance very much. All you are doing is having three river authorities—Merseyside and Cheshire, Lancashire with the Lune and the Ribble, and then a Lakeland authority, instead of the two proposed by the Bill.
I put this forward as a talking point, because I think it is absolutely essential to try to hammer out something to calm the fears of the millions of lovers of the

1493
Lake District. We know that this area, this great National Park, is and must be a reservoir. But I do feel that the control of this reservoir simply must be in the hands of Lakeland, and not in the hands of Central Lancashire. All the arguments which were put forward last February in the great Manchester Corporation Bill debate about Ullswater are really arguments which are pertinent to the issue we are now discussing. This area is unique. It is a unique area in England, and a unique National Park. It is the greatest and most significant of them all, and it must be treated in a unique way. I feel that no other area suggested as a river authority can put up arguments of this sort; and if ever there was a case for making a separate authority, Lakeland is it.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Henley.)
5.51 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has submitted his Amendment in a very reasoned and moderate way, and although I am myself not necessarily committed to any details of the Amendment, I am in full accord with the purport of it, which is to ensure that, on any authority, the representatives of the Lake District will not be so swamped that they will not be able to guard well what I am sure we would all wish to see guarded well. I am of opinion that, under the Bill as it now stands, they cannot, by reason of their numbers, have the influence and the voting power to ensure that; and I am voicing a widespread fear in the Lake District that, through this Bill, the beauties and the amenities may become seriously impaired because they will be under the direction of an authority which is primarily concerned with industrial and commercial needs.
There is no desire on the part of the Lake District in any way to make it unduly difficult for any consuming authority to secure the waters that the lakes can provide. There is no reluctance on their part in that regard. They are merely concerned to ask that, when a scheme for the extraction of water is put forward, the primary concern will not be to get it at the cheapest price—a price that might mean the impairing
1494
of amenities—but that whatever authority gets it should be prepared to spend adequately not only to secure the water but to secure the preservation of the amenities. That is the real problem, and it is the real concern of the people of the whole Lake District.
I am sure your Lordships must sympathise with us all in this. We have no desire to be difficult, but we do desire to ensure that the representatives of the Lake District on any authority will be sufficiently numerous not only to state the case but to press it home. Will your Lordships please remember that when at any time there comes a conflict between two interests, one commercial and industrial and the other scenic beauty and amenities, those who may be interested in preserving the amenities are hardpressed?—for the industrial world is much harder in its bargaining than is the artistic world and, what is more, it can easily get its way because it knows it has better "know-how" than those who are concerned merely with the arts and cultures. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the purport of this Amendment, which is to see that the authority established to cover the lakes will be one on which the representatives of the lakes will have sufficient numbers to ensure that in any scheme the amenities and the beauty of this Lake District will be preserved. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, it is a unique area.
If I could be assured by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that this question is going to be looked at again and again, I would not myself feel under any obligation to press the Amendment to its bitter end. But I want to express a very widespread fear, a widespread concern—and it is a concern for national interests, not just for local interests. The Lake District is a national asset, and it is in the interests of the nation that it should be preserved. I think that we are right and fully justified in asking that the nation should ensure that in a Bill of this kind there is embedded the provision for an authority that can adequately safeguard this lovely part of England, which we would wish to preserve wholly for all concerned.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like very shortly to support this Amendment, about which I feel very deeply, coming as

1495
I do from the part of the country concerned, but I think that the case has been put so very well by my noble friend behind me and by the right reverend Prelate that there is very little more one can say, except that it really is not, I assure your Lordships, a matter of parish pump politics. Those of your Lordships who know Central Lancashire and Lakeland can have a great admiration for each of those areas for totally different reasons, and we should not try to lump them together for tidiness. As was said in the debate we had earlier in the afternoon, tidiness is of itself not necessarily a good thing. These two areas are as unlike each other as oil and water or chalk and cheese. I would appeal to your Lordships to remember that we did a great service to the country when we saved Ullswater, and I hope we can follow that example in this instance.
5.58 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a word, too. We have not had the pleasure of hearing the right reverend Prelate since, I think, his very notable contribution to the Ullswater debate. There is a certain resemblance between the two situations, and I hope his intervention to-day will be equally successful. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I put before the House on the Second Reading of this Bill, which I think are really at the back of everybody's mind, although they have not, perhaps, been brought out quite fully this afternoon.
The point, of course, is that the area referred to in the Schedule at the present time, which extends deep down into Lancashire, contains very many county boroughs. I think I am right in saying that there are more county boroughs in Lancashire than in any other county in England. Of course, it is quite true that this area does not cover the whole of Lancashire, but it includes a sufficient number of county boroughs, with their immense rateable values, to give them a really quite decisive influence on the river authority if it is established as laid down at present in the Schedule. That, undoubtedly, has very much frightened the people in the Lake District.
There is no need for me to emphasise the importance of this area. I know the noble Earl is just as much enamoured
1496
of it as I am. The concessions to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has referred do, I admit, help us to some extent, particularly the one which requires that any proposal should be brought to the attention of the Planning Board at once. This will be a very great help in this connection, as I am sure the noble Earl will point out when he comes to reply. It might be that it could go somewhat further. I think it is right to say the Minister has power to call in any proposal which may appear to him to be dangerous or to require further consideration. I hope that I am right about this: perhaps the noble Earl will deal with the points in his reply.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can reply at once. The answer is, Yes.
LORD CHORLEY: I thought that was so. I wonder if the noble Earl could go further and say that he will undertake, on behalf of the Minister, that anything affecting the Lake District will be called in—I will not say automatically; but will be considered or at any rate looked at carefully with a view to calling it in if it seems necessary. This would undoubtedly be a help also. But the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was rubbing in, and which the Minister accepted at an earlier stage, was that the decisions are taken in the very beginning. We have these county boroughs many of which are great manufacturing boroughs, and others—places like Blackpool; great places for holiday makers—where a great volume of water is required for baths and otherwise, looking with envious eyes on the Lake District's water supplies, and having at the beginning a dominating control over the river authority by virtue of their representation and their rateable values. It is going to be exceedingly difficult for the local people to stand up to them, even with the assistance of the concessions that the Government have given. I may tell the noble Earl that I was in the Lake District last week-end and met many leaders of the amenity movement, and they were greatly encouraged by the Amendments which he gave us last week. If he had been there it would have done him good to hear the commendations he received. If he will go a step further this afternoon, then further eulogies will be piled upon his head. I hope that he will see his way to do this.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, it does not seem so long since we were privileged to hear the last but by no means the least of the speeches of that eloquent advocate and great-hearted man, the late Lord Birkett, on the Manchester Corporation Bill. It was a memorable speech, and alas! it proved to be his swan-song. It convinced a majority of your Lordships that the beauties of Ullswater ought not to be put at the mercy of the bath-taps of far away Manchester. We were so strongly moved that we took the unusual course of refusing the Private Bill a Second Reading. Can any of us who are not ostriches doubt for a moment which way Lord Birkett if he were alive to-day would vote on the Amendment before us? I cannot help thinking that when the White Paper was drafted the words used by Lord Birkett were still wisely echoing in the ears of the Government. It is the purpose of these few sentences to bring back to the mind of my noble friend the arguments that Lord Birkett used to defend the beauties of the Lake District he loved so well. The case is not, of course, the same; but, as has been pointed out, it is parallel. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is going to take the gentlemanly course of not dividing the House and of asking the Government to think again. I hope that they will do so in such a way as to pay tribute to the late Lord Birkett's memory.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of what has been said. I have not intervened on this Bill on this particular subject before, because it seemed to me that it would be better to leave it to those who speak with so much direct and recent knowledge of the area. I had the honour of winding up for my friend the late Lord Birkett in the debate to which we have been referred, and though I have not visited it recently, I have an old love for the area. That love encourages me to plead for very special consideration, on national grounds, for what is a unique part of the country. I have not studied in detail the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but in common with the rest of the House I am grateful to him for his study of the matter and for having put it down. I beg to support him. I would ask the Government to give this matter their most careful consideration.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, it is impossible not to be impressed by the arguments so temperately but forcefully calling attention to the special problem in this unique area. I was particularly impressed, if I may say so, by the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate. On the other hand, it is difficult also not to be impressed by the argument which the Minister will no doubt use in his reply, that the cure for problems of this kind is not likely to be found in a multiplication of authorities to which there is, on general grounds, a strong objection. Is it not possible that the remedy for this special situation is to be found partly in the fact that the Minister himself will consider it at a suitably early stage as a special problem? And is it not a matter to which the Water Resources Board, with their wide powers, will give early attention? They are in a more detached position than any individual river authority will be. They are under various obligations, which the Minister has strengthened during the various stages of the Bill, including an obligation to have regard to the preservation of amenities. If they were to review this area from every angle—not only the needs of the urban population, but the way in which the resources of the whole area could be best conserved and used—might not some solution more fundamental than merely an amelioration of the position be found in that way?
The whole policy of the treatment of our water resources needs fundamental examination. The one thing not to do is to allow everybody who wants water to divert it from its natural channels, tap it at its source, and put it into pipes. A very great deal of water has to be used over and over again. Many of your Lordships who live in London may think of the water they are drinking and its sources, and they will conclude that most of it is purified effluent. But a great deal of the demand for water can be met in a much less extravagant way than by creating reservoirs near to the rise of the various streams and rivers and piping it away. It is sound enough, no doubt, to impound the water near the source, but it is not, I believe, sound to divert it then from its natural channels. Much more could be done, too, to store water in times of surplus.

1499
All those are problems which it is impossible to discuss during the passage of a Bill in your Lordships' House, but they are, I should have thought, matters of which the Water Resources Board ought to make some study coming to some conclusion, in particularly urgent cases, at a very early stage in their existence. If that were done, and if the Minister or his advisers, who are alive to most of these problems, also gave early attention, as they must have already done in some respects, to the particular position in this area, something might be done to avoid what those who love the Lake District and live in it are, not unnaturally, seriously apprehensive about at the present time.
6.11 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to begin my reply to the noble Lord with a word of apology. It has been brought to my notice that when we were discussing this subject on Committee stage in December, I said that two dates had been arranged for meetings between the Departments concerned and the Cumberland River Board, and that neither had taken place. I am sorry to find out that I was under a misapprehension. The facts were not precisely as I stated them. The truth is that meetings were twice contemplated, but that in fact a firm date was fixed for only one. I should like to take this opportunity of putting the record straight.
Despite the persuasiveness with which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, argued his case on Committee stage, I think it would be fair to say that it did not attract much support in your Lordships' House. That was a striking change from our debate a year ago on Ullswater. That change is an understandable one, because, despite what has been said by noble Lords this evening, and despite some relationship and superficial likenesses, the two issues are very different. The noble Lord, undeterred, like all good Liberals, has reverted to the charge and now proposes another set-up. On this occasion, I note with interest and some disquietude that he has rallied not only the State but also the Church to his assistance. I appreciate the knowledge which he, as a member of a river board, brings to this matter. I
1500
respect very much his sincerity, and I am aware of his continual persuasiveness and persistance. Yet I am afraid that I am just as unable to recommend your Lordships to accept his February scheme as I was unable to recommend to your Lordships his December scheme.
I concede at once that the new Henley boundary avoids at least one objection that I advanced to his earlier scheme. It. now permits the Lune and the Ribble to lie down together, and as a result the fishery work based on the Lune, which is now proving so profitable to the Ribble, will not be broken up. Having conceded that point straight away to the noble Lord, I would refer to the principal objection which has been advanced to our proposed amalgamation—that is, the objection on the score of representation. I know that genuine and deep-seated fears are entertained on this score. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle told us some of them and I accept what he said. Many people seem to think that, because of the balance of rateable value and local authority representation, the views of the industrial South will outweigh and override the views of the Lakeland North in the river authority which we are suggesting. I still feel that those fears, albeit sincerely held, are Greatly exaggerated, and even the noble Lord, speaking with his customary moderation, made rather heavy weather of this argument this afternoon. He spoke of the river authority being under the control of six Lancashire boroughs. That is such an exaggeraton as to be verging on a travesty of the position, as I understand it.
I would remind your Lordships that this is to be an authority of 31 members, one of the larger authorities. Fifteen will be appointed by my right honourable friend. Of the 16 local authority representatives, 4 will be likely to come from the old Cumberland area, and of the remaining 12, some 6 will be representatives of Lancashire County Council. And I would remind your Lordships, if you need reminding, that much of this Northern part of Lancashire is rural, with rural-minded people living in it, as my noble friend Lord Clitheroe pointed out on Committee stage.
I would also remind your Lordships that the Lancashire River Board, com-

1501
posed of just these people, has shown by its attention to the Ribble and Lune fisheries how much it is alive to matters which concern countrymen. I would remind you, also, that the power of co-option which is written into this Bill provides a further means of tapping local knowledge where that is thought to be desirable. Finally, I would again suggest that we should not here attach too much importance to the counting of heads. Many of the existing river boards already include heavy conurbations, which claim a preponderance of local authority representation. The example of the Trent River Board occurs to me immediately. But that does not mean that these boards are neglecting that part of their work which benefits only rural areas. Does the Lancashire River Board at present give short shift to the needs of Westmorland, Furness and the Duddon?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not at present concerned with providing reservoirs.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was thinking of drainage, and I do not think that anyone could claim that the Lancashire River Board is inattentive to the drainage needs of the Northern area. I suggest to your Lordships that the real protection for amenity (and what I am going to say will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Chorley), and for the integrity of a National Park, an integrity which we all wish to preserve, is not to be found in "rigging" the areas of the river authorities or "fiddling" representation upon them.
For the reasons have given, I suggest that the fears on this score of representation are rather exaggerated. Nevertheless, I do not wish to rest my case for the river authority we propose in the First Schedule on these merely negative grounds; primarily I base it on the positive ground that we see considerable advantages in the authority as proposed. In the first place, in the matter of finance, which has a particular bearing on land drainage, during the current financial year (according to my information) the Lancashire River Board provided a sum of over £83,000 for expenditure on works and services in the Duddon, Kent, and Leven catchments, the area which the noble Lord proposes to graft on to the old Cumberland River
1502
Board area. The estimated precept revenue from that area is under £30,000, leaving a deficit of something over £54,000. The area, if grafted on, represents from this point of view a net burden. Its addition to Cumberland would require, I gather, a precept over the whole of the Cumberland River Board as extended at about 1¾ times the present rate.
I do not wish to dwell too heavily on the sordid argument of finance, though it is important, because we are concerned here with matters which will require financing; and quite heavy financing. But I do propose to labour the argument based on water conservation, because the noble Lord, Lord Henley, himself recognised—and I should like to quote from words that he used in our Committee stage [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 245 (No. 27), col. 1290]—that
"much the strongest of his argument is about water conservation, and this Bill is about water conservation so I am happier there."
Parenthetically, I would explain that "his" is me and "there" refers to our proposed amalgamation. As your Lordships may know, I have for the last twelve months or so been presiding over a conference concerned with water supplies in the North-West. The conference set up a technical committee to look into this matter in all its detail. The sources which the technical committee have thought worthy of consideration are more or less evenly divided between the Cumberland River Board area and the Lancashire River Board area, but they extend over the whole of the latter area, and not just the snippet which the noble Lord would seek to graft on to the Cumberland River Board area.
It quickly became clear to all of us, looking at this problem, that one cannot get a complete picture of the alternatives, say, to the Ullswater and Bannisdale schemes, which were discussed in your Lordships' House last year, without taking account of various possible ways of developing the water resources of the Lune and Ribble catchments. This study has demonstrated that in any survey of water resources the two river board areas must be regarded as a single unit. The best way of doing this for the future is surely to have a single authority responsible for the combined

1503
area. This is the form of organisation best calculated to achieve the object which we all have in mind—namely to work out how best to harness the great water resources of this part of the country without damaging its natural beauty. The fact that the proposal in the Bill preserves the unity of a substantial water-producing and water-exporting area is a fundamental advantage of the Government's proposed scheme here. It is an advantage which I think is not to be lightly cast away; and if your Lordships were to accept Lord Henley's Amendment, you would be casting it away.
I would emphasise as strongly as I can that, from the point of view of water conservation, and of securing well-informed and comprehensive management of water resources, the Amendment is sadly disadvantageous compared with the scheme in the Bill. It is disadvantageous in the loss of unified control over the waters of this water exporting area, and would be further disadvantageous if the Ribble and Lune catchments had to be combined with an area further to the South with quite different problems of water conservation from those which obtain in these two catchments. Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I think, rather glossed over the problem. In Committee, many noble Lords stressed that the one thing we should not do is to create more river authorities. The burden of their argument was that there were too many written into this Bill already. I would not lightly see the further creation of river authorities, and that might well be the result of accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, because it would, in fact, be reducing the existing area of the Lancashire River Board.
My Lords, if we want better water conservation, if this is what the Bill is really about, as the noble Lord himself says, and if we want better conservation in the North-West, as I assume that we do, then I would urge your Lordships to go for the bigger and bolder scheme written into the Bill. I apologise for the length of my reply, but this is an important matter, and I realise that there is a great interest in it in the North-West.
Finally, I should like to deal with the argument that the Henley scheme would afford greater protection for the amenity
1504
of the Lake District than the proposals we have in mind. I must again claim that the Government's actions in this Bill—not just their words—have shown that they mean business when they say that the protection of the natural beauty of, if I may dare say it, our greatest National Park, is one of their constant objectives. I fully accept what the right reverend Prelate said about the area we are discussing being a national heritage; of course it is. In the Government's view, that natural beauty will be better protected if the proposal in the Schedule stands than if we accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
Let me briefly recapitulate the safeguards for amenity now written into this Bill—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for what they said on this score. First, there is the provision on Clause 13 for the appointment of an amenity member to the Water Resources Board. I think it is almost certain that the Water Resources Board will immediately be alerted of all important schemes, and that the amenity member of the Water Resources Board will therefore stand as a watchdog of amenity over such schemes. Secondly, special references to natural beauty are to be found in Clause 19 dealing with minimum acceptable flows—not unimportant in the Lakeland area. Thirdly, there is the new subsection in Clause 52 dealing with transmission of applications for licences to National Park Planning Authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, reminded us, that is a not insignificant subsection, so far as this National Park is concerned.
Fourthly, my Lords, there is the saving for the town and country planning legislation in Clause 63 (3). Fifthly, there is the amenity clause itself, Clause 93. Sixthly, there is the new clause after Clause 93, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and accepted by the Government, recognising the special responsibilities in this field of the Nature Conservancy. Seventhly, I would again remind noble Lords that I myself proposed on the Committee stage an Amendment which will make the Water Resources Board, in addition to the river authorities, responsible for securing amenity. I would claim that those provisions are not just pious expressions of hope. They

1505
are precise enactments which together will ensure that amenity is always in mind at all stages of the river authority's work and in the counsels of the Water Resources Board. They secure that the views of the National Park Planning Authority—in this case the Lake District Park Planning Board—will be made known to the river authority, and will need to be taken into consideration by that authority. They secure that decisions on planning permission for the construction of works are taken not by the river authority, but either by the planning board or by the Minister himself.
I should like, if I may, to confirm that it is most unlikely that on a controversial application the final decision would in practice rest with the river authority. The Minister quite clearly has power, under Clause 38, to direct that particular applications be referred to him for decision, and it is highly likely that he will use his power in cases of the sort that I am sure we all have in mind. For example, the Planning Board, as the custodian of the amenity of the National Park, will no doubt be quick to urge him to take action on what they consider to be dangerous applications. The Water Resources Board will be alerted, if necessary, through their amenity member, and I am certain that the Minister would be extremely sympathetic to representations from that quarter. I would add that where an application of this kind is called in, a public inquiry would be bound to be held, so that even if the river authority were to support the application the opponents would have full opportunity to state their case.
In all these circumstances, I would state quite categorically that these provisions make it impossible for any river authority to ride roughshod over local opinion in this question of natural beauty and amenity. I know that it can be argued that all the provisions to which I have referred apply with equal force to a river authority proposed in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Indeed they do. My argument is not only that they will apply to the area described in the Schedule, but that that area will better secure the objective we have in mind. Even with the provisions of the Bill for securing transfers of water between areas—and these will be effective—it seems axiomatic to me that if
1506
within an area there is a wider range of choice of sites for any particular project, there will be a better chance of settling on the best one from all points of view, including the factor of amenity.
I regard as a matter of great importance that the further development of the North-West's precious water resources should be planned not only with the greatest care, not only with the greatest possible regard to amenity, but also on as wide, bold and comprehensive a basis as possible. I believe that the river authority we propose will give us a mechanism to enable such planning to be carried out. I also remain convinced that the best defences for the incomparable natural beauty of this area lie in the provisions of the Bill as they now stand. For these reasons, my Lords, while I am fully sympathetic to much that has been said by those who advocate this Amendment, and while I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the views which they hold—although some of them, I think, were exaggerated—I do not feel it right to recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
6.33 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl has made a very strong case, but no doubt in spite of that there may still be some fears in Cumberland. I believe the noble Earl said that the Cumberland district would be represented by 4 members out of 31. It is rather a small number, and I can well imagine that those members would feel rather swamped. But it is possible, as I see it in paragraph 5, for the Minister to appoint additional members to the Board in special circumstances. If there is this recognised fear in Cumberland for the protection of their countryside, I wonder if the Minister would consider whether this could come under "special circumstances". If he adopted that view, then perhaps he could increase the number of members from Cumberland to 6 or 7, which would give them a feeling of a little more power and ability to put their case if they were ever in conflict with the remainder of the Board. I wonder whether the noble Earl can say anything in that respect.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say three things in that regard. The first is that I do not think the comparison is between 4 and 31; it is

1507
between 4 and 16. There will be 16 local authority representatives in a river authority of 31, of whom we calculate that probably some 4 would be drawn from the old Cumberland River Board area. The second point is that I would assume that of the Ministerial appointments—their qualifications are set out in subsection (3) of Clause 6—a proportion of those 15 would be drawn from Lakeland. Finally it is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that in special circumstances subsection (5) might apply. Thinking aloud on my feet I would not wish in any way to commit my right honourable friend in that respect, but special circumstances are, as the noble Lord rightly said, provided for.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the Bill goes to another place, could the noble Earl consult his Minister in this respect and see whether some assurance could be given that there should be a reasonable balance, so that the fears of Cumberland, which have been well expressed here this afternoon, could in some way be allayed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I recognise, of course, as I hope I was at pains to point out, that there is a genuine concern here, and I am very willing to fall in with the noble Lord's first proposal.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I do not seem to have got very far, but I hope, at any rate, that I have helped, with other noble Lords who have raised amenity points, to bring a sense of the importance of all these amenity considerations before the Government. They have certainly given way on a number of things, and I thank the Minister for that. While saying that, I am still no more convinced by what he has said to me on this Amendment, than I was by what he said before. What he says, in effect, now is that the Bill's proposals for a river authority are more likely to protect the amenities of the Lake District than either my Amendment at the Committee stage or my Amendment at this stage. This is patently not so. The fact that there are these additional safeguards which the Minister has kindly given, are to some extent an indication that he himself does not regard the Bill's proposals as being nearly so safeguarding to the Lake District as my scheme would be.
1508
Let me take one or two of the actual details he has mentioned. First, there is the question of representation—and here I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for raising another possibility which the Government might look into. I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl has been pretty rough with me here. He thinks that my contention that it would be under the control of six boroughs—I forget the actual words he used, but I felt that he thought it was an irresponsible suggestion.
EARL JELLICOE: I think I said that it was exaggerated to the point of travesty.
LORD HENLEY: An elegant phrase, my Lords, but is it true? What I said seems to me to be much more the case. I said that the Lakeland area would be under the control of these authorities. The noble Earl has produced various figures which are more or less the same figures he produced at the Committee stage and which the river authority of which I have knowledge immediately denied, and denied again, I think, when they went with the deputation the other day. I do not want to get into the condition of counting heads, "rigging" areas or "fiddling" representatives. This is not the point. The point still is, whatever the noble Earl says, that we are very much at the mercy of the consumer. As I said before, we know that we are a reservoir, but we feel that we must have control of it; and nothing the noble Earl has said convinces me to the contrary.
The same applies to the noble Earl's remarks on finance. He has painted a picture of the most appalling deficits if we adopted my suggestion. May I say that it would not have been possible to draw up the White Paper suggestions if this sort of deficit was going to occur? The Government's White Paper area, which was my first Amendment in the Committee, was really taking the Government's own arguments. Those arguments were rejected: they were not demolished utterly, but rather were rejected on the ground that one put a slightly different emphasis on all the new arguments. Nevertheless, no one can possibly convince me that there will be a terrible deficit on the drainage problems in the Duddon, Kent and Levin river basins: because, as I say, this would have made nonsense of

1509
the White Paper in the first place. Again, he feels that this new area of mine would be sadly disadvantageous from the Lancashire point of view, but am I not only asking for what is now being given Lancashire? I cannot help feeling that the Lancashire lobby must have been extraordinarily effective here. They do not want to have the Ribble, or the Lune either, put into the hands of the Mersey area, which they feel does not know anything about fish and which, in any case, consists mainly of houses. We are asking the same for Cumberland, but for some extraordinary reason the Government have rejected our contention, which was their own when they drew up the White Paper, but are now allowing Lancashire to have their case, which seems to me no better than ours.
I am most disappointed. I have obtained slightly more support for this Amendment than I had for the previous one and I must thank the noble Earl for taking very great trouble to answer all my points in Committee and here in such very great detail. But I am just not convinced. I am disappointed, but I hope that this has gone some way towards making the Government realise that this is a problem of the greatest urgency and one which does worry us very much in the North. Having said that, I feel there is no other course open to me but to ask for the withdrawal of my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Adaptation of Statutory Provisions in Consequence of Transfer of Functions]:
6.43 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, this Amendment makes drafting changes in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, with the result that the paragraph will embrace all the types of adaptation on which paragraph 4 of the Schedule is to operate but no others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 24, leave out from ("areas") to end of line 32 and insert ("the provisions of any enactment, order, scheme, award or byelaw were to have effect, or to be construed, as if they referred, or included references, to river boards or their areas generally, or to a particular river board or the area of a particu-
1510
lar river board, those provisions shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having been amended accordingly by the said Act of 1948.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential and linked with Government Amendment 83, Clause 85. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 34, leave out from ("all") to ("before") in line 35 and insert ("enactments, orders, schemes, regulations, awards and byelaws passed or made").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 91 and Clause 89, and has much the same effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 44, at end insert—
("Provided that sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall not affect the construction of any reference to a particular river board area where the appropriate river authority area comprises that river board area together with the area of another river board.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, these next two Amendments are drafting. The first inserts among the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which are not to apply to river authorities, subsections (2) to (7) of Section 47, since those subsections will be superseded by Schedule 9. The second then deletes paragraph 6 (3) of Schedule 2, which will be superfluous. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 10, leave out ("46 and") and insert ("and 46, subsections (2) to (7) of section 47, section").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Provisions as to river authorities]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 46, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should say just a word on this Amendment. Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act, 1961, lists certain investments ("Narrower-range investments requiring advice") in which a trustee may invest. Among these investments are loans and other securities issued by local and other authorities to which paragraph 9 applies. In view of Clause 6 (2) and Clause 79 of the Bill a river authority will normally be an authority to which that paragraph 9 of the 1961 Act applies. If, however, any of the local members of the Authority were, because of a disagreement among the constituent councils, to be appointed by the Minister on behalf of those constituent councils there would not be a majority of members appointed by the constituent councils. This Amendment is designed to put that right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 24, at end insert—
("Trustee Investments Act 1961
33. Any river authority which, apart from this paragraph, would not be included among the authorities to which paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961 applies shall by virtue of this Act be included among those authorities.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, will this Amendment mean that any river authority will be eligible to be included in that list of authorities within the scope of what is called the "narrower range" of investments requiring advice under the Trustee Investments Act?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can best answer that question by saying that this Amendment ensures that a river authority will be an authority to which paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1961 applies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Procedure relating to statements of minimum acceptable flows]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 14, Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 32, at end insert—
("(c) any other statutory water undertakers who were consulted in relation to the draft statement in pursuance of paragraph (b) of section 19 (4) of this Act (including that paragraph as applied by any other provision of Part III of this Act.")).—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, Amendments No. 128 and 129 are the last in a series of drafting Amendments of a similar nature. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("harbour authority or conservancy authority").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 38, leave out ("navigation").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I should like to move the next four Amendments together. They are drafting, paving the way for a new Part IV of this Schedule. The effect is to delete from Part I of the Schedule all references to the Minister of Transport, whose position is now to be dealt with in the new Part IV. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, leave out lines 10 to 16.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 26, leave out from ("Minister") to ("before") in line 28.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 32, leave out from ("Minister") to ("for") in line 33.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 36, leave out from first ("Minister") to ("shall") in line 37.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this group of four Amendments also go together. They are drafting, and their

1513
effect is to delete from Part II of the Schedule all references to the Minister of Transport. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, leave out lines 15 to 21.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 32, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 33.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 39, leave out from ("Minister") to ("for") in line 40.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 117, line 43, leave out from ("Minister") to ("shall") in line 44.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.50 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to add to paragraph 15:
"(5) In any provision of Part I or Part II of this Schedule as applied by this paragraph, any reference to paragraph 2 of this Schedule shall be construed as a reference to subparagraph (2) of this paragraph.

PART IV
Joint action by Ministers in certain cases
16. For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) a case falls within this sub-paragrah if, in accordance with paragrah 8 or paragraph 12 of this Schedule, as applied by section 19 or section 20 of this Act or by Part III of this Schedule, an objection is received by the Minister from any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority having functions in relation to an inland water to which the statement relates, or to which the proposals relate, as the case may be;

(b) a case falls within this sub-paragraph if, in accordance with paragraph 8 or paragraph 12 of this Schedule as so applied, an objection is received by the Minister from any internal drainage board whose district comprises any such inland water as is mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph or from whose district water is discharged into such an inland water;

1514

(c) a case falls within this sub-paragraph if it is the case of an order under section 25 of this Act and either—

(i) in accordance with paragraph 8 of this Schedule as applied by that section, an objection is received by the Minister from any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority having functions in relation to an inland water to which the order relates (either as prepared in draft or as proposed to be altered), or

(ii) the order (either as prepared in draft or as proposed to be altered) relates to a tidal water in respect of which there is no relevant authority for the purposes of that section other than the river authority.

17.—(1) In any case falling within any subparagraph of the last preceding paragraph, paragraphs 7 to 9 or paragraphs 11 to 13 of this Schedule, as the case may be, shall apply as if for any reference to the Minister, except in the words 'an objection is received by the Minister', there were substituted a reference to the Ministers.
(2) In this paragraph 'the Ministers'—

(a) in relation to a case falling within subparagraph (a) or sub-paragraph (c), but not falling within sub-paragraph (b), of the last preceding paragraph, means the Minister and the Minister of Transport acting jointly;

(b) in relation to a case falling within subparagraph (b), but not within sub-paragraph (a), of the last preceding paragraph, means the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly; and

(c) in relation to a case falling within both sub-paragraph (a) and sub-paragraph (b) of the last preceding paragraph, means the Minister, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has two distinct purposes. The first and minor purpose is little more than drafting; it is to insert a new sub-paragraph in paragraph 15 of the Schedule. The second purpose is rather more substantial. It is to introduce into the Schedule a new Part IV dealing with joint action by Ministers in certain cases. The effect of this new Part IV can be summarised as follows: first, where an objection to a draft statement of minimum acceptable flow or a proposal for amending such a statement is made by a navigation, harbour, or conservancy authority, the "decision making" processes (including the holding of a local inquiry) are to be a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Transport jointly. Secondly, where an objection to such a statement or to such proposals is made by an internal drainage board then the Minister of Agriculture is to be associated with the

1515
Minister of Housing and Local Government in the same way. Thirdly, where objections are made by both a navigation, harbour or conservancy authority and an internal drainage board, then we shall have an unholy trinity associated in the decision-making processes: the Ministers of Transport, Agriculture and Housing.
These provisions of Part IV have been put down following an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, during our Committee stage, and he has told me he is sorry not to be here to see its consummation. Your Lordships will recall he had tabled Amendments designed to associate the Minister of Agriculture at every stage of the procedure on minimum acceptable flows. The Amendments will secure that where a statutory body with which the Minister of Agriculture is concerned—namely, an internal drainage board—objects to a statement or a proposal for amendment, that Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, will be associated with the decision on that statement or proposal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 3, at end insert the said new sub-paragraph and new Part IV.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Orders authorising execution of works]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the revised Clause 63. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 10, leave out from ("the") to ("a") in line 12 and insert ("engineering or building operations are to be carried out").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the revised wording of this Amendment takes account of the revised Clause 63 (1). It specifies in greater detail the occupiers of land upon whom notice is to be served and also provides for notice to be served on every owner of land affected by a draft order under that clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 24, leave out from ("notice") to end of line 28 and insert—
1516
("(a) on every local authority within whose area any of the engineering or building operations are to be carried out, and
(b) on every owner, lessee or occupier (except tenants for a month or for any period less than a month and statutory tenants within the meaning of Part II of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954) of any land in relation to which compulsory powers (other than powers of compulsory acquisition) would become exercisable by the river authority if an order were made in the terms of the draft submitted by them.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to add to the Schedule:
"7. In respect of any compulsory powers conferred by the order, other than powers of compulsory acquisition, compensation shall be payable in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) of section 62 of this Act, as if in those subsections—

(a) any reference to the acquisition of the new right were a reference to the coming into operation of the order in so far as it conifers those compulsory powers;

(b) any reference to the servient land were a reference to the land in respect of which those powers are exercisable by virtue of the order; and

(c) any reference to the relevant date were a reference to the date on which the order comes into operation.

PART II
Orders conferring powers of compulsory acquisition
8. The persons on whom, under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, a copy of the notice referred to in that paragraph is required to be served shall include every owner, lessee or occupier (except tenants for a month or for any period less than a month and statutory tenants within the meaning of Part II of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954) of any land comprised in the draft order as land authorised to be compulsorily acquired or land in or over which an interest or right is authorised to be compulsorily acquired, in so far as any such owner, lessee or occupier would not be included apart from this paragraph.
9. Where any objection received by the Minister under paragraph 6 of this Schedule relates to any powers of compulsory acquisition, the Minister may require the objector to state in writing the grounds of his objection; and if the Minister is satisfied that the objection relates exclusively to matters that can be dealt with in the assessment of compensation, he may disregard the objection for the purposes of paragraph 6 of this Schedule.
10. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 5 of this Schedule, the order shall not, unless all interested parties consent, confer on the river authority powers to acquire compulsorily any land, interest or right which they would not have been empowered to acquire by virtue of the order if the order had been made in the terms of the draft submitted by them.
11. Part III of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 (which makes special provision with respect to land of local authorities and statutory undertakers, common land, inalienable land of the National Trust and ancient monuments) shall apply to the order as it applies to a compulsory purchase order within the meaning of that Act.
12.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with section 63 of this Act in relation to the acquisition of any land, interest or right in the exercise of a power conferred by the order.
(2) The provisions of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1946 (which specify certain exceptions and modifications subject to which the Lands Clauses Acts are to be incorporated with any enactment by virtue of that Act) shall have effect with respect to the incorporation of those Acts within section 63 of this Act as if they were incorporated with that section by virtue of the Act of 1946, and as if the order were a compulsory purchase order made in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 to that Act.
(3) The Lands Clauses Acts as so incorporated shall have effect subject to such further exceptions and modifications (if any) as may be specified in the order, and subject also to the provisions (where applicable) of paragraphs 13 and 14 of this Schedule.
(4) Part II of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1946 (which provides for the incorporation of certain provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845) shall have effect in relation to the order as if the order were a compulsory purchase order made in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946.
(5) In relation to the acquisition of any land, interest or right in the exercise of a power conferred by the order, the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall have effect subject to the modification of that Act specified in Part III of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1946, and to such exceptions and further modifications (if any) as may be specified in the order, and to the provisions (where applicable) of paragraphs 13 and 14 of this Schedule.
13.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to the acquisition, in the exercise of any powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the order, of an interest in or right over land by way of the creation of a new interest or right.
(2) Subjections (2) to (5) of section 62 of this Act shall apply as they apply in relation to the acquisition of a new interest or right in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 61 of this Act.
(3) The provisions of the last preceding paragraph shall have effect subject to any regulations made under subsection (6) of section 62 of this Act; and different provision may be made under that subsection according to whether the acquisition is under section 61 or section 63 of this Act.
14. Where, in connection with the engineering or building operations to which the order relates, a licence under Part IV of this Act
1518
is granted (or is deemed to be granted) to the river authority to abstract water or to obstruct or impede the flow of an inland water, no compensation shall be payable under section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 in respect of any land or interest injuriously affected by the carrying out of those operations, in so far as that land or interest is injuriously affected by the abstraction of water, or the obstruction or impeding of the flow, in accordance with the provisions of the licence.
15. As soon as may be after the order has been made, the river authority shall publish, in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality where the land in respect of which the powers of compulsory acquisition are conferred is situated, a notice describing that land and stating that the order has been made conferring powers of compulsory acquisition in respect of that land, and naming a place where a copy of the order as made may be inspected at all reasonable hours, and the river authority shall serve a like notice and copy of the order on every such owner, lessee or occupier as is mentioned in paragraph 8 of this Schedule.
16.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (5) of this paragraph, if any person aggrieved by the order, or by a certificate under the special land provisions, desires to question—

(a) the validity of the order, or of any provision of the order, on the grounds that any powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the order are not authorised by section 63 of this Act to be so conferred. or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the order, or

(b) the validity of the certificate, on the grounds that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the certificate,

he may, at any time before the end of the period of six weeks beginning with the date on which notice of the making of the order is first published in accordance with the last preceding paragraph or, as the case may be, notice of the giving of the certificate is first published in accordance with the special provisions, make an application for the purpose to the High Court.
(2) On any application under this paragraph, the High Court—

(a) may by interim order suspend the operation of the order, or any provision of the order, or of the certificate, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings;

(b) if satisfied that any powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by the order are not authorised by section 63 of this Act to be so conferred, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with any of the relevant requirements in relation to the order or the certificate, may quash the order, or any provision of the order, or the certificate, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.

(3) Except as provided by the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the validity of—

(a) the order, in so far as it confers any powers of compulsory acquisition, or

(b) any certificate given in connection with the order tinder the special land provisions,

shall not, either before or after the order or certificate has been made or given, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
(4) Subject to the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the order (except where it is subject by virtue of the special land provisions to special parliamentary procedure) and any certificate given in connection with the order under the special land provisions shall become operative on the date on which notice of the making or giving thereof is published as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.
(5) Where the order is subject to special parliamentary procedure, sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) of this paragraph—

(a) shall not apply to the order if it is confirmed by Act of Parliament under section 6 of the Stautory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, and

(b) in any other case, shall have effect as if the reference in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph to the date on which notice of the making of the order is published as therein mentioned were a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the said Act of 1945.

(6) In this paragraph 'the special land pro-visions' means the provisions of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 as applied by virtue of this Schedule, and 'the relevant requirements', in relation to an order or certificate, means any requirements of this Schedule or of the special land provisions which are applicable to that order or certificate.
17. In this Part of this Schedule 'the Act of 1946' means the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this rather lengthy Amendment has two quite separate purposes. The first is to make provision for the payment of compensation in respect of the exercise of any compulsory powers, other than powers of compulsory acquisition, conferred by an order under the revised Clause 63, and that is done by paragraph 7. Its second purpose is to make provision, mainly of a procedural nature, applicable to any order under that clause conferring powers of compulsory acquisition, and that is done by paragraphs 8 to 17 inclusive. Those latter paragraphs, for all their length and complexity, with which I am sure all your Lordships are familiar, are relatively modest in their purpose, which, broadly speaking, is to apply to orders under Clause 63, conferring powers of
1520
compulsory acquisition, the usual provisions, suitably modified and extended, relating to orders conferring such powers.
I do not think I should be very popular if I were to take your Lordships through this Amendment paragraph by paragraph. Perhaps I may just draw your Lordships' attention to two paragraphs in it. The first is paragraph 11: orders authorising compulsory acquisition of land belonging to local authorities and statutory undertakers, common land, National Trust land and ancient monuments, are to be subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. The second point to which I would draw your Lordships' attention relates to paragraphs 15 and 16; these are procedural provisions dealing with the service and publication of notices relating to the making of an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land and the procedure for challenging the validity of such an order. I assume that in view of the time your Lordships do not desire a fuller explanation of these complicated provisions, but I shall be glad to do my best to oblige if I am wrong in that supposition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 11, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want in the least to hold your Lordships up for more than a moment; but really for the purpose of putting this on the official record, on the supposition that sooner or later somebody will have to look at this in connection with this new Schedule, I would mention one thing that I forget to say when I was speaking on the new Clause 63 which was introduced last week. The provisions of my noble friend in his new Part II of Schedule 7 are, to my mind, wholly unexceptionable. He particularly drew attention to paragraph 16, which deals with the usual form of taking to the High Court any irregularity of procedure or vires which has taken place in the making of the Order. This arises out of the Franks Tribunal Report, and I think it is popular as an improvement of the law of compulsory purchase.
The only thing I do not see in the new clause is the application of that sort of provision to the first part of the Schedule which deals with orders concerning all sorts of other things to do with land other

1521
than acquiring land. It may be acquisition of water rights or compulsory stopping up of streams, or all sorts of things of great consequence to the people involved. I should like to have an assurance, if my noble friend can give it, that either they may be able to put in a similar appeal to the High Court on the question of whether the powers actually asked for in any order are really within the terms of Clause 63, or alternatively, if there is no question of putting in a special appeal to the High Court, the ordinary provisions of certiorari would suffice to deal with the matter. I should be grateful if my noble friend could give me an answer to that question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess my heart sank when I saw my noble friend rising. I thought I was bound to be unable to give him any explanation or satisfaction on any point he raised in connection with this Amendment. But I think I can assure him that the particular matter he has raised—and on which I believe he has been in correspondence with my noble friend Lord Hastings (correspondence which I have also found almost incomprehensible)—is being examined.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved after Schedule 8 to insert the following new schedule

ORDERS TRANSFERRING FUNCTIONS OR PROPERTY OF OTHER AUTHORITIES AND UNDER- TAKINGS
1. Before determining whether to make an order on an application under section 75 of this Act, the Ministers shall consult the body (other than the applicants) to or from whom any functions or property are proposed in the application to be transferred, and shall consider any representations made by that body with respect to the application.
2. If the Ministers propose to make an order on the application, they shall prepare a draft order, and shall cause notice of their intention to make an order, and of the place where copies of the draft order, and of any map to which it refers, may be inspected and obtained, and of the lime (not being less than twenty-eight days) within which, and the manner in which, objections to the draft order may be made—

(a) to be published in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as they think best adapted for informing persons affected, and

(b) to be served on the bodies to or from whom any functions or property are proposed to be transferred, and on any other body, being a navigation authority, conservancy authority, harbour authority or
1522
statutory water undertakers, appearing to the Ministers to be affected by the proposals.

3. Before making any order on the application, the Ministers shall consider any objections which may be duly made to the draft order, and may if they think fit cause a local inquiry to be held with respect to any such objections; and in making the order the Ministers may make such modifications in the terms of the draft as appear to them desirable.
4.—(1) After making such an order, the Ministers shall, if an objection has been duly made by any body on whom notice is required to be served under paragraph 2 of this Schedule and has not been withdrawn, serve notice of the making of the order and the effect thereof on every such body who has duly made objection which has not been withdrawn.
(2) Where a notice is required to be served under the preceding sub-paragraph, the order shall not have effect before the expiry of a period of twenty-eight days from the date of service of that notice, and if within that period any such body gives notice to the Ministers objecting to the order, and the objection is not withdrawn, the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
5. After making the order, the Ministers shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as they think best adapted for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the order has been made, and naming a place where a copy thereof may be seen at all reasonable hours:
Provided that, in the case of an order to which sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph applies, the notice shall not be published until the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days referred to in sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph, and shall state whether or not the order is to be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
6.—(1) Subject to the next following subparagraph, if any person aggrieved by an order under section 75 of this Act desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act, or that any requirement of this Act has not been complied with in relation to the order, he may, within six weeks after the first publication of the notice required by the last preceding paragraph, make an application for the purpose to the High Court; and if any such application is duly made, the court, if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirements of this Act not having been complied with, may quash the order either generally or in so far as it affects the applicant.
(2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall not apply to any order which is confirmed by Act of Parliament under section 6 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, and shall have effect in relation to any other order which is subject to special parliamentary procedure by virtue of the provisions of this Schedule as if, for the reference to the first publication of the notice required by the last preceding paragraph, there were substituted a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the said Act of 1945.
(3) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the validity of an order under section 75 of this Act shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
7. The costs incurred by the Ministers in connection with the making and notification of an order under section 75 of this Act, including any costs incurred in relation to any such order under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, shall be paid by the applicants for the order, and, if there are two or more applicants, the Ministers may apportion the costs between them; and the Ministers may require any applicants to give security for the payment of any costs payable by them under this paragraph.
8. In relation to an application for, or the making of, an order transferring to a river authority any functions or property of a navigation authority, conservancy authority or harbour authority, the Ministers' in this Schedule means the Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Transport acting jointly."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from the undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, during Committee stage that a Schedule setting out the procedure for dealing with orders under Clause 75—that is to say, the transfer of property from one to another—would be proposed; and this is that Schedule. During Report stage the noble Lord spoke on this subject during the discussion on an Amendment paving the way, and expressed himself more than satisfied with it; but, even so. perhaps I should mention three outstanding features without going any further into the details of this rather long Schedule. The three features are: first, compulsory or statutory consultation by the Ministers with the body other than the body applying for the transfer; second, the obligation on Ministers before making an order to consider objections with power to hold a local inquiry; third, after the making of an order, in the event of further objection by such a body not being withdrawn, the order is to be subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. There is, in fact, a fourth point which I should like to read out for the special benefit of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, because there is also in paragraph 6 a right to challenge in the High Court on the grounds that an order is not within the powers of the Bill or that the requirements of the Bill have not been complied with. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 8, insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Procedure Relating to Byelaws]:
7.1 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment, and the six following Amendments, were foreshadowed by the Government's Amendment No. 76 to Clause 72 and by the new clause after Clause 106. Their purpose is to adapt the provisions of Schedule 9 so as to apply to all by-laws made by a river authority. This Amendment paves the way by widening paragraph 1 to apply to all such bylaws. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("until") in line 38 and insert ("No byelaw made by a river authority shall have effect").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, provides for confirmation by the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Agriculture jointly, and that paragraph is to be repealed by the Bill. The first part of the Amendment, therefore, re-enacts this provision. The rest of the Amendment re-enacts Section 34 (2) of the River Boards Act, 1948, and provides that bylaws made under Section 59 (1) (p) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, relating to contamination of water containing fish are to be treated as made in the performance of a river authority's fisheries functions and not their prevention of pollution functions, as a result of which the Minister of Agriculture will be the confirming authority for such by-laws. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding anything in section 117 (2) of this Act, in this Schedule 'the appropriate Minister or Ministers', in relation to byelaws made by a river authority under section 5 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 means the Ministers; and for the purposes of the said section 117 (2), any byelaws made by a river authority under section 59 (1) (p) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923 (which relates to the contamination of waters containing fish) shall be treated as made

1525
solely in the performance by the authority of their functions relating to fisheries").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 41, leave out ("such").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 121, line 4, leave out ("such").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting and paves the way for the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 121, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph,").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, now that Schedule 9 applies to all byelaws made by a river authority, it is necessary to re-enact the special provision in Schedule 2 to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951 (which I just mentioned in connection with another Amendment) relating to the confirmation of by-laws under Section 5 of that Act. This Amendment does so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 121, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) A byelaw made under section 5 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 shall not be confirmed without a local inquiry if any written objection to its confirmation has been received by the Ministers and has not been withdrawn:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to any objection if, in the opinion of the Ministers, the person making it has no material interest in the stream or part of a stream to which the byelaw relates.
(3) In relation to any such byelaw as is mentioned in the last preceding sub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall have effect with the substitution for the words 'subject to the consent of the river authority' of the words 'after consultation with the river authority'.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the substance of paragraph 9 of the Schedule is now contained in Clause 72 (7) which was moved into the Bill by Government Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 121, line 44, leave out paragraph 9.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Amendment of enactments]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Clause 87 (1) (a) of the Bill. The effect is that the whole-time officers of river authorities will be compulsorily superannuable under the Local Government Superannuation Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 122, line 2, at end insert—

PART I

  AMENDMENT HAVING EFFECT AS FROM FIRST APPOINTED DAY
  The Local Government Superannuation Act 1937
  1. In Schedule 1, at the end of Part I, there shall be inserted the words—
  'A river authority'").—(Lord Hastings.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in all cases, except in Section 21, where the Water Act, 1945, refers to a "well" it associates the word "borehole". There is no reason why that section should not also refer to both. The fact that it does not has caused doubt which the Amendment will remove. Both the Act of 1945 and the Bill will then consistently refer to both "well" and "borehole" where they appear. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 122, line 4, at end insert—
  ("2. In section 21, after the word 'well' in each place where it occurs there shall be inserted the word 'borehole'").—(Lord Hastings.)
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether this Amendment about wells and boreholes has any relevance to the sinking of the heart of the noble Earl at the rising of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is the new paragraph 6. This Amendment removes from the Town Development Act, 1952, a definition of "river board" which will cease to be relevant. In regard to the new paragraphs 7 and 8, in each case the object of the Amendment is to substitute a reference to "river authority" for a reference to a river board. I beg to move.
  Page 122, line 20. at end insert—
  ("The Town Development Act 1952
  6. In section 23, in subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (b)—
  '(b) the expression "drainage authority" has the meaning assigned to it by the Land Drainage Act 1930'.
  The Protection of Birds Act 1954
  7. In section 14 (1), in paragraph (c) of the definition of 'authorised person', for the words 'river board constituted under the River Boards Act 1948' there shall be substituted the words river authority'.
  The Town and Country Planning Act 1959
  8. In Schedule 4, in paragraph 10, for the words 'river board established under the River Boards Act 1948' there shall be substituted the words 'river authority', and in paragraph 11, for the words 'river board' there shall be substituted the words ` river authority'").—(Lord Hastings.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, This Amendment replaces a reference in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961, to Section 9 (8) of the River Boards Act, 1948 (repealed by the Bill) by a reference to Clause 102 of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 122, line 34, at end insert—
  ("13. In section 3, in subsection (3), for the words ` the said subsection (8)' there shall be substituted the words 'section 102 of the Water Resources Act 1963'").—(Lord Hastings.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is the new paragraph 15. This Amendment in the Trustee Investments Act, 1961, is consequential upon the Government Amendment after Clause 78. I think the new paragraph 16 is self-explanatory. Paragraph 17 removes a definition of "river board", no longer relevant and paragraph 18 amends Section (14) of the Water Act, 1945, so as to substitute appropriate references to the river authority and its officers instead of the local authority and its officers. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 122, line 37, at end insert—
  ("The Trustee Investments Act 1961
  15. In section 11, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) after the word 'parish' there shall be inserted the words 'a river authority'.
  The Sea Fish Industry Act 1962
  16. In section 14, in subsection (1) (b), for the words 'subsection (1) and subsections (4) to (8) of section sixteen, and section seventeen, of the River Boards Act 1948' there shall be substituted the words subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section 99 and subsections (1) to (6) of section 100 of the Water Resources Act 1963'.
  The Pipe-Lines Act 1962
  17. In section 37, in subsection (4), for the words from the beginning of paragraph (b) to the word 'and' in the second place where it occurs in that paragraph there shall be substituted the words '"river purification authority" means'

  AMENDMENTS HAVING EFFECT AS FROM END OF INITIAL PERIOD
  The Water Act 1945
  18. In section 14, in subsection (10), for the words 'any local authority within whose county or district' there shall be substituted the words 'the river authority within whose area'; and in subsection (12), for the words 'local authority whose county or district is comprised wholly or partly in an area to which this section applies' there shall be substituted the words river authority', for the words 'any such area' there shall be substituted the words the area of a 'river authority', for the words 'the local authority ' there shall be substituted the words 'the river authority', and, in paragraph (a), after the word 'area' there shall be inserted the words 'of the river authority'.")—(Lord Hastings.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, for reasons of clarity, Schedule 10 has been divided into three parts, each of which contains the amendments of enactments taking effect on a particular day. Part IV introduced by this Amendment makes the appropriate provision. At the end of the Amendment, however, there is in addition paragraph 22, and that makes provision for preserving the power of the court to deal with any application under subsection (10) of Section 14 of the Water Act, 1945, made by a local authority before the end of the initial period, and the validity of any authorisation to take steps to execute an order of the court provided that the authorisation was granted not later than the end of the initial period or in response to an application made before the end of that period. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved
  Page 122, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—

PART IV

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  19. Part I of this Schedule shall not have effect until the first appointed day.
  20. Part II of this Schedule shall not have effect until the second appointed day.
  21. Part III of this Schedule shall not have effect until the end of the initial period.
  22. The amendments of section 14 of the Water Act 1945 contained in Part III of this Schedule shall not affect—

  (a) any power of the court exercisable under subsection (10) of that section in pursuance of an application made before the end of the initial period, or

  (b) the exercise of any power by virtue of subsection (10) or subsection (12) of that section in pursuance of an authorisation granted by the court under the said subsection (10) before the end of the initial period or granted thereunder after the end of that period in pursuance of an application made before the end of that period.").—(Lord Hastings.)

  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, when does Part IV come into effect?
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think this is a trick question which my noble friend has put to me. Part IV is merely saying when Parts I, II, and III come into effect.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is not a trick question, with respect, because it is a substantive Amendment.
  LORD HASTINGS: That will come into effect at the same time as Part III.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 11 [Enactments repealed]:
  7.10 p.m.
  EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is the first of a series, of Government Amendments listing further enactments repealed by Clause 118 (2). For the convenience of the House, I would like to suggest your Lordships might consider Amendments 144 to 154 together, because all the enactments listed in the Schedule are either superseded by provisions of the Bill or are incompatible with the
  1530
  Bill. In other words, their repeal will be consequential upon the passing of the Bill, although the repeals themselves will not be effective until either the second appointed day (those are the repeals covered by Part I of the Schedule) or the end of the initial period (those in Part II). I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 123, line 6, at end insert—

  "13 & 14 Geo. c. 16.

  The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923.

  In section 38 (1), in the proviso to paragraph (e), sub-paragraph (ii).

  8 & 9 Geo.6. c. 42.

  The Water Act 1945.

  In section 3, in subsection (1), the words 'or the conservation of water resources for the purposes of such provision'.

  In section 4, in subsection (1) (a), the words 'and of the water resources in or available for their area'; in subsection (1) (e), the words 'or water resources in or available for their area'; and in subsection (3), the words 'and the water resources in or available for that area'.

  In section 5, in paragraph (a), the words 'and of the water resources in or available for that area'. Section 6."

  Page 123, line 8, at end insert—

  ("12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 74.

  The Coast Protection Act 1949.

  In section 49, in subsection (1), the definition of 'river board'.

  12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 97.

  The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

  In section 114, in subsection (1), the definition of 'river board'.")

  Page 123, line 9, column 3, leave out ("2 (2) (a)") and insert ("1(2) (a")
  Page 123, line 16, at end insert—

  ("14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 65.

  The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951.

  In sect on 20, in sub-section (4), the word 'respectively' and the words 'the River Boards 1948 and'")

  Page 123, line 19, at end insert—

  ("6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 69.

  The Opencast Coal Act 1958

  In section 51 in subsection (1), the definition of 'river board'")

  Page 123, line 29, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 43, the words 'or section thirteen of the River Boards Act 1948'")

  Page 123, line 31, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In section 3, subsection (2)")

  Page 123, line 32, column 3, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)")
  Page 123, line 36, at end insert—

  ("9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 100.

  The Electricity (Supply) Act 1919.

  Section 15

  16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 51.

  The Electricity (supply) Act 1926

  In Schedule 6, the entry relating to section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919.")

  Page 123, line 41, column 3, at end insert—

  "In section 23, in the proviso to subsection (1), the words 'except as otherwise provided by the Water Act 1948' and the word 'compulsorily' in both places where it occurs.")

  Page 123, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 33, in the proviso to subsection (1), the word 'compulsorily'.

  In section 45, paragraph (b).

  In Schedule 1, paragraph 3 (iv); the proviso to paragraph 19; in paragraph 20, the words 'or, as the case may be, from which the water is proposed to be taken under the rights to be acquired'; and in paragraph 22, the words 'or subsection (6) of section twenty-six' and the words 'as the case may be'.

  In Schedule 3, section 10; and in section 93 (1), the words 'or to abstract water'").

  —(Earl Jellicoe).
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment lists further repeals in relation
  1532
  to the Electricity Act, 1947, the Water Act, 1948, and the Transport Act, 1962. This is the last Amendment with which we shall be dealing on our Report stage. In moving it, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this stage of this not unimportant Bill, not only for the substance of their contributions but also for the spirit in which those contributions have been made. My noble friends Lord Hastings and Lord St. Oswald and I very much appreciate it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 123, line 42, at end insert—

  "10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 54.

  The Electricity Act 1947.

  In Part I of Schedule 4, the entry relating to section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919.

  11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 22.

  The Water Act 1948.

  In section 2, paragraph (c) of subsection (1); in the proviso to subsection (3), the word 'compulsorily' in the second place where in occurs; and subsection (5).

  In section 5, subsections (1) to (3).

  In section 8, subsection (7).

  In section 14, subsection (3) and subsection (7) (a) except in so far as it provided for the omission of the words 'land or'.

  10 &11 Eliz. 2. c. 46.

  The Transport Act 1962.

  Section 63.")

  —(Earl Jellicoe.)
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I should not have risen at this late hour, but for the words which have fallen from the noble Earl. I wish to say how much those of us who have done the work on this side of the House appreciate the work that has been done on the other side. I can say this with great ease to both sides, because I have done none of it. I have merely been sitting here watching the proceedings.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at thirteen minutes past seven o'clock.