Lords Sitting of 18 June 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
2.35 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I have to acquaint the House that Her Majesty has appointed Air Chief Marshal Sir George Holroyd Mills, G.C.B., D.F.C., to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in succession to Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks, K.C.B., K.B.E., D.S.O., M.C., and that he is at the door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
Whereupon the House directed he should be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.

TRIBUTES TO SIR BRIAN HORROCKS
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the Leader of the House is unable to be in his place to-day and sends to your Lordships his apologies and regrets because, in particular, he is unable to be here to pay his personal tribute to Sir Brian Horrocks and to Sir Brian's services over many years to this House.
As your Lordships know, the Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is some 600 years old and has been filled by many a gallant officer who has served his Sovereign. I think your Lordships will all agree that during the nineteen years in which Sir Brian Horrocks has held this Office he has filled it with rare distinction and, in so far as the duties of the Office allowed, with panache. The origin of the duties was, of course, to keep in order the Knights who waited upon and advised the Sovereign. I do not know whether it is a testimony to Sir Brian's natural
1174
authority or to your Lordships' good behaviour and discretion that only once in this nineteen years has he had to exercise his powers to eject somebody—and that was a test not so much of his strength as of his gallantry.
I think your Lordships would like me to say, on behalf of the whole House, that he has added to the esteem and dignity of this ancient charge and we are most grateful to him for that. He has the qualities which go to make a good General: the authority to command respect by virtue of his office and to win the affection of all who served under him. And, like all Generals, he write, hooks. The title of his main work so far has been The Full Life, and even his great modesty, which he showed in that book, could not conceal the great achievements which have been to Sir Brian's credit during all the years of a pretty long and active life. In it I notice he gives a recipe for retirement. He says that any man who has lived a full life must have a private lane down which he can escape to his other and his own world. And his lane, so he says, leads down to the quiet water's edge where a small boat lies at her moorings. May he have many happy sailings in her!And it is a tine and peaceful prospect.
But where Sir Brian is, something generally stirs. He is a soldier who could never be left on the shelf, a sportsman and writer, a televiser who beats all the professionals at their own game, and now he is going to direct a well-known firm of contractors. And so we may comfort ourselves by thinking that Sir Brian is not really a retiring sort of person. I would send him, on behalf of all your Lordships, and on behalf of the Leader of the House, our affection and our thanks for all that he has done, and all our good wishes to him and Lady Horrocks for many years of health and happiness.
2.39 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to be able on behalf of myself and all my colleagues wholeheartedly to support the tribute which has been so well expressed by the Foreign Secretary. We regret the temporary absence of the Leader of the House. We understand that he has to have some medical treatment. We sincerely hope he will soon be better.

1175
Sir Brian is a man of great popularity. I want him when he goes into other spheres to take with him the sense that he has a right to be popular—and in no sphere has he a better right than in this House. He is popular with all of us. He is really a great person. He has a great career. He does not happen to be Eton or Harrow, but how much more proud he must be, with all the galaxies that come to Eton and Harrow, of the affection of the schoolboys at Upping-ham!He was a lieutenant in the Middlesex Regiment. I wonder, when he once leaves this place, whether he may have doubts about the wisdom of the abolition of Middlesex by the London Government Bill; because the Middlesex Regiment has a great record and has found a great son in himself. Then there was his military career. He was wounded, and decorated, in the First War; a prisoner of war; a student of the Russian language who became a master of it during his incarceration. Then he went into the Second Great War: and what a distinguished career the record books tell us of!To have commanded an armoured division and then a territorial division, and then on two fronts to have commanded four separate armoured corps, is a record of which any lieutenant-general could well be proud, and he carried it all through with great distinction.
In this House he has been the model of courtesy and anxiety to meet the needs and the necessities in regard to which noble Lords in this House so often go to the Gentleman Usher. I have clear personal recollections of the way in which he has helped me from time to time in that respect. I wonder whether he will take away with him the kind of thrill that still remains with me concerning my first visit to the House of Commons. I think of him taking that ceremonial march through the passages into the other place and having the door slammed in his face—knocking to be admitted with a Message either from Royal Commission or the Sovereign to come to this place, and the establishment of the sovereignty of the High Court of Parliament, which was so busily engaged in debate yesterday. These are great features in the life of a man like Sir Brian Horrocks.
1176
Now he is going to a new sphere. I do not know at what age he intends to become a boatman in a quiet water; but certainly he is going to something which is not likely to be quiet, if I understand his new job aright, because he will have something to do with labour relations. But who better able than he, in spirit and experience of the control of men and their guidance, to be able adequately and efficiently to tackle such a job? I value greatly the services which he has given. I do not believe that he is as old as the Foreign Secretary imagines. I seem to remember that he was installed in office in 1948. I cannot yet make that 19 years ago. I hope that the Foreign Secretary has not been "putting years upon him". But I can imagine Sir Brian going to his new job with faith in heart, and a belief that he can do a great deal towards improving labour relations in the country. I wish him and Lady Horrocks the best possible happiness during the rest of his career.
2.46 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, there is of course always an element of sadness and of regret when in two days we have to say goodbye to two such valued and admired members of the staff of your Lordships' House to whom we are so much indebted for their great work during their terms of office. When the Royal Family withdrew from living in the Palace of Westminster and left behind the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to see that we behaved ourselves, I take it that they did not realise what a variety there would be of different and vivid characters who would occupy that office. It is with great regret that we part with such a colourful and popular figure, liked not only by the 100 or 200-odd of your Lordships who attend regularly in this House, but no doubt equally liked by those among the other 700 Members who occasionally come, once a year or once in ten years; liked by his own rather large staff in the Palace of Westminster and, incidentally, by a mere 9 million or so televiewers. They, of course, have been enchanted by his gift of story-telling, by the expressive movement of his hands behind which his handsome face and arresting voice can constantly be discerned. Probably he is one of the best and most acceptable Black Rods in the long history of the Order of the

1177
Garter and of your Lordships' House, and we bid him farewell with gratitude for his excellent and Valuable services, and wish him a long and happy life in what I think we should all call his new freedom.
2.48 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I should not like this occasion to pass without a word being said on behalf of the women Members of your Lordships' House. We seldom discriminate in your Lordships' House on grounds of sex, but on this occasion we have a special obligation and sense of gratitude to the retiring Black Rod. We were received by him with a courtesy and kindness which knew no bounds, and we, in our turn, presented him on occasion with new and delicate problems which perhaps had not in the first instance been envisaged. I myself had to ask him what were the rights of the gentleman who described himself as the "first male Peeress"—I need hardly say that I refer to my husband. He was anxious to know what were the rights of a "male Peeress" in your Lordships' House. I need hardly say that Sir Brian dealt with this problem, not only with kindness and courtesy, but with the wit and understanding which we should have expected from him, and that suitable arrangements were made for what I hope may be a long succession of "male Peeresses" in your Lordships' House. The Foreign Secretary said that "where Sir Brian is something stirs". I am sure that I may say on behalf of all the women Members of your Lordships' House that we are abundantly aware of the truth of that observation.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to correct the number of years. I think the true number of years is fourteen.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make the following statement. My noble friend Lord Hailsham was referred to in the House of Commons yesterday and had wished to make a statement on that today. Unfortunately, he has had to go into
1178
hospital for some treatment; but he has asked me to say that he will make a statement at the earliest possible moment.

CENTRAL AFRICA
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a statement on Central Africa at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
BATH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 and certain other enactments relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisitions of interests in land; to the withdrawal of notices to treat; and to the payment of additional compensation and of allowances in connection with such acquisitions or with certain sales by agreement of interests in land; with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. I beg to move that the Bill be now read 1a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, when the London Government Bill is considered on Report, the Amendments be marshalled and considered in the following order, vizt.:—

Part I.

Schedules 1–4.

Part II.

Schedules 5–7.

Part III.

Schedule 8.

Parts IV to VI.

Schedules 9–11.

Part VII.

Schedules 12–14.

Part VIII.

Schedules 15 and 16.

Part IX.

Schedules 17 and 18.

—(Viscount Goschen.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is obviously a contentious Bill, but I think it is right to tell the House that we agree with the proposal the noble Lord has moved. May I ask him whether, in view of the fact the Motion will be approved, a Marshalled List of these Amendments will be available tomorrow?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think that will be so, but I should like to let the noble Lord know after this Motion has been agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title, commencement, construction and citation]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "be deemed to have come into force on 25th February, 1963, but". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and with it, I
1180
think consequentially, will go Amendment No. 2. Clause 4, provides in subsection (2), among other things, that this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on February 25, 1963. This is not yet an Act, but, under this clause, it is already in operation and affects the rights of people who in good faith acquired their land in the belief that the law as it stood would remain as at the time when they acquired it.
The last thing I want to do in this House is to come forward as a protector of landowners, because I believe that land prices are far too high; and I shall have something to say on that subject in a fortnight's time. Nevertheless, neither I nor my Party have ever been in favour of confiscation. We believe in fair compensation, and we believe in justice to all sections of the community. If it is necessary to curtail the rights of individuals—as we think it is, and as is being done under this Bill—then we feel that it should be done in a proper way and at the time when the Bill is passed, rather than on a date prior to it.
This Bill is going to affect the rights of individuals who have acquired land, who may have put up buildings upon it, made plans, instructed architects and incurred expenditure, in the belief that they would be able to carry out certain developments. I do not think it is the desire of Parliament that people who quite properly exercise their rights under the law as it stands should be penalised before a Bill has been passed by Parliament. Yet as from February 25 such people will be treated as if this Bill was actually passed. This means that people who, in good faith, have acquired their land and made plans, and who have possibly obtained planning permission and, as I have said, even instructed builders to go ahead, will now be treated as if this Bill were law. I understand that they would not have got planning permission and I withdraw that remark; but at any rate they would have made their plans, instructed their architects and put forward an appliction for planning permission. These people have bought their land and incurred this expenditure in good faith, but all that will become abortive and, as the Bill stands, they will now be treated as if it were already in operation.
Nothing that I say is intended to be in opposition to the principle of the Bill. The principle is sound. It puts right what I think has become an abuse of the 1947 Act (or, to-day, the 1962 Consolidation Act), and I have no objection at all to the principle, but I object to the time when it comes into operation. The purpose of my Amendment is to secure that the Bill comes into operation only on the date when it is passed. This, of course, is the general principle. I think that we all dislike retrospective legislation, especially when it penalises individuals who have acted in good faith. It is for that reason I have put down these two Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to ("shall") in line 8.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): There are two reasons for making the Bill operate from the date of introduction. The first reason is the possibility of evasion. The aim of the Bill is, as we all agree, to put right defects in existing legislation. If there had been warning of this there would have been an opportunity to take advantage of the defects before legislation remedying them came into effect. In this respect the Bill is analogous to a change to stop up a tax loophole. There are many precedents here for operation from the date of introduction.
The Bill is not retrospective. The noble Lord referred at the end of his speech to "retrospective legislation", but the Bill is not retrospective, in that it does not affect either cases where planning permission was granted before the date of introduction or cases where compensation rights were established before that date. In the field of tax legislation, in order to prevent abuses—and this Bill has been introduced to prevent an abuse—operation from the date of introduction is quite common. The guiding principle here is that evasion must be prevented, and this is the object of the Bill. But it goes only so far as is necessary to achieve this purpose. For instance, it allows purchase notices served before the date of introduction to go through on the old basis of compensation. Moreover, nothing in the Bill affects development for which permission has been granted.
1182
The second reason is that the Bill affects property values from the moment of introduction: first, in respect of compensation for compulsory purchase under Section 15(3) of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, where one of the assumptions to be made in assessing compensation on compulsory acquisition is that permission would be granted for Third Schedule development; and, secondly, in respect of market values, because it reduces the range of development for which an owner might hope to get compensation in one way or another if he were refused permission. I would remind noble Lords that we are talking in both cases of a strictly limited field; in other words, of cases where permission to develop is refused, and this would apply mainly in central London and only comparatively seldom elsewhere. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will appreciate that it was necessary to make the Bill operate from the date on which its provisions became public knowledge. Otherwise there would have been a discrepancy between market value and compulsory purchase value until the date of Royal Assent. There is, of course, a recent precedent for taking this sort of step, in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, which changed the basis of compensation on compulsory purchase from existing use value plus compensation for loss of development, to current market value, and did so as from the date of introduction of the Bill. That change was beneficial to property developers, and this one goes in the other direction. But there was no complaint on the previous occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken of hardship to developers who have bought their property, as he said, in good faith, and here I think we must be clear what precisely this means and what this hardship in effect amounts to. The Bill is in general terms, but its main practical effect relates to office development in central London. The complaint made by the noble Lord can have substance only if a developer bought an office site with the intention of rebuilding with a substantial increase in floor space, and yet failed to take the precaution of obtaining planning permission before he committed himself to the purchase. It is, of course, common knowledge that outline planning permission can be obtained before the actual

1183
purchase of land, and without going to the expense of drawing up detailed plans, thereby incurring professional fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred—I am not sure whether he did so in moving this Amendment, but he did so when we were discussing this matter on Second Reading—to the question of compensation if planning permission is not forthcoming. But anybody relying on such a right must surely have taken professional advice, and must have been informed that the right to compensation is not absolute. It is true that a claim might succeed on the basis of a 10 per cent. increase in the cube amounting to no less than a 40 per cent. increase in floor space. But that is precisely why we are amending the law. In any case, there are discretionary elements in the existing law, and a developer who is relying on rebuilding for his profit must have known that his prospects of obtaining compensation if permission was refused depended on the service of a purchase notice.
The Minister has a measure of discretion in his treatment of purchase notices. He will not confirm a purchase notice unless he is satisfied that the statutory conditions are fulfilled, or he may grant a limited permission instead of confirming the purchase notice. Therefore, in redevelopment cases nobody can be certain that there was an absolute right of compensation, and anybody who bought land for the purposes of redevelopment without first obtaining planning permission was taking a calculated commercial risk.
Finally, I would suggest that the transfer of the effective date of this Bill from February 25 to the date of Royal Assent, as proposed by the noble Lord's Amendments, would make little practical difference in respect of cases of so-called hardship, unless one were to assume that there would be a scramble of planning applications which could, after all, be designed only to defeat the whole purpose of this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, in view of my explanations, will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. But, failing that, I trust that this Committee will reject it.
LORD SILKIN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the very full explanation he has given of the purpose of
1184
Clause 4. Although there are a number of matters on which I could take issue with the noble Lord, broadly speaking I think he has made his case. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule [Condition treated as applicable to rebuilding and alterations]:
3.6 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "by more than ten per cent." The noble Lord said: This Amendment does not affect at all the question of planning permission. It affects only the compensation which the planning authority may have to pay if it refuses planning permission for certain extensions. The provisions of the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act, which is what I am seeking to amend, were designed to simplify the operation of the Uthwatt financial provisions which have now been repealed. The provisions originally had this effect. An owner redeveloping his building or adding to it might increase its volume by 10 per cent. without incurring development charge, and consequently he could not claim against the State in respect of such development any share of the £300 million of compensation.
When the Act of 1954 abolished the Uthwatt system, the £300 million fund and all claims against it, owners were still left with a right to compensation directly or indirectly, if the planning authority refused permission for an extra 10 per cent. of cubic capacity. This originally applied only to buildings erected before the coming into operation of the 1947 Act, but as a result of some temporary aberration Parliament extended this right in 1954 to all buildings subsequently erected. This meant that so soon as an owner had erected a building up to the limit of the volume for which he had planning permission, he could apply for an extra 10 per cent., and if he were refused he could claim compensation. There is no wonder that the present Minister, speaking on this Bill in another place, said that this made nonsense of planning. The Bill terminates that right.
As regards pre-1948 buildings, this Bill introduces a further limitation. I have

1185
said that under the 1947 Act there is a tolerance of 10 per cent. in cubic space, and if planning permission for this is not granted the right to compensation from the planning authority may arise. Under this Bill, if planning permission is given for an extra 10 per cent. of floor space, that will exclude all claim to compensation. I do not think I need go into the complication of the difference between Part I and Part II of the Third Schedule, except to say that in one case the claim to compensation arises directly, and in the other indirectly.
This substitution of floor space for cubic space in respect of compensation is a long step in the right direction. It is a belated acceptance of a suggestion made by my noble and learned friend the present Lord Chancellor when he was serving on the Standing Committee in another place in 1947. I asked specifically for this change in the law when I introduced a Motion on this subject on November 28 last year, and so, naturally, I greatly welcome this Bill for what it does. The importance of changing from volume to floor space is shown by the fact that, as a result of new technique in building, a 10 per cent. increase in cubic content may mean an increase of 40 per cent. in floor space. So this narrowing of the scope of compensation will be useful; but it does not go far enough.
Since I spoke last November we have learnt a lot more about the gravity of the problem of London congestion, for the Government have issued their White Paper (Cmnd. 1952), London—Employment: Housing: Lend, and that is the chief source of our information upon this subject. I hope your Lordships will not be bored if I give a few of the figures showing how far we are already committed to a great increase in office accommodation in central London. This White Paper tells us that, whereas in 1939 office floor space in central London amounted to 87 million square feet, by mid-1962 there had been a net increase of 27·8 million square feet, or 32 per cent. We were threatened with a further increase by 1970 or 1972 of some 35 million square feet, but this Bill should have the effect of reducing this increase by 15 million square feet, to 20 million square feet. That is a calculation made by the London County Council and the Town and Country Planning Association,
1186
and was quoted, without criticism, by the Minister in Committee on this Bill in another place.
When we consider the existing congestion in London, surely we should not be satisfied to allow this prospective increase of 20 million square feet, which is enough to accommodate in central London a further 40,000 clerks, and possibly more. My Amendment, therefore, proposes to abolish, in the case of pre-1948 buildings, the 10 per cent. tolerance which is already being abolished in the Bill in the case of post-1948 buildings. This would mean a further reduction of 5 million square feet, and we should still be left with a prospective increase in office accommodation of 15 million square feet.
Recently, the comparatively newly created Standing Conference on London Regional Planning issued a Report on this subject produced by its Technical Panel. That emphasises again the gravity of this problem, and perhaps I might quote just one or two sentences from the conclusions. The Report says:
"As matters stand at present, the planning authorities are already committed to office developments which could provide space for another 400,000 workers in the conurbation while other employment there is not thought likely to change much".
Then, after a few more sentences which I need not quote, it says, dealing with the future:
"The three factors of total population growth, population redistribution and employment growth at the centre will result in still greater numbers travelling even further to work in central London than is the case today."
That surely indicates the importance of making this Bill more drastic than it is at the present time.
I have only one other thing to say. The Government, when resisting in another place an Amendment in the same terms, used the argument that some elbow-room for further growth in London and elsewhere was desirable. That argument is quite unsound, because nothing in this Amendment prevents a local authority from giving planning permission if it thinks it desirable. All this Amendment does is to provide that, if planning permission for an extension is refused, that should not give rise to a claim for compensation. It is merely carrying one step further the principle which is embodied in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("by more than ten per cent.")—(Lord Molson.)
LORD SILKIN: May I first of all congratulate the noble Lord on having attained the high office of President of the Town and Country Planning Association? It is a very important office indeed. The body is a very important body. It takes a tremendous interest in development all over the country, and has been a very great influence for good. It has been quite influential, as I know, in many ways all to the good. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord has accepted that office, and that he is showing the first evidence of it in moving this Amendment. I should have liked to be able to support him, but, quite frankly, I find it difficult to do so, and I should like to give my reasons.
In the first place, he has based his argument almost entirely on the problem of London and of offices. Both the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and he have talked as if this were a Bill about London offices. There is not one word in this Bill about London, not one word about offices. It is a Bill which has general application throughout the country, and is related to all types of buildings. If, in fact, the noble Lord's Amendment had been limited to offices in London, or in other places where it was undesirable that further office accommodation should be provided, he would have had much greater support from me, but I cannot accept that the limitation which he seeks to provide in the Bill should be operative against all buildings anywhere in the country.
One of the reasons why this tolerance of 10 per cent. was provided in the 1947 Act was actually to encourage people, when they came to rebuild their dwellings or other buildings, to build at a higher standard. We realised that a great many of the houses and other buildings which had been destroyed or damaged by enemy action—and it was those with which we were largely concerned at the time—were too small, and that to provide satisfactory new accommodation the developers should be given some tolerance; and we thought 10 per cent. was reasonable. We were pressed to provide an alternative of 1,750 cubic feet, and I think we agreed to that. But none of us, not even the wisest of us, ever visualised that, in dealing
1188
with cubic feet, we were in fact providing far more accommodation than we had intended, and we certainly did not visualise the problem of office accommodation in London.
Now, as I said, if this Amendment had been confined to the problem of office accommodation in London I, and I am sure my friends also, should have been delighted to support it. I would say even now that if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment and at a later stage of the Bill bring in some Amendment which would deal with undesirable extensions and not treat them all alike, desirable or undesirable, I think we might do some business.
LORD MOLSON: May I be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord? He says "desirable or undesirable" extensions. But this does nothing to affect the power of the planning authority to give planning permission or not; the whole conception of planning is that the planning authority should decide what is desirable and what is undesirable.
LORD SILKIN: That is so; but this is a definite disincentive to putting up more satisfactory accommodation, and it is taking away one of the inducements to people in the 1947 Act to put up more satisfactory accommodation. That is what I am personally objecting to. I still say that if we could have an Amendment which is directed at the evil, which we all recognise, of too much office accommodation, not only in London but in many of the other large towns; if we could deal with compensation in those cases; if it were possible to frame an Amendment which would be confined to those cases, I should myself be very happy to accept it. There is the case of the non-conforming user, with buildings which are actually in existence but which do not conform with what is desirable or what is in the new plan. Here I should be prepared to go further than the noble Lord and provide that compensation should be based only on what is the proper use of that land and not on the actual use.
All these things want consideration. I am quite sure that the Amendment, as it stands, is undesirable, although I agree with the noble Lord that some kind of Amendment to the Bill might be possible which would be directly related to the evil that both he and I have in mind.

1189
For those reasons, I hope that further consideration will be given to this problem at a later stage of the Bill; but I think it would be a great mistake merely to pass this Amendment on the assumption that the Bill deals only with London offices.
3.23 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Molson, argued—summarising very briefly at the end of his speech—that, in effect, once the existing rights under the Third Schedule are attacked by introducing a limitation on the increase in floor space in use, it therefore makes sense to make the limitation absolute, thereby allowing local planning authorities to prevent any increase in floor space above existing levels without running the risk of incurring compensation. He said, in effect, that this could not possibly do any harm, because it would not prevent local planning authorities from allowing more development at their discretion. The Bill does not do this because its aims are limited in two senses. First, its purpose is simply to rectify certain defects in the working of the 1947 Act, thus restoring its effect to that originally intended. In the second place, the Bill is not intended to enable local authorities to prevent all future growth, even in offices in central London; and the reasons for that were set out clearly in the White Paper on London: Employment: Housing: Land which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
May I deal with the first problem, the question of the defects in the existing law, which of course we were speaking about in connection with previous Amendments? It was a basic principle of the 1947 Act that owners should be left with the right to enjoy the current use of their property as it was at the appointed day. But this was never tied rigidly to the exact conditions existing at that time. Owners were clearly intended to have a certain amount of elbow-room and these notional existing-use rights are set out in the Third Schedule. These amount to more than the status quo of 1948. One obvious example is the right to rebuild on a site that may have been vacant then, perhaps as a result of war damage; another, the one we are concerned with, is the right to add 10 per cent. on rebuilding. It was the clear intention of
1190
the 1947 Act to leave with the owner this 10 per cent. elbow-room; and we know in what unforeseen way this 10 pet cent. became abused, especially in relation to office development, and became 40 per cent. in floor space.
The aim of the Bill is to get back to the situation originally intended in 1947. It does this by qualifying the cubic tolerance with a floor space limitation. It is a very dfferent thing to attack the whole idea of a tolerance which Parliament clearly intended that owners should have. We are merely correcting an abuse and bringing back the law to that state in which it was originally intended to be. If we were to abolish tolerance altogether, that would be a matter of principle; and it is not the aim of the Bill to alter a principle which is now long-recognised and established in this country in the world of property, property values and property development. It is not only that this machinery of the Third Schedule to the original Act is outdated, because development charges are no longer concerned; but, of course, the Third Schedule is an integral part of the valuation and compensation code under the Planning Acts and it comes into other things, such as the assessment of compensation on revocation of planning permission and on compulsory acquisition.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made, very effectively, part of my speech for me, and I am most grateful to him. He pointed out that this Bill, although we have concentrated on office development in Central London, is not concerned solely with that problem. It is a general Bill affecting the whole country; and, as he reminded us, one of the purposes of the 10 per cent. tolerance was to allow for better and more modern building throughout the country and, as a result, to encourage development. That affects offices as well as private houses and flats, and we do not want to alter that.
The second point I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is that he is raising a matter of principle. What he is proposing would affect the whole question of property rights and property values in the country, and we do not feel that this is the Bill in which to tackle that very much wider subject. If the idea is to abolish altogether compensation for redevelopment I would point out

1191
that that is a very much bigger subject and I would ask him to think most carefully about that. But that is not, I hope, the noble Lord's intention; it is certainly not the intention of the Government, and we could not accept that approach to this general Bill. We feel that the line taken in the Bill is a reasonable one, having regard to all the circumstances. The Bill will certainly help local authorities in the difficult areas and it has been welcomed for this reason. Finally, it presents without injustice—and I would emphasise this in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on his previous Amendment about justice for property holders and developers—a sensible basis for proper control. I hope that the noble Lord will feel I have answered his Amendment convincingly, and that he will be able to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
3.32 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Altered composition of British Museum Trustees]:
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved to add to subsection (1):
"and there shall be included in the Trustees persons appearing to the Prime Minister to be qualified as having had experience of and having shown capacity in science or technology including cybernetics tics especially in formation processing systems. For the purposes of this subsection. "cybernetics" means the theory and practice of control and communication processes."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that on the Committee stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Shackleton moved an Amendment providing that, if and when a National Library of Science should be established, this should be under the control of a body of trustees separate from the British Museum Trustees, though closely linked with them. That proposal was not acceptable to the Government. We are now proceeding to provide, therefore, for the main object of that proposal
1192
in a rather different form, which will maintain the link with the British Museum in its original form—that is to say, in which the National Science Reference Library will be directly under the control of the Trustees of the British Museum.
At the same time, we are proposing that provision should be made for this new and important departure in the foundation of the National Science Reference Library, which should include steps which will secure that among the Trustees of the British Museum there are persons who are conversant with the special new problems that will be raised by the establishment of this Library. May I remind your Lordships that it is now known that the Library will be established and that the early steps towards its creation are already in progress?
The Bill as it stands provides that fifteen of the Trustees—that is to say, more than half—will be appointed by the Prime Minister and it leaves wide open the nature of these appointments. While we would accept that, in general, it is a good thing not to tie down too closely the choice of persons who are to hold these important and responsible offices and who between them have to cover practically the whole field of human learning, we think that there are special reasons for suggesting that the particular qualities required for the National Science Reference Library should at least find a mention in the Bill.
The first reason for this is that this is entirely a new enterprise. It is not an enterprise in which the British Museum is at present engaged. It is true, as I said on Committee stage, that the British Museum runs a magnificent Library, but this is going to be a Library which is different in quality and in kind, as well as in scale, from the existing Library. It is a new enterprise and accordingly there is no tradition that persons who are conversant with the problems of this kind of enterprise should be included among the Trustees of the Museum.
I want to emphasise that the Museum will now be launching out into a new field, not only of library administration, not only of the sciences, but of the enormously expanding field of scientific information, which I think has now to be reckoned as a wide branch of science in itself. A science reference library is not at all the same thing as a library. A

1193
library is largely concerned with books and journals. A science reference library is something much more than simply a library in which there are books with scientific titles instead of literary titles and journals dealing with scientific subjects as well as journals dealing with literary subjects. A science reference library is not so much concerned with the mobilisation and retrieval of documents as with the mobilisation and retrieval of information, which is a different and very technical matter. The Library itself is being built up on what is already a highly specialised library, not the Library of the British Museum but the Patents Office Library. That in itself is evidence of the peculiar and extremely specialised and original character that the National Science Reference Library will have.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lady for a point of clarification? From her opening sentence, I gathered that she might be discussing Amendment No. 8 together with this one?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: No, my Lords.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We are confining ourselves now to Amendment No. 1 and the noble Lady will have a separate word about No. 8 after Clause 7? Is that right?
BARONESS WOOT TON OF ABINGER: My Lords, that entirely so. My remarks are entirely addressed to Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 8 deals with a different aspect of the matter. It may be that it is another road to the same goal but it is, in fact, a different one. I would remind your Lordships that this is a new and exciting enterprise and a highly technical one. I know that it is not desirable that every technical speciality should be represented at the highest level—that is, among the Trustees of the Museum itself, but there are special reasons for providing that there will be persons who are skilled in this field. The reasons are the novelty of the field, the absence of any tradition of trustees who are interested in it and the fact that it is a highly experimental field.
1194
Many of the experiments which are in progress in this field are extremely expensive. The development of scientific information is not only a matter of a system of classification and indexing, common to other library work. It has also largely become a field in which mechanical instruments are employed. Many of these instruments are extremely expensive and the question of use or non-use is one which will involve large questions of policy and expenditure. Therefore, it seems important that we should provide now that there should be some members of the Board of Trustees of the British Museum who are competent to judge the wisdom of proposals for expenditures of this kind, which are likely to increase rapidly as and when the Library comes into existence.
For those reasons, we should like to make an exception in the general rule that the choice of Trustees should be left wide open and not restricted. So far as the Trustees appointed by the Prime Minister are concerned, we do not want to indicate at all narrowly the qualifications of any particular Trustees. We do not want to restrict those in other fields. We really want to make provision that there will be account taken of qualifications for which there has not yet been a demand; that there will be room for something new, and for a new tradition to be built up, so that we have represented among the Trustees, not only all branches of human learning in the arts and the humanities, and not only the wide fields of the various sciences, but also this new field with which we have hardly yet become acquainted—namely, the field of scientific information. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as I understand that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is now in a position to make his statement on Central Africa, I beg to move that the Report stage of the Bill be adjourned during pleasure, in order to allow my noble and learned friend to make the statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CENTRAL AFRICA
3.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if I repeat a statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State in another place on the subject of Central Africa. I will use his own words. They are as follows:
"The House will be aware that since my statement on May 21 discussions have taken place in London with the Southern Rhodesia Government. There has also been a further exchange of letters. The position has not yet been reached which would enable Her Majesty's Government to arrive at a decision on the question of Southern Rhodesia's independence. Contact is being maintained with the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
I am, however, glad to be able to inform the House that the Federal Government and the Governments of Southern and Northern Rhodesia, have agreed to attend a Conference on the orderly dissolution of the Federation and the consequential problems involved. This will begin at Victoria Falls on June 28, and I will be leaving for Africa early next week.
For the convenience of the House I have arranged for the recent correspondence exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Southern Rhodesia to be published as a White Paper. Copies of this are now available in the Vote Office."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's statement. I should just add that copies of the White Paper are available, for your Lordships' convenience, in the Printed Paper Office.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving us this statement. We are glad to know that the Conference, composed as announced in the statement, is to be held. I do not think it is necessary to ask any particular questions to-day, but I should like to know whether the items that are likely to come before the Conference will include the future of the present Armed Forces controlled by the Central Federation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can give a very short answer to that. The answer is, Yes.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to express my pleasure at the information which has been given to us to-day by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that there is to be a Conference at which the three Governments will be represented, and that this Conference will be concerned with the future developments in Central Africa on the economic front. I am quite sure it is most important that Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the three territories should come to some arrangement, and very quickly, about the continuing organisation of economic affairs in that area, because otherwise we shall find a complete breakdown in communications and, furthermore, a serious situation with reference to credit.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the primary purpose of the Conference is to discuss in a practical way the problems involved in an orderly dissolution of the Federation; to reach the broad decisions which need to be taken at this stage; and to establish machinery through which detailed solutions to the various problems may be arrived at.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, arising out of the statement which my noble and learned friend has made, and which I am sure we were all most interested to hear, I take it that we can understand from what he has said that this particular Conference will be entirely concerned with the winding up of the Federation and that the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia will be neither raised nor discussed at its meetings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that is correct. I believe that this matter is dealt with in the correspondence which has passed and which is now included in the White Paper. I know that assurances were asked for about this aspect, and my right honourable friend, I know, has given some assurances on the matter. I have only just received a copy of the White Paper to refresh my memory, and I have not at the moment been able to look at the precise passage. But, in substance, I can give that assurance to the noble Marquess.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
3.49 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I gather that none of your Lordships wishes to offer any further observations at the present moment on the Amendment which, before we broke off, was so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. This Amendment and Amendment No. 8 represent the substance of one combined Amendment which was moved and discussed at great length in the Committee stage of the Bill. I think your Lordships all recognised that the motives for these two Amendments were the very deep and strong concern which the movers of the Amendments and others of your Lordships felt about the future of the proposed National Science Reference Library. In particular many of your Lordships were most anxious to ensure, in any way possible, that it would be properly managed and that every device of modern science which is appropriate to the running of a modern library should be employed to the proper extent.
It is important that in a National Science Reference Library people who wish to use it for the purpose of research, scholarship or any other purpose should be able to get what they want quickly. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who quoted a description of some other science library abroad as
"a phantasmagoria of flashing lights, spinning tapes and rattling teletypes";
Although the noble Lord said he did not want the National Science Reference Library here to be quite like that, he made it plain—and I think your Lordships all agreed with him—that we want all the most modern scientific devices to be employed, so that, when a student goes into the Library to get the references he wants, instead of having to wait for two or three days while the library staff look up indices and check them, he may have to wait only a few minutes before these mechanical devices, electronic or otherwise, supply him with all the passages, volumes and pages he may want to consult about any subject, whatever it may be—diseases, coniferous trees or any other subject of which your Lordships may like to think. I believe that on this we all
1198
agree, and I think the Trustees of the British Museum are fully alive to the necessity of having it done.
What I could not agree with in Committee was the idea that it would be any help in the matter if we made it a statutory condition in the Bill that one or more of the Trustees should have a special technical knowledge of cybernetics, or any other particular kind of technological skill. I gave the analogy, which I venture to suggest again to your Lordships is a reasonable one, that it would not help if a board of directors were to make a rule that one of their number must have a skilled technical knowledge of typewriting or tape recording, or any other process which is essential to the efficient running of the office—not that it would do any harm if he had and it might be a very good thing, but it would not make for the best board of directors if a legal condition were to be laid down to that effect.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has, I think, realised and appreciated, if we once admit the principle that one director or trustee, or whatever it may be, should have this specialised knowledge, then there will be a demand that other directors should have specialised knowledge about other branches of whatever activity they understand they are going to run or engage in. It might be said that if there must be someone with a special knowledge of cybernetics in order to run this branch of the British Museum Library, there ought to be other directors with special knowledge of classical manuscripts, ancient archæology or anything else you like to think of.
I do not think that to lay down conditions of that kind would result in getting the best hoard of directors or the best body of Trustees for the British Museum, and I suggest to your Lordships that the necessity of availing ourselves of modern scientific inventions and advances in the matter of this Library are well appreciated and that it is more sensible and more useful to leave the selection of the Trustees to the Prime Minister, or whichever person is, under this Bill, selecting, them, without tying him down by conditions of this sort. I do not want to suggest for a moment that I do not strongly appreciate the desires and the

1199
motives of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and her noble friends but I do not think that a condition of this kind is the best or most useful way for bringing them into effect.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, what worries my noble friends and myself, and those who are supporting this Amendment, is the fact that the Government still do not appear to understand what we are seeking to do; and it is the noble Earl's fault that we have this suspicion, because the analogy he used, in relation to typewriters and boards of directors, is irrelevant to the argument we are using. What we are saying—and obviously the answer we should prefer would be the acceptance of the later Amendment to make a completely separate body for the National Reference Library of Science and invention—is that the British Museum has such wide responsibilities that it tends to be orientated particularly in the direction of the humanities, and we want to make sure that among the trustees are people with experience in science and technology.
The noble Earl said that if one were running a typewriter business there would be no point in requiring making it a condition that one director should be able to type. This was the argument he used on Committee stage, and he used it again to-day; and on the Committee stage both my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and I interrupted him to try to get across to him that this is an absolutely irrelevant argument about what we said then, and it is equally irrelevant to what we are saying to-day. It is inconceivable that any really technological business or industry will not have on the board people who are themselves experts in it. It might well be that one could run a typewriter business without one of the directors being able to type, although it is pretty certain that they will take some interest in the product.
The noble Earl said it might be a good thing but it might not. I would argue that it is absolutely essential, and so would my noble friend, that if the needs of this particular Library are to be met there shall be on the governing body people with experience in the matters in which that Library is concerned. We do not emphasise the word "cybernetics", which was introduced
1200
because of the importance of conveying the idea of modern library techniques, particularly as such phrases as "information retrieval" will now become popular, but it is included in order that there shall be people who understand this; and it is quite clear to me that the Government or the noble Earl do not understand it or they would not use this argument about typewriters.
How is this Library, through its scientific staff, its own technical staff, to be represented and to get its views across if there are not among the Trustees people who understand these things? We are not arguing on a narrow front and are not just saying that there must be somebody who is an expert Assyriologist; we are saying that over the whole broad branch of culture there shall be people who will be concerned in science and technology, particularly in the techniques which go into library work. This is a different concept, and the noble Lord must surely know that there are people in this field, such as the Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux—of which I have the honour of being President, and my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger was previously—and others who are actively concerned because of their failure to get across this idea.
I think we shall probably press rather hard on the later Amendment. I am sorry that the noble Earl has not seen this argument. I think that his is not a valid argument. We must get away to some extent from the entirely amateur concept of administration that a man running a typewriter business does not need to know how to type. I am certain that there is no business manufacturing computers in which there are not on the board people with experienced knowledge of computers: and this is the argument that we are using in this instance.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lord Shackleton that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has so signally failed to appreciate the large issues which are involved in this Amendment. His continual reference to the typewriter and tape-recording analogy shows only too clearly that he is totally unaware of the breadth and complexity of the field which we want to see represented among the Museum's Trustees. I

1201
can only say again that the reason for making a special provision in this particular field is that there is as yet no tradition; this is something new. The traditions in relation to the older fields of study are well established and we can be quite sure that they will be well represented and taken care of in the appointments. This is something new. It is not a small thing like a typewriter or tape recorder. It is a new vast field, and new approach, not to one science but to all the sciences. It involves not only questions of information retrieving, but also questions of the possibility of scientific abstracting, on which I think an Amendment is to be moved later.
I do not propose to ask your Lordships to vote upon this particular Amendment, because we shall have an opportunity, I think, of returning to the main issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to give effect to the Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in Committee and which was carried on a Division. It gives the Trustees a little more latitude than the terms of that Amendment. If they have something they want to publish and to report upon, there is nothing to prevent them from presenting two or three reports in two or three years. But this new clause provides that they shall present Parliament with reports at intervals of not more than three years. I think this variation of this provision is one which is generally acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause—
Reports by Trustees
(". The Trustees of the British Museum shall within three years after the commencement of this Act and subsequently at intervals of not mare than three years prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the Museum.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for this improvement of my drafting, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should just like to ask the noble Earl whether this means that the Trustees of the Natural History Museum will not
1202
have to make a similar report, in view of the fact that Clause 12 is about to be elided later on in the proceedings?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, if the noble Earl will look at Clause 7 he will find that Clause 6 applies to both Museums.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend said something about the removal of Clause 12. It does apply to both.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite clear that it does apply to both Museums? We think this is an improvement and we are very grateful that the Government have been able to overcome their original inhibitions in the matter. I realise they were aware that the Trustees would in any event probably like, on their own initiative, to publish a report, but we are now making it a statutory obligation. I assume it is clear that by a later reference in the Bill this particular clause also will be covered.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should have said so; but, of course, if there is any doubt it could easily be put right on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Staff regulations
" .—(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act the Treasury shall make by statutory instrument (which shall be annullable in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) regulations for the staff of the British Museum.
(2) Such regulations shall provide—

(a) for conditions of service and scales of pay;

(b) for promotion and retirement;

(c) without prejudice to subsection (3) of the last preceding section, for pension rights and scales of pensions;

(d) for the discipline, and in particular for the appointment of a tribunal from outside the Museum to which important disciplinary cases may be referred on appeal; and

(e) for ancillary and transitional matters affecting the service.

of the staff of the Museum."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that at the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to give the officers of the British Museum the status of civil servants. The object of that was very largely to

1203
give them the statutory benefit of the provisions of ESTACODE, the code of conduct and discipline in the Civil Service. The noble Earl who answers for the Government was not prepared to accept this Amendment, partly on the basis that the officers of the Museum are themselves very much divided as to whether they wish to have the status of civil servants, and further on the ground that it was not really practicable to bring in the ESTACODE provisions formally in the way that my Amendment would have secured. After the Committee stage the noble Earl very kindly wrote me a letter setting out the arguments in some detail and in very sympathetic terms, and I should like to express my appreciation to him. In effect his argument amounts to the fact that we cannot provide an appeal to a Minister on (shall we say?) a dismissal which has given rise to problems of justice and things of that kind, because here the Trustees are in effect put in charge, and it would not really be satisfactory to provide an appeal from the Trustees of the Museum to some outside authority like a Minister; therefore, in the Government's view, it has to be left with the Trustees.
It seems to me that this really is not at all a satisfactory situation. Troubles in an organisation like the British Museum are almost bound to be dealt with by the Director, at any rate those at the sort of level which was concerned recently—and I do not want to go into the Tucker case in detail any more. I am concerned only to try to get an arrangement which will obviate the difficulties that arose in that case from arising again. It seems to me that it is an illusory right to give a right of appeal to the Trustees from the Director of the Museum. If they override him it means they have not got confidence in him and it will result almost certainly in his resigning, which I am sure your Lordships agree would be a quite unsatisfactory situation. In my experience in the universities problems in relation to dismissal and that sort of thing almost always arise, certainly more often than not, as a result of difficulties between a head of a department and some university teacher who possibly is a little difficult; and sometimes heads of departments are a little sensitive. And
1204
just the same sort of situation arises, I am quite sure, from time to time in the analogous institutions such as museums.
The universities on the whole are developing a reasonable system by which there is an appeal to a committee, possibly of other heads of departments, or some sort of tribunal which can take an objective view of the matter and come to a decision which everybody realises is a just and objective one. That, in my submission, cannot happen in this sort of case, because the Trustees must always start with a very strong bias in favour of the decision already given by the Director of the Museum. Therefore, it seemed to me that we should establish some kind of code which would enable this matter to be given further thought and have a number of rules laid before Parliament, so that they could be looked at by people who, after all, bring very great experience to bear on problems of this kind, and endorsed if necessary. If we could make provision for a set of rules under which a situation of this sort could be effectively dealt with, it would be a much better way of handling the problem than the one which I asked your Lordships to accept at the Committee stage.
This is the object which I have in mind in putting down this Amendment. I hope that its terms are sufficiently clear. It may well be that the noble Earl will be able to say that the drafting is defective here or there. If that is so, although it seems to me that the drafting is good—I am not pretending that it is mine—we should naturally be most happy to consider any suggestions that he should make; or, if he prefers to take it into the hands of the Parliamentary draftsmen to redraft it altogether, I should not mind at all. The point is that we ought to have some sort of system under which there is the possibility of an appeal which is a genuine appeal, and where justice is not only done but is clearly seen to be done. On that basis I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
4.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Government appreciates the anxiety to which expression has been given in

1205
both Houses of Parliament, that the servants of the British Museum shall be, so far as we can make them, in the same position as civil servants. I should like to remind your Lordships that both in another place and after long discussions it has, I think, been made abundantly plain that that is so. Clause 6 of this Bill specifically provides that the pensions of British Museum staff shall be similar to those of civil servants, and it is common ground that the staff of the British Museum should be treated exactly like civil servants. But you cannot introduce a law to that effect without making them civil servants. I think that is also agreed. So far as the Treasury and the Trustees are concerned, they have given assurances that they will continue to be guided by the provisions of ESTACODE and other Treasury instructions about Civil Service establishment matters, and these assurances have been accepted by the staff side as entirely satisfactory. So that, for all practical purposes, the staff of the Museum are assured of parity of treatment with civil servants.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred particularly to the question of appeals. His Amendment envisages the appointment of a tribunal from outside the Museum to hear appeals on disciplinary cases; but this would be going beyond the parallel of ESTACODE and it would be a departure from the practice of the Civil Service where no such arrangement exists. ESTACODE lays down that an officer who is dismissed or is subject to some disciplinary penalty, has a right of appeal to the head of the Department. When the Department is in charge of a Minister, the appeal will lie to the Minister. In a Department where there is not any Minister it will lie to the authority charged with the responsibility for administering the Department—and in the British Museum that authority is the Trustee body. If we were to give a right of appeal to an outside tribunal it would be going beyond what is done for civil servants, and it would detract from the authority of the Trustees and would be incompatible—
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I just indicate that it says "outside the Museum". That does not necessarily mean outside the Government service. The noble Earl is talking as if it were
1206
going out to private industry or something like that. Certainly that was not the intention.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No. The effect of what I was saying was that the civil servant who wants to appeal on some disciplinary matter has a right of appeal to the Minister in his own Department, not to anybody outside his own Department. In the case of the British Museum, the authority in question is the Trustee body. If we were to give a right of appeal to a tribunal outside that body it would detract from the authority of the Trustees and would be incompatible with the principle that management and discipline are matters for the employing Department. This is the answer which I gave the noble Lord on an earlier occasion. It has been accepted and agreed to in another place. Although I wish I could do more to satisfy the noble Lord, I think all I can do is to repeat what has already been said previously.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we appreciate the difficulty of the noble Earl in this matter. Of course, it is clearly not on all-fours with the Civil Service, and one must accept that servants of the Museum cannot be civil servants. The great difference is that where a civil servant is concerned, as the noble Earl made clear, he has a right of appeal to the political head of the Department who is himself answerable to Parliament. The Trustees are not answerable to Parliament. It is particularly with this question of appeal that I think my noble friend Lord Chorley has been concerned and which worries us. I think this is a problem that concerns Parliament. We are well aware that there are large areas of the community, both in the private and the public sectors, where there is no appeal as such to an outside body.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask leave to interrupt for a moment, as I have not the right to speak again on Report? I would say that there is nothing to prevent any case from being raised in Parliament, and some Minister has to reply to the case when it is raised in Parliament. The fact that you cannot have an appeal to an outside tribunal does not mean that it cannot be raised in Parliament.
LORD SHACKLETON: That is an interesting point. What one wants to do is to establish the right without having to go through the Parliamentary machine to do so. This brings us back once again to the problem of the Ombudsman. I do not want to dwell too long on this, but I am sure noble Lords in all sections of the House are concerned in regard to the most virtuous of bodies, and particularly Government bodies. It is a different question where private industry is concerned, and it may be that one will need to legislate for that in time, but we have a direct responsibility for public bodies. I am not attacking the Trustees in any way in saying that I wish there were some way in which a right of appeal could be established. I do not think we can press it any further. My noble friend Lord Chorley might have further views, but it is something that we shall have to consider in the future.
4.19 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has expressed most clearly the anxieties which are in our minds. I cannot say that the noble Earl has made much progress towards satisfying me. He really made no attempt to deal with the difficulty that the Trustees cannot override the Director without showing a lack of confidence in him. I suppose it is such an obvious point that he felt he could not answer it, except by making the observation that the case can be raised in Parliament. But he knows perfectly well that the Tucker case which was referred to was raised in Parliament, and the only answer we received was that it had been considered on a number of occasions by Ministers; and, without any of the argument or evidence being given, that had to suffice in Parliament. That, clearly, was not at all a satisfactory situation. But at some time or other we shall have to deal with this problem on a wide front. It may be that this is not the right place, and that this particular method is not the right one; therefore, I am not going to ask your Lordships to divide on it. But I must indicate that I am quite unsatisfied with the reply which I have had from the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Separation of Natural History Museum];
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in sub section 2(a), to leave out "eight" and insert "five". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an attempt to divide the responsibility for the appointment of the Trustees of the Natural History side of the British Museum between the Prime Minister, who in effect, has the whole appointment at his disposal at the present time, and the Royal Society. I do not want to go over this problem again in detail. Some of your Lordships may remember that during the Committee stage I moved a rather elaborate Motion which was intended to bring in the main national organisations which are concerned with the scientific work carried on at the Natural History Museum. There was a great deal of criticism, which I think was on the whole justified, and it was suggested by one or two noble Lords who took part in the discussion that there was a case for giving the nomination, so to speak, to the Royal Society, which, after all, is a very representative institution and the outstanding national scientific institution.
The weakness of the proposals in the Bill are that they leave it entirely to the Prime Minister, who is very unlikely to be able to make nominations from his own knowledge and experience. He, of course, has to seek advice and the result is apt to be that a bunch of establishment scientists, as they are sometimes called, are appointed. That is a real possibility and may be a very unfortunate one. There is also the real possibility that a Prime Minister may form the habit of relying on the advice of some particular scientist who may be a man of great eminence but whose judgment may not necessarily be impeccable. Without mentioning names, I could recall to your Lordships a prominent case of that kind which is within the memory of every one of us. I think that ought to be safeguarded against, and I should have thought that the suggestion (which I believe came from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, during Committee stage) that one should, as it were, entrust the Royal Society with a substantial number of nominations—

1209
not giving them the majority, but a substantial number of nominations—is the best way out of the difficulty.
One of the great things about the Royal Society is that it keeps enormously alive and is very sympathetic to modern movements of science. Nobody could say that people exploring new paths or advancing heterodox views are not welcomed in the Royal Society, and many of the Fellowships which are awarded are obviously awarded to men and women of that calibre. Those are the sort of people we want to get on to the trusteeship of the Natural History Museum, or at any rate some of them, so that they provide a leaven. Therefore, it seemed to me that this was the best way of securing that end, and I hope that this Amendment is satisfactory from a technical point of view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("eight") and insert ("five").—(Lord Chorley.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the Trustees of the Natural History Museum, and reduces the number who are nominated by the Prime Minister and increases those who would be nominated by the President of the Royal Society. It is, if I may say so, not quite so unacceptable as the Amendment in Committee which the noble Lord moved and to which he has just referred, but I do not think that it would be an improvement to the Bill. The noble Lord has suggested that a Prime Minister may be in favour of one particular scientist—which, of course, may sometimes happen. I think that Presidents of the Royal Society may also sometimes be prejudiced in favour of one particular scientist. I have not been privileged to know many Prime Ministers, or many scientists, but I have known a few of each; and, on the whole, I think that scientists are rather more apt to be prejudiced in favour of some particular view or some particular personality than Prime Ministers are.
I told your Lordships in Committee that the present Prime Minister had announced his intention—which I am sure will be followed by future Prime Ministers—of consulting with the Minister for Science in regard to all his appointments to this particular body of Trustees. Of course, I cannot prophesy
1210
either who will be Prime Minister in 1970 or who will be President of the Royal Society in 1970, or any other year, but I put it to your Lordships that, on the whole, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Science, between them, are more likely to choose a broad representative body of suitable persons to serve as Trustees of the Natural History Museum than is the President of the Royal Society—not that I have anything at all whatever to say in criticism of his impartiality. I put it only that we shall get a better balanced body if we leave the Bill as it is.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl has argued on this Amendment as if it were removing the responsibility of the Prime Minister altogether—as if it were not leaving with him the responsibility for the appointment of the majority of trustees, which it does. However, I do not propose to press the Amendment. If the Government cannot see that it is the more sensible method of handling the problem, then so much the worse for them. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the new clause which I moved to give effect to Lord Cranbrook's Amendment. I think that it may have some bearing on the point raised afterwards, but we will look into that.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("6") and insert ("7").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this does bring in the Natural History Museum.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is what I thought, but I have promised to make sure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
National Reference Library of Science and Invention
".—(1) If at any time the Trustees set up a National Reference Library of Science and Invention, then the Prime Minister may at any time thereafter lay before Parliament a scheme for the establishment of that Library as a separate institution under a separate body of Trustees; and if the scheme is

1211
approved by resolution of each House of Parliament the Prime Minister shall by statutory instrument put it into effect.
(2) Any such scheme shall provide for the Library Trustees to be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, to be known as the Trustees of the National Reference Library of Science and Invention (British Museum)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not propose to repeat the arguments which underlie the fundamental purpose of this Amendment, for they are the same as led to the first Amendment to-day and to the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Shackleton moved in Committee. But I hope—and I feel that I have good reason—that the third time we may be lucky, because this Amendment is purely permissive in character. It simply lays down that, if the National Science Reference Library should be established, at any time thereafter a separate body of Trustees may be provided in control of the Library. This clause is in no sense binding; it commits the Government to nothing. But it leaves the door open in future as to the possibility—which we think is a very real one—that before long the new National Science Library will itself prove to be an enterprise comparable in scale to the existing activities of the Natural History Museum, on the one hand, and the British Museum, ordinarily so-called, on the other.
This is a development which is very likely to happen, though the noble Earl seems quite unaware of the potentialities which face us at the moment. The Amendment commits the Government to nothing, but what it does do is to obviate the need for fresh legislation should this possibility be realised. It also makes it possible at any time, if the Library develops on the scale and in the fashion which is anticipated, for it then to be placed under the control which will at that time be appropriate to its scale and possibilities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
4.31 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that the Government will take this Amendment seriously. There is a historic reason—I mean historic in the
1212
circumstances that combine at the moment—that makes it convenient for the National Reference Library of Science and Invention to be part of the British Museum, and the present solution has all the appeal of an obvious convenience. The most obvious convenience is that Sir Frank Francis is outstanding in this field, and it is certainly the view of all those who are interested in this matter that we need have no concern while Sir Frank Francis is in office. This was a sort of convenient administrative, political solution for the committee which I think was presided over by the head of the Nature Conservancy. I do not think it takes into account the needs of the future.
We argued at length—and we will not repeat the arguments now—that this Library is quite different from the British Museum Library. This is a tool of industry, and it requires to be geared to the needs of industry and the needs of science in a quite different framework from that of the needs of those who use, from a different type of scholarship, the British Museum. It is arguable that this ought also to be part of what I think is called the National Science Lending Library at Harrogate, and it is arguable that these two Libraries, the National Reference Library of Science and Invention and the Harrogate Library, should be joined together. It also seems arguable that they should be placed under the D.S.I.R., which is one of the solutions which could be canvassed.
It could well be argued that we should wait until the future and that legislation should then be introduced; but I think there is a general reluctance, when one is legislating for some body like the British Museum, to contemplate legislation in a few years. Where the British Museum and the Natural History Museum are concerned we are legislating for many years to come, and I and everybody to whom I have spoken who is interested in this field, would like to see the power in the Bill, as this Library develops, or, indeed after it is set up, taking into account the needs of the community at that time, to hive it off into a separate body.
Clearly, the flood of scientific and technological literature, which is vast enough already, is going to grow even faster. This is going to be a very highly specialised body, so specialised that I

1213
suggest it ought not to find its place as part of the more general body that the British Museum is. I would urge the Government to consider taking what is purely a permissive power. I think, on reflection, it is perhaps better that this change should not be made at this moment, but. I am sure that it will need to be made at some time in the next few years.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been used already, but I should like to urge the Government to accept this Amendment. If noble Lords will look at the next Amendment which suggests the attaching to this new Library of a Scientific Abstracting Service, your Lordships will see that this is going to be something very different from the existing Museum at Bloomsbury. In course of time we found it necessary to separate the Natural History Museum from Bloomsbury. Science has developed relatively slowly over those 200 years, although I think we waited too long to do it. But science is developing so rapidly to-day that all those whom I have consulted are abundantly clear that a separation of this sort be necessary in a very few years. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, says, when we are legislating for something which we hope is going to stand for a very long time, we do not want to be looking forward to legislation in two, three or even ten years after the passing of this Bill.
I hope the noble Earl will feel he is able to accept this Amendment, which, after all, is only permissive, although I myself am pretty certain that action will be taken under these permissive clauses fairly soon. I have a suspicion that it is rather more complicated than the noble Lady opposite has indicated, because I expect there to be some difficulties over the Copyright Bill. But if necessary we can look after that at the Third Reading in this House. Meanwhile, I would ask your Lordships to support this Amendment.
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lady should feel some little bitterness about my inability to appreciate the extremely well-reasoned and forcefully expressed arguments which she has so often presented to the House. I should like to assure
1214
both her and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as well as my noble friend behind me, that I, at least, deeply appreciate the strength of their concern about this matter, and their anxiety that we should have an efficient National Science Library. But I am afraid I cannot agree that they have established a case to prove that, because the categories of books which would otherwise have been in Bloomsbury at the new British Museum Library are, partly for reasons of space and partly for other reasons, being removed to the South Bank, it would therefore be a good thing that we should put in the Bill that there may be two separate bodies of Trustees, although I understand the analogy between this and the Natural History Museum, which I did my best to show your Lordships on Committee was not a true analogy in this case.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Is he really advocating the reason of space as a main reason for setting it up? He said that it was partly reasons of space and partly other reasons. I hope it was almost 99 per cent. other reasons.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the essential function of a Trustee—perhaps even more important than management—is the function of ownership. The essential character of the present scheme of the Science Reference Library was to associate the Library with the British Museum collection of books and publications, which, ex hypothesi, contains at least one copy of every British publication. It is no longer true, if it ever was, that publications should be classified into "general" on the one hand, and "scientific" on the other. Many of them are both. Some of them contain separate items, each on the other side of the line, and, in my submission to your Lordships, any distinction would be an arbitrary act of administration which must be capable of being reversed, modified or adjusted to suit particular circumstances. I submit that this can be done only if the general collection and the scientific collection are both under the same ownership and if the ultimate sovereignty of the total management of the collection is in one body.
When we discussed this matter in Committee we went into it quite fully and had

1215
a Division on it. But my noble friend Lord Eccles—and I think some other of your Lordships agreed with him—suggested that, although he would not be in favour of having a separate body of Trustees, he would like to be sure that there was a sub-committee of the Trustees to administer the National Science Library; and I myself mentioned the fact that the Trustees had contemplated the establishment of an advisory council. I have consulted the Trustees about this—as your Lordships know, the administration of the Museum now is largely carried out through sub-committees which report to the main body of Trustees—and I am informed by the Board that they expect the new Board will continue to follow this practice, in the case particularly of the National Science Library. So that the proposal of my noble friend Lord Eccles is one which the Board intend, or at least contemplate, that their successors will accept.
Clearly, there would have to be some machinery for consultation between any such sub-committee and the projected advisory council, whether by regular joint discussion or by some other method, but these are questions of practical detail. What I should like to say to your Lordships now is that it is the firm intention of the Government and the present Trustees, and I am sure we can safely assume that it will be the intention of the successor body of Trustees also, that those who are responsible for the National Science Reference Library should be provided with the best possible advice in the administration and development of it, the vital importance of which is fully recognised by all concerned, and that the scientific and ecological world should be closely associated with the formulation of this advice.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I must assure the noble Earl that no element of bitterness enters into this discussion. What emotion is present, I think, is a feeling of great sorrow and despair that the noble Earl is apparently totally ignorant—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is even worse than bitterness.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: That is a question of opinion; possibly a moral issue. What distresses us is that
1216
the noble Earl should show such a lamentable lack of contact with the realities of science at the present time. If I may so put it, the noble Earl is incurably bookminded. He visualises a library as a place to which you go to find some passage in a particular book. He seems to have no conception of the uses to which a science reference library is put. It is a place to which you go not to refer to a particular journal, still less to a particular book, but to get a particular item of information on what may be an extremely complex, specialised and detailed scientific question. This requires an entirely different approach and an entirely different technique.
The noble Earl has gone some way, perhaps, to meet our objectives in saying that it is proposed to have an advisory council and that it is proposed that the Trustees should set up a sub-committee to deal with the Library. I should myself have felt much happier about those proposals if he had been more receptive to our first Amendment to this Bill and if we had had an assurance that the Trustees were themselves to include, and that there therefore could be elected as a member of the sub-committee, a person or persons cognisant in a way which the noble Earl clearly is not with the purposes and methods of the Library. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has raised the copyright question. We have considered this, and I think it can be dealt with quite simply by a single clause which could be added at a later stage.
The fundamental point seems to be that the noble Earl has no vision of the speed at which scientific development is already in progress, although members of both sexes are at this moment circling the globe, and have done so more than once during the time that this discussion has been in progress. He has accepted now that the Natural History Museum has reached the stage at which a separate body of Trustees is appropriate, but he cannot see that the time is going to be quite short before at least it is a matter for consideration whether the Science Reference Library has not reached the same stage. We do not want to have a British Museum Bill every two or three years. I am sure that is the last thing that this Government want. That is the reason why we have come back to this Amendment, which is purely permissive and

1217
which makes it possible, if it should be proved that my noble friend Lord Shackleton and myself are right in our forecasts, then to change the administrative set-up in a way that is appropriate to the conditions of the time.
This is a purely permissive clause. In other contexts the Government seem very anxious to look to the future. I might perhaps refer to the London Government Bill, where the Government are anxious not to have a permissive review of London education within the next ten years but to have an obligatory review. In these cases they seem not in the least afraid to provide in present legislation
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
National Scientific Abstracting Service
" . If at any time the Trustees set up a National Reference Library of Science and Invention, they shall in so doing provide for the staff of the Library to operate a National Scientific Abstracting Service."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who are learned at law will know how essential the Law Reports are to those engaged in that profession, and those of your Lordships
for possible future developments. I should have thought that, with all the uncertainties and the rapid developments of science, here, if anywhere, was a case where a door should be left open so that administrative changes parallel to those already made in the case of the Natural History Museum would be possible without its being necessary again to have recourse to legislation.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32: Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sinha, L.

Amwell, L.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L.

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Strang, L.

Attlee, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Swanborough, B.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Chorley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Shackleton, L.

Wise, L.

Denning, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Silkin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Ampthill, L

Effingham, E.

Margesson, V.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milverton, L.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Radcliffe, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Colyton, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Just, L.

Conesford, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Crawford, E.

Hurcomb, L.

Sandys, L.

Croft, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lloyd, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

who, like myself, are not learned but are involved in the law as lay justices will know how essential are the reports in such journals as the Justice of the Peace and the Magistrate. In neither case can we read all the newspapers or other journals telling us of legal decisions affecting our work, and we have to rely upon abstracts of important cases brought to our notice in publications like those to which I have referred. It is scarcely possible for a lawyer to keep in touch with all legal cases in one country; it is obviously quite impossible for a scientist, by himself, to read through all the scientific journals published in every country of the world and to find out what work is being done on

1219
his speciality. Indeed, so great is the output of scientific publications to-day, that if a man did that it is doubtful whether he would have time to do any other work.
A week or two back your Lordships discussed the effect of agricultural pesticides on human beings and on wild life generally, and I have no doubt that, because of the general disquiet, a number of scientists are working on that problem. Before a man can start on that sort of work he has to read up what has already been done by other men, not only in this country but all over the world, partly, of course, to save himself repeating work which has been done already, but also to find out whether related investigations shed some light on the problem he is trying to investigate. Again, he has to rely, as the lawyer has to rely on the Law Reports, on some form of abstracting service.
This is no new problem: abstracts or bibliographies of scientific papers have been published in this country for 100 years or so. Like other activities in this country, they were started by voluntary effort on a quasi-amateur basis—indeed most abstracting services to-day are still run on that sort of line, depending very largely on part-time work. Some of them are run and subsidised by learned societies; some are subsidised by industrial organisations, and some are published by commercial firms, in co-operation with one or more learned societies. But all of them to a greater or lesser extent depend on the good will and voluntary work of abstracters or reporters. In fact, some of them suffer from the defects inherent in these rather curiously diverse systems. For a number of years people in one discipline will be satisfied with the abstracting service provided for them and then, for some reason usually connected with the quasi-amateur way in which it is run, they find that their field is only half-covered. With the vast increase in output of scientific papers, it is becoming increasingly difficult for any abstracting system, run on the lines on which most of them are run to-day, to cover the whole field. I have heard it said of one of the more important services published in the English language that it does not cover much more than 50 or 60 per cent. of the total field, because
1220
it is practically impossible for any other than a State-run service so to do.
I think that one can summarise the existing opinion of scientists in general in this way. Most of them are more or less—and probably rather less than more—satisfied with the abstracting services available for them. A good many of them are thoroughly dissatisfied. In this field, as in other fields, we suffer from having been the first in the field. In the early years of last century, when these services began, they were started on lines suitable to the state of science of that day; and to-day, nearly more than 100 years later, some are still run on those lines. The position is very different in countries which came later into the scientific field. When they did come in, they came with a rush, and abstracting services have been built up to meet modern demands in modern ways. I suppose that the outstanding example is Russia, where a large number of scientists are engaged whole-time in providing scientific abstractions and bibliographies for their fellow workers, although there is also a similarly State-run abstracting service in France.
I do not want to detain your Lordships with technical details, but it is clear that any abstracting service must be run around a library which receives all the books and publications which are germane to the discipline concerned and where researchers will find the papers, report them to the abstracters and recorders and the whole will finally be collated, indexed and published. In this country, there will be virtaully only two libraries around which a complete scientific abstracting service could be built. There is the National Scientific Lending Library at Boston Spa and the new Scientific Reference Library on the South Bank. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, who unfortunately cannot be present to-day, supports this Amendment, but has some doubt whether it is possible anywhere in the world to build up a complete scientific abstracting service. But he thinks that, if it could be done anywhere, it might be done in London, around this Library. I do not myself take the view that it would be necessary in the English-speaking world to try to build up a complete service covering all the sciences. For some disciplines, there are already abstracts published in the United States, which it would be ridiculous for this country to try to supplant,

1221
and vice versa. Recently, one American scientific bibliographical service has been given up because it was found that a comparable one published in this country is entirely adequate and that the one over there is unnecessary.
Since this Amendment was put down, the Report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has been published, and your Lordships will note that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is becoming increasingly concerned with the whole problem of scientific documentation and abstracting, and recommends that the Commonwealth countries and the United States should get together to consider the whole problem of scientific abstracting in English speaking countries. That is all to the good. But that is for the future. Meanwhile we have a real problem to face in this country. When this new Scientific Reference Library is set up, I think that it is going to be essential for an abstracting service to be built around it; and that is my reason for moving this Amendment.
I must apologise to your Lordships for having gone into this rather complicated subject in some detail. I had not intended to do so, and I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will excuse me. The misunderstanding we had over the previous Amendment made me feel that it was necessary to explain this one in the closest detail, in order that it should be abundantly clear what I have in mind and the way in which some of us envisage this Library will inevitable develop. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Cause 7, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
5.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am probably even more ignorant of the law than my noble friend, and I am afraid that I do not have as much time as I should like to read the newspapers, either. This is another matter about which I have consulted the Trustees of the British Museum, and they have the fullest appreciation of the importance of abstracting in the advance and application of science. A great deal of study has been devoted lately to this subject. Technological abstracting has been considered
1222
by the British Commonwealth Scientific Council, which I understand is about to issue a report on it, and a study has been made in the Patents Office Library, at the instance of the British Museum Trustees (who, I understand, although it is not a charge on the British Museum Vote, are paying for it), on the use of the scientific literature available in the Patents Office Library. That is part of the planning of the services in the new National Science Reference Library. Another study is being undertaken, in the interests of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, by Professor B. H. Flowers, on the difficulties experienced by research workers in keeping up to date with new developments.
The Trustees recognise that it is most desirable that the National Science Reference Library should play a leading part in considering the adequacy of the coverage of existing abstracting systems, in setting up machinery for co-ordinating them, identifying overlaps and omissions and seeking all possible means of removing them. It is recognised, too, that the development of electronic devices for information storage and retrieval must be one of the main objects of study in the new Library. Research is already going on into the possibility of collecting abstracts in punched tape form, and it may be that such a method may solve many of the problems of overlapping and of timeliness of abstractions.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that abstracting should be considered for the English language area as a whole. I think that multiple use of the same abstracts must be encouraged rather than repeated abstracting of the same papers; and it is important in considering whether we should have a national scientific abstracting service to avoid wasting resources and spending perhaps a vast amount of money which might not be necessary on duplicating what is being done elsewhere. My noble friend in moving the Amendment paid attention to that. He pointed out that was being done in the United States, and, I would add to that, the Commonwealth.
I am advised that the acceptance of the Amendment should be interpreted as an obligation to set up a comprehensive national scientific abstracting service. The Trustees think, and the Government

1223
agree, that the right way of tackling this problem is to continue with the investigations that have already begun into the needs of scientists and the use of existing scientific literature and to see what the latest electronic devices can do to help us to draw on all English abstracting services that already exist and to get rid of overlapping. The National Science Reference Library will have a large rôle to play in this; perhaps it may be the main co-ordinating rôle. I hope my noble friend will appreciate that a premature statutory obligation of this kind would not help us to do this.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that I am a little more encouraged by the noble Earl, and, indeed, if he had made that speech on some of the early Amendments we might have been more cheerful, because it appears that his consultation with the Trustees of the British Museum has brought forth certain information relevant to the Amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and I have been moving. But, whereas I think they would be good arguments for showing an awareness, which we know exists among the staff of the British Museum, and presumably among the three or four scientific members, he has not really answered the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It is not a question of using electronic devices for indexing and making available the abstracts; it is the actual physical business of the abstracting. The abstracting services have been in the past in a dangerous position. The noble Earl will recall that a few years ago chemical abstracts were in danger of ceasing entirely.
What we are now seeking to do is to create an obligation which would be nationally borne and which, if there is to be any co-operation anywhere, would be centred on the National Reference Library of Science and Invention. There is not an obligation to provide a comprehensive service to the extent of duplicating other abstract services. This is something, again, which goes with our view of the National Reference Library of Science and Invention. It is because the more we go into this the further we get removed from the British Museum as most people visualise it (I know that
1224
there are one or two Trustees here), and because we are sorry that the last new clause was not adopted, that we should now like to put certain obligations in legislative form. This is an obligation which we think ought to be accepted. It may be that the wording of the Amendment is not entirely satisfactory, and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, would be prepared to accept any assurance from the Government that they will think this over and produce an Amendment which could be moved on Third Reading, to give effect to this. It is because we have anxiety as to whether these obligations are going to be properly recognised that we are now trying to put them into legislative form. Although I was encouraged by certain of the noble Earl's remarks, which I think would have been rather more germane to the earlier Amendments, I am certainly not satisfied with the answer, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, thinks about it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Earl in charge of this Bill?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am afraid I cannot speak again on the same Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl can speak by leave.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I dare say the House might give the noble Earl leave to answer a simple question. The question is whether he is satisfied that the Trustees will have power to operate an abstracting service, if that is found to be desirable, as I think everybody will agree it is.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is what I tried to convey to your Lordships in my remarks. I also tried to submit to your Lordships that a statutory obligation at this stage would not be helpful to them.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand quite what the noble Earl understood by the word "abstracting". What I and those who were associated with me in putting down this Amendment had in mind was the provision of indices, with or without a short precis of the papers

1225
concerned with scientific publications. I rather gathered from the words the noble Earl in charge of the Bill used that he thought "abstracting" meant extricating from the library the book, publication or article which a person wanted at that particular moment. I may have misunderstood him but that was the impression I got from what he said. If that is so, and if that is the considered opinion of the Trustees, I am confirmed in my opinion that there really ought to be altogether another body of Trustees looking after this Library. Perhaps the noble Earl could look into it again before the Third Reading.
I do not want to see an Amendment inserted in this Bill which makes it essential to run a complete abstracting service for all the sciences, because obviously that is not desirable; nor, probably, is it possible: But I do feel that the Trustees should have the setting up of some part of the abstracting service very much in their minds. I know that at the moment the National History Museum co-operates in an entomological abstracting service. We are going to have a much bigger and more important library here, and it must become involved in an abstracting service. I have grave doubt whether the Government, and I have some doubt whether the Trustees, fully realise this. I should like some reassurance on the point on Third Reading if I cannot be assured to-day.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, there are at least two, and I think possibly three, Trustees present in your Lordships' House at the moment. I do not know whether we could have any expression of opinion from them. It would be helpful.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on a subject on which such scorn has been poured on our ignorance. The Trustees recognise that the whole process of abstraction is one of great difficulty. We realise it is most desirable that somehow or other the process should be associated with the scientific library. How it should be associated I do not know. It seems to me that the proposals which have been made have not gone very far into the problem and, indeed, may not be very practicable. I understand that
1226
in Russia, for instance, which has been referred to, the numbers of permanent workers are 2,000 and voluntary workers 20,000, that the journal is read by 250,000 people, and something like three-quarters of a million abstractions are made each year.
For an Amendment which will impose that sort of burden on the new Library just to be thrown into this House, seems to me to be slightly frivolous. The matter should not be considered by scientists with scorn for those who are not scientists, but with a more scientific approach to the problem, which I hope they will vouchsafe to us. The main problem seems to me to be how what is now a completely unco-ordinated service should be properly co-ordinated; how those who are abstracting the same thing in different parts of the country should somehow or other be brought together. Whether this can be done either by the electronic machine we have been hearing about or by other methods in the Library itself, I very much doubt. The numbers involved in the Russian scheme, which I think are the same as in America, roughly speaking about 2,000, are, of course, far greater than the whole number of officials in the British Museum put together; and so far as the new Library is concerned, to make this machine in the Library seems to me to be totally impracticable.
I should like to wait to hear what is said in the new Report, to be studied in relation to the 1946, 1947 and 1948 Reports, and the UNESCO Report of a year or so later, and I think that a serious effort should be made to see what is the best thing to do. I am quite certain that to act on an Amendment such as this and to impose a duty on the new Library would be extremely damaging to the Library and a most unfortunate and retrograde step.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Transfer of documents to Public Record Office
".Notwithstanding anything in this Act the Trustees (if they think it fit in the best interests of historical research or scholarship)

1227
may with the consent of the Lord Chancellor transfer to the Public Record Office any historical manuscript or other document or part thereof that formerly formed part of the Public Records, or which form part of a series of documents the bulk of which are in the possession of the Public Record Office."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, asked me to move this Amendment on their behalf, as they expected that they would not be able to be here at the appropriate moment. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is now visible, and will no doubt be heard in due course, he felt, after consideration, that having asked me to move the Amendment, it might be better if I did so. Certainly it was not because I can do it better than he—I am sure I cannot—but, at any rate, having studied the question and read what has been said at an earlier stage, I feel that I can wholeheartedly commend the Amendment.
This Amendment was moved in exactly the same terms, at the Committee stage by the noble and Learned Lord, and at the end of a discussion in which I think every speech was in favour of the Amendment the noble Earl in charge of the Bill promised that he would give the matter further consideration, and, I gather, sympathetic consideration; and in the light of that the Amendment was withdrawn. Here we are again, and we await the decision of the Government.
The Amendment is moved under the auspices of the present Master of the Rolls and his predecessor, and, as the noble Earl himself said, for that reason alone is entitled to the greatest respect. It deals with subjects for which they are and have been responsible, namely, the Public Record Office, and in which they have taken a very special interest. I do not propose to go in any detail into the merits of the Amendment. The short purpose is that where the Museum authorities are possessed of any document which would more appropriately be in the possession of the Public Record Office, they should have the power, if they so wish, and subject to very limiting and strict control, to transfer that document to the Public Record Office.
The restrictions and controls are that it should be in the interests of historical research or scholarship that the document
1228
should be in the possession of the Public Record Office; that the Trustees should agree to it—without their agreement it cannot happen—and, in any case, that there should be the approval of the Lord Chancellor. I can imagine no greater safeguard than those three. The Trustees have to satisfy themselves in the first instance that it is in the interests of historical research, and then they have to decide for themselves whether the document should be transferred. Then, again, the Lord Chancellor has to give his approval.
On the broad principle there can, in my view, be no doubt that the justification for the transfer to the Public Record Office would be that the document concerned was one which would be more appropriately in the possession of the Public Record Office than with the Museum. Moreover, there is one final restriction in the Amendment, that it shall be a
"document or part thereof that formerly formed part of the Public Records, or which form part of a series of documents the bulk of which are in the possession of the Public Record Office."
That is one more restriction. With all those restrictions, I cannot imagine that many documents could be affected; and, in any event, they would be only documents which came into existence before the date of the Public Records Act, 1838.
I read the statement of the noble Earl in reply to the Amendment. I do not think he attempted to challenge the principle that it is desirable that documents which are of interest for the purpose of historical research should be in the possession of the Public Record Office. What he said was that it was desirable and essential that documents once in the possession of the Trustees should never be disposed of, to whomever it might be, except temporarily under Clause 7; and that if we once made a breach of that principle, the Trustees would be so weak-minded (the noble Earl did not say that; that is my word) that they would be susceptible to pressure. I cannot believe that the noble Earl who spoke on the Amendment last time would be susceptible to any pressure of that kind, or would give way if he thought it was improper. On the other hand, I have sufficient confidence in him to believe that, if he were satisfied that it was in the interests of historical research that a document should

1229
be in the possession of the Public Record Office, he would agree to accept the machinery of this Amendment.
So I really cannot believe that the Minister's earlier argument affords a sound reason for rejecting this Amendment. It seems to me so sensible and so much in the public interest that these documents should be in the right possession and capable of being used by people who are engaged in historical research, that this Amendment, or something on these lines, ought to be accepted. It is for those reasons that I beg to move, and I have high hopes that the noble Earl having had the opportunity of considering the Amendment since the Committee stage will be able to give us some comfort, which up to now he has not been able to give in respect of any Amendments made on this Bill except his own. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for moving this Amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Evershed and I both expected not to be able to be here. May I, in supporting it, again remind your Lordships of the one instance which I gave last time to which this would apply? In the Public Record Office we have the accounts for the building of Rockingham Castle in the year 1280. We have every year's accounts for almost 30 years; we have 29½ parchment rolls with their Latin, their little script, and all the difficulties of reading from them. Some time ago unknown, half of one of these rolls was torn off and in some way that jagged half has got into the British Museum. I have a photograph here of the half which we in the Public Record Office have. It is actual size, as you can see by the handwriting. There is a jagged edge where the offer half, which has got into the British Museum, has been torn off. Scholars tell me that if you want to examine this document you ought to be able to put the two halves together. All we wish is that the Trustees of the British Museum should have power if they think fit, entirely within their discretion, to let this one half join up with the other 29½ rolls. The answer is,
1230
"What we have we hold", and this half cannot be joined up. It was suggested that a photograph might do. But a photograph does not show the erasures, the blots of handwriting; scholars cannot compare a photograph with the other half. It was said, "In the British Museum we have this index, and, goodness knows, if we let this go we shall not be able to show people this bit". But they can have a photograph, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said last time.
There is one other additional point. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked whether this is a two-way traffic. It is capable of being in this way. The Public Record Office has power, with the appropriate consent of the Lord Chancellor and so on, to let the custody of one of these documents go to the British Museum. There is one, at least, I could mention to your Lordships. The Public Record Office have an indulgence in print by William Caxton which we got from the dissolution of the monasteries. It is older than any printed document the British Museum have. The British Museum, I am told, would very much like to have the oldest printed document in this country. It could be a two-way traffic. But at the moment the staffs on each side are saying, "What we have we hold". I would submit it is right to give this discretionary power—that is all it is—only if the Trustees think it in the interests of historical research and scholarship, and to let them, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, pass over this document to the custody of the Record Office to join the half with the other 29½. And there may be other cases. There are not many. I would ask your Lordships to support this Amendment.
VISCOUNT RADCLIFFE: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon the question of this clause. I speak as an existing Trustee and a member of the Standing Committee and, therefore slightly suspect upon all such questions as are now being debated. But that does not matter very much because quite soon we shall all disappear as Trustees and there will be a new and more dynamic body in our place. On the question of the Government's attitude with regard to this clause, I think, if I may say so, the arguments are very evenly divided. It is of

1231
course always beguiling to have a permissive clause, because it is said the matter is in this case left entirely in the hands of the Museum Trustees; and I believe the provision has been expressly redrawn in order to make it plain that there is no wish to force the hands of the Trustees over this. And when it is pressed by someone of the standing and persuasiveness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, it does seem very obstinate and merely non-possumus to say this clause ought not to become part of the permanent machinery of the constitution of the British Museum. I see force in that, speaking for myself; and I do not think this is a matter for expression of solid views on the part of an existing body of Trustees.
On the other hand, there is the argument I know to weigh heavily with what I call the Museum authorities, and that is, in rather pompous terms, the principle of non-alienation. That attitude that was scorned, "What we have we hold" is, I myself believe, a good and right attitude for those who are set up as guardians of a permanent collection of national treasures. Although in any one instance you can always say "Well, rationalise your collection, there must be a case for this part of it or that part of it to be in better hands elsewhere," in what is generally called the interests of the public, or in the interests of scholarship or culture generally—a view which is very firmly held with regard to quite a number of possessions of the British Museum by persons outside this country as well as persons inside this country—I think it is a mistake, when you have a permanent collection which has been formed over a long period of time by various methods—acquisition, bequest, very often with special conditions attached—that you should contemplate giving the Trustees, who are there to hold and look after it, a discretionary power to rationalise the collection and hand over this bit or that. And although it may seem obstructive to try to stick to this principle, my own feeling is that, since I believe there are very few items which anybody has been able to find which are thought to be capable of coming within the range of this proposed discretionary power, it is better, on the whole, to stick to the principle that a permanent collection, once
1232
formed, should be retained in that form for good.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the attitude of the Trustees, if the noble Lord who last spoke can be taken as representing their united views, can be described, I am afraid, only in one way, "dog in the manger." The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has taken the best possible example when he quoted the case of a very ancient and most interesting document which, by some mischance, has been torn so that its two parts are in two totally separate institutions. As he has truly pointed out, and as all of your Lordships who have done any research into ancient documents will know, it is absolutely useless to say that having a photograph is anything comparable to having the original when you are trying to make a profound study of the document in question. For some serious student to have to run from the Public Record Office to the British Museum to compare two pieces of the same document seems to me, frankly, to be verging upon idiocy.
It has been pointed out clearly by both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that this is a purely permissive clause, which would allow the future Trustees of the British Museum, whom one must assume to be persons of intelligence and integrity, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, who must also be assumed to have some qualifications for his job, to permit, obviously in rather rare instances, some document to be deposited in a place which is more suitable for it. If that were accepted, I should expect the Public Record Office to act in the same way and to transfer to the British Museum anything which might more appropriately be held there. To say that you are going now to institute a Law of the Medes and Persians, whereby no document can ever be moved or even any portion of a document be allowed to rejoin its fellow in another more suitable institution, is, I believe, a position that cannot logically for one moment be defended.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield

1233
asked whether my noble friend Lord Radcliffe spoke for all the Trustees. I do not know whether that is so or not, but may I say, as the most recent in length of service of the Trustees, and one whose junior appointment could not possibly have enabled him to be guilty of the act of severance to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has referred, that I fully share the views expressed by Lord Radcliffe.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, stressed that this was only a permissive power. But, as was conceded by the Chief Secretary in another place, it is a power, though in form permissive, which can sometimes become an embarrassment. Pressures can be put upon one to exercise the power, from which pressures one is free if one has not the power to exercise. If to-night we met what appears, I agree, at first sight the reasonable and eloquently moved plea of Lord Denning, then I am certain that before long future Trustees would be subjected, not, of course, to improper pressures, but to suggestions from, it may be, the Commonwealth Relations Office or from the Foreign Office, that they should be equipped with powers similar to the power that they would have been given to-night, which would enable them to hand over, perhaps to a Dominion or to some friendly foreign country, objects, either documents, sculpture, paintings or the like, which would return to the homes from which they originally came.
I can well imagine Trustees anxious to make their contribution to the pacification of the world, or to the furtherance of good relations with other countries, wondering in their hearts whether they are right to refuse so to do, and this proposal would perhaps add to the difficult task of our overseas representatives on foreign service at the time. I hope that to-night we shall stick on the principle of non-alienation, however unreasonable it may appear, because I foresee a great many difficulties if we do not, and there may well be other difficulties which we cannot as yet foresee.
5.47 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, speaking as a Trustee and as a member of the Standing Committee, I can only say that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, has expressed what I personally feel in this matter, in terms much more
1234
apt than anything I could possibly think of for myself. As the noble Viscount who has just spoken has brought out, there is more than at first meets the eye in the doctrine of what is called non-alienation. In the course of centuries, a great many interesting documents have found their way into collections which may not be the most appropriate for them. That has happened through various causes, including the process of mere abstraction—if I may borrow that term in this connection. Frankly, many things were stolen by the people who borrowed them and forgot to return them, and they are no longer in the libraries to which they once belonged.
But these collections have, in turn, acquired a unity and a kind of historic personality, as it were, and it needs a good deal of thought before one starts to break them up and interfere with them. That, I think, is the view which the Museum authorities themselves hold rather strongly. It is therefore a matter of some importance, if one begins to transfer ownerships and responsibility for curatorship and all that kind of thing. The pleas which have been put forward are rather special pleas, and the argument is founded largely upon one hard case—this mutilated document. For my own part, though I feel, on the other hand, that if it is important that a scholar should have under his eye both halves of a roll of this interest, or even one roll which has got separated from a series, and he would like to view it in connection with its fellows, there ought to be means by which the two documents can be brought under the same roof temporarily for his inspection.
I wonder whether, without doing too much violence to their duties as Trustees or infringing the terms of the Statute, even if the Bill is left as it is, that could not be achieved. Surely it is a matter for administration and the ingenuity and resource of the curators, to facilitate scholarship by enabling any accredited person to see what he wants to see at the same time and in the same place, without having to run about from one building to another. Will it not be possible to achieve that without altering the responsibilities for ownership and curatorship of these documents and objects which, in many cases for centuries, have been well looked after where they are?
5.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thought in this matter that we should be debating with the Government, but now we find that we are debating with the massed ranks of the Trustees.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot object. During the last Amendment he challenged the competent Trustees to intervene in the debate. When they do he must not complain.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am not objecting. I am congratulating myself on succeeding in luring them into this discussion. We have now a quite clear indication, and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will agree with me, that we will not return to others forms that we may want. Clearly, if part of the original atom Lord Rutherford split had got into the British Museum, then the electrons would be safely housed there and would never be allowed out again. I do not know whether the Trustees have studied the new Bill that is before Parliament. There are powers under this Bill—I have not yet checked back on the original powers—to transfer pictures, and the principle of non-alienation does not apply there. If noble Lords will look at Clause 8 they will see that power is given for pictures to be transferred, not merely to the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery but to institutions listed in the First Schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act. If this can be done to pictures, why cannot it be done to documents? Among these places are the British Museum. It is all right to lend to the British Museum, to the Imperial War Museum, to the National Library of Scotland and Wales, the Royal Scottish Museum, the Science Museum. Surely it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to make provision of this kind.
There is also, of course, provision under this Bill (and I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and the other Trustees to this) to lend objects for public exhibition but not, apparently, for private examination. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us about this. It may be that there are powers on this point, but I should like him to turn his attention to the principle of non-alienation in regard to Clause 8 and
1236
the question of loaning for private purposes.
I must confess that I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in his judgment on this matter. We obviously applaud and admire the devotion of the Trustees, but, equally, I do not think they should be too sensitive when we suggest that in regard to certain matters a slightly more liberal approach should be taken. We are not proposing—nor are the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Denning—to throw open the floodgates. We are suggesting merely that there might well be a power, of the kind which exists under the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, to lend or to transfer to a particular institution—a public one—which at least ranks equal, I should have thought, with the Science Museum or the Royal Scottish Museum. I hope the Government will now tell us that they are prepared to meet my honourable friend's plea.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should like to add one word. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has mentioned pictures. If, by any chance, one of these pictures had got torn into two pieces, would it not be even more important for them to be joined together?
5.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is a question over which I have, to the best of my ability, taken a great deal of trouble, because when I heard the Amendment moved in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I felt that your Lordships were greatly impressed by what he said. I have therefore done my best to find out from all possible sources, including the Trustees, what is the right thing to do. I have felt great difficulty about the matter. The conclusion I have reached is that the Trustees are not actuated by what might be described as dog-in-the-manger motives. They are not so greedy of property that they do not wish to be allowed to give any of it away. But, they feel strongly—and I think they have some reason for feeling—that, if once this principle of non-alienation is breached, however thin the end of the wedge may be, it may, as my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton has argued, lead to pressures later on in regard to other things besides

1237
documents which it might not be in the interests of history, or of art, or of the British public, to alienate to some other institution or some other country.
It seems quite innocuous to say that this Amendment is concerned only with the transfer of one or two papers from the British Museum to the Record Office, and that it cannot apply to anything else. But I have been convinced that the Trustees of the Museum, and many others interested in the future of the Museum, are genuinely anxious about future developments which might result from the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind. I have listened very carefully to what your Lordships have said. I had hoped at one moment that perhaps a swap might have been arranged across the Floor of the House: the Caxton print, on the one hand, in exchange for the missing Rockingham Leaf on the other. I am sure that if this could legally be done, all those at the ringside would heartily applaud.
LORD SHACKLETON: It could be legally done.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just raised the question of what can legally be done. I was about to come to that point. Pictures are in a different class because they do not form part of any of the British Museum's collections. Clause 4 says:
"The Trustees of the, British Museum may lend far public exhibition…"
I think—and I have taken advice on this point—that "public exhibition" means public exhibition either to several people or to one person who wants to study a paper or any other object of historical interest. I think that "for public exhibition" means that they may lend it so that the people to whom they lend can exhibit it to two or three people, or to one person who wants to study it. I think that is the common-sense interpretation of the phrase.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made a suggestion in that sense, and it seems to me that this might be a solution of the difficulty: that sensible trustees and sensible guardians of the public records might make arrangements with each other under Clause 4 which would have the effect of enabling members of the public to see a document as a whole. I
1238
am not going to go at any length into the definition of what is meant by the word "lend", and how long it may be before an object so lent must be returned. I am merely putting it to your Lordships that it seems to me that the suggestion of Lord Hurcomb was a possible solution of this difficulty.
I do not want in any way to minimise the force of the arguments on either side in this debate, but I have been waiting to see if any of your Lordships were going to speak. I am bound to tell your Lordships that, on balance, the weight of argument seems to have been in favour on not making a breach in this principle of non-alienation; and it is partly for that reason that I have tried to emphasise the possible methods of mitigating what, I agree, may seem in some contexts to be a hard and difficult rule.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I find the noble Earl's attitude strange because he seems to have no confidence in the Trustees. Does he really contemplate that in the event—perhaps I should say in the unlikely, though still possible, event—of all the Trustees being of the opinion that it was right to transfer something, they really ought not to have the power to do so?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have given the reasons why the Trustees hold that opinion: that they ought not to have the power, because they are afraid that it might lead to their being prevailed upon later on to transfer objects which ought not to be transferred.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I feel not only disappointed, but completely unconvinced by the statement of the noble Earl. This is not, of course, a Party issue. Athough I moved this Amendment, I should have been perfectly prepared to withdraw it if I thought the Government had made a case. But I cannot see what case has been made. You appoint sensible people, responsible people, to a Board and then you say, "We are not going to give them any discretion at all, because if they were allowed to exercise it, even with the restrictions included in the Amendment, they may carry out their discretion in an irresponsible way or be subjected to pressure and be forced to give way". I cannot believe that there is a sensible argument against giving them this very

1239
limited discretion with the restrictions that I have mentioned.
Incidentally, the noble Earl did not deal with the question of non-alienation. My noble friend drew attention to Clause 8, which already permits the Trustees to dispose of certain of their properties to bodies laid down under Clause 8. Therefore even the principle of non-alienation
Clause 12 [Triennial Reports]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to correct a verbal error.* I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, leave out clause 12.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
First Schedule [Tenure of office and Proceedings of Trustees]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after paragraph 2 to insert:
"3. The Prime Minister may, for good reason, direct any Trustee to resign his office; and that Trustee shall then vacate his office accordingly."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which gives the Prime Minister power to direct any
* See col. 1243.
has been breached. In those circumstances, unless the noble Earl is prepared to reconsider the matter, I feel that I must press the Amendment to a Division.
6.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Denning, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Somers, L.

Atholl, D.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Burden, L.

Lucan, E.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mansfield, E.

Walston, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Cranbrook, E.

St. Just, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Croft, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Freyberg, L.

Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Radcliffe, V.

Bossom, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Boston, L.

Hereford, V.

Sandys, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Spens, L.

Colyton, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Crawford, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd, L.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Dundee, E.

Margesson, V.

Waleran, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Trustee to resign his office. I think that at the moment most of the Trustees have left the Chamber, so I should like to make it quite clear that the Amendment is not aimed at any of the present Trustees.
It may be recalled that at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, moved an Amendment to set an age limit for Trustees, which, if I recall aright, was not acceptable to the Committee. I also had down an Amendment, which I did not move on that occasion but which seemed suitable to move at some stage, to the effect that, in the event of its becoming necessary, a Trustee could be removed from office. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that among all devoted and high-minded men there is a possibility either of some fundamental conflict of a kind which makes it impossible for the organisation to work, or even a possibility, over a long period, of some sad change in personality which might lead

1241
to the necessity for removal. But more important is the need to retain some sort of power, a power which Parliament can exercise through the Minister, and the only power there is in regard to a body which must, I think rightly, otherwise be independent is to sack the people who run it.
I should think that this is a power that would never be used, but it seems to be a necessary sanction; and when we note the fact that a Trustee, when he is appointed, can be appointed for a period of ten years or for a further five years, some sort of residual protective provision is clearly necessary. This is a very simple Amendment, and one which I hope the Government will accept. I would make it clear that of course there is no reflection implied either on present or future Trustees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as your Lordships are well aware, the Schedule to this Bill limits the period for which Trustees may be appointed, and in that respect it makes it easier to get rid of a Trustee, by not appointing him again. The idea of sacking a Trustee before the term of his appointment is up is, I think I am right in saying, a new one. I do not think it was raised either in another place or here before, and I believe that this Amendment would not be helpful to the purpose of the Bill. It would interfere with the independence of the Trustees, which has been lauded in both Houses as a desirable object. They would, on the whole, be less likely to be able to stand up to Government pressure of which they did not approve if they thought that the Prime Minister had the right to remove them prematurely, very often before the five years, or in some cases it might be the ten years, were up.
I should have thought that, if circumstances arose in which a Trustee became incapable of properly carrying out his duties, it would be extremely unlikely that he would not voluntarily retire in response either to his own feelings or to the tactful pressure of his colleagues. I should have thought, too, that the case of a Trustee who had become so incapable of carrying out his duties and who was not willing to retire would be so unlikely
1242
to arise—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said he thought that in practice a case might never arise—that it would not be worth while, in order to deal with such a possibility, giving the Prime Minister this power, which would to an appreciable extent, or at least to an apparent extent, interfere with the independence and perhaps the robustness of the Trustees in the carrying out of their duty. I hope, therefore, that at this stage of the Bill the noble Lord will not desire to press what I think is a new idea, one which has not come before us previously, and which I do not think would be an improvement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I correct the noble Earl on one point? An Amendment was down on Committee stage, but owing to the lateness of the hour I did not move it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I apologise, and accept the correction.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, this is surely not a new idea. It is a new idea in relation to the British Museum Trustees, but it is a very widespread provision.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I meant in relation to this Bill.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Yes; but I do not see why the independence of the British Museum Trustees should be regarded as so precarious when the independence of other bodies is unaffected by this power. It surely is desirable, with a ten-year term of office, and with the disasters that can happen—for example, people's personalities can be sadly changed by accident, and sometimes by illness—that there should be a latent power to deal with situations of that kind. I think it is true that the Boards of the nationalised industries are subject to some such provision as this. I have not checked on it, but if my memory serves me aright I think it is also true of the Governors of the B.B.C.; and, if that is so, the independence of the Corporation is certainly in no way impaired by it. It is a very usual provision, and I should have thought that the Trustees themselves would welcome the feeling that, in the event of some disaster of this kind

1243
occurring, they would not have the invidious task of trying to squeeze out, perhaps, one of their colleagues who might no longer be adequate for the performance of his duties.
VISCOUNT RADCLIFFE: My Lords, I want to put it as nicely and as delicately as I can, but I must say that I think that this is a most vicious proposal. For the future, the Board of Trustees is to be balanced—I could wish that it were being balanced better—by having a certain number of the Trustees appointed by the Prime Minister, a certain number by other appointing bodies and a certain number co-opted. The proposal in this Amendment, as I understand it, puts all those people, from wherever they derive their appointment, at the mercy of the Prime Minister, who may direct any one of them to get out. That seems to me to be destructive both of the whole idea of the independence of the Trustees and of the fact that they should be balanced by being appointed from various sources and not only by the Government of the day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, clearly, one is not going to succeed. I am sorry the noble and learned Viscount thinks that this is a vicious proposal. But, while, as I understand it, there is an age limit for Judges, there is no age limit for Trustees—the Committee turned down that idea. And the consequence of not fixing an age limit seems to me to be that there should be this power. It is because there are a number of men of great wisdom who may be getting on a bit that I should have thought this Amendment was desirable. However, we have clearly had a long time on this Bill and we have not succeeded very far in amending it, except in one respect, and I do not propose to waste the time of the House further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule [Transitional Provisions as to Separation of Natural History Museum]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I must apologise for a slight error. I said in regard to Amendment No. 11 that that was a drafting Amendment to correct an error, which was what I intended
1244
to say about this Amendment. I did not have the Marshalled List in front of me. The Amendment to leave out Clause 12 was, of course, consequential on the Amendment which I accepted from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I say that for the OFFICIAL REPORT. I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("the proviso to section 5(1) of").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL
6.21 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be further considered on Report.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be further considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 31 [Check-weighing of certain road vehicles]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, to add to the clause:
"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, an inspector shall be deemed to be authorised as therein specified if the goods in question have been weighed, or are purported to have been weighed, by means of weighing equipment available for the use of the public."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Clause 31 gives an inspector authority to have loaded vehicles check-weighed, provided he is authorised to do so by the buyer or seller of the goods. That is the present position in the clause. Your Lordships may recall that in moving an Amendment in Committee on the carrying of scales on these vehicles I made reference to what I regarded as the inadequacy of Clause 31 with regard to inspectors' powers to check-weigh vehicles. The Amendment I am now moving, without going beyond the purposes of Part III of the Bill, would continue the powers to check-weigh vehicles which inspectors at present possess under local by-laws. I think it is necessary to incorporate those powers in the Bill in accordance with the Amendment, and to illustrate the point I should like to mention the type of case which is cropping

1245
up now and which, in my submission, would go unchecked in future unless the addition that I suggest is made to the clause.
In one recent case in Birmingham an inspector, acting under local powers, stopped a vehicle on its way from the weighbridge to a farm with a load of brewers' grain and found the weight to be 13 cwt. less than that recorded at the weighbridge. This was due to the fact that the driver had sold part of the load, after it had been weighed, to a private customer of his own: In a case of that kind, under the clause as it now stands, an inspector would not have had power to stop the vehicle and check-weigh, and the offender would almost certainly have escaped detection and no doubt repeated the offence on other occasions.
In two other recent cases, in which scrap metal dealers defrauded firms from whom they bought scrap metal, the fraud was achieved by means of tickets which falsely purported to represent weight at a public weighbridge. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord the Minister to the fact that my Amendment refers to weighing equipment available to the general public. In one of the two cases the dealer had been augmenting his income to the extent of £8 a week for a considerable time at the expense of the customer; in the of her case, there had been underpayment of some £300 in two months, representing 48 tons of metal. In each case tickets purporting to be public weighbridge tickets had been produced. But for the intervention of the inspector, again under local by-laws, this kind of fraud might have gone on indefinitely. I would point out to the noble Lord that the inspector certainly would not have been authorised by the seller in cases of that kind; he was authorised to insist on reweighing only by the by-laws under which he was operating.
It is not only in cases of fraud that a check-weigh power is essential. Under the clause as it now stands, an inspector would not even be able to intercept vehicles immediately after they had left the public weighbridge to check that they had been weighed correctly. It has been found to be quite necessary to have those checks occasionally to ensure that the weighbridge clerks are doing
1246
their job properly. I could quote cases where check-weighing immediately after the vehicle has left the weighbridge has revealed quite substantial discrepancies. In the city of Birmingham these powers have existed since 1922, and they were re-enacted in the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1958, which is scheduled for repeal by this Bill. Cases such as the ones I cited would have every chance of going undetected if inspectors were deprived of powers to check-weigh these vehicles except, as is provided in the clause, when they are authorised to do so by the buyer or the seller. I submit therefore that the Amendment is a necessary addition to the clause if we are to avoid providing yet another loophole which dishonest people might exploit with impunity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I know that it is only because the noble Lord knows this Bill so well that he did not quite explain a matter which I think is quite important. Any noble Lord who cares to read the clause will see that it deals only with a road vehicle that is "loaded with goods for sale by weight to a single buyer." The noble Lord knew this, but he did not actually explain it. In view of what I am about to say, it is important that I should do so. A single buyer is, in practically all cases, either an industrial buyer or a constructional contractor, or somebody of that kind. In the Government's view the Bill already contains ample provisions for inspectors to check-weigh vehicles where this is necessary in the buyer's interests.
Under Clause 30 an inspector can require check-weighing of vehicles carrying their load to one buyer in those cases where written quantity statements are required under the Bill. The inspector already has power to weigh those. Under Clause 31, any load sold by weight to one person can be check-weighed if the buyer or seller so wishes. That is the difference between the two clauses. The first clause deals with cases in which a written quantity statement is required by the Bill, and the other clause deals with cases where statements are not required by the Bill and the load can be check-weighed only

1247
if the buyer or seller so wishes. I see no justification for extending check-weighing powers beyond this.
If the Amendment is intended to provide added protection for buyers of whole lorry loads, I can only say that this seems to me totally unnecessary. Buyers are free to ask for check-weighing if they wish, and we have no evidence at all that they want more protection.
LORD STONHAM: You have now.
LORD DERWENT: On the contrary, industrial organisations have represented to us that those engaged in industrial and constructional businesses are well able to safeguard themselves against short weight, measure or number. In bulk deliveries of many goods and materials, even though trade is conducted in terms of weight, it is perfectly understood by both sides that the weight will be approximate only. If the weight supplied differs significantly from that ordered, the contractual arrangements normally allow for adjustments of charges either by mutual agreement or through arbitration, or else are based on the assumption that there will be an element of "swings and roundabouts" over a series of deliveries which will be satisfactory to both parties. For this reason, sales for industrial or constructional use have been exempted from Clause 24. There would be no point whatever, from the buyer's point of view, in allowing inspectors to check-weigh these.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also implied—I think he actually said—that the Amendment was sought partly as a means of protecting the consumer by checking on public weighbridge keepers. It seems to me that this would lead to an intolerable interference with industrial traffic for the sake of policing weighbridge operations, and I cannot accept that it would be proper to allow this. For these reasons, I ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
6.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's reply astonishing, for two reasons. First, he was somewhat surprised that, in moving the Amendment, I did not read out the clause for
1248
the edification of noble Lords present. I have never regarded it as a necessary preliminary to moving an Amendment that the clause should be read out, apparently on the assumption that noble Lords are unable to read. Of course the clause refers to loads to a single buyer. The second astonishing thing the noble Lord said was that there is no evidence that there is a demand for this proposal. He relies on the fact that his Department has had no evidence and he assumes that there is none. There is a considerable volume of evidence implied in the fact that in many parts of the country major weights and measures authorities have thought it necessary and proper to include precisely this provision in their local bylaws. They are anxious that it should continue.
Another astonishing thing that the noble Lord said was that the weights of many of these loads are approximate and there is an element of "swings and roundabouts". The clause as it stands provides precisely that, at the request of the buyer or the seller, an inspector can require a load to be check-weighed. If there were such an element of "swings and roundabouts" about this so that half-a-ton either way would not matter, why have the clause at all?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, "half-a-ton" is the noble Lord's own expression. I did not mention that quantity.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord implied give-and-take: a bit here and there. One of the examples I gave was a shortage of 13 cwt. on one load and another example was a shortage of 48 tons over a period. These are important cases, where buyers do need protection; and the point I particularly made in those examples to the noble Lord, to which he entirely failed to reply, was that in such cases the buyer would not have the least idea that there was anything wrong. He would rely on the fact that a weighbridge ticket was produced—though it might be forged, as it was in one case—and the noble Lord would not authorise an inspector to check-weigh the vehicle. But, in the main, the reason why we have weights and measures inspectors is not only to do their job when requested to do so by apprehensive or aggrieved customers or buyers, but to do the job all

1249
the time of protecting the public and ensuring that the standards laid down in this Bill are maintained. This is one more case where there has been a reply quite unrelated to reality, where a not supremely important Amendment, I agree, but one which would be a valuable addition to the Bill, has been refused because
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 16, but what I have to say will comprehend as well Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. This is the: second occasion on which this Amendment and the proposal it contains have been considered by your Lordships, in addition to which the matter has been considered in another connection as regards its effect on London; and it is likely, of course, that the matter will be discussed again in connection with the London Government Bill. We regard this Amendment as most important in removing one of the major defects of this Bill—namely, the decision as to which local authorities shall be the enforcement authority under the provisions of the Bill. This is fundamental to the success of this measure. It will depend largely on how its provisions are administered and how they are enforced. In a matter of this kind, affecting at many different points all the inhabitants of Great Britain, it is important that the administrative set-up should be the best
1250
the Minister has failed to appreciate its significance and value.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Henderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Atholl, D.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Bossom, L.

Freyberg, L.

St. Just, L.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hacking, L.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hastings, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Hereford, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Hertford, M.

Swansea, L.

Crawford, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Swinton, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Waleran, L.

Dundee, E.

Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

that can be found to discharge the functions with which it will be called upon to deal. It must have the resources; it must have experience and must be suitable to deal with and discharge the functions and duties.
This Bill, I submit, is really fragmentation run mad. The consumers' protection under it will be impaired and, as was clearly demonstrated in the figures given in the debate on the Committee stage, the proposal and provisions of the Bill will lead to the waste of ratepayers' money. The Minister would seem to have no convincing case in favour of the Bill, nor against the Amendments. In point of fact, he spent a great deal of his time in making the claim, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that the proposals in the Bill were in accord with the policy of the Government as outlined, as he said, in the White Paper on local government functions (Cmnd. 161 of 1957). In fact the White Paper contained no reference to the direct conferment of these functions on county district councils. What it did was to discuss the merits of delegation as distinct from conferment of

1251
powers, and having stated the Government's conclusion that the delegation method was the more appropriate generally, it contained the following paragraph, paragraph 12, dealing inter alia with weights and measures functions:
"Accordingly, the Government propose that borough and urban district councils with a population of 60,000 or more should be empowered to claim responsibility for all the services, with certain minor exceptions listed in paragraph 3, and that where they do so, they should be entitled to exercise the powers with a proper measure of independence, subject, however, to the approval of the county council of the broad policy for the service and, as the circumstances of the particular service may require, of the financial assessment also."
It cannot be stated or prayed in aid that that statement supports the policy which is being followed in the provisions of this Bill.
Moreover, the Hodgson Committee expressed itself to a similar effect, that the enforcement should be restricted to the largest units of administration, namely, the county and county borough councils. At no stage was it accepted that there should be direct conferment of functions on a second-tier basis, although, following the publication of the White Paper, there was a tendency in municipal circles to concede delegation of the functions in suitable cases knowing, as was pointed out in the White Paper, that delegation would enable the county councils to retain overall responsibility for policy and for finance. That was the case at the time of the issue of this White Paper in 1957.
We must bear in mind that under the provisions of this Bill the work of enforcement and inspection will be very much enlarged and, in addition to that, of course, the whole structure of distribution, especially of foods, in this country is undergoing very fundamental changes. There are self-service stores, supermarkets and discount traders, and all sorts of new ideas are being imported into the distributive trades. For instance, I believe it is the case that whereas in 1950 there were 600 self-service stores in this country, in 1961 there were 8,800, and they are being added to rapidly week by week.
Not only is it quite clear that it will be more costly for the smaller units to administer the provisions of this Bill
1252
when it becomes an Act; there is also the question of the difficulty of finding sufficient inspectors, who at the present time are in short supply. The number available is very much less than the number needed. Recruitment, we are told, is low on the present basis; and, in regard to the expected expansion of the service, recruitment will be very seriously below what is needed. There will, of course, be overlapping between the authorities and there will be, as it were, idle time for some of the inspectors because you cannot divide an inspector into parts and there is no provision for any kind of collective co-operation between individual enforcement authorities.
Although it is urged in support of the Bill that its provisions will encourage local government of the smaller size, as it were, I should like to make the point that the organisation of local government must be based on efficiency and economy and its functions related to area. I am not without some experience of the organisation of local government and, moreover, I should like to say, as I have said on one previous occasion, that my experience of local government is not wholly confined to being a member of the London County Council, much as I was proud of that membership. I was for some eight years a member of a smaller authority, an urban district council, and later of a non-county borough, Hendon, of which I was an alderman.
There is nothing essentially personal in this matter. You could not regard a weights and measures service as being a personal service, domiciliary or otherwise. It is an administrative function largely of inspection and correction and of enforcement, and our submission is that the proper authorities for the administration of the terms of this Bill are the county councils and the county boroughs. The provisions of the Bill are the reverse of this. It seems to me that it is almost ineptitude to the nth degree. This is a Bill for weights and measures but, really, the stupidity of the proposals as regards its enforcement is almost immeasurable. We put this Amendment down, and we shall press it because we feel that otherwise the whole success of the new service and facilities when the Bill becomes an Act is in danger of being seriously impaired, if not seriously damaged. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 17, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Latham.)
6.53 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I, too, will, if I may, speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. I have answered this case before, on Committee, and I tried to see how I could shorten my answer. But I agree with the noble Lord that it is a very important Amendment because it deals with what will be the eventual set-up, and I am afraid that, at the risk of boring noble Lords, I must answer it at length if only for the Record. The clause provides that counties and county boroughs will be weights and measures authorities as in the past. There is no change about that from the existing arrangements. Non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations in excess of 60,000 will also be weights and measures authorities. That is in the Bill. In special circumstances, non-county and urban districts with populations of less than 60,000 and rural districts of any population may be weights and measures authorities if the Board of Trade so directs. That is the effect of this clause.
I would, however, say this, as I said on Committee stage. The general policy was decided after exhaustive discussion by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade with all concerned, including the local authority associations and, like most decisions of this kind, it represents a compromise—and we do not pretend it is anything else—between the advocates of centralising as many functions as possible by giving them to the larger authorities, and those who think it desirable, in the interests of a wide participation in local government, that the smaller local authorities are to have as much responsibility as is practicable. Those were the two sides.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, it is not correct to say that these proposals were agreed to by the local government associations.
LORD DERWENT: I did not say they were "agreed to"; I said they were "discussed with".
LORD LATHAM: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD DERWENT: I was very careful, because the same point was raised by the noble Lord on Committee stage and I gave the same answer.
Reference has frequently been made during the debates on this Bill to the proposals of the Hodgson Committee. I should like to point out that the inspectors of weights and measures themselves stressed to that Committee that a thorough knowledge of the flow of local trade was essential to adequate enforcement and that an intimate acquaintance with local conditions and difficulties went far towards ensuring that enforcement was carried out in a reasonable and understanding manner. This was the case put forward by inspectors of weights and measures, and the Government are convinced that this can best be achieved by the administrative arrangements laid down in this clause.
The main argument in favour of larger authorities has been that they can operate more efficiently and more economically than smaller units. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Crook (who I am sorry is not in his place), during the debate in Committee, said that he knew—I quote his own words; and this is important for my argument—
"of no complaint on the grounds of inefficiency or ineffectiveness of the present arrangements".
If anyone wants to look that up he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of May 6, Vol. 249, column 526. He suggested that the present clause would result in—and I quote again—
"a proliferation of weights and measures authorities to do the work that is being done perfectly well at the moment by existing authorities ".
That was the noble Lord's argument.
I would remind noble Lords that there are in England and Wales at the moment 201 weights and measures authorities. Of these, 59 have populations of less than 60,000. In other words, nearly a third of the existing authorities (about whose work, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, there has been no complaint) have a smaller population than the figure chosen by the Government for the future. If the noble Lord wishes, I can give him the details of these authorities, but I do not want to waste your Lordships' time. If these 59

1255
authorities have performed effectively and efficiently in the past, what grounds are there for supposing that new authorities with populations in excess of this figure are likely to be less effective or efficient? I would also remind the House that the Government's proposals will not result in any overall increase in the number of weights and measures authorities.
It has been suggested that the greater the number of enforcing authorities the greater the difficulty in securing uniform standards of administration. The Government accept this, and it is their intention to invite the local authorities and the professional society of the inspectors of weights and measures to join with them in devising ways and means of dealing with this problem. They believe that it should be practicable to evolve codes of practice which would lead to a high degree of uniformity and efficiency of administration.
It has also been suggested that the requirements of the Bill would mean heavy expenditure out of the local rates on the provision of new equipment and premises, but I would point out that Clause 37 provides for combinations of local authorities for all or any purposes of the Bill. Any number of local authorities can combine under the provisions of that clause, for example to provide expensive equipment. This facility for combination will also help in the detection of offences. Under the existing law some local authorities have already combined to facilitate the investigation and detection of offences. I understand that, for example, inspectors appointed by each of the cities of Birmingham and Coventry and the county of Warwick have been given wide powers of investigation and inspection within the area of the three authorities.
Lastly, there is the question of the number of qualified inspectors which will be required to operate the provisions of the Bill. The Government agree that more qualified inspectors will be required when the Bill comes into operation in a little over two years' time. They do not put a figure to this number because they believe, I think rightly, that this must to a large extent be guesswork and dependent upon a large number of factors. They think, however—again, I
1256
think, rightly—that much can be done to reduce the requirements if authorities combine for all purposes, and that still more can be done to alleviate the position if qualified inspectors are taken off such jobs as the licensing of hackney-carriages and pleasure boats, the supervision of markets, the enforcement of various Acts which have no relation to weights and measures, and so on. All these are jobs for unqualified people. There would be no objection whatsoever to such unqualified staff working under the supervision of the chief inspector of weights and measures, but we feel very strongly that the inspectors themselves are all specially qualified, technical men who ought to be employed on their appropriate duties and not on duties where their technical qualifications are not required.
As I said at the close of the debate in Committee, and I repeat it, the Government believe that the arrangements set out in Clause 34 are reasonable. No new factors have been adduced to-day to shake them in this view. They agree that no arrangments will satisfy everyone, but I believe that the clause as it stands provides a workable system which will satisfy most people, and I accordingly ask the House to reject the Amendment.
7.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before my noble friend exercises his right of reply to the Amendment and to the Minister's speech and also indicates what he wishes to do about his Amendment, there are one or two points I would raise with the Minister arising out of what he has just said. First, it will give him an opportunity to correct me if I misheard him. He said there would be no overall increase in the numbers of weights and measures authorities. Surely he is not allowing for the 32 authorities to be created in London. There must surely be a substantial overall increase in the numbers of weights and measures authorities.
LORD DERWENT: The answer is "not necessarily".
LORD STONHAM: Then there must be different forms of arithmetic on the noble Lord's side and mine. In trying to refute my noble friend's arguments, the noble Lord referred to the fact that 59 weights and measures authorities which are comparatively small ones, for

1257
populations of less than 60,000, have performed their duties efficiently in the past. I am not disputing that, but my understanding of the case is that some 25 of those 59 smaller weights and measures authorities are in all probability going to disappear.
LORD DERWENT: When I said "not necessarily" I was talking about overall; I was not talking about London. Although there will be an increase in London there will not be an overall increase because there will be a considerable reduction elsewhere.
LORD STONHAM: I must again dispute the noble Lord's arithmetic and put it this way. There is going to be an increased number of weights and measures authorities outside London—there are provisions in the Bill. He has just been at great pains to justify populations of 60,000, and he will be bringing in an Amendment soon to include even a rural authority, which can become a weights and measures authority. It means there are going to be new weights and measures authorities created under this Bill whn it becomes an Act, and that means an extra number.
LORD DERWENT: New, but not more.
LORD STONHAM: On the other hand, 32 additional authorities are to be created in London, and the only off-set against that, reducing the overall number of weights and measures authorities, is 25 out of the 59 smaller local authorities, to whom the noble Lord referred as having done their job efficiently in the past. It is true that 25 local authorities in England and Wales, caterin3 for under 60,000 populations, administer their own weights and measures departments, and I want to make reference to them. There is considerable concern—as the noble Lord is well aware, because I have written to him about it—about possible redundancies among senior officers who are working now with those authorities which will no longer be weights and measures authorities. The number of such officers concerned is 25 chief officers and about 8 or 9 senior officers—not chief, but who have had experience of administering a department. Those jobs, at least with their existing authorities, will vanish. I am not for one moment suggesting that there will not be plenty of jobs going for
1258
weights and measures inspectors; in fact, the fear is that there will certainly not be enough qualified officers to do all the jobs that will have to be done efficiently. That again is an argument which my noble friend put forward for his Amendment. But the particular point that I am on now is that these inspectors, specialists, will become redundant in their particular jobs. They are almost by definition men with considerable experience who have achieved a position, and they will then have to seek other jobs.
The particular difficulty is that, obviously, the new created local authorities will be advertising for their staff, and the inspectors to whom I have referred will have open to them, if they wish, the opportunity to apply for those jobs when they are advertised; but some of them—in fact, probably most—will feel a sense of loyalty to their present authority, and they will not know until probably 1965 whether or not the Board of Trade propose to terminate the position of their own local authority as a weights and measures authority, by which time many of the jobs to which I have referred will have been filled. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates the point.
What I am submitting to him is that these new authorities should have advice and guidance from the Board of Trade when they are setting up their departments, and one of the best ways of using available manpower, the available experience of existing officers, would be, at the earliest possible date, to make the decisions about the weights and measures authorities who are going to lose their powers, and to find out which officers will be available so that their particulars can be circulated to the new authorities. They will then know who is available, in exactly the same way that we have been doing with considerable success for the last two years in the hospital world, where virtually no senior officer has become redundant because we have adopted this quite sensible practice. I am asking, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that some such arrangement will be made administratively so that we can secure the transfer of these experienced officers from their existing authorities to the new ones, in posts which will make the fullest possible use of their experience, and in a manner which will ensure that they will lose neither seniority, salary nor prospects.
7.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the debate and to the submission that has been made by the noble Lord the Minister. He indicated to us a number of small authorities with a population of under 60,000 that are at present weights and measures authorities. Can he say how many are themselves carrying out the duties of a weights and measures authority? My information is that many of these authorities are, in fact, relying upon the county council to carry out these duties; that they find their position is such that they are unable, or unwilling, to carry out their responsibilities, and because of the arrangements they are able to obtain the support of the county council. Perhaps the noble Lord could give us that information. I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that he can always speak again in your Lordships' House on Report by leave of the House, and we on this side of the House would certainly not prevent him from answering a number of questions that must arise.
There was a dispute between my noble friend Lord Stonham and the Minister as to the number of weights and measures authorities that will come into existence. My noble friend has given a particular figure which the noble Lord opposite has disputed. We can rely only upon the advice and obvious knowledge of the Minister. Can he say what number of authorities will arise because of this particular clause? But the thing that particularly struck me, listening to the noble Lord, was the obvious doubt in his mind as to whether there is correct uniformity in the administration of the present legislation: whether the various weights and measures authorities carry out their duties in a sense of uniformity throughout the country.
On the London Government Bill, and also on the Committee stage of this Bill, we made the case that at present we have been able to obtain a high standard of uniformity, due mainly to the small number of weights and measures authorities within the area. It would be quite mad to divide up this unified element in London, because if the Minister's proposals are implemented and there are to be 32 weights and measures authorities, it would be difficult to get uniformity. No two authorities ever think alike, and we may find that in one street the traders
1260
carry out the requirement of the Bill in a way which is acceptable to the weights and measures inspector, yet in an adjacent street, where the traders are in competition with those in the other street, a completely different standard exists. That would be quite ridiculous. When the noble Lord was speaking about uniformity, my mind went back to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill. There we had a large number of authorities responsible for the provisions of the Bill. In order to obtain some degree of uniformity in the administration of that Bill the Minister of Labour agreed to set up a central inspectorate. As I understand it, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was that to obtain uniformity there should be some loose discussion; that there should be created a code. But he did not give us any idea of how that code would be enforced. And, of course, unless there is enforcement of a code it is of no value whatsoever.
I do not know whether this point has been made earlier, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, would consider, in view of the number of weights and measures inspectors, and the possible increase in the number of authorities, whether a central inspectorate or a central bureau could be set up in the Board of Trade. It need not be on a large scale, but it would produce a higher degree of uniformity than at present exists—a point which I believe was at the back of the Minister's mind when he spoke, because I think he had doubt in his mind as to whether the proper standard of uniformity existed. I put this suggestion in no way counter to the speeches which both my noble friends have made. I think that theirs was a very strong case, and I should be very willing to support them should they desire to press the Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I think it not unfair or unjust to say that this evening, as during the Committee stage, the Minister has not offered any convincing answer to the proposals put forward. He was so impoverished in that respect that he had to fall back on my noble friend Lord Crook and take out of context certain statements made by my noble friend during the Committee stage. But he did not say that, whilst smaller authorities may be able, with difficulty, to discharge the functions of a weights

1261
and measures authority at the present time, that is no proof that they will be in a position so to do when the wider and additional functions are required of them.
Moreover, it is the case (I do not know whether the Minister has been informed of this; he ought to have been) that quite a number of the smaller local authorities who are weights and measures authorities are not operating, but are leaving the duties and functions to be carried out by the county councils and other weights and measures authorities. Furthermore—I hope that I am correct in this: I think I am—the Minister referred earlier in his speech to those non-county boroughs and urban distircts with a population of 60,000 and the fact that if they want to be weights and measures authorities they must obtain the approval of the Board of Trade
Clause 38 [Annual reports by local weights and measures authorities]:
7.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the beginning down to "Board", where that word first occurs, and to substitute:
"The Chief Inspector of each local weights and measures authority shall, in respect of each financial year of the authority, make to the authority who shall send a copy thereof to the".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I moved an exactly similar Amendment to this one, which would require chief inspectors to
and, as I gathered him to say, the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
LORD DERWENT: Those with fewer than 60,000 have to be approved by the Board of Trade.
LORD LATHAM: If the population is 60,000, they can have it as of right.
LORD DERWENT: Yes.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I must repeat that the Minister has not answered the case which has been put forward, and in those circumstances I must press my Amendment.
7.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Faringdon, L.

St. Davids, V.

Attlee, E.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margesson, V.

Bossom, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newton, L.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Just, L.

Brecon, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Colyton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Hacking, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Hastings, L.

Swansea, L.

Crawford, E.

Hereford, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Derwent, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

have a statutory responsibility to make annual reports. I then admitted that it would be logical, as the Bill requires, for the statutory authority to make the annual weights and measures reports to the Board, but I pointed out that for many years it had been the direct responsibility of the chief inspector to make a report to the authority, who then transmitted it to the Board. I thought it best to continue this practice, because, under subsection (3) of Clause 41, this Bill makes the chief inspector generally responsible for the working of the Act in his area, and he would, under Clause 39, be held responsible for the efficiency of the system in any Board of Trade inquiry that might be held. Certainly, if he were given independence in

1263
this way he would be free to call attention to any defects in the arrangements, and they would thus be brought to the notice of all the members of the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will remember that in replying to these arguments he gave what I regarded, and indeed described, as a most satisfactory reply, which caused me to withdraw the Amendment, and he may quite properly be wondering why on earth I put it down again. I am putting it down again, because I now find that the noble Lord's convincing arguments in the Committee were ill-founded and that his statements were not accurate.
LORD CHAMPION: Apart from that they must have been very good.
LORD STONHAM: I am going to quote from what the noble Lord said during the Committee stage. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 79), col. 579–580]:
"By Clause 41, subsection (3), which the noble Lord mentioned, the chief inspector is to be responsible to the local weights and measures authority for the operation of the local authority's arrangements, and it is clearly right that, as part of his duty, he should report to his authority on the work of his department."
I then interrupted the noble Lord, as he will probably remember, and asked:
"Does that mean that, under Clause 41(3), the chief inspector of weights and measures has a statutory duty to report to his local authority?"
The noble Lord replied:
"Yes, it does indeed."
On that firm assurance I withdrew my Amendment. But, my Lords, Clause 41 ensures nothing of the kind. If the noble Lord recalls, subsection (3) of the clause reads as follows:
"A chief inspector shall be responsible to the local weights and measures authority for the custody and maintenance of the local standards, working standards and testing and stamping equipment provided for the area for which he was appointed and generally for the operation of the arrangements made to give effect in that area to the purposes of this Act or any enactment falling to be repealed thereby."
My Lords, I submit there is nothing there about a statutory requirement to submit an annual report; neither is there anything anywhere in the Bill which requires a chief inspector to report to his authority, or indeed to anybody
1264
else. In point of fact, there are authorities who have indicated to their chief inspectors that they do not wish to receive a report, and in such cases it is extremely difficult, indeed impossible, for a chief inspector to call attention to the defects in the organisation for which under the terms of the Bill he is immediately responsible.
In the unfortunate reply which the noble Lord made quite happily in Committee he was in error in another matter about reports to the Board, because he expressed himself as glad that of recent years the reports had been fuller, and that the authorities frequently forwarded them to the Board. This matter is governed at present by Regulation 10 of the 1907 Regulations, and that reads as follows:
"The authority shall cause the inspector to make annual reports as to inspection and verification in the form given in Tables A and B or in such other form as may be from time to time approved by the Board. Copies of such annual reports shall be sent to the Board of Trade by the authority not later than September 30th in any year."
I make two comments on that. The first is that there is, in the regulation, a statutory requirement for the inspector to make an annual report and for his authority to send it to the Board—not frequently, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, but every year by September 30. The second comment I would make is that this Regulation No. 10 of the year 1907, this statutory requirement, will be repealed by this Bill. So there is nothing at all, and all the noble Lord's arguments fall to the ground. There is no statutory requirement on the inspector in this Bill, as he assured me—nothing at all.
I come back to the Amendment which I moved in Committee, with all my telling arguments completely unanswered and no case against them at all. Perhaps I had better read this Amendment:
"The chief inspector of each local weights and measures authority shall, in respect of each financial year of the authority, make to the authority who shall send a copy thereof to the Board."
That is what I am proposing by this Amendment, which is to continue the effect of the regulation which has been operated satisfactorily since 1907, over half a century—namely, to place a statutory responsibility on the chief inspector

1265
to submit an annual report to his authority, and for the authority to submit it to the Board.
My Lords, I must confess—and it must be apparent from the pleasure with which I accepted the noble Lord's explanation earlier—that in moving my Amendment in Committee I had an open mind. Now, having considered the Government's arguments, or lack of them, I am convinced that this is the proper way to do the job, and to do it most efficiently. I hope that the Government, too, will be convinced by the arguments I have now put forward, and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
7.39 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I first of all deal with the question of the present law, which I do not have in front of me, but which I think I explained correctly last time, before I get on to the Bill? I do not have the text in front of me, but I believe I said that at the moment only particular statistics about work done by inspectors have to be sent to the Board of Trade. Those are the compulsory returns to the Board. On the subject of the inspectors' full reports, which at present do not by law have to be sent to the Board of Trade, I said I was happy to think that many local authorities did, in fact, send them complete to the Board.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I will pass a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT to the noble Lord, so that he can see what he did say. I have underlined it. It is in column 579.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in fact, it is what I have just said, and I now repeat it—I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 249 (No. 79), col. 579]:
"Under existing law, local authorities are required to send in statistics only about the visits made by their inspectors to traders' premises and the equipment verified and inspected. However, in recent years it has been increasingly the practice, I am glad to say, for inspectors to submit fuller reports of their work to their authorities, and these reports are normally, or frequently, at any rate, forwarded to the Board of Trade."
1266
I repeat, that is the position. That is exactly what I have said, and it is not in the least what the noble Lord said I said.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, he has read out exactly what he said on the last occasion, which is what I said on this. He has also read out the regulation, which indicates that the authority does not merely have to send in the reports frequently, but every year, by September 30.
LORD DERWENT: We really cannot waste the time of the House on this. The noble Lord, I imagine deliberately, read out half what I said, and only half. What I said last time was that, by law, certain statistics have to be sent in, but I was glad to say that the inspectors' fuller reports were frequently sent in by the local authorities. I stand by that; and that is the present position. It is no good the noble Lord's pretending that I said something quite different.
LORD STONHAM: I really cannot leave it at that. I did not pretend anything: I quoted exactly what the noble Lord said. Indeed, I handed him the whole Report, which he did not have, in order that he should be quite sure about it; and if he will read Hansard tomorrow and study exactly what I did say, he will find that that is exactly what I said. I answered his arguments and refuted them.
LORD DERWENT: Except that the noble Lord read out only the bit he had underlined, which is half of what I said, as he will see when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning.
My Lords, I shall reply in due course to the main burden of the Amendment, but, as regards the second part, I think I may have slightly misled the noble Lord: that I admit—not with regard to the part I read out, but with regard to what is the statutory duty. Under the Bill, the local authorities are required to report to the Board of Trade, and in practice, of course, they cannot report to the Board of Trade without having a report from their chief inspector. At least, I do not see how that is possible, because without his report they will not know what has happened. That is the position under this Bill. I think I may have misled the noble Lord: I agree with him (I think my wording

1267
was a bit loose) that under the Bill there is no statutory obligation on the chief inspector to report to the local authority. But how a local authority is going to report without a report from its chief inspector I fail to see.
The point is this. Under the existing law, as I have said, the statutory obligation on the inspectors is very limited; but, as regards the rest of the report, the statistics and so on, a local weights and measures authority may re-draft their chief inspector's report before forwarding it to the Board of Trade. I can well imagine that a local authority who employ the chief inspector may wish to delete parts of their chief inspector's report dealing with subjects other than weights and measures, or even that they may wish to delete passages on weights and measures matters which they consider unimportant or, perhaps, injudicious; but I cannot think that any local authority would so alter their chief inspector's report as to give a false or incomplete picture of the work done by the weights and measures staff in the area. Indeed, in the course of the debate on the previous Amendment the noble Lord suggested that the difficulty was not very rife or prevalent, although he did say that he had knowledge that this sort of thing had happened on occasion—I am now paraphrasing him. I cannot think that the instances he had in mind were of recent occurrence. In any event, in such cases it is highly probable that the suppressed or altered facts would come out during one of the Board's routine inspections of the arrangements made by the local authority under Clause 39.
But the local weights and measures authority are responsible for administering the weights and measures functions conferred on them by this Bill, and it should therefore be the local authority who report to the Board of Trade. The final decision on the contents of the report should rest with the local authority. They cannot give a report without a report from their chief inspector, because they will not know the facts; but we still think it wrong that they should be compelled to send on to the Board of Trade everything their chief inspector has said even if the local authority disagree with it and even if they think it is wrong. I must therefore
1268
still refuse to accept this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I will do two things. The first, although I think it is hardly necessary, is to assure the noble Lord that I quoted him quite accurately; and in my view I quoted him completely fairly. I appreciate, and he appreciates, that I could have read the whole column, but the House would not want it. But certainly the extracts from his speech that I quoted were accurate. He has now admitted that he did mislead me (quite unintentionally, I am sure) in saying, as is down here, that there is in the Bill a statutory requirement on the inspectors to submit a report. There is no such requirement. The second point that I want to make is that under the regulations at present the authority must cause the inspector to make an annual report, and the authority must submit its report to the Board every year. That is the present position under the regulations: I am not talking about the Bill.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with great respect, that is not so. It is only in very minor matters concerning certain statistical information that they have to submit the report, but not the chief inspector's whole report. That does not have to be forwarded at all.
LORD STONHAM: I did not say "the chief inspector's whole report". What I said was that the authority must cause the inspector to make annual reports. That is the first point. Then, also, copies of such annual reports must be sent to the Board of Trade by the authority. That is the position at the present time, and I have correctly quoted the regulation. The unfortunate thing is that now, if we look at Clause 38, we find there is no such requirement on the inspector. The noble Lord says, "I do not see how the local authority is going to submit a report from the Board of Trade unless it gets a report from its chief inspector". That is a reasonable argument, but it does not meet the point that I am making, and it leaves the position very much open and, in my view, in an unsatisfactory state. I should like the noble Lord to look at that particular point again. I am not going to press my present Amendment, but it seems to

1269
me that in this one regard the clause needs strengthening, so as to make more clear the statutory duties of a chief inspector in this regard and to ensure that they will not be less under the Bill than they are now under regulations.
LORD DERWENT: I will look at it again.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and with that assurance I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Expenses of authorities and compensation of officers]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. The Bill was amended in another place to provide in Clause 34 for rural district councils to become weights and measures authorities in certain circumstances. In consequence it is necessary to include a reference to such councils in Clause 40(1). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 19, after ("urban") insert ("or rural".—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Inspectors of weights and measures]:
7.51 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved in subsection (1), after "inspector" where that word first occurs, to insert "and a deputy chief inspector". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be convenient if I deal with Amendments 21 and 22 together, and I can put the points quite briefly. Clause 41 deals with the general duties and responsibilities of chief inspectors and indicates that an authority may appoint a deputy chief inspector who, if appointed, may perform the functions of a chief inspector. My Amendment would make it obligatory on an authority to appoint a deputy chief inspector. The chief reason for that is that if, in cases such as sickness or holidays, the chief is for periods away from duty, serious difficulties could arise if there were no deputy to assume the chief's statutory responsibilities—for example, obligations such as safe custody of local standards and the general operation
1270
of the system as outlined in subsection (3).
I believe that the terms of Clause 41 would not preclude a local authority from authorising one of their inspectors to perform the functions of a chief inspector for a specified period. If that is so, I should like the Minister to say so and to undertake to inform local authorities accordingly; but it would not be a very satisfactory arrangement. Sufficiently experienced inspectors might not be available and there is the difficulty of additional remuneration for the extra responsibility. The Board could scarcely dictate to local authorities about this, and the period of duty would be uncertain. For those reasons, it would be much better to remove all doubt by saying in the Bill that there must be a deputy chief inspector. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 22, after ("inspector") insert ("and a deputy chief inspector").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 21 and 22 together. I hope I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord. The Amendments would have the effect of making the appointment of a deputy chief inspector obligatory instead of discretionary. The object of these particular provisions is simply to secure that in each weights and measures area there is one qualified person with overall responsibility assisted by other qualified inspectors who may, if the authority so decides, include a deputy inspector with powers to perform some or all of his chief's functions in certain circumstances. There is nothing in the clause, however, to preclude the local authority (without appointing a deputy chief inspector as such) from authorising at any time any one of their inspectors to perform the functions of the chief inspector for a given period. Such an appointment would, of course, be in the nature of an "acting" appointment as distinct from a statutory appointment of a deputy chief inspector with its implication of permanence. It would apply equally where a local authority had appointed both a chief inspector and a deputy chief inspector. If both these officers were absent for a period for some reason or other, the local authority could, and would indeed be obliged to, authorise one of their other inspectors to perform

1271
the functions of the chief inspector for the period of the absence of the two officers.
The local authority could, in certain circumstances, appoint an inspector for a limited period as a chief inspector. In the same way they could, if they do not want to appoint a deputy chief inspector, appoint one of their ordinary inspectors as such. We think that is better than making it obligatory for all local authorities, whether they want to or not, to appoint a deputy chief inspector. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me about that.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, where in such circumstances a junior officer is appointed temporarily to perform the duties and responsibilities of a senior one, may I ask whether he gets extra pay to compensate for the additional responsibility?
LORD DERWENT: May I suggest that that is a matter not for this particular Bill but for the local authority, after consultation with the inspectors of weights and measures' own associations? I think that is the proper way to deal with it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, but I am glad my noble friend asked the question, because one of my objects in moving this Amendment was to draw attention to the obvious need for officers who fulfil the higher posts, even if temporarily, to get the proper pay and emoluments. I am satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I, in view of the time and as this may be a suitable moment—I believe we are getting a lot of time on Thursday—move that the Report stage be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

SALVATION ARMY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT NICHOLAS ACONS CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.