Lords Sitting of 15 May 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 Newcastle
The Duke of Westminster—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

KENYAN LAND SCHEMES
2.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) What is the total sum that has been expended by the Kenya Government under

(a) the Yeoman Farmer and Small Holding Land Settlement Scheme of 1961, and

(b) the Million Acre Scheme of 1962 on buying land from European owners, and

(2) What is the total sum, under these two heads, expended on the settlement of Africans on that land.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the total sum expended by the Kenya Government on buying land from European owners, as at April 30, was just under £3 million. This was comprised as follows: Yeoman Farmer and Smallholder Schemes, £884,000; Million Acre Scheme, £2,114,000. In the same period, £477,000 had been expended on the settlement of Africans on that land.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, is the £477,000 the total sum that has been spent on the settlement under these three schemes?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is the total sum of money spent on settlement under the three different types of settlement scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not quite clear about this. The noble Marquess put tremendous emphasis on the word "settlement". Is there any other expenditure involved?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I simply answered the Question which was put to me by my noble friend, who asked me how much had been spent on settlement, to which I replied, £477,000. There is, of course, a large discrepancy between the amount of £3 million and £477,000. The £3 million has been spent on buying the land, and up to date £477,000 has been spent on the settlement of the land, for reasons which I think the noble Marquess will guess.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the vital importance of finding markets for the produce of these new African settlers, for it is mainly horticultural produce? Unless you find markets for this produce the whole of these African settlement schemes are going to fail.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government are aware of the importance of outlets for Kenyan produce; but I do not think I can be expected to enlarge upon the subject., unless the noble Lord puts down a separate Question. It has not any particular bearing, I think, on this one.

DRESS OF PARKING METER SUPERVISORS
2.37 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now rule that local authorities should not employ attendants in plain clothes to supervise parking meters, in view of the remarks of the Deputy Chairman of London Sessions in the case of Regina v. Bloom.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the Government have no power to intervene with

1297
local authorities in this way. The manner in which the local authorities exercise their powers is for them alone to determine. But I have no doubt that they will have read the remarks of the Deputy Chairman of London Sessions.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, would the Government not agree that such abuses in the administration of this scheme are likely to bring the whole scheme into disrepute?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question, may I ask whether he means to tell the House that a local authority is quite at liberty to enrol civilians and employ them, in ordinary civilian clothes without any mark of distinction whatsoever, to control parking places and parking meters?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I said that the manner in which the local authority employ their parking attendants, in a supervisory rather than a controlling capacity, is up to them; and the Government have no power to rule (to use a term of my noble friend's Question) whether they should or should not wear uniform. I think it is generally accepted in these matters that a uniformed man is preferable, but at the same time there is no power to insist that it be done in that way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord not consult his right honourable friend on this matter, in which the public could be misguided every day? It could be the subject of another Question. Surely the Minister has some responsibility to ensure that parking places put down under an Act of Parliament are properly supervised?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I will certainly draw the noble Lord's words to the attention of my right honourable friend. I should perhaps point out to him as well that the area where meters are supervised by parking attendants is comparatively small in Greater London, because largely they are supervised by traffic wardens, who must of course be in uniform.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend point out to British Railways
1298
that, were they to dress their travelling ticket collectors in plain clothes, they might reap a greater harvest?

COSTS IN PARKING METER CASE
2.41 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge the Marylebone Borough Council to compensate Dr. Victor Bloom for his considerable costs in clearing his name arising from an entirely illegal act on the part of a plain-clothed parking meter attendant.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, when a person is tried on indictment and acquitted the court of trial has power to order the payment out of local funds of the costs of the defence. I am informed that in the case referred to in the Question the defence applied to the court for costs, but the application was refused. In the circumstances my right honourable friend would not feel justified in intervening in the way suggested by my noble friend in what was a matter for the court to decide.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on House of Lords Reform.

OFFICES. SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day read for resuming the further proceedings after Third Reading.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further proceeded with.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 42 [Provisions with respect to buildings in single ownership]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that it would be convenient to your Lordships if we discussed together this Amendment and the next Amendment standing in my name, which has exactly the same purpose. Clause 28 requires all premises under the Bill to be provided with adequate means of escape in the event of fire. While the clause is cast in general terms, its primary object is to require the provision of means of escape in premises not subject to the certification procedure in Clause 29. It is expected that there will be premises of this kind in buildings to which Clause 42 or Clause 43 applies—for example, an office situated in a block of flats. The purpose of the Amendments is simply to make it clear that the owners of Clause 42 or Clause 43 buildings are responsible for the provision of means of escape in respect of these premises, in just the same way as they are responsible for providing means of escape from premises subject to the certification procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, after ("applies") insert ("of section 28 of this Act, for a contravention, in relation to such premises,").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Provisions with respect to buildings plurally owned]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 26, after ("applies") insert ("of section 28 of this Act, for a contravention, in relation to such premises,").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Authorities who are to enforce Act]:
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (3), after ("thereunder") to insert:
"except sections 28 to 38 and regulations under any of those sections".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment, which deals with the situation with regard to the inspection of, and provision of means of escape from, offices belonging to the local authorities. In regard to such offices it is not clear why factory inspectors
1300
should exercise the powers of the fire authority. There are no grounds for supposing that, because the fire officer concerned with inspecting premises and recommending a certificate of approval would be employed by the local authority occupying the premises, the duty of enforcing the fire provisions would not be properly exercised. It seems to me to be casting a doubt and discredit on the authorities responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Bill.
The committee of an authority responsible for certification and enforcement would be the fire brigade committee, and virtually all the offices would be the concern of some other committee. There is an analogy, of course, in town planning legislation, which authorises the local planning authority to give consent to its own development. Because of the working of the committee system the planning committee can often challenge proposals of other committees, and has shown itself well able in the course of time to uphold the principle of independence on which it works. In those circumstances we can see no reason why the supervision of means of escape from offices belonging to local authorities should not be entrusted to the fire authority. Surely that is what they are there for. Why should we by-pass that authority, its knowledge, its experience and its facilities? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 42, after ("thereunder") insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I must begin by explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that the effect of this Amendment, incorporated in the Bill in isolation, would be to provide that there would be no enforcement of fire provisions whatsoever in any of the premises mentioned in Clause 52(3). But I take the point that what the noble Lord wants to do is to secure that these premises should be inspected and the provisions enforced by the local authority.
LORD LATHAM: By the fire authority.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, by the fire authority, which is part of the local authority. But the noble Lord would have had to move, as I think was his

1301
original intention, to delete subsection (2)(a) of the clause, though that is a drafting point.
What I want to make plain is that fire authorities are normally the counties or county boroughs, so that the Amendment would result in self-inspection over an important area of employment. I made clear in an earlier Amendment in Committee that the Government feel that it would be wrong to permit self-inspection, and your Lordships upheld that point of view. We think it desirable, in the interests of the local authorities themselves, that they should not be put in the anomalous position of being judges in their own cases. This is a point of view which has been strongly supported by the National and Local Government Officers' Association. The Factory Inspectorate have a long experience of administering fire provisions under the Factories Act, other than those relating to means of escape. I would invite your Lordships' attention to Clause 56 of the Bill, which enables a factory inspector to obtain a report from a fire brigade officer on any matter falling within the inspector's duties or which relates to fire. This follows a similar provision in the Factories Act. It ensures that the Factories Inspectorate are able to obtain advice on technical fire matters.
My Lords, it is relevant, I think, that under the Bill the Factories Inspectorate will have general responsibilities relating to fire precautions, including the means of escape under Clause 83, which deals with premises owned or occupied by the Crown. I ought also to mention that subsection (3) of Clause 52 refers to premises occupied by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. These premises are deemed to be occupied by the Crown under the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, and it would therefore be quite inappropriate for them to be inspected by a body other than the central Government authority. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I must say that I regret the unhappy reflection upon the local authorities who are also fire authorities, in that they cannot be trusted, apparently, to do self-inspection. In the course of the experience and history of local authorities there has been
1302
nothing to suggest that they have fallen down. Where they have, to put it frankly, this dual loyalty, they have discharged both of them. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.52 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is a long and complicated Bill, and perhaps I may first of all thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the care and attention which they have devoted to it during all its stages, which, in this House, have occupied some six days of Parliamentary time. A large number of Amendments have been moved, and we have had a full discussion, both on the principles and on the details of the Bill. The Government have tried, so far as they could, to meet the views expressed by noble Lords, but I recognise that they have not gone as far in some cases as noble Lords opposite would wish. There is no doubt that the Amendments which have been made to the Bill in this House have resulted in a number of important improvements.
We shall have about 75 Amendments to report back to another place. While many of these are Government Amendments, a lot of them drafting and consequential Amendments, there are others, both from the Government and from noble Lords opposite, which have improved the provisions concerning working space, temperature, drinking water, sitting facilities, and the training and supervision of persons working at machines; and yet others have modified the procedure relating to fire certificates, amended the exemption powers so that they may be used more selectively, widened the circumstances in which inspectors may disclose information, and provided for the protection of local authority inspectors. I think it is fair to say that the extent to which the Bill has been amended in this House and in another place is a token of the readiness of the Government to supplement and strengthen the Bill to meet the wishes of Parliament. I am grateful to all your Lordships for bringing your wide range of knowledge and experience to bear on this subject, and for the contributions that you have made to the changes in this Bill.

1303
If I may say so, and if it is not invidious to single out any particular noble Lord opposite, I should like to say how much I have admired the efforts of the noble Lord opposite in charge of the Bill, Lord Shepherd, and indeed other noble Lords who supported him. I hope they will feel that the time and the trouble they have taken over this Bill—and I know it has been considerable—has led to satisfactory results. I am grateful to them for their co-operation and for their constructive approach to the Bill. I should like also to thank my noble friends Lord Newton and Lord Denham for supporting me in this Bill. We have all come to recognise the speech by my noble friend Lord Newton on family businesses as an old friend.
LORD SHEPHERD: Not a very favourable one.
LORD CARRINGTON: Nevertheless, an old friend. We all hope that this Bill will be an effective means of raising standards of safety, health and welfare in many thousands of premises throughout the country. In the course of its passage through this House, and in another place as well, public attention has often been focused on the welfare provisions of the Bill—space, temperature, washing facilities and so on. I do not in any way underrate the benefits that these requirements will bring, but far less publicity has been given to the equally important safety provisions and, above all, to those clauses dealing with fire precautions. Only last week a fire in a Richmond store brought home to us the sudden way an outbreak of fire can bring risk of injury or death to shop workers. There are also many offices in old buildings, perhaps converted from residential houses, from which the means of escape in the event of fire are totally inadequate. I am glad that this Bill will be a means of bringing greater protection against these risks to so many people.
Finally, we must not lose sight of the task which now confronts the various enforcing authorities under the Bill. It will be their job to breathe life into this Statute, and I feel sure that I speak for everyone in wishing them well in this venture. I am equally sure that a very high proportion of occupiers of premises covered by the Bill will be only too eager to ensure that their conditions satisfy the
1304
requirements of this Bill. My Lords, the enforcing authorities will no doubt show patience and understanding in helping all these occupiers to comply with their new obligations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Carrington.)
2.57 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, first, for his very kind remarks to me? I could not help but feel that they were slightly invidious, and perhaps I am really not very worthy of them. I regarded our whole approach to this Bill as a team effort; and may I thank my noble friends Lord Latham, Lord Champion and Lord Lindgren, and also the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who came down on two occasions in a most effective manner and who himself produced a major alteration of this Bill?
I could not help but reflect, while thinking of the proceedings in Committee and during Report stage—when, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, considerable improvements were made—that if we could have a similar approach to the London Government Bill and if we were able to achieve the same percentage of improvements, what a different. Bill that Bill would be when it came to leave your Lordships' House. The change in this Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill I believe stems largely from the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his two noble friends, who have given him great assistance during the passage of the Bill, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish to thank both of them.
We on this side of the House say farewell to the Bill with mixed feelings. As I have said, we have the satisfaction of having made improvements, but we are conscious of lost opportunity. We are very conscious of the 5 million workers who are being left outside the provisions of the Bill. These men and women are in the smaller industries, the smaller trades, the least protected of them all, most of them unorganised through trade unions; people who are in need of the type of provisions that the Government now feel are necessary for the workers in the offices and shops. Therefore as we have not been able to do it in this Bill, I hope that my Government,

1305
the Government that will follow this one, will see that that type of legislation will be early on its list, because it is urgently needed.
My Lords, we had a good debate, but I must reflect on the discussion we had on Clause 17, and the subsequent one on fencing under the Factories Act. There have been some notable speeches from noble Lords on the Cross Benches, the Law Lords. And I would hope, in view of the undertaking that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House gave, that the Government will bring before Parliament very speedily regulations to deal with the loophole of the lack of responsibility or duty laid upon employers in regard to certain types of machine. This Bill depends for its effect, first on the enforcement of which the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, spoke. And I hope that local authorities will prosecute and enforce this Bill as quickly as possible and to the maximum advantage.
A great deal will depend on the type of regulation that the Minister produces. We shall look with great anxiety to see the scope of those regulations. We shall look with special concern at the possible exemptions that the Minister himself may grant. I would hope that those exemptions would be of a very limited form and, if there is to be particular exemption in regard to class, that that would mainly rest as a decision of local authorities taking into account the local hazards and problems. I would hope that the Government should not make widespread exemptions by the Minister's Order.
There is much more that could be said, and my noble friend reminds me of theatres. I dealt with that matter when I spoke of the 5 million workers left outside the Bill. My noble friend Lord Latham spoke with great lucidity and sincerity on this flatter, and there are many other trades needing to be covered. I hope that in two or three years' time we who may still be sitting in this House may look back with some satisfaction in seeing that our hours of work have been well spent, that the local authorities and the Ministers have taken up the challenge, and that they will very speedily have brought an improvement to the conditions in many of our offices and shop premises.
3.4 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, in view of the very far-reaching effects of this important Bill, it is perhaps appropriate that the third quarter might add its blessing—if I may use such an Irishism. This Bill has been worked out in detail in this House, and the admiration of the House goes out to those who have taken part in it, particularly in Committee stage. There are some disappointments on both sides of the House and both sides of the Opposition. But it is an important Bill and, if I may say so, it is encouraging for us to know that an office and shop premises Bill can be so skilfully negotiated by a First Lord of the Admiralty.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Schedule 4 [Modifications of Local Government Act, 1933]:
8. After section 23(2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to a London borough, but the term of office of councillors of such a borough shall be three years, and they shall retire together in the year 1967 and every third year thereafter on the ordinary day of retirement of borough councillors in England and Wales."
LORD CHELMER LORD CHELMER moved to add to the proposed new subsection (2A):
"Provided that before the 'relevant year of election' following the Report of the Boundary Commission on the Parliamentary constituencies situated wholly or partly in Greater London, there shall be a review of the provisions governing the procedure for local government elections in Greater London".
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I have to ask for the indulgence

1307
of the Committee on a number of counts, not least for moving an Amendment which is on its face obscure and archaic but in fact related simply to the question of triennial elections of the London borough councillors. The Committee will see that paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 refers to Section 23(2) of the Local Government Act, 1933. This was the section to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred in the debate yesterday and it sets out the method of electing the councillors of boroughs in England and Wales. It provides that one-third of the members of the Council should be elected on November 1 each year. That provision has remained the practical method of electing borough councils in England and Wales up to this day.
When the Royal Commission considered the question of Greater London government they provided for the corresponding London boroughs a recommendation that there should be a similar constitution—namely, that one-third of the councillors should be elected annually. The Government White Paper made similar provisions. But when the Bill was published it contained in Schedule 4 an amendment, in the form of a new subsection to Section 23 of the Local Government Act providing for triennial elections of councillors in the London boroughs. That is to say, all the councillors in each borough will be elected every three years. This is a substantial change in many ways, and it will no doubt be argued that this saves money, in the sense that the ratepayers pay for elections only every third year. There is also some saving of manpower on the part of returning officers and others. It may be said that it removes local government from an electioneering atmosphere in two out of three years. It might be substantially argued that there are many reasons, and more powerful reasons, on the other side for retaining annual elections in local government.
The first, perhaps parochial, reason is that out of the 32 new London boroughs 20 will have been used to annual elections Two-thirds of all the boroughs in the new Greater London area will have been used for 30 years to annual elections; only 12, comprising the metropolitan boroughs, will have had triennial.
1308
But there is a much more powerful reason than that. This is that the whole life of local government—and noble Lords were often urged in the course of the Committee stage to take steps to revive interest in local government—and the great strength of local government is the salutary effect annually of the contact of local councillors with the ballot box. All the great political Parties in turn have suffered the effect of their policies in local government; and this, I am sure, is a great way of enabling the public to express their views each year. All local government—as opposed to Parliamentary government—is largely a matter of administration, and the issues which arise are not those of long-term permanence but issues arising day by day. The ratepayers are given the opportunity of expressing their opinion on those issues.
But there are other reasons which I would advance for adopting the annual system of election. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred yesterday to the ballot papers he had seen in some elections in the United States of America. It is not right of me to criticise someone as experienced in London government as the noble Lord is, but those of us who have from time to time had to vote in elections for metropolitan boroughs will often recall some 16 or 17 names appearing on the ballot papers from which an elector has to select three. It seems to me to place a very high strain on the intelligence of the average electors—among whom I like to count myself—to select the right three from the 16 or 17. There is another disadvantage that in our system of government one cross on a ballot paper is so much more effective in choice than having three in the manner which would be necessary for triennial elections. But that is quite a small point. What is much more important is that if you tie the elections to every third year of the life of the local authority it tends to make the results of the elections dependent on some local or national event or issue of great importance. This leads, or has led in the past, to violent changes in those authorities which have had triennial elections. By means of annual elections we obtain much greater continuity.
Without making any sort of Party political point about this, I think it would be fair to say that a triennial election

1309
also leads to a certain amount of election year budgeting and policies, which again must clearly be undesirable. The triennial election certainly has not led to any greater interest in local government. For example, in the last year for which any comparable figures are available, 1959, in the metropolitan boroughs some 32 per cent. of rate-paying electors voted; and in the boroughs in the remainder of England and Wales the proportion was 42 per cent., or one-third more. That does not suggest that a triennial election creates any greater support.
I think that it is fair to say that the arguments which I have advanced would justify the removal of this new subsection (2A) from Schedule 4 of the Bill, but I am not suggesting that this is a course which could wisely be taken. Your Lordships will see, on referring to the Amendment which I propose, that it refers to a number of technical matters, such as the relevant year of election. I do not propose to take your Lordships along what is no doubt the seductive path into the definition of the "relevant year of election". I hope that you will accept from me that what this Amendment proposes is that, after the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission's Report upon the Greater London area, which, as your Lordships will be aware, must be made some lime between 1964 and 1969—and I assume that it would be earlier, rather than later in that period—and after the subsequent election in the London boroughs, the Minister should have power to review the system which has prevailed up to that time under the triennial elections in the London boroughs to see if they have worked in practice.
This is a very small proposal in relation to what your Lordships will concede is a much wider issue, and I put it on the basis of a wider issue because this is the first great measure of local government reform which has been undertaken for many years. Many of your Lordships interested in local government will feel concerned that, in framing this measure of local government reform, the system of triennial elections is introduced to apply to all these new boroughs, and it seems to me not unreasonable to apprehend that in future proposals for local government reform, which must
1310
follow, whatever Government may be in power at the time, this triennial election may again be enshrined. For all the reasons I have advanced, it seems to me that the system of triennial elections is disadvantageous from the point of view of local government, and for the reasons I have given I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Chelmer.)
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Chelmer. My own experience in a London borough is entirely in accord with what the noble Lord said. The triennial system is cumbersome. I do not know why it was ever introduced, but it does not act for the welfare and convenience of the people in the London boroughs. A three-year gap between elections is far too long. People are given long lists of names and they do not know who many of the candidates are. Therefore, it is highly inconvenient to the voting public. I have never yet heard any rational explanation of why this system was ever introduced or why it should continue. All the rest of the country has annual elections, and I think there is every reason to suppose that they would be satisfactory in London. It is often difficult to keep a Party machine going with these long gaps. I strongly support the noble Lord, and hope that this excellent Amendment, which, as he says, is on a rather narrow point, will be approved and that the principle which he has enunciated will be carried into effect in London local government.
LORD SALTOUN: I, too, should like to support the noble Lord, for the reasons he advanced and also for another. There is always liable to be waves of emotion sweeping through the country, which can change the whole of the local councils, and then a whole lot of inexperienced people come in. An annual system ensures that there will be "old hands" ready to steer the ship. We do not want violent changes in local Government; we want continuity.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I should like to give an exactly opposite view to that put forward by the three noble Lords who have spoken. I do it with

1311
all humility. It is hard enough to get people to vote in local government elections once every three years, in my experience, and if we have annual elections, we shall find that the voting figures will fall further.
LORD OGMORE: Is not the reason why people do not vote at three-yearly elections that they have got out of the habit of voting, and it is very difficult to revive it?
VISCOUNT MERSEY: That may be so, though I do not agree with it. One thing of which we shall make absolutely certain if we have annual elections is that every fifth year the local election will coincide with the General Election, and it will be found extremely difficult to get people to come to the poll on local issues immediately before or after a General Election. Unfortunately, local government is now run on political lines. It was all right in the days when it was not. I think that we should be well advised to Support the suggestion in this Bill that we should have triennial elections, at any rate in London.
3.19 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that my noble friend Lord Chelmer was making his maiden contribution to the debates in your Lordships' House. I think he did it as a disguised maiden, and although he was modest about his virginity in these matters, he could not disguise the experience which he brought to bear on this matter. I am quite certain that this is not the only matter—there will be many more—upon which my noble friend can bring his experience and wisdom to bear in your Lordships' House. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to hear him speak again, soon and often.
My noble friend has argued the case for rejecting the procedure in the Bill exclusively on whether we should have annual or triennial elections in local government. I shall try, therefore, to meet his argument on the ground which he has chosen. The present position is this. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, say that this is the only case where there is provision for triennial elections. I may have been wrong about that, but in any case that is not, of course, the position. All county councils, including the London County Council, have
1312
triennial elections, and so do the metropolitan borough councils. Other borough councils are, of course, on the annual basis; that is to say, they elect one-third of their councillors each year; but urban district councils have the possibility of choice. There is therefore, even within the Greater London area, or what will be the Greater London area, a very wide mixture in this matter. In logic, although perhaps not in history, there seems little rhyme or reason behind that wide mixture.
As your Lordships know, we have written a provision for triennial elections into this Ball, both for the Greater London Council and for the new London boroughs, and our reasons, if I may briefly summarise them, have been threefold. In the first place, the views expressed to my right honourable friend the Minister in this matter have been overwhelmingly in favour of the triennial system. Secondly, there is the practical consideration of council business. Triennial elections give three clear years for a council to prepare a programme of action and, if necessary, to take unpopular decisions without too much fear of immediate electoral repercussions. I do not wish to press this particular argument too far, because I know that county boroughs get on perfectly well. Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that there may well be some advantage in a system—and this applies across the Atlantic in Congress as well—where the elected representatives are not looking over their shoulders all the time to an election which is coming up within the next month or so, and without the electioneering atmosphere of which my noble friend spoke.
The third advantage—and I think this is quite a material one—is the purely practical advantage that triennial elections give us much greater flexibility in determining ward boundaries and apportioning the number of councillors to wards. With triennial elections, wards can return one, two, three, four or more councillors, and two purely practical advantages flow from this: recognised communities can be kept within the same ward, and ward boundaries can follow natural and obvious frontiers without being tied down to the purely mathematical needs of three-member constituencies. Again, associations between wards can be achieved ad hoc without having repercussions involving rewarding throughout the whole borough.

1313
With the triennial system an adjustment can be made between neighbouring wards without affecting the whole of a borough. With an annual system it is virtually impossible, for purely mathematical reasons, to do so. For these three reasons, therefore, I have little doubt that we are right to opt for triennial elections for the Greater London Council and for the new London boroughs, perpetuating in this respect the present practice which obtains both within the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs.
What are the disadvantages which have been claimed for the triennial system? I think, in the first place, my noble friend suggested that this means a change of system for the electorate of the 20 outer boroughs which lie outside the present Greater London area. That may be true, but I would remind your Lordships that the new boroughs will include urban districts, again some 20 or so outside the present London County Council area, which have the possibility of choice at the present time. Of course, to opt for the annual system would mean a completely new pattern for the present electorate of the inner area, the London County Council area. The noble Lord has claimed that it is more difficult for the elector to put three crosses on his ballot paper than one. That may be so, but I think the electorate is fairly sophisticated these days and is capable of making the necessary three stigmata. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that having a triennial election system was very difficult for the Party machines. The Party machines—at least the two major Party machines—seem to cope with this reasonably well within the present London County Council area, and within county councils. I really do not think that there is great force in that particular argument.
Finally, there is the argument that if we opt for the triennial system, then we are laying local authorities more open to violent changes in public opinion, and that we shall have violent upsets of representation within local authorities. Here again, there may be something in this argument, but if there is, I am inclined to believe there cannot be very much, because the local authorities which have the triennial system—the county councils, the metropolitan boroughs in London, and those urban district councils
1314
which have opted for it—seem to be able to absorb the shocks with relative equanimity.
All in all, I hope that your Lordships can agree with me and with my noble friend Lord Mersey that it is sensible to opt for the triennial system in Greater London. I really do not think that there would therefore be any great advantage in popping my noble friend's review procedure into the Bill. I trust that my noble friend, if not entirely persuaded by my arguments, may nevertheless agree not to press this Amendment.
LORD CHELMER: I am grateful for the support your Lordships have given to this proposed Amendment. The noble Earl has referred to the effect upon the Greater London boroughs. I am perhaps more apprehensive of the implications for the boroughs in England and Wales—and the urban districts, for that matter—who may be affected by other local government reform, and who will have had the pattern set for them by this proposal we are discussing to-day. Therefore, as this is a matter of great controversy in the country, reluctant though I am to do this, I feel that I shall have to divide the House on the issue to see whether we can establish, one way or another, the views on this matter, which, as I have said, leads to a good deal of doubt in people's minds at the present time.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like in this instance to support what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said on this matter. I have had something to do with local government elections in London since 1913, and the system has worked satisfactorily. It is perfectly true that the number of electors voting is only a minority of the total number who are registered, and that is a deplorable fact. But I doubt very much whether having annual elections will improve that position in the least. We have to recognise that for a long time past local government elections have been conducted upon an organised basis, largely by means of the established political Parties, and practical experience has shown that it is easier to awaken interest in an election in which the whole of the members of the council have to be returned than one in which only one-third have to be returned.

1315
It is said that to have annual elections works very well elsewhere; and I suppose it does. But I think that the interest in local government tends to be dissipated by having an annual election, whereas if you have a triennial election it is more intense and concentrated. I should also say, from a practical point of view, that it affords all political Parties a considerable advantage, because it is far more expensive to have to fight elections every year than to have to fight them every three years. The cost of election addresses is trebled, as are other expenses, because, although you have only one-third as many candidates in the annual election, as a general rule, you have about three members for each ward and, therefore, in the triennial election you have exactly as many election addresses to print but the expense is divided among three candidates. These considerations are of great practical importance. The amount of money available for this matter is not unlimited, and it is far better, in my judgment, that elections should be well and decisively fought, as they can be when they are held every three years, than indecisively and indifferently fought, as they tend to be on the annual system.
LORD FARINGDON: I find myself basically in sympathy with the triennial election, but I would point out to my colleague the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, that in actual fact the evidence is against him. It appears that where you have annual elections greater interest is taken in them than in those areas where there are triennial elections. You have only to compare the figures in Scotland, for example in Glasgow, with those of the English county councils. In England it is extremely difficult to get people to come and vote, whereas in Scotland—and I have Glasgow immediately in mind—I am told that as much as 65 per cent. of the population votes. This seems to me to show a remarkable interest, sustained annually by the electors. This curious and important fact is of interest.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT Hailsham): I do not know whether it is more convenient than to take the alternative course open to me, but this would be the moment when I should normally
1316
wish to make my statement, and I am free to do so. I understand that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be replying to the Amendment, and that my noble friend who moved it wishes to divide. I do not know which would be the convenient moment for the Committee to hear the statement.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition says "Now", and I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in the course of the debates held in both Houses on March 28 on Motions to take note of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on House of Lords Reform the Government undertook that, if the debates should show that the proposals of the Committee were generally acceptable to Parliament, they would introduce the necessary legislation during the lifetime of this Parliament in time to be effective at the next General Election. The Government also undertook to make a statement of their proposals before the Whitsun Recess.
The Government have given the most careful consideration Ito the opinions expressed in the course of those debates, both here and in another place. In their view the recommendations of the Committee are likely to be generally acceptable to both Houses, and I can therefore state that it is our intention to introduce legislation to give effect to them in time to take effect at the next General Election. A Bill will be introduced shortly, but if it is not practicable to secure its passage this Session the Government will reintroduce it at the beginning of the next Session.
The Government are prepared to accept, and incorporate in the Bill they will bring forward, all the Committee's recommendations, with the following exceptions on points of detail which I believe will command general support.

1317
First, we believe the recommendation that a Peer who has surrendered should be required to exhibit to the returning officer a certificate of his surrender is not workable in practice and should be omitted.
Second, we propose to allow a candidate who succeeds to a Peerage while he is standing for Parliament to proceed with the election and, if successful, to have the same period (a month) in which to decide whether to surrender as if he were a sitting Member.
Third, it is proposed that in calculating the period in which a person who succeeds to a Peerage while a sitting Member of Parliament has to make up his mind whether to surrender that Peerage time should not run while Parliament is not sitting, nor for any period during which the Speaker certifies that the Member is incapacitated from acting through illness or for some other reason.
My Lords, it is that statement that I make in this House and which my right honourable friend has made in parallel in another place.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House for making this statement. To deal first with the points of differentiation, I would say that two or three of my noble friends and I have examined them, and while we have not yet heard the view of my main Party I think that we see nothing really objectionable in the three amended proposals which the Government recommend should be put in the legislation referred to.
We welcome, of course, the decision to proceed with legislation. As to the timing of the legislation, I suppose that that is somewhat connected with the Government's present maintenance of an attitude of secrecy as to when they think the General Election is going to take place. However, I should have thought it rather advisable, in such circumstances as those in which we live to-day, if the Government could make up their minds and promise both Houses of Parliament that the legislation would be passed this Session, and then it would be convenient to them and to everybody else concerned whichever sort of period they decided upon.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I deal with one point at a time, because I am rather apt to forget supplementaries if I do not deal with them at once? I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for his welcome of this statement, and especially his confirmation of my own feeling, that these amendments are of detail and have no significance of a political kind which need detain your Lordships, at any rate now. As regards the timing of legislation, I must say that I am very concerned about the state of Business in this House this Session. The other place, quite rightly, has the right to start the main series of Government programme Bills. This results year after year, as your Lordships are only too painfully aware, in a tremendous congestion of Government business and of all business towards July, which seems to increase rather than to diminish. I really do not know how I could undertake now and in the present state of affairs that we could get this legislation through both Houses in July. It is not that I have any political feelings about it, but simply that I have found this difficulty, year after year, in the summer part of the sittings of Parliament, and I think this year has been the worst that I can remember.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I also welcome the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount? With regard to his last observations, would it be possible to consider more initiation of major Bills in this House, so that the congestion in July would be spread between the two Houses and we should not be the only victim? I should like to welcome this statement very much. As the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition said, one has not had time to discuss it on a Party basis, but I am sure I can give the noble Viscount the assurance that the Liberal Party will support and welcome the course taken, and I am certain that the three exceptions that he has put in his statement will be acceptable to everybody. They seem to be most wise. There is one point which I should like to put into his mind. Before the Bill comes before either House, can the Title of the Bill be reconsidered? This is not a Reform of the House of Lords Bill at all. It is surely a Reform of the House of Commons. The only reform of this House is

1319
that possibly we are going to lose one or two Members whom we should rather like to keep with us. It has led to a lot of misunderstanding in the country that we are reforming your Lordships' House, when we are merely altering the rules so that the other place may benefit.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure that every body in the world needs reforming. We are actually, if the Committee's recommendations are acceptable, introducing into this House a number of Peeresses and a number of Scottish Peers, so that in that sense we are reforming the House. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his suggestion about initiating legislation in this House, which is something I have tried to do every Session. There are difficulties, one of which is that the Commons, quite rightly, demand precedence in matters of political importance, and probably all Parties would agree with that. And sometimes we are in the misfortunate position that the Commons cannot pass legislation which was started here, and then I get into trouble with the noble Earl opposite, which I do my best to support, but it is still very mortifying to the Leader of the House. As regards the Title of the Bill, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord says, but it is very difficult to think of Titles of Bills and I am not sure whether it has not become stuck with this Title.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, while I am fully conscious of the difficulties which the noble and learned Viscount has explained to us, I would ask him just to bear in mind that if this change is to be of value to those people for whom it is intended they must have the opportunity of taking advantage of it by finding seats, being adopted as Parliamentary candidates, and so on, and if this change comes into operation too close to the Election it will be useless to them. Some noble Lords possibly have seats ready for them, but if the noble and learned Viscount himself is going to take advantage of it—and, of course, one does not know—he may have some difficulty himself in finding a constituency that will adopt him. It may take some time; and the same consideration applies to others. I think, therefore, that this proposal ought to become law well before any General
1320
Election takes place. To make it operate just before a General Election will be of no value to a great many noble Peers who might want to take advantage of it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is something in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin says. I do not think I would go the whole way with him, because now that this announcement has been made noble Lords who may secretly harbour this intention may start prospecting, for all I know. At any rate, I do not want to stop anybody on either side of the House through whose mind this idea may have passed. We wish to make it effective by the Election—that is in the statement—and I should not agree at all that it would be of no use after that time. It is a continuing reform which will have a permanent value to anyone who may succeed to a peerage, and for a year, at any rate, if the Committee's recommendations are accepted, to those who have not found themselves in this House otherwise than by created peerage.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend make his remarks a little more cogent upon the question of the propriety of a Peer who wishes to seek a seat in the Lower House promoting his candidacy in one constituency or other before the Bill has even passed Parliament or even been seen and looked at in all its consequential provisions? And if he deems it is proper for Peers to make what he calls a "prospective approach", would he suggest that they should make it in their existing names as Peers, in the knowledge that when the Bill is passed they will assume some other name? Or would he reverse the process and suggest that it is more proper for them to make the approach to the electors in the surname of their family, in the knowledge that the Bill may subsequently be amended by this House or another House to enable them to sit in the Lower House in their present name?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should think that these are essentially matters of private conscience and for the constituencies who might be entertaining advances of this kind. The general nature of the proposals is contained in the Committee's Report and I think is fairly plain. I do not think this would be altered much by the draftsmanship of the Bill, but it is probably in everybody's interest

1321
that as soon as the Bill is drafted and is acceptable as draftsmanship of what we have contained in this statement, people should be aware of its terms.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I remind the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that we were told by the Government that it was quite right and proper in regard to the London Government Bill to anticipate legislation? Could we not therefore apply the same principle to this Bill, to make it quite clear to everybody that as soon as the Bill has been announced legislation can be anticipated and, therefore, selection committees of constituencies may invite those Peers who are prepared to offer themselves? The point is that in order that this should go forward Peers should now declare their own position as to whether they are eligible or not for selection.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I feel quite certain that if any Peer wished to put his name before a selection committee he would have to answer a number of penetrating questions, but whether or not they would be prepared to take the chance of the Government's not securing a majority when it produced the Bill is a matter for them and, I suppose, the Party they belong to. Personally, I feel that these matters of private conscience and judgment are too heavy a burden to place upon my shoulders.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I suppose the noble and learned Viscount would not accept responsibility for Peers setting up a sort of "A and B" list of candidates?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We could always have a sort of employment agency.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.48 p.m.
House again in Committee.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether I could say just a word or two about this particular Amendment? The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, in arguing in favour of art annual system, drew a comparison between the number of people who go to the polls in a local election in Glasgow and the number of people who go to local elections in English counties. I would suggest that that is not really a
1322
valid comparison. It is comparatively easy to draw any conclusions you like from this type of statistic, and, in any case, I do not think the conclusion would necessarily be valid, drawn from entirely different types of constituencies, a highly populated area of Scotland and a possibly very thinly populated area of England.
Then, very briefly, may I adduce one or two further reasons why I suggest to my noble friend that this Amendment is not really watertight? In the first place, to provide for a review at an early date, and it would be quite an early date, would put an element of uncertainty into the affairs of this great city, which is what we wish to avoid. Second, he argued in favour of his Amendment that he feared the nation-wide impact of the adoption in this city of the triennial system. That seems to me an argument for a review on a country-wide basis and not on a Greater London basis. Finally, I would remind him that, should the need for a review ever become apparent, then within existing legislation it is perfectly within my right honourable friend's discretion to initiate such a review, with or without this Amendment. For those reasons I should again like to suggest to my noble friend that he might, at least at this stage, not wish to press this Amendment.
LORD CHELMER: I do not want to prolong the debate on this issue, but it is a matter of importance, a matter upon which there is in fact great controversy, and I think it would be helpful if the Committee were to divide and we could assess the feeling of your Lordships upon this matter, so as to reassure constituencies and others who are involved, not only in Greater London but, as I said earlier, in other parts of the country.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 27(a), to leave out "of every London borough council". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is the point that I foreshadowed in my speech on Second Reading, and I think it is perhaps as well that I did so, because I suspect that your Lordships would not spot this was a controversial provision in Schedule 4 if it were not explained. The crux of the matter is in paragraph 28 of Schedule 4, which provides that Section 239 of the Local

1323
Government Act, 1933, shall not apply to a London borough. Section 239 of the 1933 Act is the measure which allows a borough or a county borough council the choice between two different types of audit. They may either have district audit, the district auditors being civil servants with certain powers, or alternatively they may, if they so think fit, continue or choose professional audit by a member of one of the recognised bodies of chartered accountants. I think it is not clear at the moment whether, having made their choice, they may change subsequently. At any rate the choice is there, and up and down the country a very large number of boroughs and county boroughs have in fact chosen professional audit. Where they have done so, one would think that they had chosen it for a certain reason, because they appreciated certain things it gave them, or there may have been some things in the district audit which were not available to them in the way they wanted; I do not know. But it is a choice which has clearly been widely used and appreciated.
The situation in London is very mixed. At the present moment this Bill affects, I think I am right in saying, 86 county boroughs, boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and urban districts. Of those 86 authorities at the present moment there are, I think, 43 which either have or had the choice—they may have exercised it once and for all; I do not know—between professional and district audit. On the other hand, the metropolitan boroughs themselves never had this choice and of course cannot expect normally to be given it. Out of the 43 authorities outside the metropolitan boroughs area—that is to say, the four counties of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey and Essex—7 have in fact chosen, and those 7 are Croydon and West Ham, two county boroughs, Acton, Bromley, Hornsey, Richmond and Wimbledon. The proposal in the Bill is that from those seven shall be taken away their choice of professional audit, and from everybody else likewise the choice shall be taken away.
I do not know that it is particularly easy to see what is the answer to this. It is of very great importance, there is no doubt, because where you have a choice in the local government field which has been so widely exercised as this has
1324
been it must be very seriously considered before a major change of this nature is made. But the position is very difficult to provide with a completely logical answer. You cannot divide the new London boroughs into two varieties by the fact that previously they were either metropolitan boroughs or alternatively outside that area, giving the former no choice and giving the latter the choice they have always had or which most of them have always had. Equally if you take away the choice from everybody, as the Bill does, you are making a change in the law.
I am officially speaking to only the first of my series of Amendments, but I think perhaps your Lordships may conveniently take them all together. Under my Amendment I give the choice to all boroughs and this is likewise a change in the law. Nevertheless the question I think your Lordships should answer is this: should we, for London only, take away from the new boroughs in the outer area the choice most of them have always had and give the whole lot over to district audit, or should we extend the power to choose to a certain number of the inner boroughs who have never had it before? It seems to me that when you have a matter of this importance the only answer you can possibly come to is that you should extend—and it must be an extension, I admit—the choice to them all rather than take it away from some who have had it before.
I say that for this reason: I think that in another place and elsewhere Her Majesty's Government have supported their change in the law because they say it is the nearest thing to the status quo. It is not the status quo and nobody now will put that forward. But on the other hand, whereas the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government forces certain boroughs to change what they have had before, my Amendment does nothing of the kind, because there is no compulsion upon any of the boroughs in the London area under my proposal to choose professional audit if they do not wish. It may be—I do not know—all of them will choose district audit. I certainly would not complain. On the other hand, some may choose professional audit or some may stay with the professional audit they have already had. But at any rate my Amendment forces nothing on

1325
anybody, whereas Her Majesty's Government's proposition in the Bill does. This, I submit to your Lordships, is really the crux of the matter.
I do not think there is any question before your Lordships of the merits of the people who do these audits. I am sure that both on the district audit side and when it is in the hands of professional auditors it is done thoroughly, conscientiously and in every way properly, arid I do not think this Amendment would call forth any comparison, invidious or not, of that sort. On the other hand, this is not the first time this matter has arisen. It has arisen, I think, on six Private Bills which have been before the Houses of Parliament over the past series of years. On each of those occasions the Ministry of Housing has sought to impose the automatic district audit upon the authority concerned. On each occasion Parliament and on the last occasion, at any rate, your Lordships' House have refused to force tint compulsion and they have retained the choice for the authority concerned. On the last occasion they said they thought it was a great pity that, after the Ministry had been overruled five times on this, they should still return to the charge and put forward this compulsory district audit once again.
I think it may be said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that those were Bills which concerned such things as water undertakings and similar matters and therefore no precedent is involved. But a water undertaking uses a lot of public money. It has in many cases a precept on the rates, and, although the sums may not be so large, at any rate it does not seem to me there is much difference in principle. Certainly there are, therefore, six precedents of recent Bills where your Lordships' House has been instrumental in retaining this choice.
There is only one thing that I should add, and I must do it out of fairness. There may be differences on the merit, not of the people who do the actual audit but of the system as such. I do not wish to go into these in detail, because they are technical matters, but my argument on that point is this. Professional audit is available to all county boroughs and boroughs in England and
1326
Wales, and it is in fact the only form of audit in Scotland, where there are slightly different methods. It is not available to county councils, rural or urban district councils or to metropolitan boroughs. But this is not purely a London matter. A change is being sought to be made in London, and London only, in this Bill. Of course, that is all we can do because it is all that is within the scope of the Bill, but I should prefer the choice to be left unaltered at this stage, because if there is anything which needs to be done about the respective methods of district or professional audit it cannot be confined solely to London and it is a nation-wide problem. Therefore, I think it is most unsuitable that this Bill should be used as a method to nibble away at this choice and to take advantage of the fact that here we have an opportunity to do something about it which cannot be applied elsewhere.
I think I should only add, as I am talking to the whole series of my Amendments, that they may look very complicated but I hope they will not cause grave concern to your Lordships, because they are only an attempt to bring up to date the provisions of Section 239 of the 1933 Act. Things have changed considerably since then and these Amendments are modelled on the provisions which have been accepted by Parliament in the six Bills which I have mentioned. If anything arises on these Amendments I shall be very happy to see them altered, but they are only consequential points. I submit that this is a matter of some importance and principle.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 4, leave out the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): I think it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I reply now to the speech made by my noble friend and put the case, as we see it, in opposition to what he has intended, as we are discussing all his Amendments together. He bases his case primarily on the proposition that the Government are, by this Bill, taking the choice away from everybody, and in that sense making a major alteration in the law. He maintained that the choice should be

1327
left unaltered. I think that my noble friend is under a misconception about the true position, so far as the area of Greater London is concerned, when he says that there is now a choice and that the new boroughs should inherit that choice. I should like to reply at some little length to these Amendments because, although they have not been discussed in debate before, they have been the subject of considerable discussion in the Press.
First, I would seek, if I might, to get this matter into a proper perspective and to stress that this is a Bill for Greater London; and Greater London only. In view of the concluding remarks of my noble friend, I would emphasise that the House is not now considering, or being asked to express a view on, which of the two systems of audit is the better, either for the rest of the country or indeed for any other part of the country, whether North or South of the Border. It is with Greater London alone that we are concerned, and while it is right that we should look at the position in the rest of the country, that is only relevant in so far as it may reflect upon the question we have to determine—namely, what provision we should make for Greater London.
If the system proposed for Greater London in the Bill is retained, the fact that it is retained for Greater London in the special circumstances to which I shall refer later will not affect discussion which might (I do not know) take place in the years to come about the audit systems of borough councils generally. The Association of Municipal Corporations, a powerful body to whose views regard is properly had, and a body upon which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth based some observations quite recently—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I did.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —has acquiesced in the provisions in this Bill as to this system on that understanding. I confirm that there is no intention of raising questions about the audit of accounts elsewhere in England and Wales.
Secondly, I do not want anything I say to be thought to imply—for it is
1328
certainly not my desire to imply—any reflection on the competence and efficiency of the members of the professional bodies mentioned in the Amendment in conducting an audit of accounts, whether it be of a company, a local authority or any other body. The question for consideration on these Amendments is simply: should district audit be the system in force in Greater London or should the new boroughs have a choice?
Before saying anything further on that question, I should like to say a few words on the historical development of the system of district audit. It exists solely for the purpose of auditing local government accounts. District auditors are specialists, recruited through the Civil Service Commission and highly trained for the work they have to do—so specialised that, on the merger of the institute of Chartered Accountants with the Society of Incorporated Accountants in 1957, district auditors were excluded from full membership because they were specialists training for working in a field divorced from private practice. The system dates from 1844, and with the successive creation during the 19th century of new species of local authorities district audit was, without exception, applied to their accounts. At the end of the century district audit applied to all the newly created authorities; to county councils, metropolitan borough councils, urban and rural district and parish councils. It is just worth while considering why that happened, and I suggest that the answer is that the system of district audit was thought more suitable for local authorities' accounts. However that may be, I ask your Lordships to note that the metropolitan boroughs had district audit from their creation and no powers to choose professional audit as an alternative.
Municipal corporations, however, were treated differently. On their reform in 1835 Parliament prescribed for them a system of elective audit; that is, audit by two persons elected by the local government electors and one appointed by the mayor. The district audit scheme was not applied generally to these corporations, although some parts of their accounts were, and still are, subject to district audit and until 1933 the elective system was the only

1329
system generally applied by Statute to the accounts of municipal corporations, including those given the status of county boroughs in 1888. But under local Acts some boroughs acquired powers to employ district audit, and others engaged firms of private accountants to supplement the elective audit.
The Municipal Corporations (Audit) Act, which was repealed and consolidated in the Local Government Act, 1933, provided that boroughs were to have the elective audit unless or until they had chosen another system, and they were given the choice between district audit and professional audit. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2) of Amendment 99A, which we are discussing with this Amendment, your Lordships will see that it provides that if the boroughs of Greater London are given a similar choice the system they choose must be followed for five years, and thereafter they may change from one system to the other from time to time.
Views may differ as to the interpretation of Section 239 of the Local Government Act, 1933—that is the section which gives boroughs the power of choosing. On one view, once a borough has chosen a system under that Act—has exercised its right to choose under that Act—it can change to the other system only if it obtains power to do so by an Act of Parliament. On that view, it cannot change under the provisions of the 1933 Act. The other view is that it can change from one system to the other as often as it chooses, and whenever it likes. The Ministry, I understand, have always taken the former view, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the view that once a borough has made its choice, its powers under Section 239 are spent. But the point I want to draw to your Lordships' attention is this. Whichever view about Section 239 is right, the Amendment differs from it, for it freezes the decision of the borough council for five years and then permits change from time to time; and, quite clearly, Section 239 does not do that. This is something quite new, and I could not advise your Lordships to accept that for Greater London alone. Indeed, it can be argued that, once a council has chosen, it should not be open to it to change its system by the
1330
mere passage of a new motion. It surely could not be right that a council should be able, for instance, to opt out of district audit following a surcharge on members for illegality or negligence, and opt in favour of a professional audit where, as the law now stands, there is no risk of surcharge.
Now I should like to remind your Lordships of the advantages which attach to the district audit system, contrasted with the professional audit system as it now exists. I will say something later about the Scottish system to which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross referred, but I would point out that these Amendments do not import the Scottish system into professional audit for Greater London, and it would indeed be creating an anomaly to create a fourth system in England for Greater London alone—the elective audit system, the district audit system, the professional audit system now in use, and the professional audit system of Scotland brought into London for London alone. This Bill cannot be the vehicle for effecting changes in the professional audit system over the whole of the country.
It is not often that I quote from leaders in The Times, but I think that with regard to district audit The Times, in its leader of April 9, shortly summarises the position. Perhaps I may quote from what was said:
"The chief distinguishing marks of the district audit are, first, that it is a public procedure, the accounts must be deposited for public inspection, any elector has the right to attend the audit and to query any item in the accounts, and the auditor's report is a public document."
I do not say that it might not be possible to provide for all that on a professional audit; but it is not provided to-day, and the Amendments do not propose it. And the right of the local government elector to query an item of the accounts, though it may not often be used, is not a dead letter—and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with his knowledge of the London County Council, may recollect that it was used by an elector in respect of the L.C.C. audit for 1959–60. The Times went on to say:
"The second distinguishing mark is that the district auditor acts in a quasi-judicial capacity with the power (subject to appeal) to disallow any item of account which is contrary to law and to surcharge the amount of any disallowed

1331
expenditure upon those responsible for it. Thus, under this system the auditor is wholly independent of the authority whose accounts he is examining, he is directed to have strict regard to the legality of all items and he is furnished with powers to make his examination effective."
As I say, in my submission this is an excellent summary, and it shows that what has to be compared is the system; and in considering that, there is no question of comparing or reflecting upon the competence and efficiency of the individuals who do the audit, whether it be a district audit or a professional audit.
It surely is a valuable right that the electors should have an opportunity of querying any item in the accounts and, further, if dissatisfied, of appealing to the High Court or, in smaller matters, to the Minister. And if the district auditor does surcharge, there is again a right of appeal either to the High Court or to the Minister. These rights have been exercised in recent years both by electors and by persons surcharged. Not only has the district auditor power to disallow illegal items in the accounts, to surcharge persons responsible for illegal expenditure and for incurring losses by negligence; he also has power to require the production of information material to his audit, not only from the local authority and its officers but from third parties such as contractors. The professional audit is comparable with the audit of companies and the member of the firm of accountants employed on the professional audit has not got these powers. It is for this reason, I suspect, that during the nineteenth century the district audit was, as I have said, applied to all newly created authorities.
The question has been raised—it has to my knowledge bean suggested—that the professional auditors in England should be given the powers that professional auditors have in Scotland. I should like, if I may, to say a word or two about that. I do not wish to criticise or appear to criticise what happens North of the Border; it is a somewhat dangerous operation. I did it once, when I was on the Back Benches in another place, and I brought a storm upon my head. But it is not correct to say that professional accountants North of the Border operate what I might call the district audit system. Under the professional audit system in this country the borough council can choose
1332
whom it employs. In Scotland, the auditor is appointed by the Secretary of State from a panel. In Scotland the auditor cannot surcharge. Instead of doing so, he reports to the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to surcharge—and there is no appeal from the Secretary of State's decision, though the Secretary of State may state a case on a point of law for the consideration of the courts.
I doubt whether boroughs in London would welcome the appointment of a professional auditor by a Minister, and I am pretty sure that the absence of a right of appeal on the merits from a decision to disallow or to surcharge would be widely regarded as less satisfactory for members and officers of local authorities and for electors than the present district audit system. For these reasons I frankly am not attracted by the suggestion that the system of professional audit in England and Wales and in Greater London should be brought into line with the Scottish system.
My noble friend placed some weight on the argument that on six occasions accountancy bodies have successfully contended before Committee of both Houses of Parliament that the right to choose the system of audit should be allowed to various statutory boards, and my noble friend drew attention to the fact that a Committee of your Lordships House reported on the last occasion:
"When a point has been decided against a Minister five times, he should no longer persist in making recommendations to the contrary."
Of those statutory bodies five were water boards and one a crematorium board—very different from all-purpose authorities spending large sums of public monies. These statutory bodies on which this point has been raised have limited functions of a commercial or quasi-commercial character. And while decisions of Select Committee on Private Bills are normally accepted by Parliament, that does not always happen.
One of the six cases on which my noble friend based his argument was that related to the Mid-Northampton-shire Water Board—a proposal in which I took considerable interest at the time—and there was a Report from a Joint Committee of both Houses in relation to that. That joint Committee of both Houses recommended that the Board

1333
should have the choice of the system of audit. The Labour Government disagreed with some of the Joint Committee's recommendations and introduced a confirming Bill of their own and in that Bill which was enacted, and which created the Mid-Northants Water Board, they removed the choice of audit which the Joint Committee had given against the advice of the Government of the day. So the Party opposite did not think it right then that a statutory water board with its limited powers and functions should have the choice which the Amendment now proposes for the new boroughs.
So far I have dealt with the question on broad lines. I want now to refer to the area of Greater London. There will be 32 large boroughs. There are now 42 county and non-county boroughs in the Greater London area. All but 7 have the district audit system and each of these boroughs is being amalgamated with areas which have district audit. In fact, in all other types of local authority in the area county councils, metropolitan borough councils and urban district councils have district audits—except, of course, in the City of London, which I leave on one side. In fact district audit applies to more than 95 per cent. of local government income and expenditure in the Greater London area.
My noble friend, in moving his Amendment, spoke repeatedly of this Bill's taking the choice away from everyone (I think those were his exact words), and it has been represented outside the House that the Bill seeks to remove an existing right to choose which system to adopt. Frankly, that is not the case. Metropolitan boroughs have never had the choice; they have always been subject to district audit. Other boroughs which have had the choice have undertaken to apply the district audit, and if the view is right that, once having exercised their option, their power under the Local Government Act, 1933 is spent, they cannot now change it. Of the 42 only seven have chosen professional audit.
In practice, all this Bill does is to apply the district audit to seven areas in relation to some part of which there has until now been a professional audit. It really is not quite accurate to say that this is taking away from the new
1334
boroughs the power they have always had—that was a sentence which I took down from my noble friend's speech. These new boroughs have never had these powers. The new boroughs, it is true, will be the inheritors of other authorities, but they have not had this power. All through the nineteenth century the system and practice throughout has always been that of creating a new type of authority to impose the district audit.
I would ask your Lordships to consider the position from this angle. The choice my right honourable friend had to make, when drafting this Bill, lay between a radical departure from what has hitherto been the practice in the Greater London area and seeking to maintain, so far as possible, the status quo. He has chosen the latter. The Amendment proposes the former. It does not touch the Greater London Council. That will still be subject to district audit. But the Amendment proposes that all the new boroughs, even those covering areas already subject to the district audit, should now be given a choice, and having exercised their choice, should be free to change it from time to time. That, as I have already said, is wrong in principle, and thought by many to be something entirely new.
My right honourable friend thinks it right that the new boroughs which cover areas always subject to a district audit should continue to have a district audit. There is no change there, and that applies to the greater part of the London area. The difficulty arises only in relation to the seven boroughs—out of the 42—who have had professional audit and who will now be merged with other areas which have always had the district audit. The decision lay between giving those seven new boroughs (in which the seven existing boroughs will be merged) a choice—and that would mean a choice in respect of a number of areas in relation to part of which there has always been a district audit. Further, it would mean drawing a distinction betwen those seven new boroughs and the remaining 25.
The decision lay between choosing to take that course and securing uniformity throughout the Greater London area by applying district audit not only to the Greater London area, but also to all the boroughs. My right honourable friend has put forward the latter course, which preserves the status quo as much as it

1335
is possible to do so. For the reasons I have given, I commend the proposals in the Bill to your Lordships. I regret that my honourable friend's decision to preserve, so far as possible, the status quo should have been represented as, or thought to amount to, an invasion of the rights of boroughs and of professional accountants. That is not the case, as I have endeavoured to show. If this Amendment is carried into the Bill, it will give professional accountants opportunities for employment which they never had before in these areas. I make no complaint of that; but that is the position and it should be stated clearly. It is really quite the converse of the position put forward by my noble friend.
Many people in the country take, as our predecessors did, the view that, for the reasons I have given, and having regard to the powers of district auditors, to the rights of the electors and to the provisions of appeal, district audit is best suited for local authorities; and they take that view for reasons which involve no reflection at all on professional accountants. But, whether that view is or is not right, what the Bill seeks to do, I repeat, is to maintain the status quo to the greatest possible extent. As I have said, 95 per cent. of local authority expenditure and income in the Greater London area is subject to district audit. It is surely more reasonable to make the other 5 per cent. subject to district audit than to make it possible for much of the remaining 95 per cent. to be subject to professional audit.
It may be too much to hope that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment: but, if he does not, I can only invite Members of the Committee to join with me in rejecting it. I have intervened at this particular time because I thought it might be of convenience to the Committee that I should put the case, as we see it, for keeping the Bill in its present form, in the hope—it may not be realised, though I hope it will—that that might save the time of the Committee.
4.33 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: I rise to support the Amendment, and I must declare an interest. I am a member of the Association of Certified and Corporate
1336
Accountants, one of the bodies associated with the committee which has made representations to the Minister in regard to this question. The issue here is a perfectly simple one; and it is not a question of the merits as between district and professional audit. That is a matter which ought to be dealt with nationally as regards all local authorities, and not only as regards London.
The real issue here is perfectly simple, and I am pleased to be able to say that there is no Party difference on this question. I suppose that professional matters can all lead to political considerations, but the question is: are the boroughs of London to have the same right as the boroughs in the Provinces? That is the real issue, nothing more. Are these new London boroughs which are to be created under this Bill to enjoy the rights which other boroughs, county boroughs and non-county boroughs, enjoy at the present time? I think it should be made abundantly clear that we are not suggesting that these boroughs should adopt professional audit; we are suggesting merely that the option should be preserved for the London boroughs in the same way as it is preserved for the boroughs of the Provinces. The question is, whether the new boroughs are to have the option of choice or whether the Minister is to be able to dictate which form of audit the boroughs shall have.
That is an issue which seems to me to impinge upon the independence of the London boroughs in relation to and in comparison with, the provincial boroughs. The Royal Commission adjured everyone to appraise the value of and to maintain independence in local government. This is not independence: this is the intervention of the Minister to determine how the accounts of the new local authorities shall he audited. That is the real question which is before us on this Amendment, and I ask: why should this anti-London attitude of mind be preserved even into the realms of audit? What has London done that it should be treated less honourably (I put it that way) than the boroughs of the provinces? Why is it assumed that London must have the power of surcharge and the power of inspection, whereas the 72 county boroughs need not have those protective facilities, if I may put it in that way?

1337
There are 72 county boroughs out of 83 who have the option to determine whether the audit shall be by district audit or by professional audit, and they include such large cities as Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, advanced no evidence at all that the absence of this power of surcharge, and of the power of inspection, had militated in any serious way against the proper conduct of municipal affairs in the cities of Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham. As I say, out of 83 county boroughs, 72, large and small all of them all-purpose authorities, have opted for professional audit. The other 11 county boroughs have district audit. As regards the non-county boroughs, 137 have district audit but 179 have professional audit. Whatever may be the general consideration of this question as a national matter embracing all the local authorities, it is, in our submission, unfair to deny the new London boroughs the choice as to whether the audit shall be district audit or professional audit. That is the real issue.
The noble and learned Lord made some play with regard to the fact that 95 per cent. of local authority expenditure is audited by the district auditor. That arises, of course, by reason of the fact that all expenditure which attracts grant or subsidy from the Treasury is subject to district audit; and, really, in evaluating the expenditure which is audited by the district auditor one must deduct that in any comparison between that expenditure and that which is audited by professional auditors.
The noble and learned Lord endeavoured to brush away the statement made by the Select Committee, but it was, I submit, a formidable rebuke of the Minister of the day—a statement that it was difficult to justify continuing to make proposals which had been refused and rejected on five occasions. But I repeat that this proposal in the Bill is not maintaining the status quo. Nineteen authorities concerned are the successors, wholly or partly, of local authorities where the choice existed. Those are the figures which I have and they have not been contested. They have been included in communications addressed to the Minister and in the letters published in the Press. Nineteen
1338
of them, wholly or partly, are successors of authorities enjoying the right of choice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here I differ from the noble Lord. I know there is the view that some have the right of choice now. But what I was seeking to indicate is that there is a strong ground for thinking that once they have exercised that choice, the power under Section 239 is spent. If that view is right, it is inaccurate to say that they have any choice now.
LORD LATHAM: I do not think that what the noble and learned Lord has said alters the situation. Whatever may be the consequence of the fact that the power has been spent is another matter altogether. The facts are that 19 of these authorities are the successors of those where the choice existed. It is now proposed to take that choice away from the authorities which will succeed the present authorities; and that, it seems to me, is not preserving the status quo but removing a right which these local authorities had. That is the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not follow the noble Lord. If they had a right and exercised it, so that the right no longer exists, then this Bill does not take away any right.
LORD LATHAM: But it does take away some right. The fact that it could not be exercised again does not remove the fact that it has been exercised; it is being enjoyed and the local authorities are enjoying it; they are acting upon it. It cannot, therefore, be said not to exist, even though those powers may be spent. If the noble and learned Lord would desire to attach that condition to the grant of the choice in connection with the intended London boroughs, so much the better. I do not suppose those concerned would object to that. Put us on a parity. But how it can be contended, when nineteen authorities are going to lose their option, that the status quo is being preserved, passes all comprehension. But that is the case.
I want to remind the Committee that this option has been in existence for thirty years. It has worked satisfactorily. There have been no general complaints; there has been no demand for a review of the situation. There has

1339
been no request that there should be a committee appointed to decide which is the best method of auditing the accounts of local authorities. One could have understood that. It has been in existence since 1933; it was thought in 1933 to be necessary that this option should be granted. It was granted, notwithstanding all the history which the noble and learned Lord referred to in connection with the development of local government audits. This was in 1933, which, relatively, is not so long ago. It was decided there should be an option. We say that that option should be preserved as regards London. London should not be penalised by having less rights than the provincial boroughs, whether they be county or non-county boroughs. That is the issue. I sincerely hope that the Committee will take the view that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has not made a convincing case as to why this right of option should not be preserved.
It is not a question of asking that there should be a decision now as to by whom or how the accounts should be audited. It is that the right to choose should be preserved and that London should be on a parity in this regard with the boroughs in the country, and not treated as a third-class category of local government. Therefore I warmly support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount.
LORD REITH: If the noble Viscount were to take this to a Division, I would follow him. I agree with everything he said and nearly everything that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said. But I could not help being impressed to an extent by some of the reasonable and cogent remarks made by the noble and learned Lord. I wonder whether the suggestion which I am about to make to the noble and learned Lord is a sensible one. I am not making it with the concurrence of the noble Viscount—he may disagree—and what I have said about supporting him still stands. Would the noble and learned Lord think it worth while to consider something between now and Report stage that he might bring to us on the Report stage? That might have the effect now of causing the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment to a Division, in the hope that the noble and learned Lord might produce something that would please us.
4.48 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Latham upon this point, but I submit to the Committee that what the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has said is a correct view of this matter. I am not going to repeat what he has said. I was, for about twenty years, chairman of the finance committee of a metropolitan borough and, for six years, chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council; and I had a good deal to do with district auditors during that experience. I have come to the conclusion that the system of district audit is a wise and sensible one; that it exists for the protection of ratepayers; and that it gives them an expert service which is highly desirable and highly to be commended.
In saying that, I am not casting any reflection upon accountants and auditors generally who deal with commercial or other accounts in their own way. But the district audit is a specialist service which has been built up over many years and the district auditors have an intimate knowledge of the law with regard to local government. They are better able to judge whether expenditure is lawful or unlawful. They have the very salutary power of being able to surcharge unlawful expenditure, if they think that it is right to do so. For these reasons, I think that the system of district audit is wise and useful. I have had to appear before district auditors from time to time when they have been discussing the accounts of an authority for which I have been responsible, and I have learned to respect their judgment, their ability and their reasonableness in dealing with these problems.
In addition, I should like to remind your Lordships that, in a way, the district audit has a resemblance to the highly respected institution in this country of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who audits the public accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General is entirely independent of Parliament, just as the district auditor is entirely independent of the local authority, and he brings to bear upon his work long and expert acquaintance with the way in which public accounts are made up and with the powers of public expenditure which he has to scrutinise. For these

1341
reasons, I consider that the provision in the Bill is a wise one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether I could intervene to reply to my noble friend Lord Reith and to the suggestion he made. When this was brought to my attention, I went into it as carefully as I could—it was rather a new one for me—and I discussed with my right honourable friend the question of whether any solution could possibly be found which would be acceptable and workable. One of the reasons I devoted so much time in my speech, which I fear was rather long, to the Scottish system was because I had considered with him whether the Scottish system, which applied very well in Scotland, would be satisfactory if applied in the Greater London Area, and we explored every other possibility we could think of. I do not consider that the system would be satisfactory.
I do not think that I should be frank with the House if I asked my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to withdraw this Amendment on the basis of holding out any hope that I could find a solution that would be satisfactory to him, to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and to others who support this Amendment, because I do not think that one can be found. It is not for want of trying and for want of consideration. We have considered this matter, and the choice rests, I fear, between supporting this Amendment, which brings in a completely new feature, or preserving, so far as we can, the status quo.
I am grateful for the speech which the noble Lord, with his great experience, has just made. I hope I have made clear the true position, certainly so far as the metropolitan boroughs are concerned. There can be no question of taking away a right, because they have never had a right. So far as other boroughs are concerned, there is the argument that once they have exercised their power of choice under Section 239, that power is spent and so, in fact, nothing has been taken away from them. I appreciate the difficulty of this problem, but what the Bill proposes is to secure so far as possible the preservation of the status quo.
LORD ALDINGTON: I am very worried by the line the Government are taking over this point, and I should like
1342
shortly to say why. First, I think I should apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, although I heard the whole of my noble and learned friend's speech. He explained to your Lordships that the Bill was for London only and that the proposal does not prejudice the decision about district audit and professional audit over the country as a whole. But I am bound to say that the rest of his speech seemed to me to be an attack by a Government spokesman on the whole system of professional audit. I was dismayed to hear that, because I have always understood that professional audit, as the noble Lord, Lord Reith, reminded us, had proved itself to be extremely useful and right over a large number of boroughs (I think well over 200) for some time and that great cities like Manchester have had it for a period and found it to be just as they would want.
I was dismayed, too, to hear my noble and learned friend indicating to us that the professional audit was faulty, in that it lacked power to deal with abuses of the law. Surely the professional audit system has the priceless power of bringing things into open light, and, once that is done, the law can take its full course. I think your Lordships are well aware that the surcharge provisions of the district audit are one way of dealing with this matter. So far as I am aware, no proof has been brought, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, of any case in which a professional audit has failed the ratepayer. So I think that on this point I am against my noble and learned friend. I do not see why we should adopt the view that the professional audit has shortcomings.
Up to date, municipal corporations have had the option of choosing which type of audit they would like over the area of their accounts which is available for that option. What is proposed now is to narrow the area which is available for the employment by the boroughs of professional auditors. We can have all kinds of argument about whether the area is being narrowed by seven or by forty, but at any rate the area is narrowed, and at the same time the area of the compulsory district audit is enlarged. Frankly, I do not understand why a Government composed of my noble and learned friend and other right

1343
honourable friends of mine should be doing that.
Furthermore, it seems to me to be restricting the area in which local authorities have discretion. I think it is important that in this period we should not try to take away discretions from local authorities. For these two reasons, I am attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, that the Government should think again about these provisions and between now and Report stage see what can be done to meet the legitimate fears of those who take the view. I do and some noble Lords opposite do. It is important at this time that in government, local and national, we should do everything we can to employ private professionals and private interests in partnership with the public, and it is because this Bill, over quite a small area, seems to offend that principle that I am so worried about it.
LORD MILNE: As a professional accountant, I must first declare an interest. The reason why I support this Amendment wholeheartedly is because there are two principles involved. The first and most obvious is that the Government have no apparent good reason for trying to take away from certain boroughs a right which has existed for thirty years, as the noble Lord said. The second is that in so doing—and I saw the correspondence—the Minister first made up his mind and then tried to justify his argument.
I had no intention to-day of getting involved in the merits or otherwise of the district audit as opposed to professional audit, but I am perfectly capable of taking up the challenge. I do not propose to look into the relative qualifications of the parties concerned. Those who support the principle of district audit support it for four main reasons: suitability, the fact that it is designed for the job; the independence of the auditor; the public inspection which is allowed, and the right of surcharge. In my opinion, all but possibly surcharge are just debating points. No auditor ever considers himself dependent on those who have actually put him in. I believe that public inspection to-day is practically obsolete, whereas surcharge may or may not be valuable. But the fact is that it is disputed by many people, and it is probably useful
1344
to the district auditor, because the task is undertaken so long after the accounts are finished, whereas in a professional audit the task is undertaken at the time and the right of surcharge is really not needed at all.
The fact that over 60 per cent. of boroughs outside the Greater London area have opted for professional audit shows that there really cannot be anything wrong with professional audit and the merits thereof. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quoted from The Times, and I, too, should like to quote from The Times, of April 3:
"May I support Mr. Carpenter's plea"—
that is the President of the Institute who represents the other Institutes before the Minister—
"for the London boroughs to be free to choose their own system of audit by suggesting that if uniformity is wanted the correct method of achieving it is by freeing other local government bodies from the grip of the district audit system. This is a relic of the suspicion which existed during the last century."
I support the Amendment, and hope that it will be pressed.
5.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. It has, I think, been most interesting and particularly useful since this is the first time that this matter has been raised on the Bill. It has also, to me, been extremely illuminating, and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his very long and full speech on the subject, because I now see exactly where I stand. He said that many people consider that district audit is better. It is clear that the Government consider it is better—not, I hasten to say, from the point of view of the people, but as a system. They take every opportunity that is open to them to force it upon all local authorities and any other bodies that come within their grasp every time it occurs. If they are defeated, again it is very illuminating—although it was the other side of the House that did it—that special Parliamentary procedure (and it is a rare thing that it is used) is brought into play in order to overthrow the decision of one House of Parliament on this particular issue.
Although my noble and learned friend started off by saying that this was confined to London and that it would have

1345
no bearing upon what happened in the rest of the country, I then listened to a speech which continued with a swingeing attack upon the whole system of professional audit up and down England and Wales; and what he said about its effect in London, and its defects, applies equally to the whole of the 179 municipal boroughs arid the 73 county boroughs which use it in the rest of this country. There is no difference, and could be no difference, in his argument whatever. I am, therefore, astonished that he should say that this is not a matter of principle, but merely a matter of convenience for London alone. I hope he is not going to ask your Lordships to vote on it as being a purely localised issue, because it must be clear from what has gone on this afternoon that this is not so.
There are one or two other small points. I am sorry if my noble and learned friend does not like the machinery Amendments that I have put in. It is true that subsection (3)(a) in my Amendment No. 99A is new. I thought it had been accepted by both Houses of Parliament previously. If not, and if my noble and learned friend prefers to leave the law in a state of obscurity, I shall be happy that it should be so. I merely put it in in order to try to resolve the doubts that have so far prevailed on the particular issue of whether the choice is open again or not. Now it is clear that the Government and the Ministry are attacking the system of professional audit as a system on its merits. I think it will be much easier to know how to deal with it.
I think there is this point also. Noble Lords this afternoon have listened to all this and to many of your Lordships the points are new. I should certainly like very much to study what my noble and learned friend has said in his long and interesting speech to see whether there is anything in it that I can either fasten on to one way or the other, or perhaps develop on another stage of this Bill. I believe when it is read in full it will be seen to show exactly what I have said it is. Therefore, this is a matter of principle, which I said at the beginning we were dealing with, and not purely a matter of expediency for London alone. If that is so, and if this is one of the many opportunities that are going to be taken to nibble away at professional
1346
audit until it no longer exists, then I am certain that your Lordships should resist it, because the obvious answer is, as my noble and learned friend said—and I took down his words:
"I do not see that it would not be possible to provide for all the defects mentioned in The Times leader to be put right in professional audit".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is taking part of my observations out of their context. I said that certain parts, the earlier parts, of The Times leader I quoted might conceivably be dealt with. I did not say that the second part of the quotation, so far as I quoted it, could be.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case, it seems to me that my argument is strengthened further, because my noble and learned friend is simply saying that this system is not suitable at all for any local authority. However, I should like to study his speech, and I would certainly not at this stage divide on this matter, because I do not think the last word has been said. With your Lordships' permission, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment this afternoon, but I will certainly return to this on another stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved after paragraph 28 to insert:
"29. In relation to Greater London, the following proviso shall be substituted for the proviso to subsection (1) of section 249:—
'Provided that—

(i) a byelaw made under this section by the council of a London borough shall not have effect in relation to a metropolitan road if, or in so far as, it is inconsistent with a byelaw made by the Greater London Council; and

(ii) subject to the provisions of paragraph (i) of this proviso, a byelaw made under this section by the Greater London Council shall not have effect in or in any part of a London borough if, or in so far as, it is inconsistent with a byelaw so made by the council of that borough.'"

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to give power to make bylaws. Under the Bill as drafted, the Greater London Council would not enjoy the present power of the London County Council, the power conferred by Section 146 of the London Government Act, 1939, to make by-laws for good rule and

1347
governance, and the prevention and suppression of nuisances. It is thought desirable to apply the comparable powers of Part XII of the Local Government Act, 1933, to the Greater London Council. The proposed Amendment for that purpose would make it clear that, except in relation to metropolitan roads for which they will have the overriding authority, the Greater London Council's by-laws would have effect and run only so far as they were not inconsistent with those of a London borough council.
Under Section 146, the London County Council has made by-laws in regard to, inter alia, shooting galleries in any street or on land adjoining or near thereto flashlights or searchlights causing danger to traffic; public decency; window cleaning; painting; organs in connection with roundabouts in or near streets, and like by-laws. The Greater London Council might well wish to make similar by-laws, and also by-laws as to wilful jostling, advertising vehicles, bottles, broken glass, et cetera, such as are contained in the model by-laws issued by the Home Office. Amendments seeking this power were not discussed in Standing Committee in another place, owing to the operation of the guillotine procedure. It is thought that these powers ought to be possessed by the Greater London Council in order to preserve the comfort, convenience and amenity of the residents of the area, arid I accordingly so move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 8, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Latham.)
EARL JELLICOE: I may be under a misapprehension here, and I should be glad if the noble Lord opposite would correct me if I am wrong. I had taken this Amendment to be a link to Amendment No. 86, which we discussed yesterday evening, and which would have conferred on the Greater London Government by-law-making powers which, of course, are at present possessed by the London County Council, but which we have not expressly written into this Bill.
LORD LATHAM: May I help? I think the real point is that the powers intended to be given to the Greater London Council would be effective only if they did not conflict with those for the London borough councils.
EARL JELLICOE: It is my understanding that, under the Bill as it is at present drafted, the Greater London Council would not have by-law-making powers. This was discussed yesterday evening on an Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who, although he did not say he was convinced by what I had to say, withdrew his Amendment. As we are at present, at least the Greater London Council would not have these by-law-making powers, and, therefore, there could be no inconsistency. That is my understanding of the position, but I may be wrong. If I am right, well and good. If I am wrong, then I should like to suggest, if the noble Lord would agree, that we consider this matter and come back to it at the Report stage.
LORD LATHAM: We will take time to see who is right and who is wrong. In those circumstances, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 34, after ("its") insert ("charter or").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after paragraph 38, to insert:
"39. After section 287 there shall be inserted the following sections—
' Service of notices by local authority
287A.—(1) Any document to which this section applies, being a document required or authorised to be served on any person, shall be deemed to be duly served—

(a) where the person to be served is a company, if the document is addressed to the secretary of the company at its registered office or at its principal office or place of business, and is either—

(i) sent by post, or

(ii) delivered at the registered office, or at the principal office or place of business, of the company;

(b) where the person to be served is a partnership, if the document is addressed to the partnership at its principal place of business, identifying it by the name or style under which its business is carried on, and is either—

(i) sent by post, or

(ii) delivered at the said place of business;

1349

(c) where the person to be served is a public body, or a corporation, society or other body, if the document is addressed to the clerk, secretary, treasurer or other head officer of that body, corporation or society at its principal office, and is either—

(i) sent by post, or

(ii) delivered at that office;

(d) in any other case, if the document is addressed to the person to be served, and is either sent to him by post or delivered at his residence or place of business.

(2) Any document to which this section applies, being a document required or authorised to be served on the owner or occupier of any premises, may be addressed "the owner" or "the occupier," as the case may be, of those premises (naming them) without further name or description, and shall be deemed to be duly served—

(a) if the document so addressed is sent or delivered in accordance with paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection; or

(b) if the document so addressed, or a copy thereof so addressed, is delivered to some person on the premises or, where there is no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, is affixed to some conspicuous part of the premises.

(3) Where a document to which this section applies is served on a partnership in accordance with this section, the document shall be deemed to be served on each partner.
(4) For the purpose of enabling any document to be served on the owner of any premises, the local authority may by notice in writing require the occupier of the premises to state the name and address of the owner thereof, and if the occupier refuses or wilfully neglects to do so, or wilfully misstates the name and address of the owner, he shall, unless in the case of a refusal he shows cause to the satisfaction of the court far his refusal, be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(5) This section applies to any notice, order or other document which is required or authorised by any enactment or any instrument made under an enactment to be served by or on behalf of a local authority, or by an officer of a local authority, not being a document to the service of which the provisions of some enactment other than this section or some instrument made under an enactment are applicable.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a notice, order or other document shall be deemed to be a notice, order or other document which is required or authorised to be served on a person if it is required or authorised to be notified, given or transmitted, or (in the case of a demand) if it is required or authorised to be made, to that person, and in this section the expressions "served" and "service" shall be construed accordingly.
Authentication of documents
287B.—(1) Any notice, order, or other document which a local authority are authorised or required by or under any enactment (including any enactment in this Act) to give, make or issue may be signed on behalf of the authority by the clerk of the authority or by any other officer of the authority authorised by the authority in writing to sign documents of the particular kind or the particular document, as the ease may be.
(2) Any document purporting to bear the signature of the clerk of the authority or of any officer stated therein to be duly authorised by the authority to sign such a document or the particular document, as the case may be, shall be deemed, until the contrary is proved, to have been duly given, made or issued by the authority of the local authority.
In this subsection the word "signature" includes a facsimile of a signature by whatever process reproduced.
(3) Where any enactment or instrument made under an enactment makes, in relation to any document or class of documents, provision with respect to the matters dealt with by one of the two foregoing subsections that subsection shall not apply in relation to that document or class of documents.'"
The noble Lord said: This new provision to apply to all local authorities in England and Wales derives from Section 183 of the London Government Act, 1939, which contains useful provisions as to the mode of serving notices on various types of person and body. Detailed provisions as to service of notices in regard to specific matters are laid down in the particular Acts dealing with those matters, and by the provisions of subsection (5) these specific provisions are unaffected. What has been lacking, however, is a detailed general power upon the serving of notices by the local authority, and some authorities have sought special powers on this subject in Local Acts. The proposed Amendment makes a detailed provision generally available. The local authorities' associations have been consulted and welcome the new provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 14, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What I am mystified about is why the Government never thought about this when the Bill was being drafted. It does not seem to be very novel, and I gather that some other local authorities have similar provisions. Why was it that the Government did not think of this

1351
when they drafted the Bill, instead of leaving it till this point and using up time to bring it in and put the Amendment through? I am mystified as to why it did not dawn on the Department that this was necessary when the Bill was being drafted, instead of waiting until the Committee stage in this House, and not even in another place. I am not quite clear what the real reason for it is.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord will no doubt know that an Amendment was put down in another place on the Committee stage, and there is also an Amendment in the name of a noble Lord opposite on the new Clause 72. In point of fact, when we come to that I think the noble Lord will find that this Amendment is doing what his Amendment sets out to do. There are one or two very small differences, but that is because two matters, Section 183 subsection (3) and subsection (5) of the London Government Act 1939, are left out, because they are already looked after under specific Acts in other ways and are not necessary. Otherwise, this is the same as the noble Lord's Amendment later on; substantially so. Why it was not done before. I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: If it was done in another place, was it reached, was it excluded under the guillotine, or did the Government resist it? If it was excluded under the guillotine it shows what a clumsy instrument that was in the case of this Bill, which is a very big and controversial Bill and for which, of course, the Government had no mandate whatever. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us whether this was excluded under the guillotine and why it is that, with their scrutiny, my honourable friends in another place have got to rescue the Government for their incompetence in drafting Parliamentary legislation. Could he tell us?
LORD HASTINGS: I think it was taken away to be considered and put down at this stage.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What I should like to know is whether the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is really trying to tell us in rather strange language that the Government
1352
are willing to give us the concession for which we have asked.
LORD HASTINGS: I hope the noble Earl is under no misapprenhension. The concession is certainly what has been asked for by the local authority associations who have been consulted and who have welcomed the new provision. It is quite true, it was asked for originally by the Opposition in another place. I hope that I was not disguising that fact.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: At least we know it was a concession to us.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like confirmation of this from the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, but I think it was agreed that we should either work our way to the end of Schedule 4 before starting our discussion of the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, or begin that discussion at 5.30, whichever was the earlier. We have now worked our way through to the end of Schedule 4, and, therefore, if noble Lords opposite would agree, I should like to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

SALE OF DEAD WILD GEESE PROHIBITION BILL [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the object of this little Bill is pretty clearly set out in its context, and I do not think that I need detain your Lordships for many minutes in explaining why these objects should be put into effect. Although the position of wild geese visiting this country at the present time, together with the species that nest in it, cannot be considered exactly precarious, it is still one which causes a certain amount of anxiety for the future; and it must always be remembered that once any species of wild life really gets into a decline it is extremely difficult to halt that decline, let alone reverse it.

1353
Frantic efforts are now being made by the Government of the United States, for example, to preserve the samphill crane and the trumpeter swan, both of which are reduced to fewer than 100 in existence; and if adequate attention is not given to them now the same might well happen to some of the birds dealt with in this Bill.
There are at the present time some six species of geese which can be considered common, or relatively common, in this country in a wild state, together with one, the Canada goose, which is an introduced species but, to all intents and purposes, wild. There are four geese coming under the category of grey geese; the grey-lag, the pinkfoot, the bean goose and the white-fronted goose. Of these, only the grey-lag at the present time nests in Britain, or has done in historic times. It is now confined mainly to some of the Hebridean Islands, with a few in the North-West of Scotland, although at one time it used to nest in the Eastern Counties of England probably up to the end of the eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries.
There are two varieties of geese called black geese, the Brent and the barnacle, together with this introduced Canada goose. We need not worry about the Brent and the barnacle because they are entirely protected at the present time and have been so for some years past. But in regard to the grey geese, particularly to the two most common species, the grey-lag and the pinkfoot, there are occasions on which lamentably great slaughter is made among their numbers. On occasion, over 100 are killed in the course of one shoot, sometimes when they are coming in to feed, and at other times in the morning or evening flight when they are coming into their roosting places. I should like to make it clear that nothing in this Bill makes it impossible to shoot these geese. All that is being done is to take the profit out of shooting. In certain areas of Britain—unfortunately, in my own county of Perthshire, together, to a certain lesser extent, with Fife and Angus and certain parts of the Eastern Counties of England—we find these massacres taking place, and certainly they would not take place if there were no sale for the victims of them.
It may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to learn that the Wild-fowling
1354
Association are just as enthusiastic as protectionist bodies in backing this Bill. Only ten days ago, at the annual general meeting of the Wild-fowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, of which I have the privilege to be President, the support for this Bill was unanimously and enthusiastically endorsed by the delegates present, over 60 in number, representing wildfowling clubs from all over the country. Although not strictly relevant to this Bill, I think I should add that the Wild-fowling Association are now most enthusiastic conservators, inasmuch as they are setting up complete sanctuaries in many areas of the country, either by themselves acquiring by purchase or lease, or by persuading landowners to co-operate in making various lakes, ponds, and particularly gravel pits, complete sanctuaries. At the same time, many of the wildfowling associations are themselves rearing large numbers of ducks, and also of geese. It is hoped that the grey-lag may be re-established as a breeding species in England, whence it has been absent for at least 150 years.
I have only heard of one person who has objected to this Bill. He was a so-called wildfowler who said, "Why should not anyone shoot as many geese as he can and then sell them?" That is exactly the attitude which the wildfowling associations condemn at the present time. The goose is the greatest quarry of the wildfowler, but no responsible wildfowler to-day wants to shoot more than a very few of them, the reason being that they are regarded as such noble prey that they should not be massacred, particularly since, when these great slaughters do take place, it is in conditions which make the shooting very far removed from sport. The birds are usually coming in at night to a sheet of water, or at dawn to a stubble field, and about to alight where they offer very easy targets, so that the shooting of them cannot be considered as sport at all. As I have said, there is nothing whatever in this Bill to prevent anyone from shooting geese, nor to prevent any farmer from protecting his crops. All the Bill does is to attempt to stop the shooting of geese for profit; and if this is brought into effect there is little doubt that it will be of the greatest possible benefit to the goose population as a whole.

1355
I have been supplied by the Wildfowl Trust, who are also a strong supporter of this Bill, with the number of wild geese which are at present to be found in this country during the winter. I have been rather surprised to see that they are now putting down the numbers of the bean-goose at 170, which is, of course, negligible. But one need not worry much about that, because in its few haunts it is pretty well protected. The pinkfoot is by far the most numerous, with something over 53,000; the two kinds of white-fronted goose number about 10,000; the grey-lag, 34,000; the barnacle over 12,000 and the Brent over 14,000. We need not worry about those last two species. In addition, there are perhaps 4,000 Canada geese resident in the country, mostly in a wild state, although that species was introduced about a couple of centuries ago.
As I have said, both the wildfowling bodies and conservationist bodies are unanimously in favour of this Bill, and so far as I know there has been no protest from the agriculturists. It is true that on occasion the grey geese can do a certain amount of damage to crops, almost entirely to clover in the spring after the legal shooting season has ended. But the possibility of dealing with such geese is not affected by the Bill. If, in any area in spring, serious damage is being done, it is perfectly open to the agricultural organisations to approach the Government and endeavour to get the close season protection lifted. This has been done on one or two occasions, but I am glad to say that up to date the attempt has not been successful, because I do not think the amount of damage done is sufficient to justify shooting them down wholesale. Furthermore, shooting geese on their feeding grounds is not the way to keep them off. There are much more efficient methods, like putting out particular kind of scarecrows or barrels in which the geese imagine there is a gunner awaiting to ambush them, truly or falsely, and in other ways.
I do not think it is necessary for me, particularly on a day when there is so much Business on the Order Paper, to go further into the Bill, other than to make one or two observations on its provisions. It will be seen that by Clause 1 the penalties are, for a first offence, a fine of £5 for each goose the culprit
1356
has or has had in his possession for sale. The penalty for the second and subsequent convictions is a fine of £10, or imprisonment not exceeding two months. In either case, there may be forfeiture of all geese in his possession. The last-named provision is not so much for the protection of the ordinary wild geese as for the other very rare species I have not mentioned, such as the snow geese and the red-breasted goose. The reason is that if any victim were not confiscated, it might well be a source of profit to the person who had shot it, because although the fine might be the full amount of £5, he could probably get more than that by selling the goose.
Clause 2 possibly needs a word of explanation. It means, in short, that it will be possible for licences or permits to be issued to scientific bodies to pay for dead wild geese if required for scientific purposes. This will enable bodies like the South Kensington Museum or the British Trust for Ornithology to purchase dead wild geese from abroad for scientific studies. If this provision were not included, that would be illegal, even for them. With those few remarks I venture to commend this little Bill for your Lordships' approbation, and I shall, of course, be glad to answer any comments or criticisms when I come to reply. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
5.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend. I believe that this Bill is desirable; and if it is desirable, and approved by all Parties, I think there is every reason why it should pass into law. As the noble Earl has said, it is fair, first of all, to the wild-fowler (the genuine wildfowler whom, I am sure, we all respect) who can still go out and shoot his geese for sport. At the same time, it gives a little more protection to one of our most delightful species of wildfowl by preventing undue exploitation of the market.
I think that, to a lesser or greater degree, we are all fond of wild birds; and particularly anyone who lives on an estuary on the East Coast of Scotland, as I have the good fortune to do,

1357
cannot fail to be impressed and fascinated by all the various kinds of wildfowl that come in and inhabit it. Of all the species, I think that perhaps the wild goose is probably the most romantic of them all, and one that we are eager to protect. Everything about them is romantic—their formation in flight, which of course is nature's way of using the slipstream of the bird in front, so that their strength can be conserved for the long overseas flights. Wary and alert to danger, they are not easily killed—indeed, on the East Coast of Scotland, which is frequented by hundred of pinkfoot geese, I do not think a great number are shot. I always have the feeling that a far greater menace to the wild geese than the wildfowler's gun is the over-crowded islands and the spread of population which is gradually going further to the coast and pushing the frontiers of nature further and further back.
Of course, as the noble Earl has pointed out, in certain parts excessive shooting takes place, and I think it would be a tragedy if these majestic birds were eventually to visit our shores no more. I shall never forget an occasion, some years ago, when a lecture was given by Mr. Peter Scott to the Royal Geographical Society in Edinburgh. That great champion of our wildfowl was introduced to an audience of about 3,000 people. After he had been introduced there was a silence during which one could have heard a pin drop. We were all waiting for him to come forward and speak, but instead he drew a wonderful picture of a dodo on the blackboard. He stood back from it and said,
"This is a bird which is now extinct, and it is extinct just through the awful lust of men wanting to destroy, kill and shoot everything—the insatiable desire of human beings to kill. That bird would have been alive today if it had not been for that. We must not let that happen to the goose".
I mention that because Mr. Peter Scott is a wonderful friend of the wild geese and he is in great fear that they may eventually become, if not extinct, then driven away from these islands altogether.
The alternative to the noble Earl's Bill might have been to place the grey-lag goose, which is now protected during the close season only, under Part I of the First Schedule to the Bill, thus protecting it at all times, but I think we must be
1358
fair to the genuine wild fowler. In my opinion, this Bill strikes a happy medium between protection on the one hand, because it gives a little further protection to the wild geese, and fair legitimate sport on the other hand.
There is one other point in this Bill which appeals to me in particular. In this case I feel that the law will be easily enforceable. It is always difficult to catch someone in the act of shooting a protected bird, or taking the eggs of a protected bird. These things often take place in half light or at night or early morning, when it is difficult to catch people. The only person who has power to arrest is a constable, and in these sparse and desoltae places where wild birds, particularly wild geese, inhabit there are not many people about; therefore it is difficult to catch people in the act. I think it would be far easier for the law to keep its eye on premises where poultry and game and wild geese, for example, might be sold. Finally, I repeat that I think this is a most desirable Bill, and I earnestly hope it will receive a Second Reading.
5.44 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friends, as I think many Members of your Lordships' House will be. My noble friend has given us a full and fascinating account of the wild goose, its habits and its history, and I am sure that it was a relief to many of us to be translated from the earthy matters of audit in London to the romance which lies behind this Bill. My noble friend has also made an informed plea for an alteration in the law. In view of that plea, I feel that I owe it to your Lordships to give a brief account of the law on this matter as it stands.
The law that is contained in the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, generally speaking allows wild geese of almost all species to be killed or taken outside the close season. There is, of course, a penalty for the contravention of this provision if the goose which is the subject of such a contravention is a grey-lag. Then the offender, on conviction, is liable to one of the special penalties provided for in the Act, although there are special exceptions in favour of the farmer. So much for the killing of the wild goose. The 1954 Act—and this is where we come closer to the proposal in my noble friend's Bill—also contains prohibitions on the

1359
sale of wild geese between February 28 and August 31, doubtless with a view to discouraging the shooting of wild geese during the close season.
So much for the law as it stands. The effect of this new Bill will be to make it illegal to sell or to possess for sale a dead wild goose at any time of the year. In other words, the prohibited season would be extended from its present duration to the full twelve months of the year. I feel that the arguments for making this extention have been fully and ably presented to your Lordships by my noble friend, and I imagine that noble Lords will not wish me to go over that ground again. I would merely add, I hope not in any way by way of contradiction of what my noble friend has said, that I understand there may be certain objections from some agricultural interests in Scotland, in particular from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, to his proposal, but I do not know how serious those objections are.
That said, I would make it clear that the Bill is one to which the Government see no objection whatsoever in principle. It might be argued that there are more important measures which could take up Parliamentary time at present. It may also be said that there is something to be said for not dealing piecemeal and in isolation with one of a number of proposals for amending the Act of 1954, in view of the fact that there are a number of proposals which we expect fairly shortly to have presented to the Government for consideration. Apart from that, there are one or two relatively minor matters of drafting on which the Parliamentary draftsman might have something to say, and I would also venture the opinion that the penalties clause would in any event require further consideration.
Having said that, I hope in no spirit of cribbing my noble friend's proposal, I would only add that, as this Bill has been moved with such intimate knowledge by my noble friend, I am happy to leave it to the judgment of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I must thank your Lordships for the favourable reception this little Bill has received. Particularly I thank my noble friend Lord Haddington for his
1360
support. In regard to the observations made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the possibility of the amendment of the 1954 Act, the fact remains that there is no apparent intention to introduce an amending Act in the near future, and it may be a number of years before this is done. Those of us who are instrumental in pushing this Bill feel that it would be a pity to jeopardise the future of wild geese by waiting for a measure which may not come for some ten years.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, spoke of the possibility of objections by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. I have not had any communication from them at all on the subject, and I have already pointed out that there is nothing whatever in the Bill that precludes any farmer, or anyone else, from shooting geese. All that it does is to attempt to take profit out of such shooting.
There is one other point that I might perhaps be permitted to mention. The fact that the geese have not declined further in number is largely due to the fact that on a great many of the larger estates, and on some of the smaller ones, they are given virtually complete protection. For example, during last winter on a property in my own county belonging to a Member of your Lordships' House, the normal winter population of some 2,000 grey-lags went up to something like 5,000. That was owing to the hard weather; and they were on such short spread that it was possible to walk right in among them, within gunshot distance, before they took wing. During that hard weather period only four geese were shot, and they were deliberately shot because they were piners which had obviously been earlier wounded or had suffered some other injury. Were many of these larger estates to be broken up, as is always a possibility, or to fall into less sympathetic hands, then it might v; ell he that the numbers of geese visiting this country would be brought down by 20 or 50 per cent. within a few years owing to indiscriminate shooting. This Bill is a definite attempt to lock the door while the horse is still inside the stable.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now

1361
adjourn during pleasure until the Royal Commission at 6 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

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

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions),

Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland),

Nursing Homes,

Corn Rents,

Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills,

Bradford Corporation (Conditioning House),

Shell Chemicals Distributing Company of Egypt,

BP Refinery (Kwinana),

Commonwealth Development Finance Company,

Sunderland Corporation,

Watford Corporation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
6.15 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if I may make the first move, I wonder whether I may ask: are we to expect a statement on Business from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I knew privately that the noble Earl was expecting a statement from me, but I was not actually aware that I was to make one. I am happy to discuss any item of Business which the noble Earl wishes to raise with me, but I have no particular statement to make. If he will tell me what he has in mind, I will try to deal with it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That makes it very awkward for me. However, we had rather long conversations yesterday, through the usual channels, and for some time towards the end of those conversations the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was present, although some of the earlier business, perhaps, did not come up before
1362
him then. But I understood that we were to have some idea as to what it had been possible to arrange in regard to the future Business before Whitsuntide, and that a statement about it was to be made after the Royal Commission.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl should be under that impression. I was hoping to make a Business statement to-morrow. I did mention, in the discussions that I had with him, that we should not be in a position to make a complete statement until to-morrow, and that I will do at the beginning of Business to-morrow.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am under the clear impression—I am sorry we are a little at cross-purposes—that that was in connection with Business in general, as well as this other particular matter that I wanted to raise.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I know that there is a particular matter on the noble Earl's mind, and that is why I asked him. I shall not be in a position until to-morrow to make a general statement about Business between now and Whitsuntide, but I know that the noble Earl has raised with me privately the question of the ecclesiastical Business which is on the Order Paper for tomorrow. Unfortunately, I have no statement to make about this. It is not Government Business: we did not put it down. We are not responsible for it: the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester is. I have asked the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Newcastle to be here, because the Bishop of Chester is away in his diocese; but I myself cannot say anything about it. The position is that a Member of this House has put down an Order for discussion and, so far as I am concerned, he will have to discuss it, because I have no power to dissuade him from doing so. In this, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester has neither more nor less rights than any other Member of the House. All I should like to tell the noble Earl is that, for once, it is not my business.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think it is rather necessary, anyway, at this very convenient opportunity, to bring to the notice of the House the curious position we face to-morrow. The House will be very

1363
busy indeed, as it has been now for many days, with the London Government Bill, and we have had no time to do anything about anything else. You have your numbers and your aides, which we have not got, and we are in an exceedingly difficult position.
Now we find that a Motion has been set down on the Order Paper for tomorrow in connection with an Ecclesiastical Measure, the details of which have only just begun to infiltrate into the mind of the general public since there has been a sufficient number of days for the circulation of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses upon the actual Measure which is now proposed—a very long and important Measure, with well over 80 clauses. Whilst it deals with a very great number of changes in purely ecclesiastical procedure, it also traverses ground by which the rights of the individual citizen in the country are to be changed, and it cannot receive amendment in your Lordships' House or in the other place because it is a Measure and not a Bill.
This is vastly important. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has spoken to us feelingly to-day. He wants our help—and for a moment I want his—in order to get the Business through. What we are to have to-morrow, squeezed in somewhere between the Business on the London Government Bill, is a discusssion of a Measure which raises grave constitutional questions in the minds not only of the ordinary citizens but also of lawyers, as shown in the letter issued recently by six lawyers, headed by the professor of London University, protesting against the contents of the Bill on extended legal questions. The public are just beginning to understand what an extraordinary change this is, in substance, in what is called an Ecclesiastical Measure as distinct from a statutory Bill. I do not want to make even the beginning of the speech which I shall have to make when the Measure is introduced; but it is absolutely impossible, in the course of Government Business for to-morrow, to have an adequate discussion on a Measure of this importance in the ecclesiastical sphere to which we cannot move an Amendment: we must either accept or reject it.
1364
In the light of the circumstances, as reported to me by a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, that the last paragraph of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee leads us to believe that everything is all well, and that the Committee just recommend it, I would say that I understand there was opposition in the Committee. The man who told me (who was opposing) asked expressly for a note to be made that the Report was not unanimous. The usual course in such circumstances is to ask for the Measure to be taken back, and to see if it could be amended before being submitted to Parliament. That has not happened. If the House of Lords has been taken as a House of first instance in this matter (though the Measure raises constitutional matters which, in my judgment, ought to be raised in the elected Chamber of Parliament), then surely there is a case for postponement. I do not want to do anything out of the way, but there is a right reverend Prelate here who represents his Church—perhaps not on this particular point—and I beg him to consider what a disaster it would be if continuous religious controversy, otherwise unnecessary, were to be raised in Parliament because we are to rush through a matter of this kind to-morrow as an Ecclesiastical Measure which cannot possibly be fully discussed, to which no Amendment can be made, and which we must either accept or reject.
6.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl must not put me in a position of speaking either for the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Newcastle, or for the Lord Bishop of Chester. It is fair to say that the right reverend Prelate probably has no authority to speak for the Lord Bishop of Chester. He is a Member of this House, and nothing else. The noble Earl probably speaks as an individual, because he has very great feeling about this subject and I do not know how far any political Party would wish to be associated with an ecclesiastical controversy. But if the noble Earl puts this argument to the Lord Bishop of Chester when he is here, or even by privately getting in touch with him, no doubt the Bishop will take cognisance of this; and if the House agrees with the noble Earl, that will have to be taken account of, too. What is

1365
quite certain—and I wish to make this abundantly clear—is that I cannot take off the Order Paper anything which a Member of the House has put on it, unless it is Government business; in which case, of course, I would act reasonably about it. If the noble Earl thinks that to-morrow is an unsuitable occasion, by reason of the lateness of the hour or by reason of short notice, or by reason of the matter to be discussed, and says so when the Measure is called on, then it will be for the Lord Bishop of Chester to agree to withdraw or postpone it; or, alternatively, for the noble Earl to vote it down. I will play a friendly part to all concerned, but as the Leader of the House I cannot do more than lay the position before the noble Earl.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I am authorised only to say that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester is entirely averse to any postponement. That is my brief, and I say so on an inquiry made in the last twenty minutes. It has been hoped very generally that as this is a subject that has been under constant care and in the public debate in the course of the last ten years, most of the difficult points would have already been worked out and there would be no controversy in it. But I speak as a comparative layman, in respect of this legal matter. I am briefed now only to say that the Lord Bishop of Chester is averse to postponement.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can only say, in the circumstances, that I am anxious not to be unhelpful to the noble Earl or to involve myself in the controversy. My function is simply to advise the House as to the position regarding the Order Paper. I am bound to say that the Order will have to be called on, I think, and then the noble Earl will have the opportunity of asking the proponent of this to take the Measure through or to withdraw it, or to explain it more fully to the House or to postpone it. Of course he will then have all the rights of a Member to oppose or to seek to defer the debate on it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have had no opportunity of speaking to the Lord Bishop of Chester; otherwise, perhaps,
1366
I might have put certain things to him. Perhaps what I have already said will be communicated to him, maybe to-night, by his brother Bishop (if I may so call him) and we may consider it. What I want to avoid is an unnecessary prolongation afterwards of religious controversy, because I think it is very wrong for this matter to come up in this connection and in this direction. Whatever general debate there has been in the Church Assembly has not been general knowledge to the wide British public, who are our masters in a matter of this kind. No details have been given to them. We ought to have a postponement in order that we could get a fair opportunity to discuss it and ensure that we get what is always a free vote to everybody in a religious question in both Houses. That is what I want. It ought to go first to the elected Chamber.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we have no control about that at all. I do not think it is normally considered that either one House or the other has precedence in the matter of these ecclesiastical Measures. It is largely the convenience of whichever House happens in order of time to take the business. They are not normally matters of political controversy. There are some feelings on one side and the other, both that Parliament ought to have jurisdiction in such matters—which it undoubtedly has—and that the Church should be given certain liberty to advance its own business before Parliament in its own way. I want to make it quite plain that the Government have nothing Ito do with this at all.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Except on the question of Business. There will probably be a long debate on this subject, which is going to interfere with your time-table. That is surely within the province of the Leader of the House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It may be inconvenient to the Government that noble Lords in any quarter put down any other business than Government Business, but that is one of the inconveniences members of the Government must live with in this House. I will try to live with it. I cannot take off the Lord Bishop's Motion for the adoption of this Measure, even if I wanted to. I can do no more than I have the power to do;

1367
and that is to deal with Government Business.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We must deal with it on the basis of appealing to the Lord Bishop of Chester to-morrow on something which he has already refused tonight. But I am sure it will lead to loud protestation all over the country against its being done in this way. In the end the sovereignty does not lie with the Church. It lies with Parliament.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
6.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Greater London Traffic and Highway Plan
".—(1) The Greater London Council shall cause to be carried out a survey of the Greater London area (taking also into account development outside that area) in respect of road traffic and highways and roads, with a view to—

(a) the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic including foot passengers;

(b) the provision of suitable, adequate and conveniently sited parking facilities on and off the Highway; and

(c) the provision of a co-ordinated and adequate public transport service.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, those carrying out the survey shall consult with the bodies operating public transport services in and around Greater London.
(3) For the purposes of, the survey, the Minister of Transport and the London County Council shall make available to the Greater London Council such staff as may be agreed and such information as is or may become available,
(4) Within such period as the Minister of Transport may appoint, the Greater London Council shall submit to him the results of the survey, together with a scheme recommending means whereby the objects of the survey may, in the opinion of the Council, best be accomplished.
(5) After consultation with such bodies as he may think fit, the Minister of Transport may approve the scheme aforesaid, and thereupon shall designate it the Greater London Traffic and Highway Plan; and it shall then he the duty of the Greater London Council to exercise the powers and functions conferred on them by virtue of sections 10 to 19 of this Act in accordance with the said Plan.
(6) The Minister of Transport shall not exercise any of the powers which, by virtue of sections 10 to 19 of this Act, he has in common with the Greater London Council unless it appears to him that that Council is failing to give effect to the aforesaid Plan or is failing to discharge its duties under this Part of this Act; and in any case that Minister shall not exercise any of those powers without informing the Council and, if the Council so request, holding a public inquiry into the matter upon which he proposes to act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends.
We now move to Part II of this complex Bill. May I say that we welcome a new Minister to the fray? We will try to give the same constructive support to this Part of the Bill as we have clone to the first Part. We all recognise that the traffic and highways problem is one of the main planks for the Government's introduction of this Bill. If I speak rather long for Committee stage, perhaps I shall be forgiven. We have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that on this Amendment the Opposition will discuss the broad principles of this part of the Bill and refrain from speaking on policy when we come to the rest of the Amendments, though reserving the right to deal with any technical matters that arise.
If there is any case for a change in London Government, undoubtedly it lies in dealing with the problem of traffic and highways. The Royal Commission, in paragraph 401 of their Report, described the chaotic distribution of powers and responsibilities, which they said was so difficult to explain that they could not put it on paper. The London County Council is not a highway authority, but it is an improvement authority, though there is no requirement on it to carry out improvement. There is a division of responsibility between the L.C.C., the Minister of Transport and the London boroughs. All this has resulted in long delays where improvements are necessary.
We are all agreed that London traffic represents a special problem. The congestion in Central London arises not only from the movement of goods of, and passengers who are, strictly Londoners. All roads lead to London, and it is an unfortunate fact that this tendency is increasing. In Central London we have to provide a system which takes into

1369
account developments outside the Central London area, and even developments outside the area of Greater London. I understand that by 1970 we shall have 12 million vehicles on the roads—90 per cent. more than to-day—and of those we in London shall receive more than our share. In looking at the congestion at the present time, one's mind boggles at what it will be like for people who live in London, for those who have to come to work in London and for those who provide the services essential to the life of this great City.
Identical congestion is now being created in places such as Croydon, where shopping centres, offices and factories are being built and where the roads are still the old suburban roads, winding and narrow. So the congestion we see in Central London is being built up at points all round the periphery of the Greater London area. A vigorous approach has to be made to the whole problem. Some people may say that what we need is a dictator who will cut through all the red tape that exists. Perhaps that would be the answer if we were in despair. Perhaps some people would nominate Mr. Marples or the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the Ministry of Transport, for this task. But for long-term results, and taking into account all the special needs of London, we really cannot consider the Minister of Transport or his Ministry as the right instrument for cutting through all the red tape. The Royal Commission clearly recommended that there should be one highway authority and one traffic authority, and I think that the case they made in their Report is overwhelming.
I would reject the Ministry of Transport because their attitude and their horizon would be too limited to deal with all the problems that face them in London, though undoubtedly the Minister would have the advantage that he would have behind him Parliamentary control and authority. But I think that we should reject the Ministry of Transport and look to this new authority that is being set up, the Greater London Council, which, though it may not have the same authority as Parliament, will be an elected body, which can act with precision and strength and which would be able to control such wild-cat schemes as the Highgate scheme. It may be said that if the Greater London Council has power to take strong action, this will cut
1370
across local interests; but I believe that, if the right people are elected, the Council should be able to tackle this problem. Above all else, it should be able to obtain the co-operation of the borough councils, which also are elected bodies, though elected on a narrower basis. I think that it is right that we should place our trust in the Greater London Council to carry out the duties of this authority.
We come to what is perhaps the more difficult question of the dual control between the Greater London Council and the Ministry of Transport. Under the Bill, both have responsibilities and powers and it is possible for both to act independently. In fairness to the Council, I do not believe that power other than a sleeping power, a last resort power, should lie with the Minister. Perhaps I can best describe it as a partnership in which the Minister is not exactly a sleeping partner but merely advisory, providing extra resources if and when the Council require them, but not assuming executive powers. The responsibility, if it is to be effected by an elected body, and if the interest of the Council is to be maintained, should be solely and clearly laid on the shoulders of the Council.
I would not say that the Minister should not have power. The Minister is responsible to Parliament and therefore should have power. But I would beg the Government to say that the Minister has no intention of interfering, or of putting any pressure on the executives, the officers of the Greater London Council or on the Council itself in its executive capacity, and that the Minister will intervene only when the Council has clearly failed to carry out the responsibility laid upon its shoulders. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a clear assurance.
I turn now to my Amendment. It first calls for a survey of the Greater London area in respect of the road traffic and highways. If one looks at the problem, in military terms one can say that we need a strategic plan and a tactical plan. It is difficult when one discusses a problem in military terms to know whether it is strategic or tactical, which aspects rather impinge upon each other. But, for my purpose, I would have regard to the strategic plan; that is, the general planning for major through traffic,

1371
not only traffic from the centre of London outwards, but the through traffic that will circle around London. This will become more and more important as the years go on, with the continual growth of an area or borough of the type of Croydon. We have to pay as much attention to these circular roads, these transverse roads, as we do to those roads that lead in and out of London.
Whatever we may do on the strategic plan, it must be obvious to the Government, and I should have thought to the Committee, that whoever is empowered to do it must take account of all the developments that are taking place outside London. We can see already the growth clown to the South-East Coast of England and to the North of London. In the first instance, it has followed the railways. But as time goes on, commuters having gone out for the facility of the rail, they then turn to the road. You will find, unless the Government put a brake on the development of South-East England, a continual strain upon the position in London by the development going on outside. Therefore, I would say that when one considers a survey of the London area it appears of absolute importance that the authority concerned should have some liaison and intelligence section which will inform them of long-terms trends of development outside their area.
I hope that the Government will accept the case for a survey. The Government in a later clause require the Greater London Council to make a survey for the general development of housing and the like. I should have thought it would be obvious that if you are carrying out such a survey, then it is right there should be a traffic and highway survey at the same time. I am not asking for anything new, because a survey is already taking place, I think at a cost of £400,000 and being carried out by the Ministry of Transport and the London County Council. I should like to see that survey taken over by the Greater London Council, if it is still in being when the Council is set up, or if it has been completed by then, the officers and the information that has been garnered made available to the Greater London Council.
What I should like to see, after the election of the Greater London coun-
1372
cillors․and it is clearly recognised that there will be a year or so in which there will be general planning within the Greater London Council—is the Council's being given the opportunity of using that time and the information that has become available as a result of this survey (perhaps they will make certain of their own surveys to clarify the information that has become available) and for them to produce their plan and to place it before the Minister with their recommendations. The Minister, if I had my way, would then consider the plan, just as the Minister for town and country planning will consider the development plan called for in a later part of this Bill, and having consulted the various authorities, the Minister could think fit to decide upon the plan as it was presented, or as it was amended, subject to general approval by those people taking part, and then the plan would become the broad blueprint of future traffic and highway development in London.
For that purpose, all the assets and liabilities of London—all the good roads, the secondary roads and the poor roads—should be considered within the scope and orbit of the Greater London Council so that they can consider what will be available to them within that area. From that procedure, and their plan, those who are experienced in traffic management and highway development could assess of the roads that now exist in London those roads that should be retained within the strategic plan of the Greater London Council, and which should remain under the control and responsibility of the Greater London Council. There would be certain roads which obviously would be local roads and which could well be transferred to the local boroughs. There would obviously be the fringe roads in the type of area where the Greater London Council would not be able to decide whether in the long run the roads would be necessary although they might well be necessary.
Therefore, as I see it, with the Bill as it is now presented, where you have clearly defined those roads which shall be under the Greater London Council or under the boroughs, there will probably have to be long discussions and Ministerial consent before there would be a transfer either from the boroughs to the Greater London Council or back.

1373
What I therefore suggest to the Committee is that for the: period of the survey we should place within the scope of the Greater London Council every road, and after you have made your plan, you would then transfer those roads that do not come within the general strategic planning for traffic development in London.
To me, this is the most sensible way of going about it: in fact, I believe the Royal Commission used words to the effect that you cannot define at this moment what roads should be metropolitan roads; in other words, which roads should come within the Greater London Council. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that there are a number of roads which are now classified as borough responsibility which could well be developed as main roads, strategic roads, with some improvement.
If those roads were so adapted, you could well take off a good percentage of the heavy traffic that now runs along the existing main roads. As a motorist, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, probably knows many odd roads by which one can find one's way front the outskirts of an area into the centre which run alongside the main roads which are heavily congested. Many of those roads, if widened and straightened, could make a tremendous difference to the congestion that now exists on, these main metropolitan roads.
We should see that the assets and the liabilities in regard to roads are available to the Greater London Council for its survey. We should not lay down in this Bill which roads should go to the Greater London Council and which should go to the boroughs. I have no idea how the Government came to create Schedule 7. I cannot understand how it is that the Minister has decided that 60 per cent. of Class 1 roads—roads that are recognised as main through roads—should be the responsibility of the Greater London Council, and that 40 per cent. of the same type of road should be handed over to the boroughs. Perhaps the Minister when he replies will give us a good reason why this fixed position has been taken in this Bill. I say to the noble Lord that, where you have this golden opportunity of planning by an authority which is not committed to executive
1374
action, you should take it to look at the problem of London in a sort of empirical attitude. But you can only do it, as I have said (I am sorry I am repeating it, but it is very important) if all the area is within the scope and power of the authority. I beg the Government to consider that point.
I now turn to paragraph 2 of my Amendment. If we are to relieve the congestion in the centre of London we must do more to get the commuters on to our trains. No doubt this will involve staggering of working hours. The Government and the Minister have failed in this respect. Maybe the Greater London Council, responsible for development and the like, will have greater success in this matter. But you cannot tackle any question of staggering until you can provide adequate public transport service in these stagnation periods. There are other aspects, such as in areas like Oxted or Watford, on the perimeter, where the Greater London Council have the power to organise—if that is the right word․to co-operate, to arrange, with the public transport services the provision of car parks sufficient to cope with the vehicles of commuters in order to encourage them to come on to our trains.
Much more could be done to see that our buses run at times to meet the trains. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would be surprised at the inconvenience that is caused to travellers by the fact that bus timing does not coincide reasonably with train timing. It is this type of thing which makes people use their cars to get to the station, when in certain of the areas they could well use public service, and would perhaps prefer to. These are aspects which should come within the scope of traffic organisation. All these things have to be borne in mind. Therefore I suggest that we should see that there is some responsibility on the Greater London Council to endeavour, in co-operation with the transport authorities, to see that there is an adequate transport service in and around Greater London.
I have dealt with the survey and the scheme. I now come to the plan, because no doubt the Government will say, "Well, if you have a plan, this is something fixed." If the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein,

1375
were here, he would recognise that a General who goes into battle has a plan. He has to fight the battle rather "off the cuff", but he does it within the broad principles of his plan. He has to make adaptions as the days go on. When I suggest that we should have a traffic highway plan for London, it does not mean something which is fixed, which is not flexible. Obviously, as the trends change, as traffic differs, maybe from year to year, there will have to be a change of plan. Therefore I hope the Government will not criticise my suggestion this evening on the ground that I am advocating something which is fixed. I suggest that the Greater London Council cannot be effective as a traffic or highway authority unless it has a broad plan which is acceptable to the Minister in the first instance.
Now I come to my paragraph 6. At first sight, I wondered whether this was going to be too much for the Minister. It would require that the Minister of Transport would not exercise any powers by virtue of Clauses 10 to 19 of this Act unless the Greater London Council had failed in their duties. The Minister has practically used those very words in his Amendment, No. 103A. But the Minister is still the final judge. This is something to which I would ask the Minister to give consideration. I said earlier, and I say it with all possible sincerity, that if you expect the Greater London Council to carry out their responsibilities, it must be clear that the responsibilities are theirs, and that they have a real duty; that they will not have to look over their shoulder all the time to see whether they are pleasing the Minister; that the Minister should use his powers only where the Minister has failed.
There may be occasions when the Council, taking into account perhaps their development plan, prefer not to act, but where the Minister may feel that action must be taken in the interests of the narrow point of the movement of traffic. The Greater London Council will be bound to take factors into account other than traffic. Therefore you should not put the Minister in a position where he can dictate to the Greater London Council. If the Minister wants to use the powers, and the Greater London Council, acting as a responsible council, felt that the Minister's order was wrong,
1376
there should be some opportunity to have the position aired, perhaps through the Press or through the letter box; and that no doubt, could come by a public inquiry.
In a further Amendment, I have suggested that in certain cases it should be referred to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I accept that that is wrong—that you cannot put two Ministers up against each other. But I hope the Government will accept this. If they have set up a Greater London Council to be a responsible council—and this is their child; this is their creation—they should put the responsibility on them. If there is a dispute perhaps between them (not a dispute in broad terms, but perhaps on a small point at issue, whether a particular roundabout should be made in that way or particular lighting should be installed in another way) only where the Minister has an overwhelming case should he act. But if the Council felt that the Minister's decision was wrong in what they considered to be the general interests, then they should have the right to obtain outside opinions, perhaps through a public inquiry. But at least they would be able to have the matter aired, so that perhaps Members of Parliament could take up the cudgels for them. I beg the Government to see that, having created this authority, they should clearly put trust in them; and I feel that to-night the Minister must clearly say that the reserve powers that the Minister is retaining will be used in only the very last resort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHAMPION: My noble friend has so adequately covered the difficulties of London and set out some of the main requirements for the solution of the problem of this great conurbation, that the only thing I would add to his suggested requirements for a solution would be an observation on the necessity for close co-operation between the traffic authority and the planning authority. I believe that, unless we have that close co-operation, one of these authorities will be taking decisions which could make complete nonsense of what the other was doing, and this would be a very great mistake. There is, too, a corresponding need for co-operation between the body providing London's transport services and the traffic authority.

1377
My noble friend has set out the requirements; he has posed the problem and suggested some of the solutions. Of course, it is always so much easier to pose a problem than to provide the solution to that problem. I know that is a platitude, but it is none the less true. But I am bound to say—and I think I must give this to the Government and to my noble friend to some extent—that in the creation of the Greater London Council and in improving of overall traffic responsibility, the Government go a fair distance towards meeting the requirements of London. I see no reason why we should not here admit and say that in reference to this Part II which we are now discussing; but I must say that I have some doubts about the Minister of Transport's retaining responsibilities for the trunk roads, although, clearly, I recognise that he must have some reserve powers in this respect—and I would stress the words "reserve powers" rather than the first-place, responsibility.
In parenthesis, perhaps I might say that the details of this Bill are extremely difficult to follow. I do not know that I have ever tackled a Part of a Bill which is so difficult to understand. To master thoroughly Part II one would have to have beside one the Local Government Act, 1933, the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, the Road Traffic Act, 1962, the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, the Highways Act, 1959, the Private Street Works Act, 1961, and possibly the Vehicles Excise Act, 1962, all of which are mentioned in this clause and to which reference is made. For a layman to follow all this is an extremely difficult task, and I imagine that it is not easy for an experienced lawyer to do it. I just mention this because the Bill is a large one but it would not have mattered, I think, if it had been enlarged by consolidating the appropriate sections of the Acts I have mentioned in the Bill as they applied to the London area. It would then have been very much easier for us to follow, and certainly easier for those who have to find their way through this tangle that we have here in the Bill in order to apply this Part II.
To turn to the new clause, this I imagine is based on paragraph 441 of the Report of the Royal Commission, which reads:
1378
"Finally, we must point out that although, in fact, sporadic and partial traffic censuses have been taken, no one is responsible for finding out the facts systematically about the nature of traffic. It is no-one's business to find out where traffic is coming from, or where it is going, or for what purposes the vehicles are being used. Without such studies no firm basis can exist for planning traffic management or road construction."
Incidentally, although many of my noble friends would perhaps use stronger words, the conclusions of the Royal Commission, I am bound to say, coming to study them as I have, set out London's problems in a way which makes it understandable to those coming newly to the subject, and perhaps I might add that I would strongly commend a large part of Chapter 6, headed "Some General Considerations", to any new councillor, or indeed any old councillor, whether here or elsewhere—but that is quite by the way.
We know (and my noble friend Lord Shepherd pointed this out) that the London County Council, perhaps together with the Ministry of Transport, is making a survey of London's traffic problems and my noble friend has made reference to this in his subsection (3). I do not know what are the limits of this survey, but clearly if it does not already apply to the whole of the Greater London area it should be so applied as soon as possible. I think that it is immediately being applied to the L.C.C. area, but if it is not, if it is a wider area, that is all the more satisfactory.
Under the new clause this survey will be used for the preparation of a scheme for presentation to the Minister for approval; and subsection (5) of the new clause has been read out by my noble friend and he has made extensive reference to it. I am in favour of an overall plan for London for the reasons which my noble friend gave, but not an absolutely rigid one. Traffic is fluid, and to some extent clearly the plan must allow within itself for that fluidity and for the plan itself to be adjustable in the light of altering circumstances. These plans can be good. If someone had not conceived a plan for the Green Belt I rather think that we should never have preserved for London this area that surrounds London. It would long since have been surged over by the bricks and

1379
mortar of this extending London. It was a good thing that the plan was conceived. It was there, it had to be worked to, but to some extent it was adjustable and had certain little bits of fluidity about it.
So I would end by urging the Government to consider very closely this proposal of my noble friend and his Amendment that he has here proposed, so that we might have this survey applied as soon as it is humanly possible; and, provided that it is done thoroughly with all the traffic requirements I have mentioned in mind, and the planning requirements which I regard as tremendously important in this connection, to have a scheme prepared so that we shall have a plan which the bodies who are going to have to undertake this tremendous job which is being placed upon them by this Bill may be able to work. I certainly support the Amendment of my noble friend.
7.10 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I realised when I studied in advance the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been explaining and commending to us that it was probably more in the nature of a peg on which to hang a number of hats, and he has done that for us this evening in an extremely interesting way. He has raised a number of points of principle, as he said, on purpose to cover other Amendments later and possibly save a little time there, for which I am duly grateful to him. But predominantly I want to say how interestingly he put all of his case and how beguilingly some little parts of it. He and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, between them, presented me with a large number of subjects to cover, so I think I, in my turn, must ask your Lordships for a little indulgence if I have to take a little while in doing so. Perhaps I may approach it in a slightly different manner from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It might be for convenience and possibly a little acceleration if I were to work through the clause, sweeping up the points of principle as they are raised in it.
LORD SHEPHERD: "Sweeping up" is not exactly the word.
LORD CHESHAM: Never mind what is exactly the word; we will deal with
1380
the matters. The clause falls into two parts, the first part being devoted to the question of the survey and the second part to how to make use of the results in broad terms. I must first address myself in a fairly detailed way to the question of the survey, because the survey for which the noble Lord has asked is being carried out now. It is sponsored jointly by the Minister of Transport and the L.C.C., and it is covering all forms of transport; it is covering public transport as much as private transport. The London Transport Board and the British Railways Board have taken part in planning the survey and have co-operated by surveying and giving information on their own services. It is very comprehensive, and I think it is the biggest survey carried out anywhere, at a cost of £600,000—not £400,000 as the noble Lord mentioned; but that is only a detail. It covers not only the existing transport and the factors that generate it, but also a forward projection which is aimed at assessing how the demand for transport for the next twenty years or so will grow.
We hope, with reasonable confidence, that the results of the survey will be published by the end of this year. I think the Ministry and all the other authorities concerned will have every incentive in the circumstances to make full use of those results when they are published, to begin the work of developing firm proposals for new roads and for public transport facilities, and I believe that work will have been started and be under way before the G.L.C. actually take over their responsibilities.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord say which authority will be preparing these plans? Will it be the Ministry or the boroughs?
LORD CHESHAM: It would be the authorities concerned, certainly the Ministry and the L.C.C. There would be work starting which would be very interesting and important to the G.L.C. when it comes along. It does not have to wait for them; it will be possible to start all that work before.
I would reassure the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and also the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, by saying that the survey is being carried out over an area in fact bigger than Greater London. It covers a population of about

1381
9 million, as opposed to the 8 million in the Greater London Area. It is also taking into account developments in the area immediately outside Greater London. There is a general co-ordination between the survey and the work of looking at the problems of the South-East as a whole which is being studied at the moment in a study which involves the Ministry of Housing as well as the Ministry of Transport. So I am happily able to reassure noble Lords that it is very comprehensive and includes the points they want to be included.
May I turn to the actual Amendment and start with the first paragraph (a). It covers all types of wheeled traffic, public and transport. It does not cover in the same way pedestrians, because the statistical data on pedestrian movement is not required in the same way, naturally, as for vehicles. The paragraph (a) requirement the noble Lord seeks is, of course, in the Bill, and the pedestrian interest is covered under Clause 9.
With regard to paragraph (b), the question of parking needs has been investigated to a considerable extent by the L.C.C. and they have collected a great deal of information about it, as have also the Association of Metropolitan Borough Engineers. That, too, has been made available to the London traffic survey team and will be included in their forecasts and study of the present position. While I am on the subject of parking, I should point out that the G.L.C. will have the full powers they need for these matters under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I should have preferred to deal with this a little later under the general heading of powerful authorities or dictatorships. On this particular parking matter, it still remains our thinking that this is a subject for local authority provision, and the appropriate section is geared to that end. I want to emphasise that they have the powers and also the duty placed upon them in the Bill to consider parking in that light in which the noble Lord wanted them to consider it.
With regard to paragraph (c), provision of a co-ordinated and adequate public transport service (as the noble Lord puts it in the Amendment), I explained that the survey covers travel by train and bus as well as by road vehicles. It is already the duty of the London Transport Board,
1382
which your Lordships will find in Section 7 of the Transport Act, 1962, to provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London passenger transport area. The London Transport Board and the British Railways Board, under Section 7 and Section 3 respectively of the Transport Act, 1962, are also required to co-operate with each other to ensure the proper co-ordination of their services. In fact they have set up a committee for this purpose called the Passenger Transport Committee for London. Therefore, so far as the transport authorities go, there is already full provision for the co-ordination of public transport.
What the noble Lord advocated, and what is not provided for—and, indeed, as he will fully realise, is not in accordance with Government policy on this matter—is that the G.L.C. should be responsible for seeing that this co-ordinated service is provided. He will appreciate that if we were to put in a general provision that they should see that there was such a service, it would not, without powers, mean anything; and it produces an entirely new concept of what their powers should be if it is suggested that they should achieve such an object, because to do that they would have to take charge of all the various forms of public transport. They would have to take charge of part of the Railways Board's enterprise, and that of the London Transport Board. I do not think that, without an immensely complicated and cumbersome measure of that kind, a measure which I should have thought the Greater London Council would scarcely be technically equipped to do, could there be achieved precisely in the Bill what the noble Lord wants.
7.22 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I quite accept the point; but if the noble Lord looks at paragraph (2) he will see that I use the word "consult" with the bodies operating public transport services. I do not advocate, and I could not possibly advocate, that the Greater London Council should take over the London Board. But there is a lot to be said for this elected body representing the electors, quite apart from the position of a Minister, who is a national figure. This is a local means whereby they could consult and could use much stronger influence than is now available

1383
to see that the London Board provide the type of service, not only as is now required but within the G.L.C. development plan. There is a great deal to be said for this consultation. Within the Bill there is no mention of it. There should be laid down in the Bill that it must be a recognised duty of the G.L.C. to consult, to try to persuade—although that is very hard to put into Parliamentary words. In other words, there should be an attempt to see that the G.L.C. help to organise, with the London Board, these adequate services.
LORD CHESHAM: I take the point made by the noble Lord and I have made my own. I have nothing further to say, except this: I was going to talk of this consultation in a moment. In that particular regard the noble Lord puts me in a slight practical difficulty in talking about it, because I was going to say that consultation of the kind that he refers to in subsection (2) of the Amendment is in fact happening now. The only thing is that it is not, of course, happening with the G.L.C. as a body, because that does not yet exist. But the very consultation he wants is a fact of life at the moment and is going on.
LORD SHEPHERD: Between whom?
LORD CHESHAM: With all the authorities that I have mentioned—the L.C.C. and the other authorities, the Railways Board, the London Transport Board and the Ministry.
LORD SHEPHERD: They do not get very far with it.
LORD CHESHAM: That is happening within the general framework of the survey now, the difficulty being, of course, that the survey will be completed before the G.L.C. take office. Therefore I do not see that any useful object is served in actually putting that into the Bill, because it will be history. The noble Lord makes a point which I think I must briefly refer to, about making staff available. He did not refer to it in his speech, and I assume that he probably meant "transferred". I do not know whether he did or not.
LORD SHEPHERD: The purpose of subsection (3) was to deal with the question of the survey which is already in being. If it was continued, then the
1384
people doing it within the Ministry or the London County Council would for a period go to the G.L.C.
LORD CHESHAM: The L.C.C. people concerned would no doubt go on in the normal way; so far as the Ministry people are concerned, they would be better if they stayed where they are, but I am sure that there would be no problem connected with that.
I now want to come to the question of this plan, because I think it is rather important. It seems to me, as the noble Lord put it forward, to draw a distinction between the Greater London Traffic and Highways Plan, to use his own words, and the Greater London Development Plan. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence about this because I want to be perfectly clear about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Champion pointed out, it is true that one would come under the Minister of Transport and the Development Plan under the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That is a division of responsibility which, he rightly said, one could not assume, in order, as it were, to set one against the other. I am making the point in principle now, and I think it right to say that highways must be accepted as a feature of a development plan within this context.
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, within it.
LORD CHESHAM: And in Clause 25 of the Bill the duty is specifically put on the G.L.C., in drawing up the Greater London development plan, to include "in particular guidance as to the future road system".
The noble Lord said that I was not to refer to it as being inflexible. I must ask him to allow me to do so with complete seriousness, and not merely as grounds for arguing against him; because there are definite snags coming up, which I shall show in a moment, in relation to other matters about which he spoke. If there is to be a Traffic and Highways Plan incorporated as an individual plan but within a bigger plan, I must point out that the development plans are normally revised every five years. I do not mind whether or not it is a point of drafting, but the noble Lord did not suggest some method of review. That is by the way, but I do not see how one can prepare a plan of that kind which must

1385
be subject to a review every five years, with its mother plan, so to sneak, if traffic is considered as distinct from highway proposals, because the circumstances that make one want to change traffic management measures are subject to constant changes themselves which cannot be anticipated so far ahead. I think it would be quite impracticable, for instance., to cater five years ahead for a one-way traffic scheme. One would not know that far ahead that it was wanted; and to put a few measures that could be foreseen into the plan, such as through-routes for lorries or general traffic, might be misleading, because the public might then think that nothing else was intended. It is a small point but worth making.
I do not agree with the noble Lord when he asks for a complete blue print to be laid down. I do not believe that in this matter one can lay down a blue print for traffic and highway development unless the whole thing is completely knitted in with the development plan, which is the way we look at it. There is obviously little between us in this matter. For that reason, it would be more difficult for the Minister of Transport to use that plan, as the noble Lord has suggested, as the only reason why he should employ his reserve powers. I think that the way that we have put it in the Bill, in the Amendment he referred to, Amendment No. 103A, is the better and cleaner way of doing it, at the same time ensuring that the Minister uses his reserve powers only as a last resort. The noble Lord asked me for an assurance about that matter, and I am happy to tell him that the intention is that that should be a last resort power; that the work should be in the hands of the Greater London Council; that it is intended to trust the Council and to rely on it to do its work. That is why there has been put down that Amendment which we shall no doubt discuss later. I hone that that assurance the noble Lord will find satisfactory.
I think I must touch quickly on the point the noble Lord made about roads, which he thought should all be under the Greater London Council and delegated as experience dictated later. As will be obvious from the Bill, and from discussions we may have a little later on individual Amendments, we have not seen it
1386
in that way. The reason why it has been done in the way it has is that we feel it carries out the spirit of the recommendation of the Royal Commission (paragraph 442(3) on page 119) which says:
"The same general authority must be responsible for the construction, improvement, maintenance and lighting of all main roads in Greater London, being those mainly used by through traffic. Authorities more local in character should have the same responsibility for the other roads."
That is exactly what we have tried our best to draft into this Bill. If it proves to be not quite right—I do not pretend that it is going to be perfect—there is provision in Clause 17 that adjustments can be made and metropolitan roads (which is what the Commission called "main roads") can be made or unmade as experience dictates. I hope that the noble Lord will feel somewhat satisfied by the explanations I have given and that the majority of the principles to which he attaches importance in fact run through the Bill, and that he will not wish to press this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth wishes to say a few words, and I think, with his vast experience as an ex-Minister of Transport, that that would be welcome. I wonder in view of the time, whether—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was hoping that we should get this Amendment disposed of before we adjourned during pleasure. But I have no doubt that everyone would like to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, on this particular point. Therefore, I will fall in with the suggestion and move that the Committee do adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes before eight and resumed at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.]
8.35 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The Parliamentary Secretary has something of a point in saying that the survey which my noble friend Lord Shepherd seeks is going on now. Nevertheless, I support the Amendment and, if it were carried, it might be that on Report it could be put in terms that there shall

1387
from time to time be such a survey, perhaps once in five years, or seven years, or even ten years. The defence of the Government against my noble friend's Amendment, for which I shall vote, is that what he is asking for is already being done, but I am not sure that it is being done to the full extent my noble friend would wish.
What intrigues me is that the Government argue that the big basis for this Bill—apart from the basis which we know was the reason, namely political jiggery-pokery and Party interests—was that there was no big traffic authority in London except the Minister of Transport; that they wanted to get him out and put a great local authority in. The other basis was town planning, which indeed my noble friend has brought into his Amendment.
The Government's answer to this Amendment, which is in clear harmony with the Report of the Royal Commission, is that the reasons for bringing in the Bill have nothing to do with the case—in other words, that the Report of the Royal Commission has nothing to do with the case; and that in fact this survey is going on, by co-operation between the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport, and possibly some other people. But if such cooperation is now going on, it means there is no reason for this Bill in order to create a Greater London Traffic Authority. Even when the Bill is brought in, conferring some traffic powers on the Greater London Council, the Government see to it that the powers of the Minister shall to a considerable degree remain, so that he can still mess about with London, instead of leaving it to the new directly elected authority which the Government propose.
This is a manifestation of the dishonesty of the arguments which have been advanced by the Government for the Bill, because the very thing they gave as the most important reason for bringing it in is, they now say, already being done. When my noble friend proposes an Amendment imposing on the Council a duty to do one or two things, the Government reply by saying that it is not necessary because it is being done. If it could be done—does the Parliamentary Secretary want to controvert what I have said? No? Are we agreed?
LORD CHESHAM: No; we are not.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I asked him if he wanted to controvert what I said, and he nodded his head. That means we are agreed.
LORD CHESHAM: I shook my head; I did not nod it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes, you shook it.
LORD CHESHAM: That meant, No.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It was in the negative. So this really is humbug on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I am sorry to call them humbugs; I very much regret it; but that is what they really are, because they have brought in a Bill for a purpose and have not entirely lived up to it. They have retained a lot of powers for the Ministry of Transport; and then, when my noble friend brings in an Amendment which, on the face of it, implements part of the Government's argument for this abominable measure, they say it is not necessary because it is being done. I always knew that the London County Council could do a traffic survey—and not only in the County of London, but beyond. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the present survey goes beyond the limits of the proposed Greater London, which just shows what the London County Council is capable of; what an extraordinarily able and competent local authority it is.
Of course, there was another great flourish in the Report of the Royal Commission that had nothing whatever to do with the case, but simple-minded newspaper-men gobbled it up, like the innocents that so many of them are, and came out with great headlines—" An Intelligence Centre for London ". They said that there was at last to be an authority which was to gather knowledge and intelligence about London and its problems, statistics, and so on. Good heavens!—the London County Council has been an intelligence authority for London for years. The B.B.C., bless its heart!—it did not mean any harm; it just fails to acknowledge people who have done a job; it has no copyright respect—came out with a story. One night Cliff Michelmore—a very nice chap and a very able television man (let us hope that will

1389
get me a show to-morrow night, but I doubt it) said there had been a book published that day, and he quoted from pages of it various statistics, interesting, startling statistics, not only about the County of London but beyond, in Greater London. I know the book because I used to get it for nothing when I was a member of the Council. I know it very well, and it is a very valuable book. At the end, he said, "It is called London Statistics", but even my friend Cliff Michelmore had not got the decency to say that it was published by the London County Council. I think it is a "bit hot" when a chap makes a story out of a book and does not acknowledge the author.
But there is to be this intelligence branch of the proposed London authority to collect information, co-ordinate it and publish it. There is no need to create a Greater London authority for this purpose. It has been done for years, ever since the day of the dear old Progressive Party. The Abercrombie Plan was in the same field. They did it; and the Liberal-Progressives supported a great deal of this. It is perfectly true that we were instrumental in eliminating them from the London County Council. We were very sorry, but we wanted to get there ourselves. But they did a great deal of this work, and they were a great Party in their time. They started the London County Council on good lines, and that is why we are so sorry that the Liberals are so unreliable in regard to this Bill. In the other place, all six of them voted for the Second Reading of this beastly Bill, which was in flat contradiction to the principles of the Progressive Liberal Party, which did some great work at the beginning of the London County Council.
So this Amendment is set down by my noble friend, and he moves it in all good faith. As I say, I think on Report we may consider another Amendment to provide for this survey to be done in five years, seven years or ten years. But he moves it in all good faith, and then the Government say that it is not necessary; that this Bill makes no difference whatever. And yet this was one of the principal arguments for the Bill. They say, "It is not necessary; it is being done". If it is being done, it was not necessary to bring this Bill in to enable it to be
1390
done. The Government are convicted out of their own mouths of giving false, inaccurate and untrue reasons for bringing in this Bill. Then, when my noble friend likes to associate the Government with the reasons they have given for bringing in this Bill they say that the Amendment is not necessary; that it is redundant; or, to quote Karl Marx, that "it is tautological." They convict themselves of having brought in under false pretences a Bill actuated by Party politics and gerrymandering motives.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will just say a few words since it was I who moved the Amendment. We on this side of the House have looked at the Royal Commission's Report and at the Bill. There is some similarity, but there is considerable divergence from the principles outlined in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, may well shake his head. The Royal Commission said that the highway authority should be the traffic authority. Is that not so? In the Bill there are three highway authorities—more, if you count the number of boroughs involved. You have the Minister; you have the Greater London Council and 32 boroughs. My noble friend failed to get the City of London Amendment accepted. Thirty-two boroughs—there is a big departure! I understood when I moved this Amendment that a survey was already in progress. I referred to it. The noble Lord quoted my figure. He said it was wrong. The figure I was given was £400,000. That is the figure. I was informed there was a survey in being. Therefore when I moved to put it in the Bill I understood that a survey was already taking place, but under my Amendment it would become the survey of the Greater London Council, who would take it over, as I suggested in paragraph (3).
We want a plan. I understood from the Minister that there would be a plan but that it might be changed. He spoke in rather lukewarm terms for the plan, I think. We believe there must be a plan—a blue print. There is not a city in Europe that has come out of the war and has developed—as have so many cities like Rotterdam and Hamburg—that could have made such wonderful progress if they had not a plan. And that plan is still in progress.

1391
In the case of Rotterdam it will extend for 20 or 30 years. That is the type of conception which we believe is vitally necessary if London is to develop as an orderly city. I had not proposed to divide on this Amendment, but I feel, on the advice of my friends, that I must. I do not propose to withdraw it. It is very close to the Royal Commission, and, as I said, the Government
Clause 9 [General duty of Greater London Council with respect to road traffic and abolition of London Traffic Area and Traffic Advisory Committee]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (2) to leave out "as to secure so far practicable" and to insert—
"so far as practicable having due regard to—

(i) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

(ii) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected; and

(iii) any other matters appearing to the Council to be relevant,

to secure".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the following one may be taken together, for convenience, as the second one is consequential upon the first, and possibly my noble friend Lord Conesford
1392
have gone in some other directions on major points from the Royal Commission. We may be small in numbers this evening, but I propose to ask my friends to support me.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 51,

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Champion, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dudley, E.

Margesson, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milverton, L

Ampthill, L.

Falmouth, V.

Molson, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monck, V.

Cawley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monsell, V.

Chesham, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Furness, V.

Poulett, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun, L.

Conesford, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Sandford, L.

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hastings, L.

Somers, L.

Davidson, V.

Hawke, L.

Spens, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ilford, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Devonshire, D.

Luke, L.

Willingdon, M.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

would not object if his Amendment, No. 102 was considered at the same time, as it is on precisely the same point. The purpose of these two Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Chesham and myself is to state more explicitly the matters to which the Greater London Council must have regard when exercising the traffic duty laid upon them in this clause. There has been, as we all know, some criticism in both Houses of Parliament, probably because of the manner in which the reference to access is presented:
"in exercising those functions the Council shall have regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises."
My noble friend Lord Conesford had something to say about this on Second Reading.
This seems to have been regarded as a comprehensive statement of the Government's concept of the matters to which the

1393
Council should have regard. But this is not so. It is recognised that there are a great many non-traffic matters which the Council would, and should, take into account. The necessity to balance these matters against the purely traffic considerations mentioned in the clause was acknowledged by including the words "so far as practicable" (page 9, line 48); but this did not satisfy many noble Lords in all quarters. Strictly, there is no logical need to amend the subsection. But we have considered this matter carefully, and the Government recognise that there is something to be said for making perfectly clear that the Greater London Council are required to consider amenity and other non-traffic matters in every case. It is probable that in most cases amenity is the most important of these, but I think noble Lords will agree that it would be wrong to specify this one and exclude all other considerations.
Therefore, this Amendment re-phrases the subsection so as to stipulate formally that the Greater London Council must have regard to the maintenance of reasonable access, the effect of amenities, and any other matters appearing to be relevant. "Amenities" has been covered in a single wide phrase. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, refers to living conditions of the residents as well, but I hope he will be able to agree that "amenities" (possibly there is a slight difference between "amenity" in the singular, and "amenities" in the plural) should cover the sort of matters that he has in mind. We feel pretty sure that the specifying of "amenities" as such should look after everything that could possibly appertain to the living conditions or conveniences of the locality and the inhabitants who dwell in it. Therefore. I hope that my noble friend will feel that our Amendment covers the point he has been making. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 48, leave out from first ("as") to end of line and insert the said words and sub-paragraphs.—(Lord Hastings.)
9.3 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: These words are an improvement on the Bill as it stood at Second Reading. My noble friend the Minister is, I think, quite wrong as a matter of law, among other things, in thinking that these words were
1394
in any way covered by the phrase in the Bill, "so far as practicable". When an Act of Parliament puts a duty upon a body to secure a specific thing "so far as practicable", that phrase no doubt provides for some physical limitations which would make it almost impossible to perform; it might even provide for a limitation through immense expenditure. But the idea that it would direct them to consider a number of other matters is, in my submission, completely wrong.
The clause, as it stood on Second Reading, and as it was defended in another place, was, in my submission, indefensible. I do not think that anything could make this clause completely satisfactory in its attitude to the right relationship between planning and traffic. The right relationship, of course, is to say that people should have regard to some such thing as the amenities of the locality and the living conditions of the people, and should use their traffic powers to promote these objects. Nevertheless, I know the convenience, and perhaps the necessity, from the point of view of draftsmen, of collecting all the traffic provisions in a particular Part of the measure, as has been done here. Although I slightly prefer my form of words, I shall certainly not dispute the Government's preference for their own words. I am sorry that my noble friend even questioned the necessity of this most important addition, but it is a valuable addition. It is a most necessary addition and, for the purposes of the Committee stage, my noble friends and I, I am certain, are prepared to accept it. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government themselves will look into the matter a little further before the Report stage to see whether they cannot themselves suggest some improvement.
May I give one example; the very first thing that is mentioned:
"so far as practicable having due regard to…the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises".
Is it really desirable or necessary? Is it much good having premises which it is impossible to get to? I am not at all convinced that the word "desirability" has been fully considered. I say to the Government, on behalf of my noble friend who joined with me in setting down Amendments to this clause, that in accepting this Amendment and welcoming

1395
it as far as it goes, I hope the Government will not be uncritical of their own handiwork and will consider the matter further before the Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: We on this side recognise the advance that has been made. In fact, as I understand it, the question of the protection of amenities was raised in another place during, I think, the Committee stage. On that occasion Her Majesty's Government said that it would be quite wrong to include these provisions. It is good that at this stage the Government are prepared to admit their error. Mind you, they have many more errors to admit.
I hope paragraph (iii) will be clarified. One could say in some ways that these words are restrictive on the Council. The obvious purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is that the Greater London Council shall consider many aspects before they take a particular action in order that there should be expeditious movement of cars. I agree that there should be some restriction, and I believe that there should be some consideration of the amenities of the locality, but I wonder whether paragraph (iii) could not perhaps be construed by an authority in such a wide sense that it would be an excuse for failing to adopt a necessary action. It could be construed that if, for a number of reasons, they did not wish to do a particular thing, they might be able, within this wide definition here, to say, "Well, we have had to take this thing into account". I think that would be quite wrong. I agree that there should be some restriction for the protection of amenities, but I hope that we do not use phraseology which would give this authority an excuse for failing to carry out its duties. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Lord can help us a little further with what the Government have in mind in regard to paragraph (iii).
LORD CONESFORD: Before my noble friend replies, may I suggest to the noble Lord opposite, who I think has been in general sympathy with me in my criticism of this particular clause, that Her Majesty's Government are wise in putting in some such words as are contained in sub-paragraph (iii)? Because the argument that has been used against those who sought to amend the Bill in some such way as
1396
this, in another place and here, has been the danger that by providing for certain things they would be thought to have excluded other relevant matters. Therefore there is some utility in having something of this sort in; while I am critical of some of the words, I am least critical of these words.
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful to the two noble Lords for giving at any rate some sort of welcome to the Government's best efforts in this regard. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that I am, of course, perfectly ready to study the possibility of improving the word "desirability". We all know that he is a great defender of the English language and of precise meanings attached to words, for which we have much to thank him—and I say and mean that seriously. Quite obviously it is not much use having premises if the door is barred.
LORD CONESFORD: If you cannot get to them.
LORD HASTINGS: if you cannot get to them. That is a matter we can look at. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that these other matters will have to be considered—for example, the convenience of bus passengers, or the public service.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Underground railways.
LORD HASTINGS: The fire brigade, disturbance of sewers and main services; special classes of people, disabled drivers, doctors—matters of that sort. I do not think they can all be spelled out; the list would be almost inexhaustible.
LORD LATHAM: Are we to take it from the catalogue the noble Lord has raised that the Tubes and Undergrounds are excluded from consideration?
LORD HASTINGS: Not at all. I said that there were other relevant factors. These matters will have to be considered.
LORD LATHAM: It is rather a pejorative way to put it, to include the important Underground railways in "other factors".
LORD HASTINGS: No: I do not agree. If we have everything spelled out it would be a considerable Schedule.

1397
I should have thought they have something to do with amenities—accessibility, for example. We try to meet the wishes of noble Lords by introducing specific reference to amenities in general while not excluding other factors which are relevant and which obviously a responsible Council such as the Greater London Council will certainly require to take into consideration. I do not think there is any great danger that they would use sub-paragraph (iii) as an excuse for not doing things they should do. In later Amendments we come to powers of the Minister to deal with such things.
LORD LATHAM: It does not follow. After all, Dr. Beeching entirely ignored the Toad services.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("and") to ("the") in line 4.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved in subsection (2), to omit all words after "unless" and to substitute:
"either every London Borough concerned has consented to such direction, revocation or variation, or it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
The noble Lord said: I think that many of us, on both sides of the Committee, as was indeed shown in the debate on Second Reading, desire the Greater London Council to be a very great local authority and a very great traffic authority. Therefore we do not desire the best efforts of that traffic authority to be unduly interfered with by the Minister of Transport. We are agreed, I think, on both sides of the Committee in this House, and there was agreement in another place, that the powers of the Minister of Transport to interfere with this great authority ought to be strictly limited. The words of limitation as they stand in the Bill are so absurd as really to be almost comic, but I shall not weary the Committee by commenting on them because the Government also propose to abandon them. The Government have an alternative Amendment to what I am now proposing.
I also desire the Minister to have reserve powers on the face of the Statute, which has the effect, of course, that he can be asked in either House of Parliament about the performance of his duties, which is a most useful remedy. However, though I desire that the Minister should have some powers, I do not desire that he should have completely unlimited powers of which he is the only judge. Therefore what I have tried to secure by these words is that the Minister, if he is to act, can act only if one of two different sets of circumstances is satisfied. The first is, if every London borough concerned has agreed about his action. In that case he can give a direction to the Greater London Council, if every London borough concerned agrees. Of course, that will not prevent his being questioned on his action in Parliament, but that is one of the circumstances in which he can intervene, to give a direction or take the other steps which are set out in the clause.
He might want to intervene on good public grounds when he disagrees both with the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. Then I say he should seek the authority of Parliament. That is the scheme of my Amendment: that the Minister can intervene in the way described in the clause, but before he can lawfully intervene he must either have the agreement of the London boroughs concerned or obtain the sanction of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, leave out from ("unless") to the end of line 13 and insert the said new wards.—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD CHESHAM: I listened with some interest to the explanation which underlay the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, because I had not quite been able to anticipate in advance what might be his argument, which, to be absolutely honest, I found a little surprising. First of all, to take the beginning of his Amendment, the part of Clause 9 that he wishes to leave out specifies the criteria by which the Minister is to determine whether to use his reserve powers in traffic matters. That was put in by a Government Amendment in Committee in another place in order to make it clear that the Minister's powers are for use in the last resort, and that, for instance, a mere matter of a difference of opinion between him and

1399
the G.L.C. is not a sufficient reason, but that he must be satisfied that his action is necessary to secure the proper fulfilment of the duty which is placed on the G.L.C. in the earlier part of the clause. Despite the fact that my noble friend tells us that he does not want the Minister to have unlimited powers, he sweeps all that away in the first part of his Amendment and substitutes other conditions for those criteria, which would take the decision away from the Minister.
He told us what the proposed new conditions are: that the Minister must have either the consent of every borough concerned, or else the approval of Parliament by Resolution of both Houses. But, apart from that, my noble friend has now removed the criteria which limits the Minister from acting in the last resort. He can now seek, at any rate, the consent of the boroughs concerned or the approval of Parliament, so far as I can see, on any ground that he pleases—it may be a difference of opinion or something of that kind. As I see it, it removes the limitations which the Bill places upon him and which we are going to consider in a moment—I will be moving exactly what those limitations are, spelt out rather more closely.
May I deal first with the requirement that the Minister's action must have the consent of every London borough concerned? One of the reasons why he has reserve powers at all is to enable him to intervene on behalf of a borough if there should appear to be some reason to do so. But the purposes of his powers are wider than that. There is the national interest, which my noble friend mentioned. There is the protection of third party interests, not only the interests of the boroughs concerned, which might require his intervention. There are such matters as the effect of loading restrictions on trade, of one-way schemes on bus routes, of heavy traffic on amenities, of busy traffic on safety, and so on; and where the boroughs concerned may or may not take the same view as the G.L.C.
There is the matter of the police. They have greater traffic responsibilities in London than they have outside London. They have their own power to make traffic experiments as well as their day-to-day duties, and they have a lot of experience in that field. But what they
1400
have not got is so close a relationship with local authorities in London when proposing their traffic measures. The G.L.C. may refuse to adopt a proposed police experiment, and that might be with or without the consent of the borough or boroughs concerned, and the Minister might have to intervene. But apart from that, the delay that may well be involved in securing the formal consent of the boroughs concerned might prejudice the success of the Minister's action, especially if his action was to revoke or to vary an order already made by the G.L.C.
Before giving a direction to the G.L.C. the Minister has, of course, to consult them; and one of the subjects for consultation would undoubtedly be the views of the boroughs concerned. Obviously, the Minister would take the boroughs' views into account in determining whether or not he should exercise his powers. If he were unable to secure the consent of the boroughs he would then, as the Amendment has it, have to seek approval by Resolution of each House of Parliament. That would be an even longer process, and in some instances that might be most important. In any case, I do not think it can honestly be argued that the Affirmative Resolution procedure in the kind of local measures that would be under consideration would not take Parliamentary control a little too far. Such control is usually reserved for general matters that have real national importance, and traffic regulation, surely, is more a matter for local government.
I may add that the local authorities are already responsible outside London, and under this Bill a local authority will be responsible inside Loudon; and they are subject in the same way, in both cases, to the retention of certain reserve powers by the Minister. His reserve powers in this case are no greater than exist to vary or revoke the traffic regulation Orders of other local authorities throughout England and Wales. He does not have specific Parliamentary control there, and I do not think it necessary for him to have it. I seriously think that the Amendment to which we shall shortly come is a better answer than the Amendment proposed by my noble friend.
LORD SHEPHERD: I was to-night looking for something on which to twist the Government's tail, but I am afraid

1401
this is not the Amendment one could use to do it. My friends groan, but I am afraid that it would be quite wrong for us to support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Could you not twist the Amendment?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, I could do that. If the Amendment were accepted we should have a situation in which the Minister could take action in regard to the Greater London Council's responsibility without consultation with the Council, but merely by consulting the boroughs or by coming to Parliament. This could well create a dangerous position where, if the Minister wished to take action and the Greater London Council were opposed to it, he could then send down some of his friends to the boroughs and persuade them to give the necessary approval to it. Therefore, one might well find the Minister using the borough to upset a decision taken by the Greater London Council. I do not say that the Minister would adopt such a course, but there have been occasions when things have not been as right as they should have been. Therefore, I would strongly support the Minister—I regret having to do so—in suggesting that this particular Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD CONESFORD: I am grateful both to the Minister and to the noble Lord. If I might first reply to the noble Lord very briefly, he is quite wrong in thinking that the attitude which he is now taking would be in the interests of the Greater London Council. What I am suggesting is a limitation on the Minister's right to overrule the Greater London Council. At the moment, and even under the Amendment to which we shall come, he will have no such limitation.
Having said that, I was going to say to Her Majesty's Government that, fin any event, I regard the Government Amendment to which we shall shortly come as so great an improvement upon what is in the Bill, that I certainly should not divide the Committee for the purpose of preferring my solution to that solution. I think that possibly it might be said that my solution is too drastic, that it goes too far. It may well be that the Minister's solution does not go far enough, in the sense that it still leaves the Minister completely
1402
the judge of the necessity. It is perfectly true that he can be questioned in Parliament, but on these traffic matters he can overrule the Greater London Council without any limitation whatsoever. That, I think, might be going too far. Nevertheless, greatly preferring as I do the Amendment to which we shall shortly come to what is in the Bill as it at present stands, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: The words which I am here moving to take out and replace with those on the Order Paper, are part of a Government Amendment which was inserted in Committee in another place to make it quite clear that the Minister's reserve powers in the traffic section of the Bill are intended only for use in the last resort, when, in his opinion, his action is necessary to secure proper fulfilment of the duty placed on the Greater London Council earlier on in the clause. On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Conesford criticised the words concerned ("incomprehensible", I think, was the word he used) and noble Lords opposite have put down a very similar Amendment. Indeed, it might be convenient to consider the next Amendment at the same time. It would appear that there is a good deal of community of purpose between our two Amendments. I am bound to say that I am advised that the words I move to leave out do say in very precise legal language what we want to say. I am hound also to admit that it is a little too precise for me; and it is quite evident, from remarks made in both Houses, that the full meaning of the words as printed is a little difficult to understand. Therefore, we carefully examined the clause and put down the Amendment which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 13 and insert ("having regard to any matters appearing to him to be relevant, that the Council's duty aforesaid is not being satisfactorily discharged by the Council and that it is necessary for him so to do in order to secure compliance with that duty.").—(Lord Chesham.)
9.31 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: We are delighted to hear that there is this community of purpose over this Amendment. In fact,

1403
our Amendment appeared on the Order Paper first, although it is here printed afterwards, because we made a slight mistake in the line. It originally appeared as No. 105, which now has some asterisks to it. But this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has moved meets our point pretty completely and adequately. I must admit that I have consulted a legal friend on this, and he supports my opinion. This supports the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham; so I think it must be a pretty good Amendment which the Government are now moving, and we are prepared to accept it.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move this Amendment, which in itself is paving the way to Amendment No. 106. I can speak very briefly. It is very much on the same theme as that which we have been discussing and which the Government themselves have granted, perhaps in a more limited way. In later parts of the Bill we have the requirement of a Greater London Development Plan. We feel very strongly indeed that the Minister, by this Amendment, should not be in a position to make an order which the Greater London Council feel would be detrimental to the Development Plan. It is as simple as that; and, with those words, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("do") to the end of line 13.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: I do not want to create any difficulty for the noble Lord here, but the moving of this Amendment, No. 104, puts us in a slight procedural difficulty, because, by the acceptance of Amendment No. 103A, the words he wants to leave out are in fact no longer in the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is very simple, then. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: Amendment No. 106, will, in fact, be able to stand on its own, without any paving. When we put this Amendment down we did not anticipate any Government action, which we now know they have taken. Therefore,
1404
I beg to move, and the words I spoke earlier stand.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) If it appears to the Council that any action taken by the Minister of Transport under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection is detrimental to the Greater London Development Plan, the Council may apply to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for a public local inquiry into such action and that Minister shall either hold an inquiry accordingly or certify to the Council that in his opinion the public interest requires that no such inquiry be held.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HASTINGS: Does the noble Lord not wish to speak to this Amendment?
LORD SHEPHERD: I have already spoken.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry. I am getting a little confused. I should like to take in three stages Amendment 106, which asks that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should be able to order a public inquiry in certain circumstances. First, I would put it to the noble Lords opposite that it is in fact very unlikely that a measure taken by the Minister of Transport under paragraph (a) or (b) of Clause 9(2) would, in fact, be detrimental to the Greater London development plan in the true sense. It might appear, in short-term, contrary to that plan in certain circumstances; for instance, to route traffic through areas scheduled in the plan for development as residential areas. But it would not necessarily be against the long-term plan if the new road system permitting that development were not at that time available. That sort of circumstance could arise.
On the other hand, in respect of other matters referred to in this paragraph—there is the matter of direction to the Greater London Council under Clause 13(2) concerning parking meters—the Minister must already follow the procedure laid down in that clause which governs the publishing of proposals which are mentioned specifically in the clause; the objections mentioned in that clause that the Minister must take into account; and also references by way of the Road Transport Act, 1960, to the publishing of proposals. Then another point. Before taking any action at all under these paragraphs (a) and (b) the Minister must

1405
consult with the Greater London Council and ascertain their views, as is laid down under Clause 10(7), 11(7) and 13(2)(a). As a result, he would have to take into account all those matters which the Greater London Council have to take into account, such as amenities and non-traffic aspects, before deciding on the particular measure.
Therefore, in the first place, I would put it to the noble Lords opposite that this Amendment is partly—I would say wholly—unnecessary. There is this process of consultation, and one would hope that any difficulty or disagreement would be smoothed out and that the Minister would not find it necessary to take any action. Moreover, we have just passed an Amendment which is restrictive of the Minister of Transport's powers (the Amendment which my noble friend has just moved and which has been accepted) saying that he can act only if the Greater London Council are not carrying out their duties. These reasons alone, perhaps, are sufficient to show noble Lords opposite that they need not press their Amendment.
There is, however, one other point; and this is decisive. It is not clear from the wording of the Amendment what would happen if the Minister of Housing and Local Government did hold an inquiry under the terms of the Amendment, and what would happen as a result of that inquiry. Is the Minister of Transport then to be overruled by the Minister of Housing and Local Government? Surely that is, by all recognised standards contrary to the concept of the corporate responsibility of the Cabinet. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that, if they were in office, they would never consent to putting one Minister against another. Lord Shepherd's own words, when speaking before dinner on the first Amendment, were: "You cannot put one Minister against another". That is what this Amendment is asking us to do. On all the grounds that I have put forward—the lack of necessity; the process of consultation; the restrictive Amendment which we have just passed on the Minister's power; and the fact that we cannot divide the Cabinet's responsibility by putting one Minister against another—I
ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope that the noble Lord does not think that I am as naive as possibly I look. I cannot believe that there is always unanimity in the Cabinet. My Amendment merely asks that where, in the opinion of the Greater London Council, an Order of the Minister is detrimental to their development plan, a public inquiry should be held. Obviously, it has to be called by a Minister, and in this instance it seems to me that the appropriate Minister would be the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He would call for an inquiry, the purpose of which would be to bring the facts together, to allow the interested bodies to deploy their arguments and to have a report made by an independent inspector or assessor. Then it could be clearly seen where the difficulty is and who is being reasonable or unreasonable. That is the purpose of my Amendment. Of course, lit is restrictive on the Ministry of Transport. That is the intention.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, remembers the Highgate scheme. We always use this in regard to Mr. Marples. But it could well have gone through, if it had not been for a few vocal Members of your Lordships' House and of another place, for without them I do not believe that the local authorities would have been able to stop the scheme. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would say, but I do not think that the local authorities could have withstood the pressure of the Minister. I feel strongly that we should see that the Council is in a clear position in regard to the Greater London Development Plan, so that where the Council feel that an action of the Minister is detrimental to its overall plan a local inquiry should be held in the interests of all concerned.
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 49.*
* See col. 1417.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Henderson, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

Archibald, L.

Crook, L.

Lawson, L.

Longford, E.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Luke, L.

Abinger, L.

Dudley, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L

Ailwyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Margesson, V.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falmouth, V.

Milverton, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Molson, L.

Cawley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monck, V.

Chesham, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Monsell, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Furness, V.

Newton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gage, V.

Poulett, E.

Conesford, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Craigton, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Sandys, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hanworth, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Davidson, V.

Hastings, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ilford, L.

Willingdon, M.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wolverton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move this Amendment. Subsection (3), which we seek to omit, provides that it shall be an obligation on the part of the Greater London Council to appoint a director of traffic. I do not think there is a Government Amendment to do what I want to do. I have two points on this Amendment. One is that I do not like the term "director" in relation to chief officers of local authorities. It almost sounds as if he is superior to the council: it is not a proper designation. "Chief officer of traffic" would be all right, but "director of traffic" sounds as if he were directing the traffic, which I am sure the poor man will find he will not have a chance to do. Half the traffic will direct itself.
Secondly, I do not like the term "director." The people who direct, the people who decide, are the committees of the council and the council itself, and not a chief officer. Therefore, the designation should be "chief officer", or some other harmless name which does not fill the man with ideas that he is really the boss of the Council and the boss of London traffic. He is not—he is an instrument of policy. I do not like the Bill deciding what chief officers the Council should appoint. It is right that the Bill should confer functions upon the Council. But it is for the Council to appoint such chief officers as are expedient and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. If you put into
1408
the Bill that they shall appoint a director of traffic, you might as well also put in the Bill—as I think you do somewhere, and there is more case for it—that they must have a clerk: they must have what you call a "treasurer": and, by the way, that should be "comptroller", which is the name of the financial officer of the London County Council and is a more dignified title than "treasurer".
But I would not go any further than that. You might still say they must have an education officer—though again, some local authorities call them a "director" of education which I do not like. You might as well direct them to have a chief officer of the public control department and so on. These are domestic matters for the local authority. It is for Parliament to confer upon the local authority the functions which it has the power to discharge. It is for the authority to arrange their administrative set-up and decide what chief officers should be appointed and what titles they should be given. And, having appointed them, they ought to let them do their work and see to it that they do their work—unlike one chief education officer in the provinces, who seems to spend a lot of his time on the British Broadcasting Corporation instead of getting on with his job. The London County Council have a good practice on that. Their officers could not do it without specific permission of the General Purposes Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Ilford knows. And then, poor things! if they earn any money on it they have to hand it over to the County Fund, unless the Council otherwise decide. This man, a chief education officer, I should

1409
think a pretty competent fellow, appears on "Any Questions" and Heaven knows what! on the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is quite wrong, and I should not be a bit surprised if it were not partly caused by being called a "director".
I ask the Government not to use the word "director" or to stipulate, any more than the minimum essential, what chief officers are to be appointed. This is the business of the local authority, which they are quite competent to discharge. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings will see his way to accept this Amendment as it is, or at any rate, in spirit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)
LORD CONESFORD: The case for deleting this subsection is overwhelming. I developed it in my speech on Second Reading. This is one of the very few compulsory appointments in the Bill as it stands. There is no obligation to appoint a chief planning officer; there is no obligation to appoint a chief architect; but there is am obligation in the Bill as it stands to appoint a director of traffic. Therefore I made it absolutely clear on Second Reading that I was going to put down an Amendment to delete this subsection. The same thought occurred to the Opposition, with the result that my name and that of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross appear, I suppose for the first time in history, coupled with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
But the case is even more overwhelming because the Government now agree with it. The next Amendment on the Order Paper shows that the Government also agree to delete this subsection and, as the whole Committee is agreed, I should have thought we can delete it without further delay.
LORD HASTINGS: I think my noble friend Lord Conesford has anticipated my answer, and on this occasion I have much pleasure in saying that the Government agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, on almost every count. I will not argue about whether the title should be "director" or "chief officer", but we entirely agree that the Greater London Council should appoint its own chief officers. I think everybody agrees
1410
that treasurer and clerk are statutory appointments, and must remain so. But I foreshadowed at Second Reading that my right honourable friend was thinking over the whole matter. The office of surveyor was taken out of the statutory list in another place because some people wanted to put in "chief architect"—and "chief planner" has also been mentioned. Therefore we think it is better to take out "director of traffic". At the same time, while we have agreed to erase subsection (3), I would point out that the Greater London Council have been given special new powers and we think it is not quite enough simply to delete the requirement that the Greater London Council shall have a chief officer entitled "director of traffic". Therefore, as traffic management is an entirely new function of local government in London—and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is very much alive to the importance and possibilities of traffic management techniques—
LORD SHEPHERD: Which Amendment is the noble Lord speaking to?
LORD HASTINGS: Both.
LORD CONESFORD: May I reinforce Lord Shepherd's point? There has been no suggestion that any other Amendment should be taken together with 107. Is there any reason why we should not dispose of 107 and then move to such part of 108 as survives?
LORD HASTINGS: That is quite agreeable to me. I said I agreed to the deletion of subsection (3), and I thought it might be convenient to go on. Let us put this one first.
10.2 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): I think this Amendment wants a little rewording. I suggest the Amendment should be: Page 10, line 13, at end insert the new subsection (3) as printed.
LORD HASTINGS: Thank you. That is really why I was continuing, because there was this line in front of the Government Amendment. As I was about to explain, we thought that the mere deletion would not be sufficient because these are new powers, and very important powers, being given to the Greater London Council. I think it is reasonable

1411
that with the background that we have of general knowledge and experience in traffic requirements and traffic management in Greater London as a whole, my right honourable friend would really be failing in his duty when handing over his responsibilities, which, after all, have been Ministerial responsibilities for a great many years, if he did not satisfy himself that the Greater London Council were setting up a really effective organisation to deal with the traffic problem. Therefore, we are asking the Committee to accept these words, so that the matter shall not be entirely overlooked. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
"(3) The Greater London Council shall before 1st April 1965 make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport with respect to the control of the discharge of the Council's functions by virtue of sections 10 to 15 of this Act.")—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SHEPHERD: The Minister has said that the Minister of Transport feels that in view of this new authority he should have the power to see that the Greater London Council have carried out their initial duties with responsibility and diligence. Perhaps there is a case, but it would seem to me, reading the Amendment on its face, that the Minister is still retaining what one might call dictatorial powers. First of all, what do the words, "make arrangements to the satisfaction" mean? Does this really cover staff, the number of staff, the quality of staff, the policy of staff? "Arrangements", can cover quite a wide range—not only staff, but even policy. I would ask that first.
Then how long does this power remain? If the Greater London Council have to satisfy the Minister that what has been created is satisfactory, does that mean that the Greater London Council have, irrespective of what may be their decision, to see that those same provisions of staff have to continue year by year and if there is to be a change to seek the Minister's approval? I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me in that matter. I frankly do not like this Amendment as it stands. I can see perhaps the limited point of the Minister's being satisfied that a new authority has created a sufficient body, but even then it is a reflection upon this new authority
1412
that the Government are setting up. They have decided that this is the right type of organisation and yet they say, "We must be satisfied that it can do it". That is what the Minister has said this evening. If the Government feel they wish to have this power no doubt they will take it, but I think as a Committee we are entitled to know what "making arrangements" means. Before I sit down, may I apologise for infringing the Rules of the House. I was trying to make a negotiation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the convenience of the House and I took a short cut.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The points raised by the noble Lord are really two. The first is what are the contents of the phrase "make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport"; and secondly, how long has this got to go on? I can answer the second one quite shortly. These arrangements which have to be made to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport have to be made before April 1, 1965, and after that date this subsection will be spent.
As to the first point I do not think one need make terribly heavy weather over this. This is a new and important authority and this will be one of its most important functions. It does not seem to me unreasonable to say that when it starts the arrangement to discharge these important duties it should show them to the Minister of Transport and get his expression of satisfaction with them. I do not think that is really a revolutionary proposal at the inception of a new authority performing new duties. It would seem to me to be reasonable, so that they can develop and progress with the Ministry's help. It is an assisting process right at the beginning.
As to the content of the phrase, "make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport" that is widely drawn, I agree; but again I think it is desirable. If one is to create the pattern to start off with, then I think it would be a mistake to limit the scope of this particular subsection by saying only particular, specified matters and not general. I would stress the fact that this has to be done before April 1, 1965, and when it is done—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is a single operation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, and I have intervened very shortly at this hour of the night in the hope that I might allay some of the fears and perhaps lead to the matter being concluded.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made a case for the Amendment in his usual and mostly persuasive style—it is not always, but it was this time. However, I would point out that this Minister of Transport is a gentleman who has been a kind of Czar or Stalin of London traffic. He has accumulated these powers, and he frankly enjoys exercising them, especially when the Press and television are there. But what he is asking for is that the Greater London Authority, before April 1, 1945—I should say 1965; excuse me if I have 1945 in my head; then things were much better—must make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister with regard to the control of and discharge of the Council's functions by virtue of Clauses 10 to 15.
There are two points on this. One is "before the 1st April, 1965". I am open to correction, but my impression is that the Council is constituted in 1964, which we think is a year too early; it is then constituted side by side with the continued existence, until 1965, of the existing local authorities. I think I am right. I beg your Lordships' pardon: it is 1964 when they come into office, side by side with the others, and they do not physically start functioning, so far as I can understand it, until April 1, 1965. Therefore, they are in the difficulty that they are asked to produce this administrative scheme and policy before they are physically functioning—namely, in the year April, 1965.
Let us look at these Clauses 10 to 15. They are a mouthful; and if the Greater London Council have to satisfy this particular Minister, they will find he takes a bit of satisfying. Clause 10 deals with traffic regulation in Greater London; Clause 11 with experimental traffic schemes; Clause 12 with powers in respect of traffic signs, et cetera Clause 13 with parking accommodation in Greater London; Clause 14 with other road traffic functions in Greater London; and Clause 15 with supplementary provisions as to road traffic. This is a large mouthful upon which they have to be prepared
1414
to produce to the Minister, presumably, their administrative organisation, their executive organisation and their policy. I think it is a lot. I think that if you confer functions on local authorities you must trust them reasonably to discharge those functions adequately, as I am sure that this body will if it comes into existence, otherwise there could be months of delay before they have satisfied the Minister as to what they are doing. Then the Lord Chancellor may say, "But the Minister must have some power to see that they are going to do their job." He has considerable power under this Bill—I think too much power—to give direction and to approve certain things. I think he has too much, just as I think that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has in respect of planning.
Secondly, he will make grants in aid towards road construction and maintenance, and thereby the Minister always has a power to say, "I am not satisfied that you are doing such-and-such a thing right; I may stop your road grant or diminish it." There are all sorts of powers. In any case, I am quite sure that the Greater London Council will be willing to confer with the Minister and agree with him about things; but I do not like this idea that, before a local authority gets going they have to produce policy, administrative set-up, executive schemes, for the approval of the Minister. That is not British local government, and it ought not to be. I would beg the Lord Chancellor to think again about this, because, believe me, if he leaves this as it is Mr. Marples could give this local authority a very difficult run for their money—or his money.
LORD CONESFORD: There are, I think, two strong objections to this new clause that it is proposed to insert. The first is that nothing whatever of this sort is required here. The only reason why it appears here is that somebody thinks that it slightly wraps up the capitulation involved in taking out what was there before. That is the only reason for putting in anything. By bringing in a Bill with these provisions the Government have shown quite clearly that they think that the Greater London Council is capable of performing these functions. They have retained

1415
reserve powers in case it does not do so. But why they should want to say that some arrangements have got to be submitted beforehand, I cannot see. It seems to me to be completely insulting to the new authority that it is proposed to set up. That is the reason why nothing is required in this place, but, if anything were required, this is unworkable and impossible. This refers to making "arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister". What happens if the Minister is not satisfied? Unless it is suggested that this is to impose an absolute veto, that he can say "No" to anything, this becomes completely unworkable.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be very familiar with the principle of law—which I shall probably get slightly wrong—about the impossibility of enforcing an agreement to enter into an agreement, because one gets into endless difficulties. But here the subsection is saying, in effect, that the new local authority have got to agree with the Minister. What happens if they do not? It is quite possible to say that they shall submit certain plans to the Minister and then to go on in the Statute to provide what happens if the Minister does not like it. But to put in a Statute that the authority that is to be set up has got to "make arrangements to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport", is to say something that is not merely insulting but also completely unworkable.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At this late hour I do not think I had better embark upon a prolonged argument with my noble friend Lord Conesford. We have had many arguments in the past, and I have no doubt we shall in the future. But I do not think this is completely unworkable; I do not think it is insulting. And when my noble friend says "It is saying in effect…", I know he is going to say something which is not the same as is provided in the clause; otherwise he would not have used the words "in effect". I disagree with my noble friend on that. I think the clause does put a duty on the Greater London Council. I do not think that it will be a difficult duty for it to discharge. There is a lot of work for it to do in planning, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, but he was inaccurate, if I may say so, with respect to him, in saying that this provision contemplated arrangements with regard to policy—that is, planning arrangements in respect of the control of the discharge of the council's functions. I do not think I need say more on this. This is not to cover up the deletion of subsection (3) from the Bill in its present form, but is something which my right honourable friend thinks is desirable.
10.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Luke, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dudley, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Boston, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margesson, V.

Chesham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monsell, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Craigton, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Poulett, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Sandford, L.

Davidson, V.

Hastings, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Inchcape, E.

Willingdon, M.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cowley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Archibald, L.

Furness, V.

Sandys, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Gage, V.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Longford, E.

Wise, L.

Colyton, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Conesford, L.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have to announce that in the Division on Amendment 106, the number of Lords who voted "Not-Content" was 50, and not 49 as announced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Dilhorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.