Lords Sitting of 14 April 1964

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 Earl of Morton—Sat first in Parliament pursuant to Section 4 of the Peerage Act, 1963.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY AND IRISH EXPORTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, to draw attention to the fact that the word "apparent" has been omitted before "refusal".
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their refusal to consider representations by the United Kingdom wool textile industry aimed at arresting the alarming shrinkage of its hitherto valuable export trade to U.S.A., they will now state why they continue to extend marked privileges for Eire textile export to U.K. to the disadvantage of U.K. industry.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government always give the fullest consideration to representations from the United Kingdom wool industry on any matter affecting the industry's interests. This certainly includes the representations to which the noble Lord refers. As regards imports into Britain of wool textiles from the Irish Republic, these are governed by the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreements of 1938, 1948 and 1960.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in regard to the second part of the noble Lord's reply, is it to be understood that there is no likelihood of any attempt being made to limit this apparent injustice to British industry when the inflow into this country is free while products going to Ireland attract a high duty? With regard to
350
the first part of the reply, I would ask him to be more categoric and to say whether it is to be understood that Her Majesty's Government, in view of the statement made by Mr. Dean Rusk on March 18 that on the previous day they had expressed their unwillingness to discuss the problem, are willing to discuss the suggestions put forward by the wool textile industries of the United States and Europe, if approached by the United States so to do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, the duty from the Irish Republic is at present suspended because an import quota is in force for all cloths weighing 4½ ounces a square yard or more. The quota has been increased from January 1, 1964, by 10 per cent. In point of fact, our exports of woven wool fabrics to the Irish Republic last year slightly exceeded imports from the Irish Republic, although both figures include cloths sent to the United Kingdom for processing and returned to the Republic.
With regard to the second supplementary, Her Majesty's Government have stated on several occasions that they are opposed to the introduction of any new international quota arrangements for manufactured goods. They do, however, give the most careful consideration to all representations which are put forward by the wool textile industry. I do not think that I can add further to what I have said.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It would appear to be rather difficult to understand, if not contradictory. He did not answer my question. I take it that he is unable to answer it, and perhaps that must be accepted. My question was: would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to discuss suggestions put forward, if approached by the United States Government? Perhaps the noble Lord could now answer that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will be well aware of the difficulty of answering a hypothetical question of that character.
LORD BARNBY: With due respect to the noble Lord, the conference held in Paris in March decided that an approach should be made to Her Majesty's

351
Government which would possibly lead up to a world agreement on wool similar to that which already exists in regard to cotton. The belief that Her Majesty's Government are opposed to that has caused this disquiet, and is the subject of my Question. With regard to the second part of the Question, was I correct to understand the noble Lord to say that those imports into the United Kingdom from Eire are subject to quota? If so, it seems to be in conflict with the answer he gave in regard to another of my questions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. The noble Lord said that the imports into Ireland of wool textiles were subject to a high duty. I replied that for the time being the duty is in suspense. In regard to goods coming into this country, the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreements provide for duty-free entry for nearly all the Republic's exports to the United Kingdom, and in some cases a guaranteed margin of preference. In return we enjoy duty-free entry for certain goods and guaranteed margins of preference on a wide range of British exports to the Republic.
Perhaps I might be allowed to comment on the first part of what the noble Lord said. I do not think that it was in the form of a question. The noble Lord will be aware that the negotiations which took place were negotiations between the industries in Paris, and not negotiations between the Governments. As a result of those negotiations, the various industries of the various countries were invited to approach their Governments. I have stated Her Majesty's Government's position on the question of any new international quota arrangements for manufactured goods; that is our position. We are always willing to listen to argument, but we have heard no argument so far that would lead us to change our views in that manner.

ELIM CHURCH MOOR LANE BOLTON BURIAL GROUND BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all words after "That" and insert
"Clause 8 of the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name upon the Order Paper. The last time we discussed this matter I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, was a little piqued because I said that he had been repeatedly saying what his colleagues had been repeatedly saying, that in order to avoid the disadvantages of this Bill one should make a will. I am sorry if I accusd him wrongly. But there is one thing of which I can remind him, and which I think he will admit, and that is that whenever we get into difficulty in this Bill he always appeals to Mackintosh. He says, "Mackintosh says this" and "Mackintosh says that."
I think we want to get this matter in proportion. In the first place, we must

353
remember that Mackintosh quite realised that his proposals would not suit very well the countryside and the country populations of Scotland, and took elaborate precautions to try to adapt them. The Government have thrown all those proposals overboard, and they are now no longer part of the measure that is proposed to your Lordships. In the second place, in order to get this matter properly in proportion I should like to remind your Lordships of a piece of not very ancient history. In the year 1936 there was published a Report called the Fleming Report, and everybody said, "Ah, here is a most wonderful Report. Let us see that its recommendations are implemented. This is a wonderful piece of legislation for the future, and a great Report"—just the same as they did with Mackintosh a little later. Then the voice of criticism arose and considerable criticism was made of the Fleming Report. The authorities thereupon dropped it and it ceased to be discussed, just the same as with the Mackintosh Report.
About a dozen years later the Government of the day, which was the Socialist Government after the war, framed a Bill as precisely as it could upon the lines of the Fleming Report and introduced it as a non-contentious measure. Several Scottish noble Lords on that occasion pointed out that it was not a non-contentious measure; that it was very questionable whether the Bill was suited to Scotland, and they opposed it—very much the same, your Lordships will notice, as in the case of the Mackintosh Report. We were then sent to see the then Lord Advocate (the present Lord Wheatley), and he took a very firm line with us and would not have anything to say to us. He said that we had to accept the Bill and that was all there was to it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will remember sending me to the Lord Advocate. I fared with the Lord Advocate in very much the same way as we fared with Lord Wheatley on that occasion. Then, as our opposition was still undiminished, they got two acknowledged experts, people we all knew to be experts on the matter of the Bill, sent down from Scotland to convince us. I was present on that occasion and I give you my word, my Lords, that those two gentlemen—and they were experts—did their level best to convince
354
us that the Bill was all right. But we still, I am afraid, remained unconvinced.
Thereupon, the Bill got into Committee and we moved to send it upstairs; and it was then that the difference began. We moved to send it upstairs and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, got up and said, "What is this Bill? I want to know more about it." The noble Lord, Lord Thankerton, whose son played such a splendid part in criticising the Mackintosh Report to the W.S. Society, got up and said, "What is this?" The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, who was fully with us at that time, got up and said, "What is this?" Then the Government did something for which I have always respected them. The Lord Chancellor of the time came to the Box and said, "We thought that this Bill was in the interests of Scotland. We thought it was a good Bill, but you continually tell us it is not. I will tell you what we will do. We will not send the Bill upstairs, as that will not put you in any better position. If you will accept it, we will name a Committee under Lord Macmillan and they can go into it and we will abide by their finding." That was a generous and noble offer, and of course we accepted it with both hands.
There is one thing that is perhaps a digression, but it is a little relevant. I should like to tell your Lordships that the principal witnesses examined by Lord Macmillan were the experts who were sent to convince us, and on their sworn evidence (because when on oath they were no longer liable to support the policy of the Department) the noble and learned Lord, Lord Macmillan, tore the whole centre out of the Bill. The first lines were the same and the last lines were the same, but the whole centre of the Bill was different and there was enacted a piece of legislation which was very useful in Scotland. I ask your Lordships to consider: was that not a wise and statesmanlike procedure? Was it not much better than to keep on saying to us, "Fleming", "Fleming", "Fleming"—like Miss Fennell's macaw, which at Boodles was thought to have something to say? That, I say, was a very statesmanlike way of proceeding, and had it been adopted in the present case, it would have served Scotland very

355
well. I contrast that with the attitude of Her Majesty's Government over this Bill.
Now I should like to turn to Clause 8 itself, and I would remind your Lordships that throughout the passage of this Bill I have said that I am fighting the battle of the small man. I do not mean that I consider him small, but in normal parlance these people would be considered small: I am talking about the owner-occupiers of farms who want to leave them within their families—and, of course, some of them have been there for many generations. I know one not far from me, whose family has been in occupation since the time of Charles II, and of another family that has been there for fourteen generations, which is an amusing calculation for your Lordships. These are the people for whom I am really fighting. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 8 has had no Committee stage. That is why I am moving to give it a Committee stage now. Clause 8 was introduced in Committee, and we have never had time to consider its terms and to try to improve it, as one can in Committee. It has simply been presented to us with the attitude, "Take it, or leave it", and we have had to take it.
The first part of Clause 8 reads:
"Where a person dies intestate leaving a spouse, and the intestate estate includes a relevant interest in a dwelling house to which this section applies, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to receive out of the intestate estate … the relevant interest …"
My Lords, it is worthwhile considering what the relevant interest is. I think most of the great estates of Scotland are now in the "form of estate companies. I have not myself a great estate, but my property is in the form of an estate company. Consider what I have in my house. I have a tenancy at will. If I die intestate, my widow will receive a tenancy at will, which is no tenancy at all. She could be asked to remove the day after the funeral. And that is what will happen in a great many cases.
When we come to the owner-occupier farmer, who has not an estate company, we find a very different position. In such a case the wife is to receive the value of the estate, up to £15,000. If we take a farm of 150 acres, in my part of the world that would be just about
356
£15,000. Here I should like to remind your Lordships of one thing: it is a matter which has often been denied to me by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, but it is none the less true, and must be known to everyone of your Lordships who knows anything about agricultural matters in Scotland. I refer to the fact that to-day, and for a long time past, farms have passed from hand to hand at the price, or practically at the price, at which the buildings upon the farms are valued. The land goes for nothing; it is the buildings that matter. However fertile the land is, there are very few cases where the price of the farm exceeds the value of the buildings. That means that in a case such as that which I am discussing the widow will go away with the whole value of the farm, leaving nothing to the heirs.
My Lords, I maintain that that is contrary to public policy. You may call these people small men, but I am perfectly certain that the owner-occupier farmer, whose family has been in a property for many generations, has a larger effect on public opinion, and is a more useful member of society, than a great many people whose position in the world shines much more brightly to people who do not understand these things. The Government attitude on this matter has been, "We are very sorry, but we do not mind if the family is turned out so long as the agriculture of the country goes on." In the first place, the agriculture will go on, but it will not be as good as it was before. In the second place, it will give a shock to public feeling which will not, I think, increase the respect that ordinary, decent-feeling people have for a Government.
There is a third point about this Clause 8 that I want to make to your Lordships, and it is an important one. I am going to say quite frankly that it depends on which spouse it is, but in the case that I am arguing the spouse is a woman and not a man. I say that because, although I have a great respect for women, I think that, however in love an old lady may be with a young husband, if she makes a will she always takes care to put it into the bank. She is never what I may call besotted to the extent that she does not put it away in a safe place, in the bank.
We have been arguing this Bill on the basis of pictures. The case the Government are really arguing is that of two spouses who have lived long together, and one has died and left a widow or widower. But that is not always the case. In these days a wife may be the third wife of a fourth husband, or the numbers may be almost anything. The case that is going to arise in many instances is that of an old man and a young wife. One has known a good many such cases. I do not know if the law has been changed since I was last informed about it, but remarriage, second marriage, always invalidates wills made beforehand. Therefore, the old gentleman has to make a new will, and he may keep it in the house.
The difference between what may be normally expected to be in a man's will and Clause 8 is so very great that the Government are deliberately putting a premium on the action of the wife if she destroys a will to which she has access. I am told that to destroy a will is a very great crime, and no doubt it is. At least, I will admit that it is a very great crime if it is done for one's own interest. But the point is that most people who destroy a will in their own interest can never be found out. Everybody may know that the old gentleman has made a new will, but they cannot know that he has not destroyed it; they cannot know that he has not sent for it and asked his wife to destroy it in his presence. By the very severe terms of Clause 8, a premium is put on the kind of action I have described, and I think that it is a dangerous thing to legislate in such a way as to make crime pay.
For all those reasons, my Lords, I think it would be proper to have a further Committee stage on this clause. If we do not have a re-committal of this clause, if the Bill is reported this afternoon, then whatever faults the Government find in Clause 8 as it at present stands they will be able to bring them up only on Third Reading, and I think it is contrary to public policy to make really major alterations in any clause on Third Reading. For all those reasons, my Lords, I think we ought to recommit this clause, and I therefore beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all words after
358
"That" and insert "Clause 8 of the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Saltoun in pressing for the Amendment; and I will be brief. Before giving your Lordships my reasons, I wish, with respect, to dispose of a sentimental red herring which was produced by two noble Lords opposite during the Committee stage of this Bill. They found that these Amendments indicated the cruel and harsh way the Scottish treated their womenfolk, and indeed they said that we regarded them as chattels. I suggest to the noble Lords a short course of study of Scottish history. They will discover that because the old Celtic laws were so good, they modified considerably the feudal laws that succeeded them. So that up to the present day the lot of the women in Scotland has been far superior in law to that of their English cousins.
We have been told by my noble friend Lord Craigton that this Bill has been strongly recommended by Scottish lawyers. Since I was last in your Lordships' House I have taken some trouble to investigate this statement, and I find, as I suspected, that this legal support is mainly centred in the great cities, and especially Glasgow. But the country lawyers—in my part of the world at any rate—have not been consulted at any stage and are utterly opposed to this Bill. Indeed, some stages will be quite unworkable in the country. We have also been told that this Bill will bring us into line with the law of England, the procedure carried out in England, and that there it has not done any harm. I consider it has done a certain amount of harm, for it has helped to dispossess the farmer and to replace the true farmer with the "cheque book farmer" who, in England since the war, has appeared in large numbers, often for the purpose of tax avoidance and sometimes in an endeavour to get the status of a country gentleman. Although in certain cases this individual brought needed capital into the farming industry, he is not always the most welcome addition to the country scene.
We have also been told that great complications would arise if a farm is situated on borough boundaries. This

359
is the sheerest nonsense. The Land Court which deals with crofts has very wisely had nothing to do with this Bill—and what is a croft but a small farm? Many of these are on boundaries; and it does not appear that the Land Court anticipates any complications. I strongly urge the adoption of this Amendment. It would at least go some way towards mitigating the danger caused by this entirely unnecessary Bill, which has been foisted on to the country through the usual ignorance of country conditions and customs and the unfortunate belief, so marked in the recent railway closures debate, that there is no Scotland other than Edinburgh or Glasgow.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the House will forgive me for taking part in this debate, but as it concerns the economic conditions of the poorer widows of Scotland whose husbands have failed to make a will, I feel that perhaps a woman's voice should be raised on their behalf, and I am anxious to oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord. It is quite clear from the course of the debate on this Bill that the point we are discussing now is the one which concerns those who are opposed to this Bill. May I just quote the noble Lord, Lord Guest, who simply said, and in a very crude form, during the Second Reading debate [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 49), col. 580]:
"…in a small estate where there is little cash and the house and furniture are the main assets, the widow scoops the pool,…"
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, asked: "Why should she have more?".
This, I think, pinpoints the whole issue, and I must confess that this attitude towards the modern wife in the home is absolutely incomprehensible to me and completely unrealistic in this century. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, when he moved this Amendment, sought to focus attention on the farms; but this is special pleading. This does not concern only the farmer's wife, We have been told over and over again that this concerns the widow in the smaller income groups; though I agree that the two speeches that have just been heard—both of which devoted themselves to the farmers' lot—may appeal to noble Lords here who, as are we all, are interested in land.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I think she will do me justice if she also pointed out that we have all along said that this Bill is all right for the towns and not right for the country. It was therefore quite within my brief to discuss the position of owner-occupied farms and not widows in the towns. We quite accept this for the towns.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But I must remind the noble Lord that as Parliamentarians we must realise that the Government cannot make two laws—one for the country and one for the towns. This suggestion is absolutely impracticable; and, as it is, this measure will concern the poorer widow—and I want to emphasise this—in the town and in the country whose husband fails to make a will. The better-off widows will not be touched by it because their husbands, who own land and large houses, have usually already made their wills.
I want to emphasise that when I was listening to the noble Lord just now, he seemed to me to be completely remote from the lives of the ordinary people and from the lives of the housewives in this country who will be affected by this Bill. To-day, women, even in wealthy homes—and certainly in the ones we are talking about to-day—do not sit idly in drawing rooms, waited upon by maids. The wife cooks, cleans, washes and nurses; and the better-off among them take the children to school in the car and very often do secretarial work for their husbands. The wife provides the conditions without which her husband could not earn his income. Furthermore, she provides services which to-day command a high price in the domestic market.
Noble Lords may think that I am being subjective; that I am adopting a feminist approach and cannot see the thing in the proper light. Well, I have the most powerful support. Only last month Sir Jocelyn Simon, the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division, speaking on a fair share for the wife, said:
"The wife should have equal rights to participate in the proceedings of the husband's world. After, all, the cock-bird can feather the nest only because he is not required to spend most of the time sitting on it."

361
He said that men can earn their income and accumulate capital only by virtue of a division of labour between themselves and their wives. He said:
"The law must have regard to the functional division of labour between husband and wife, which frees the husband for the acquisition and accumulation of goods. It ought to permit the wife to participate in this on an equal basis."
Apart from the service which a woman gives in the home, I would remind your Lordships that there are some who have to endure the husband's bad temper, domineering behaviour and his moods. This is not a little thing: but she does it in order to maintain harmony in the home for the sake of her children. How few women leave their homes because they find that their husbands are intolerable bores or bad-tempered men! They will look at their children and say, "I cannot leave them to him." This is not an exaggeration. It is part of marriage; it is the price which many women have to pay.
When a woman knows that her unremitting service has helped her husband to buy the house which we are discussing, and which may well have increased in value (many houses have increased in value in London, and I have no doubt that this is happening also in Scotland), why should she not benefit from it when her husband dies, whatever its value in the market? Why should she not have the right in her old age to sell the house and move into a modern flat, say, in Edinburgh, where she could manage alone? The noble Lord suggests some alternative. But, at a time when it is impossible to get any domestic help, to tie a woman in her old age to a fairly large house and not allow her to move to a flat, is a brutal suggestion.
I have observed that no noble Lord has dared to suggest that the average Scottish housewife is a spendthrift, unfitted to handle money. I think that Scottish housewives are among the most self-denying in the world. And the noble Lord need not worry about the mother changing after the husband has died. A good mother's nature does not change, and she transfers her love to her grandchildren. Why do noble Lords make this mean little attempt to cheat the poor Scottish housewife after the death of her husband? The noble and learned
362
Lord, Lord Guest, put it plainly on Second Reading, when he expressed the fear of remarriage by a young widow, and said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 49), col. 580]:
"she can sell her house and turn out the children the next day."
The noble Lord who moved this Amendment went even further this afternoon, when he conjured up a picture of a man marrying a third or fourth wife. Listening to him this afternoon, I wondered whether I was listening to a debate in some Islamic capital! Surely it is not proposed to frame a law to protect the tiny minority of men who marry for a second or third time an irresponsible young woman. We must not sacrifice the great majority of Scottish mothers for the sake of these men. I would say to the noble Lord, in all gentleness: Who knows? This measure as it stands may act as a deterrent, because it may make these men think more carefully before they plunge into marriage again.
3.15 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, on the technicalities of the noble Lord's Amendment, I put it to your Lordships that this clause has already been fully debated in Committee. The debate lasted an hour and a quarter, eleven noble Lords spoke and there was a Division on one point, in which 83 noble Lords voted. The new Clause 8, as accepted by the Committee, contains no surprises. There is no question of noble Lords being told, "Take it or leave it!", because on Second Reading I gave notice of the change and explained that there was only one change, other than drafting; and I gave the reasons for it. Nothing was sprung on your Lordships in Committee. Your Lordships had the old clause before them in the Bill and the revised clause which your Lordships accepted, was on the Paper.
The Government have no Amendments to propose to Clause 8. The noble Lord himself, who wants to re-commit the clause, has only one Amendment and that is down for consideration on Report. No other noble Lords have any Amendments to make. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that proper and adequate Committee consideration has already been given and that we can move on to the Report stage without detriment to the clause. To some extent, this might

363
be said to be almost a wrecking Amendment, because, as those who would like to see this Bill on the Statute Book appreciate, if your Lordships agree to re-committal of the clause, then, of course, the Report stage cannot be taken at all to-day.
I could stop there, but I imagine that those noble Lords who have spoken would like me to reply briefly to points raised. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, said that some of his legal friends objected strongly to the Bill. He may have forgotten that the Law Society of Scotland represent all solicitors, including those in the country areas—because all practising solicitors must be members. The Law Society strongly support the Bill, and the Council of the Society includes representatives of those areas to which the noble Earl referred. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for putting the case for the housewife. When printed, I shall show it to my wife: it will cheer her up.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, says that he is in battle for the small man, and he makes a sincere case for the owner-occupier farmer, who, I understand from the information I can get, normally does make a will. As the noble Baroness said, what we are trying to do is to make wills for the 9,595 cases out of 9,600 in the course of a year, where a man dies intestate and the heritable property left is under £10,000. Only five out of 9,600 intestate estates in the year 1961 had a value of over £10,000 of heritage. What is our duty? Surely it is to make the sort of will that that sort of man would have made, if he had the opportunity or the sense to make a will. I am quite certain that what he would have done would have been to leave his house to his spouse; and that is what Clause 8 does. I beg your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am a little distressed that my noble friend Lord Craigton finds that this is a wrecking Amendment. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Saltoun wants it to be that. I have great sympthy with him in the suggestion that we have not had a great deal of time to think over this whole question. In Committee stage we were able to make considerable
364
improvement on this clause, but undoubtedly there is considerable anxiety about it and I should have a great deal of sympathy with our trying to look at it further.
However, we have to weigh these things up on balance. We have to try to judge whether what we have obtained so far is sufficient, or whether if we delay this Bill we may lose the whole of it as a result. That is something which I have no doubt my noble friend will consider before he decides what to do.
I would make only one other point. I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, speaking for Scottish women. Of course, the clause as it is is not for either the man or the woman, but for the spouse whoever that may be. When I was listening to her I got the impression that she had the belief that we in Scotland treated our womenfolk badly. I would only say to the noble Baroness that, as I understand the law of Scotland—and we rejoice in this—it treats the womenfolk very much better than does the law of England. Perhaps all her enthusiasm on this question might be better devoted to England rather than to Scotland.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in the absence of the Leader of the House, what are the precedents in regard to re-committal? Without going into the merits, those of us who have listened to the argument appreciate that occasionally we do re-commit a clause. It may be that this would be unusual in this particular instance. I think it would be helpful to know whether that would be so. I may say that I am not discussing the merits of this matter, although I was slightly tempted to join issue with my noble friend Lady Summerskill on the rôle of the man in the house.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is perfectly in order to suggest to your Lordships that you should recommit the Bill, either in whole or in part, and if he succeeds in having it re-committed, then the Report stage is put back for another day, because we cannot take Committee and Report on the same day.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton,

365
first, it has always been the practice of this House to insist on the right of this House, if it is not satisfied with a Committee stage, either to re-commit a Bill or to re-commit part of it. It has always been assented to in this House with great reluctance by every Government, and they have gone to great lengths to avoid doing it. That is really the position to-day. I did this on purpose, partly to bring up this matter and partly because I wanted to get a general discussion on Clause 8.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. She seems to have the same admiration for women that I have had all my life. I was tempted to think that she must be a man in disguise. From her lips the perfect Scottish woman is sometimes mated with a husband no better than he should be. It may interest the noble Baroness if I tell her that all my life I have been fighting as well as I could in recommending that the sheriffs of Scotland, who have more to do with farm servants than any other officers of the Crown, should never forget that the cottar wife is just as important in earning the money as the ploughman or the farm servant himself. I am sorry to say that in the past this has been very much neglected. If the noble Baroness is really enthusiastic in the cause of women, I hope she will devote a little attention to that, because it is something which needs doing, and I should be very glad to give her all the help in my power.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I know that he does not want me to press this Amendment to a Division. I do not think, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said, that we have considered all the implications of Clause 8 sufficiently. After all, what did the noble Baroness, for whose speech I am so grateful, do? She merely drew another set of pictures: Nicholas Hilliard pictures, if you like; but that is only pictures. That is how this clause has been discussed ad nauseam. Everybody draws a different picture, but all the pictures belong to life and you have to try to make a law which suits everybody. I do not think this does. However, I have made my protest, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wish to speak only for a moment, and not to resist the withdrawal of the Amendment. I intervene, not because I wish in the least to become involved with Scottish ladies, or even Scottish lawyers—I have quite enough to do with both in my own country, where we have managed these things very well—but because of one observation which fell from my noble friend Lord Saltoun about the practice of the House in agreeing to the re-committal of a clause. I really must challenge it in the interests of the general procedure of this House, which I think it is important to preserve, because, after all, we are all jealous of the procedure of this House, where we do not have a Speaker who can keep us in order.
I am quite clear—and I think those on the other side of the House who have been concerned with the conduct of this House will bear this out—that it is not at all a question of its being the practice of a Government to resist re-committal on principle. The principle that has always been followed is this. Recommittal is a very unusual procedure, and as a rule the only occasion on which it is agreed to (it is very often proposed; I have proposed it often myself in leading the House) is where a promise has been given that a particular clause shall be reconsidered. Our Rules on Report are rather strict. A Member can speak only once. A new Amendment can then be put down to meet the general sense of what is wanted by the House and it may be an Amendment upon which a good deal of discussion has to take place in the to and fro and interchange of ideas. In order that we may not be fettered by having only the right to speak once, and so that we may get that interchange of opinion and views that we get in Committee, it has then been the practice of the House in a case like that to agree that a particular clause should be recommitted.
But certainly the Scots have had a full run for their money on this clause—more than the ten-elevenths or eleven-tenths, or whatever it was, they always used to get in their favour in finance when I was a member of the Government. Whether it is in the right form or not, I would not presume to say; but I should think every Scottish Peer,

367
and a few English Peers, have spoken several times on this clause. It certainly has been most fully considered, and it would be quite contrary to the practice of the House to re-commit the Bill for this purpose.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I may, with your Lordships' leave, correct the noble Earl, speaking entirely to the matter and within Standing Orders, I should like to ask him to look back through the debates of the last thirty years to see how often a re-committal has been asked for and how rarely it has been granted. I think I could number the times it has been granted on the fingers of one hand. But it has been asked for very often.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Exactly. Nothing could bear out more closely what I have been putting to the House. Anybody who is a discontented minority of one is constantly asking for things—whether it is the Lord or the noble Baroness, both of whom are very vocal in minority cases, and whether it is Scottish widows or boxing—but the fact that over and over again, on the sort of case being put to it now, the House has refused to agree to a clause being recommitted is the most complete justification of the view I have expressed to the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Assimilation of heritage to moveables for purpose of devolution on intestacy]:
3.30 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, with the approval of your Lordships, this Amendment should be discussed with Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 10, 16, 21, 23, 26, 27 and 28. This Amendment arises out of a speech made by my noble friend Lord Perth, so with your Lordships' approval I will move it formally in order to give him an opportunity to speak. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("affect") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("legal rights or the prior rights of a surviving spouse").—(Lord Craigton.)
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I first of all take the opportunity of thanking my noble friend for his series of Amendments, because there was a problem here which worried both my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and myself. I should also like to take this opportunity of saying how sorry my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is that he cannot be here to-day because he has to be at court. He asked me to express his regret, and also his thanks for the various ways in which the Government have met points that he made on the Committee stage.
This is also an opportune moment for me to touch upon a more general matter which affects the whole of this Bill. I have particularly in mind the question of publicity. It may be recalled by your Lordships that when the noble Lord introduced this Bill he said that this was the most important measure for the reform of the law of Scotland that had been laid before your Lordships for a considerable time. I think your Lordships would all agree that this is the case. After all, the rule of primogeniture is no longer to hold sway in the case of an intestacy, and moveables and heritables are to be considered as one. Certainly it is a very important Bill and, of course, many of your Lordships stressed this again and again in the debate.
Many of us have shown our particular anxiety in this Bill—namely, for the small farmer—and we have tried in one way or another to safeguard the interests of the small farmer. Indeed, I have tried very hard over the last fortnight to introduce a new Amendment, but I was advised that if I tried to do this it would be a wrecking Amendment similar to that which was proposed in the Committee stage, so I have not proceeded with it. But the fact remains that this Bill has had and, I feel, will have, very little general publicity. I am not blaming the newspapers for that. In fact, I am not surprised. Legal reform is pretty bare bones and dull stuff, and is really only of interest to those who are affected, if they know they are affected—and I fear that many of them will not know it. I tried to introduce an Amendment to ensure that the Government should give full publicity to this Bill, and I recall

369
that when my noble friend Lord Green-hill was speaking on the Second Reading—or it may have been on the Committee stage—he advocated that the local authorities, for example, should give publicity to the importance of making a will, which is of all the greater significance as a result of this Bill
But I was not able to introduce my Amendment, because I was advised that (if I have the terminology right) it would be a money matter; that money matters were matters which should in the first instance come up in the Commons; and that if I tried I might or might not succeed, but there would be a long debate and I should not achieve my purpose. Therefore, I feel I would rather talk on this question of publicity on this Amendment, as it affects the whole Bill, and ask my noble friend—and I warned him that I was going to ask about this—just what they have in mind in the way of publicity for the Bill.
I do not have to develop the importance of this matter, particularly to the farmer, but I would just say this. If we do not get satisfaction on this question of publicity, then, however unusual it may be, I think we ought to consider very seriously at the time of Third Reading whether we should try to force the Government's hand on the matter. So I hope your Lordships will judge most carefully what may be said by the Government with regard to publicity, and if you feel that what we have been given is not sufficient, then the Government are warned that we will look at it again.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for this Amendment. It is a point which I had noticed before the Committee stage, but I had thought it was so insignificant compared to other matters that I was not going to worry about it. As to what my noble friend Lord Perth said about publicity, so far as my own districts are concerned I think I can ensure that the farmers know all about it. The difficulty will be to get the country lawyers to find out about it, because they are all too busy and do not have much time. It concerns them very much, because it is going to mean a large increase in income to the country lawyer, as the noble Lord knows. They must keep their clients clear on the effects of this Bill, if they possibly can. I think that is the important point.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Perth said about the importance of publicity for this Bill when it becomes an Act. Whether the local authority is really the right channel from which to give publicity I am not quite sure. I speak here with an interest, being a convenor of a county, and I am not quite certain how we shall set about it. There are all the farming organisations and farming publications which are widely read. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, I believe that the country lawyer and solicitor does get time to know what is going on. I have always found that he is well aware of all changes in the law concerning property at every level, and I think it could pretty safely be left to those two organisations.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend Lord Perth on this question of publicity. I raised it to a certain extent in the Committee stage. I gather that one of the means by which the Government intend to encourage publicity for this Bill is through the Scottish Landowners' Federation in their quarterly magazine, and through the N.F.U., who publish an excellent magazine of their own. The snag about this is that although the vast majority of farmers in Scotland are members of the N.F.U., the ones that are not are, I am afraid, the same ones who do not make wills—the dozen or so who leave the whole thing to chance, never see a solicitor in their lives, and never sign a bit of paper. I know a charming tenant farmer who says, "The one thing I have learned is never to sign a paper when I am in this condition"—but he is always in that condition, so he never signs anything in his life. It is these people who have to be "got at" and told that they must make a will.
Unless the Government are prepared to canvass all the farmers individually by post—possibly using this new service which has been introduced, whereby there is mass delivery in particular districts—I cannot see that their publicity will be effective to those who have not up to now made wills. It will undoubtedly be very effective for those who have already done their duty, but that is not the point. So I hope we shall have some concrete promises from my

371
noble friend the Minister of State on how they are going to set about this question.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Perth did not put on the record anything about this formidable group of Amendments, which I think I should do because, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, realises, they make a drafting change which it is well worth making. They make a change in nomenclature only, and do not affect in any way the distribution of estates. My noble friend Lord Perth pointed out that the Bill imported into the well-known definition of legal rights those prior rights available to the surviving spouse on intestacy in Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill. We agreed with the noble Lord, and he will be glad to know that the Writers to the Signet also agree with him. We agree that it would be confusing not to confine the term "legal rights" to jus relicti and legitim, and so these changes add the nomenclature of prior rights of a surviving spouse. The substantial Amendments (and I am speaking to the whole matter now) are numbers 25 and 27. The rest are consequential. I am sincerely grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point.
On the question of publicity, it is true there have been a number of important changes and it is indeed important that the changes made by this Bill in this field of Scots law should be known and understood by all. We feel, and I think your Lordships feel, that the passing of this Bill is an opportunity not to be missed to remind everyone of the importance of making a will. This is how the matter lies at the present time.
The Scottish Landowners' Federation, on their own initiative, have already taken steps to urge owners of agricultural land to make wills, and the Federation's statement has been widely publicised both in the general and lay Press, and it is very welcome. There has already been considerable publicity in the legal journals and I am quite sure that there will be more when this Bill reaches the Statute Book. We have been in touch with the N.F.U. of Scotland, offering them help if they wish it, and they inform us that they intend to publish a statement about the Bill in
372
their journal, which goes to all the Union's 20,000 members. We propose to include an article in the Department's Journal for Scottish Agriculture. This journal has a fairly wide circulation among the farming community and is to be found in libraries and similar places.
When the Bill becomes law there will be all the appropriate Press publicity directed at all sections of the community. This is something about which the Government must be careful to do the best they can. We hope to arrange for publicity through the television and radio authorities, and particularly for the B.B.C. to make some special mention in one of their farming news bulletins—so perhaps the noble Duke's charming farmer either looks in or listens at some time.
Finally, later in the year—and I know that my noble friends are particularly concerned about the farming community—we shall ourselves investigate, and ask the advice of the N.F.U., whether there is need for further publicity among the farming community, and if it is clear that there is such a need we can enclose an appropriate advice with the agricultural returns which are distributed to all farmers in early December. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment giving a separate nomenclature and definition to the new rights on intestacy conferred by Clauses 8 and 9 will be approved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Legal rights of surviving spouse, on intestacy, in dwelling house and furniture]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to add to subsection (2):
"(c) on the application of any person having a contingent interest in the estate the Court of Session or the Sheriff on being satisfied that there are special circumstances of an historical nature connected with the dwelling-house which make it proper that this subsection should apply to the case so orders:"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will see, this Amendment is merely to put back a provision which was in the Bill when it came to your Lordships' House. As it is, the sheriff is going to be asked to decide what an heirloom is, and I do not see why he should not be asked to decide what is an historic house. I am not

373
especially interested in statistics of this matter, but we must recognise the fact that anybody may die intestate. As the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, very well knows, the late Lord Lovat himself died intestate, and it may well happen to anybody. Therefore, I think it would be wise to put back the question which the Government were quite prepared for the sheriff to ask when the Bill came into this House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, at end insert the said subsection.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be that where the intestate's estate included a dwelling-house valued at less than £15,000 and of an historic nature, the surviving spouse would get the value of the house and not the house itself. A similar provision relating to historic houses of any value was taken out of the Bill on Committee. Why? One of the main reasons was the extreme difficulty, as your Lordships know, of definition, and we solved the problem by placing a limit of £15,000 on the value of any house that goes to the widow. This limit would include most of our historic homes without specifically having to define them.
The noble Lord's Amendment poses the question whether, in the case of the smaller intestate estate, there is a real danger to Scotland's history in passing the small historic house to the widow, a danger sufficient to justify the expense of a court action. We have given this matter long and anxious thought in the light of the basic principles of the Bill, the widow's interest and Scotland's interest. It could be held that family connections alone justified the definition "historic". But it is a principle of the Bill that the widow should get the house if at all possible. It is a principle that there should be no preference among the children; nor does the noble Lord's provision give any preference. If the children cannot agree, or the widow has to be paid the money in lieu, the house may have to be disposed of, as he knows, in any case. If "historic" is to mean, as perhaps the noble Lord intends it to mean, that the house itself is of historic merit, then such a house up to that limit of value would almost
374
certainly be the subject of some category of protective listing and so would be preserved for Scotland in any circumstance. That being so—and the same would apply if the house had been occupied by some historically famous person—there is no good reason why the widow, like others in the under £15,000 category, should not have the house and continue to live there should she so wish. So we take the view that we are doing right by the widow and saving her possible expensive litigation; doing right by the principle of the Bill; and doing no harm by Scotland in asking your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not want to press this Amendment, but I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in the statement he has just made. I think he took the line that most historic houses in Scotland were worth more than £15,000.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No.
LORD SALTOUN: Then I do not understand the noble Lord's argument. Would he make it a little clearer?
LORD CRAIGTON: The point was that if the house is valued at under £15,000, if it were of an historic nature, that is, architecturally historic, it would almost certainly be listed in some form of protective listing.
LORD SALTOUN: It may or it may not be. I live in an historic house. It is mentioned by Blind Harry. But when last valued its value was about £2,000. I do not agree with the noble Lord, but I am not willing to press this Amendment as the next Amendment is more important.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Representation in, and division of, legitim]:
3.49 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to leave out subsection (3) and to insert instead:
"(3) Where any person is entitled to claim legitim out of the estate of a deceased person by virtue of subsection (1) of this section or otherwise, he shall be under a duty to collate any advances made by the deceased to him, and the proportion appropriate to him of the advances made by the deceased to him and the proportion appropriate to him of the advances so made to any person through whom he

375
derives such entitlement and for the purposes of calculating the legitim fund only, all such advances must be added back to the moveable estate of the deceased."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deserves a little explanation. Clause 11 is merely a reiteration of the Common Law of Scotland, which says that the younger children of the deceased are entitled between them to one-third of the deceased's moveables. It also says that if the deceased has made advances to his younger children during his lifetime, the younger children must bring these advances into account as between each other. The operation of that law in its full force will make it impossible for the ordinary owner-occupier to go on with his farm. This is not a question of intestacy; this is absolute law which affects a man whether he makes a hundred wills or does not make a will at all. This iron rule means that, of the moveable estate, so much is to go to younger children; and even if he has made advances to them for their education, and to establish them in life, that affects the children only as between themselves, and does not affect the estate at all.
To give a very simple case, let us take a farm of about 90 to 95 acres, which we may value at £9,000. The capital necessary to run that farm will be in the neighbourhood of £100 an acre; that will be another £9,000. You have there a moveable estate of £9,000, and under Clause 12, if it is passed, £3,000 of that £9,000 must go to the younger children, whatever advances their father may have made to them during his lifetime. He may have advanced £10,000, but that does not make any difference. Three thousand pounds must go to the younger children. Anybody who is really experienced in agriculture will know that to take out of the moveable capital of a farm as much as £3,000 is to make it practically impossible for the heir to go on with the farm, which will have to go into the market and be sold. My Amendment would make this alteration of the Common Law. I quite agree that this Common Law has been the law for about 900 years; but if the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, tries to defeat me by that argument, I would point out that the law that has been the law of Scotland
376
for 900 years is now, by virtue of this Bill, going to be torn to shreds. So it is not a very good argument.
The point of my Amendment is this. Let us take the case I gave. Suppose the father has advanced to his younger children £3,000 in all—perhaps £1,000 to one, £1,500 to another and £500 to another—to establish them in life, and then those sums are brought into the estate for the computation of the legitim fund. Your Lordships will see that that will make the moveable estate for calculation purposes up to £12,000, of which the legitim fund will be £4,000, of which the younger children will already have got £3,000, leaving £1,000 to be divided. A farm of that size can bear that amount of unremunerative debt. A farmer can borrow to increase his earning capacity to a much greater extent. He cannot, in my experience, borrow for jewellery for his wife or for some payment for which, to a greater extent, he gets nothing.
I pointed out on the previous stage that it was perfectly simple for any careful father to get round this provision in Clauses 11 and 12 by making advances in the shape of loans. In that case, on his death the £3,000 that he has advanced would be brought into the estate as part of the estate; they will be debts from the younger children. It will have precisely the effect of my second calculation. The legitim fund would be £4,000, of which £3,000 has already been received and there is only £1,000 to divide. The result will be that when the estate comes to be wound up it may have to pay a rather higher rate of estate duty, and that higher rate of estate duty will fall on the younger children, who very naturally will resent it. I put the case as clearly as I can, and I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships. What I am seeking to do is what I think is perfectly fair. If the Common Law says that the younger children must collate their advances as between each other, why should they not collate them against the estate too? With that question to your Lordships, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, his proposal

377
is, in a sentence, that any advance to one of the children should notionally be added back to the whole estate for the purpose of distributing the legitim fund, rather than to the legitim fund itself, thus giving more to whoever inherits the estate at the expense of those children who do not inherit and to whom advances may, or may not, have been made. So far as the object of the Amendment is to help a parent to favour one child at the expense of others or to enable a parent to make provision for one of his children that the child would not otherwise get, this can be done under existing law by arrangements made during the parent's lifetime.
The principle of the Bill is that all children should be treated equally in the absence of an expression of the parent's will to the contrary. That being so, the present rule of collation, which is aimed at securing; an equitable distribution of the legitim fund among the children, seems worth preserving. But in asking your Lordships to substitute a new subsection (3) for the one in the Bill, the noble Lord has sought the deletion, among other points, of the opening sentence, which is:
"Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall be construed as altering any rule of law as to collation of advances …"
I do not know whether—I rather suspect it is—this change in the method of calculation is the limit of the noble Lord's intention. But I am advised that while the Bill preserves the existing rule of law of collation and merely extends it to cover cases of representation, the form of words used by the noble Lord could be held to set a new rule of collation altogether. Advances stipulated as not made towards legitim would have to be collated for the first time. So might advances for the child's aliment or education, or even advances made under an agreement discharging the child's right to legitim; and the child might even have to pay out of his own pocket into the legitim fund. I do not make this a case for opposing the Amendment, because it is not fair to oppose an Amendment on the drafting points of the noble Lord's clause, but it does give the facts.
The noble Lord made a persuasive case where one child should get more than under the present method of cal-
378
culating the legitim fund, and because that child would get more there is an equally persuasive case for the unfortunate brother or sister who gets less. We are not legislating here for farms alone but for the Scottish people in all walks of life, and before we alter, either fundamentally or in the one respect I think the noble Lord intends, a Common Law rule of such antiquity, we must be sure there is a demand and need for such alteration. Neither the Mackintosh Committee, nor any recognised legal channels, nor any non-legal organisations, nor individuals, have asked for this change; neither has the skilled legal opinion available to me. We have no axe to grind. We want to do what is best for the people of Scotland, and here the balance of advice comes down heavily on the side of rejecting this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I left out the first sentence:
"Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall be construed as altering any rule of law …"
because, having read it through very carefully, I judged that nothing in the foregoing subsection had altered any rule of law. That is the only reason why I left that out. My proposal, which, as the noble Lord says, is altering what has been Common Law for 900 years or so, would have the effect of making the children more equal between themselves. It would prevent the child who has received advances from getting very greatly in excess of his share. My proposal would work more equitably. But what I am particularly interested in is the noble Lord's declared intention of going as far as he can to divide up all the moveables of a farmer on his death in such a way as to make it quite impossible for that family to go on holding that land. That is what I have been fighting to prevent in this Bill, and that is the real issue between us.
While I am not going to press this Amendment, because, as I have told your Lordships, there is a perfectly simple way out, I consider the declaration of the Government's intention in this respect one that I greatly regret and one that I think people who have farms which they would like to hand down to the family ought to mark and note. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I wonder whether I could just say a word before my noble friend replies, in order to clear my mind? Am I right in thinking that in order to get round the provisions of this subsection one can loan the money to one's younger children, and that thereby it would be counted in; and that the snag of this is, as I understood my noble friend Lord Saltoun to say, that it would be aggregated for death duties? Was I correct in understanding my noble friend as saying that you could get a discharge by giving the money to one of your younger children, and that you could thereby get a discharge from him or her for his or her share of the legitim, up to that sum of money to which otherwise he or she would have been entitled? If this is so, it seems to me a fairly simple way round this problem. Otherwise, it seems basically unfair that you have either to suffer the penalties of this clause, if you wish to keep the rest of your money more or less together, or else risk paying additional death duties when you die.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this clause does not do anything new at all. It simply preserves the existing rule of the law as your Lordships understand it. All it does is to extend this rule to representation, because under the first part of Clause 11 a child can be represented for the first time. It does not make any new law at all. On the question of the noble Duke, I may say that an advance can be made under an agreement by which the child agrees that that discharges his right of legitim. Money advanced for education in this way is not chargeable and does not have to be collated. But this is a somewhat legal point on which he would do better to write to me.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Legitim not to be discharged by ante-nuptial marriage contract]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("made") and insert ("executed").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Equitable compensation]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, your Lordships on Second Reading objected to the retrospective element in Clause 12, and I objected to the retrospective element of an Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross which is now Amendment No. 15. As was said in Committee his Amendment was based on Clause 13 which also has this retrospective effect. The correction proposed is therefore in the interests of consistency, and it meets the same objection as I had to Lord Colville of Culross's clause, that as it stands the testator may be dead and so be unable to take advantage of the year's grace. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("disposition") to ("the") in line 26 and insert ("executed after").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Provisions as to transfer of heritage]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential and was discussed with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, at end insert ("or the prior rights of a surviving spouse").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provisions relating to leases]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 27, after ("rights") insert ("or the prior rights of a surviving spouse"). —(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Evidence as to holograph wills in commissary proceedings]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given notice of his intention to move to leave out Clause 21. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether I ought not to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to withdraw while I tell my story about this, because I am afraid she is going to be much shocked. Some 27

381
years ago a Bill pissed your Lordships' House. It came into your Lordships' House in one name and it went out in another. It was played to crowded Houses and I can never remember by which name it is called. I always think of it myself as the "New Wives for Old" Bill. Perhaps your Lordships will recognise it under that title. Soon after that measure became law the noble Lord, Lord Alness, on behalf of the Government brought in a Bill to make the law in Scotland more or less equal to that in England. On the Second Reading of that Bill, which I think was on a Thursday, I suggested that the legal rights of a spouse in Scotland—
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking to the Amendment in regard to holograph, or about divorce?
LORD SALTOUN: IS Clause 21 not about divorce?
LORD CRAIGTON: No; it is on holograph.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg your Lordships' pardon. This Amendment is not moved. I have answered that question.
Clause 23 [Adopted person to be treated for purposes of succession etc., as child of adopter]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 18, leave out ("the") and insert ("and in the following provisions of this Part of this Act any")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential; the point has been discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, after ("rights") insert ("or the prior rights of a surviving spouse").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Amendment of Law as to property rights arising on divorce]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to leave out Clause 25. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships. If you have not forgotten what I was saying earlier, I will go on. I suggested that the legal rights of a spouse in Scotland who had been married only a
382
short time and where there was not an ante-nuptial contract were perhaps rather excessive, because sensible people who have property generally made an ante-nuptial contract. Where they did not, it was generally what I have described as a sort of trap marriage. I suggested that to go away with half a man's moveable property, half the man's personal property, and one half of his rents, was a rather heavy penalty to pay for cohabitation of a week or two.
That Second Reading was on a Thursday, and on the following Sunday the Sunday Post made me admire it enormously for its journalistic enterprise, because it came out with a great double page article on these marriages. Those concerned had, with extraordinary dexterity, sought out five or six ladies who had made use of the law of Scotland in this way. The one I remember best said, "Oh yes; I was in love with A, and we put our heads together and decided that we had not got enough money to make a happy marriage. B, who was pretty well off, had shown signs of looking after me, and so I set myself out to allure him, and I had A to make the running when he seemed to be falling off. In due course I married B, and I made his life such a hell for him that he divorced me and I went away with one half of his rents and one half of his moveables and married A—and I am very happy, thank you!".
Her Majesty's Government, none the less, refused to make any alteration in the law. If the Sunday Post managed to hunt up five of these ladies in the short time which elapsed between airing the matter in Parliament and the Sunday, I think there must have been a case which deserved consideration. At any rate, if I am right, that practice has been going on for these last 27 years, with the full and beneficent assistance of Her Majesty's Government; and I should very much like to know what has occurred to change their minds on the subject. That is the only information I want, and if they will give me that I will refrain from pressing the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 25.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I must agree with the noble Lord that in modern times legal rights are excessive,

383
and we are fortified by the Mackintosh Committee and by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. That is why this clause is in the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Orders for financial provision on divorce]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 to 12D are all drafting, and all on the same point. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 22, leave out from ("or") to end of line 24 and insert ("a periodical allowance or both")
Page 18, line 38, leave out from ("of") to ("periodical") in line 39 and insert ("a")
Page 19, line 2, leave out from ("of") to ("periodical") and insert ("a")
Page 19, line 6, leave out from ("of") to ("periodical") and insert ("a")
Page 19, line 10, leave out from ("of") to ("periodical") in line 11 and insert ("a")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Orders relating to settlements and other dealings]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this also is a drafting improvement. There is no change in substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, leave out from ("the") to end of line 38 and insert ("defender from making any such settlement or disposition, or transferring out of the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise dealing with, any property belonging to the defender").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Right of tenant to bequeath interest under lease]:
4.12 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to subsection (1):
"This subsection shall not apply to shooting or fishing leases."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment at least has the merit, which in my opinion the clause does not have, of being crystal clear in its meaning. I
384
do not think it needs any explanation, but perhaps I ought to say a few words about what I understand the clause to mean. If I have it wrong, I hope that my noble friend will interrupt me and tell me so as quickly as possible.
So far as I can understand it, under Clause 29 a tenant is enabled to bequeath a lease in which he has an interest to anyone who might have had an interest in his estate had the tenant died intestate. It applies to anyone who could have had this interest and not necessarily only to the person who would have had this interest had he died intestate. The leases to which this particular provision relates are those which are not assignable at Common Law. It does not include urban leases; nor does it affect agricultural or crofting leases, which are both expressly excluded by subsection (2) of the clause. It does affect sporting leases, mineral leases, and I imagine that it could also affect rather special leases, such as fields leased to make a landing strip for an aeroplane, or something like that, which I do not think would be covered by an agricultural lease.
With non-shooting and fishing leases I think there can be no argument that this is a good thing, because in these cases the person who has taken out the lease for 14 or 21 years may have spent a large sum of money on developing mineral rights, or whatever it may be, and should therefore be entitled to pass on to his heirs and successors the benefits of this expenditure of money. But a sporting lease is in a slightly special category, in that it is a more personal thing: when one grants a shooting or fishing lease, it is granted expressly to that particular person, although one may not say so in the lease. In fact, in most cases it is not the usual practice to have a lease, but to sign on a letter over a sixpenny stamp. Therefore, I feel that shooting and fishing leases should not be subject to the provisions of this clause by which the person concerned is able to pass them on to anyone who might have been interested in his estate had he died intestate.
There are many reasons why one might lease shootings or fishings to a particular person—perhaps, for example, because he was known to be a keen

385
sportsman, or because he fished only with a fly. Many people do stipulate that fishing may be done only with a fly, although I am afraid that, if one leased a bit of fishing to someone whom one knew fished only with a fly, one might easily leave that stipulation out of the lease. Or it might be that the person granted the lease had had the particular subject for many years; and the landlord, although he might want it for himself, might feel that, because he would always be invited to shoot or fish whenever he wanted to do so, he would not stand to lose much by it. Obviously, there are ways of getting round the clause, if I understand it correctly, either by making yearly lets (which is more trouble both to lessor and lessee and may possibly not be acceptable to the late lamented tenant), or by expressly excluding people from the lease, but this could cause annoyance to the late lamented tenant; or if you exclude them by name you might miss out someone simply because you did not know of his existence. I really cannot understand why it is necessary to alter the present position, which seems to work quite well. At any rate, I have come across no cases where it has given rise to difficulties.
I should like to point out that, on the whole—although I agree that there are exceptions—people who take a shooting or fishing lease do not spend large sums of capital on it; and the fact that they take a lease for several years at a time is usually for the sake of convenience, and so that they can plan ahead, rather than because they feel they will not get a return on the capital which they will have to spend. I was therefore wondering whether my noble friend could give some explanation, first as to whether I have correctly understood the meaning and effect of the clause, and, secondly, as to the ways of avoiding what I think is perhaps a rather undesirable facet of the clause in regard to sporting leases. I have drafted this Amendment myself, and should be surprised if it held water and did what I intended it to do. Although I have formally to move it, I intend to withdraw it.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Duke's interpretation of the clause (though here it may be a question of the blind leading the blind) is tolerably accurate. I think I should say a word about the purpose of Clause 29. This clause deals, as the noble Duke says, with rural leases other than the leases of agricultural subjects. Under Scots law there is an implied condition that such a lease cannot be assigned to some other person by the tenant. If a tenant dies, the lease does not terminate on his death: the unexpired portion devolves on the heir at law. This happens whether or not the tenant has made a will. Even if he does make a will, he cannot bequeath the unexpired portion of the lease, which passes automatically to the heir at law. The heir at law is, however, abolished by the Bill.
Clause 16—not this clause—provides that in cases of intestacy the executor may transfer the lease to one of the persons entitled to share in the intestate estate. Thus the person chosen by the executor takes the place of the heir at law. Similarly, Clause 29, which we are discussing, provides that where a tenant makes a will a person chosen by him as provided for in the clause shall take the place of the heir at law. It would have been illogical to give the executor power to make this choice on intestacy, but not to allow the tenant to make the choice when he makes a will. The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be that leases of shootings and fishings would fall into intestacy on the death of the tenant, whether or not he had made a will, and they would have been transferred in consequence by his executor under Clause 16. Of course, in future, as now, the landlord can ensure that the lease comes to an end on the death of the tenant by giving him a lease for a lifetime. That is probably the best solution to the noble Duke's problem.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend very much for his explanation. He is quite right in that my Amendment certainly would not achieve what I wished it to do. Therefore, I have much pleasure in asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to ensure that a testator does not evacuate a special destination by oversight or inadvertence. The provision was proposed by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross at Committee, and agreed to by your Lordships in principle. My noble friend withdrew his Amendment only because it contained an element of retrospection, and by arrangement with him I now move the new clause in its amended form.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
Effect of testamentary dispositions on special destinations
(". A testamentary disposition executed after the commencement of this Act shall not have effect so as to evaluate a special destination (being a destination which would competently be evacuated by the testamentary disposition) unless it contains a specific reference to the destination and a declared intention on the part of the testator to evacuate it.")—(Lord Craigton.)
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I would only say what I said earlier, when some of your Lordships may not have been here. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is unable to be here to-day. He expressed his regrets to your Lordships and wished me on his behalf to say "thank you" for what the Amendments contain following the representations he made at Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30:
Presumption of survivorship in respect of claims to property
30. Where two persons have died in circumstances indicating that they died simultaneously or rendering it uncertain which, it either, of them survived the other, then, for all purposes affecting title or succession to property or claims for legal rights out of property—
(b) in any other case, it shall be presumed that the younger person survived the elder.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 24, leave out from ("claims") to end of line 25 and insert ("to legal rights
388
or the prior rights of a surviving spouse").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "younger" and insert "elder". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will not take very long. If I may, I will move Amendments 17 and 18 together, because they are both the same. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, dealt with this matter to some extent on Committee stage. If two people die under such circumstances that it is not possible to decide which died first, the Bill as it stands at present suggests that the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder. But in that case, in the commonest case of this kind which arises, you are procuring an artificial intestacy, because the general sort of case occurs when a father and son are killed in a motor accident or something like that.
We have been told, if not by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, by the enthusiasts for the Bill, that the proper way to avoid the provisions of it that we do not like is to make a will. Here you have a man who may have made a perfectly good will, and who gets killed in a motor accident with his son. He has made a will in his young son's favour and the young son dies intestate. Possibly it would not even have been possible for him to make a will, as he might be under age. It seems to me to be reasonable that we should reverse that, and say that where two people died under such circumstances that it was impossible to tell which survived the other, the elder who is more likely to have made a will should be deemed to have survived the other. I am told that the present Bill imitates the law of England. That is all very well, but if the law of England can be improved let it be improved. Why should we have a bad law? Why, because the lion has lost its tail, should all the other animals lose their tails? I think I have said enough to your Lordships, and I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 28, leave out ("younger") and insert ("elder").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's point is to some

389
extent met by Amendment 20, which covers the point made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has referred. The order of seniority in which deaths are presumed to have occurred is the order in which, if nature took its normal course, the parties would be expected to die. It is clearly in the interests of all concerned that some such presumption should be made.
At present we have no such presumption in Scotland. This has resulted, in one extreme case, in a person's estate falling to the Crown because, as the claimants could net prove the order in which the deceased died, no one could establish his claim. There is no advantage in presuming whether the elder survived the younger or vice versa, except order and logic which suggests the natural order of the older dying first. I can imagine cases where either order would give the advantage. But the decisive factor here is that the presumption now in the Bill has been the law in England for the last forty years and has, I am informed, worked well. Furthermore, the adoption of this presumption for Scotland has been recommended by the Scottish Law Reform Committee. So, my Lords, logic, precedent and legal opinion all seem to make the case for the Bill as it stands.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I do not think that the noble Lord's logic is better than mine. With your Lordships' permission I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, may we discuss Amendments 19 and 20 together? These Amendments give effect to the intention of an Amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and withdrawn by him for re-drafting. The effect of the Amendment is that, where two persons have died together and the elder has left a will containing a provision for the younger, whom failing for a third person, and the younger dies intestate, then the elder will be presumed to have survived the younger so that the elder's property will go to the nominated third person. Without such a provision, in spite of the known wishes of the elder, his property so bequeathed would have passed to all those who take on the
390
intestacy of the younger. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who is not here, for putting this abstruse point into the law of Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 29, at end insert ("unless the next following subsection applies").—(Lord Craigton.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could tell me why it is necessary for the younger person to die intestate. It seems to me an excellent solution, but I wish it had been rather more widely drawn so that, if the elder and the younger die together, the property should go to the person nominated by the elder and not, if the younger has left a will, to whomsoever the younger person has bequeathed it in his will.
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes, my Lords. But if the elder left his gold watch to the younger, whom failing someone else, and the younger had made a will, there would be no whom failing. I trust the noble Duke understands the point. It is only where he is intestate and therefore the wishes of the elder cannot be carried out.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that this Amendment goes a very long way to meet my point. I think that the noble Duke was on my side, and that my Amendment is preferable. I am not particularly in favour of imitating England, where they have bad laws. I should like to remind your Lordships that the very best English, the most pure English, by universal acknowledgement is spoken in the neighbourhood of Inverness, so even in speaking English the Scots have a little advantage.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend why the words,
"and the younger person has died intestate"
are necessary in this clause, if what he has previously said is correct.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this meets the point made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. If the younger person did not die intestate, then his estate stands on its own feet: if he

391
makes a will, his estate stands on its own feet. But if he dies intestate, and the elder has left something to the younger, whom failing to a third person, then the third person is being deprived of that wish, because the presumption is that the younger died first.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 29, at end insert—
("(2) If in a case to which paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection would (apart from this subsection) apply the elder person has left a testamentary disposition containing a provision, however expressed, in favour of the younger if he survives the elder and, failing the younger, in favour of a third person, and the younger person has died intestate, then it shall be presumed for the purposes of that provision that the elder person survived the younger.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Interpretation]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, leave out from ("relictae") to end of line 9 and insert ("and legitim").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 14, after first ("rights") insert ("the prior rights of a surviving spouse").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 19, at end insert—
(" 'prior rights', in relation to a surviving spouse, means the rights conferred by sections 8 and 9 of this Act").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 39, leave out ("properly") and insert ("competently").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. Clauses 12 and 13, and the new clause after Clause 29, all refer to wills executed after the commencement of the Act. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that such references are to be taken at the actual date of the making of the will, and not to the date of the testator's death. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 7, at end insert—
("(3) Without prejudice to the proviso to section 23(2) of this Act, references in this Act to the date of execution of a testamentary disposition shall be construed as references to the date on which the disposition was actually executed and not to the date of death of the testator.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Exclusion of certain matters from operation of Act]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 28, leave out ("(including") and insert ("or terce or courtesy, or").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Form of Docket]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, at end insert—
("(a) in [part] satisfaction of his claim to prior rights, as a surviving spouse, on the death of the deceased").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to the Title of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
In the title, line 4, after ("legal") insert ("and other prior").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

HARBOURS BILL
4.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The National Ports Council Establishment of National Ports Council, and principal duties thereof
1.—(1) There shall be a Council to be called the National Ports Council (hereafter in this Act referred to as "this Council") which shall be charged with the following duties that is to say,—
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) to insert as a new paragraph (a):
"(a) preparing an overall plan for the development of the harbours of Great Britain;".
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment and the next (they hang together) is to get into Clause 1 of the Bill the basic purpose of the National Ports Council, which is to prepare an overall plan for the development of the harbours of Great Britain. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, explained the difficulty which had been felt about including this provision in the clause, which was that it might be argued that, with that provision included in the Bill, any action of the National Ports Council taken before the overall plan had been produced could be challenged.
I confess to finding it very difficult to follow this argument. Clause 1 is not an operative clause: it expresses general intentions. I think that during the discussion in another place the point was made that the wording was perhaps not very important; but what I have endeavoured to do, in putting forward this Amendment, is to suggest a form of words which will make it plain that the National Ports Council can consider, examine and produce plans for individual ports provided they are directed towards
394
an eventual overall development plan. I think it is agreed in all quarters that that is the object of the Bill. I know that the non-statutory council which is at present sitting has been invited by the Minister to examine certain proposals, and I believe they are doing so, but I am quite sure they are examining them in the context of a national plan. They are not going to recommend certain courses only to find, later on, when the national plan arrives, that what they have recommended does not fall in with that plan.
I think it is important to get this provision into Clause 1, for two reasons. One is that when this Bill becomes an Act it will be the terms of reference of the National Ports Council. Although the intention has been made clear in Parliament during debates, after all, it is not written into the Bill, and the future National Ports Council or a future Minister may well ignore completely the need to produce a national plan because it is not written into the Bill. It is not at all likely to happen in the immediate future, because everybody knows what is intended, but I should have thought it was a sound principle to put this provision into the Bill, if it can be done, in order to remind the National Ports Council of this very important duty.
The second reason why I think it is important is this. I want to see, and I think we all want to see, the National Ports Council get on with the production of an overall national plan, because as the general plan of the Bill is that harbour development will be controlled by the control of capital expenditure until the national plan is produced, the individual port authorities will have to put forward their proposals on a more or less trial and error basis, and a considerable waste of effort and a certain amount of frustration may arise. As soon as we can get the national plan, then I conceive that the port authorities will see the role which each is intended to play and will produce their plans in order to develop within the role which has been assigned to them, and we shall get rid of this possibility of wasted effort and of frustration. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel that these words will permit, as I feel sure they do, the National Ports Council to get on with dealing with general matters before they

395
have actually issued their national overall plan, but will at the same time keep constantly before them the need to go ahead with the overall plan as soon as they can. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("(a) preparing an overall plan for the development of the harbours of Great Britain;").—(Viscount Simon.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): The noble Viscount quite correctly stated what I had said on Second Reading: that there is no objection of principle that I have to raise against what he is seeking to do. I also pointed out, if he remembers, that from the purely legal point of view I am informed that the actual object which he has put before us is, in fact, covered in the reference to formulating comprehensive plans; because I believe it is perfectly good to say that the plural includes the singular in this case. At the same time, I am not trying to argue that that is not necessarily desirable, because it is—as he is quite correct in saying—the real, primary purpose of the National Ports Council.
I must admit, however, that I am a little worried about the impact of importing these words into the Bill. I have given some consideration to this matter and it has been extremely difficult so far to work out a form of words which does not have a limiting effect on the necessary planning functions of the Council. I am sorry to say that that would be the unfortunate effect of the form of words which the noble Viscount has put to us. By requiring that all the Council's planning should be—and I use his words—"with that object in view" (that is, with national planning in view) it would make it necessary for the Council to show in the period when they were drafting a national plan, which I think the noble Viscount will agree will probably take some time, that any plan they produced in the meantime demonstrably had a bearing on the national plan. The noble Viscount may think that that is a rather legalistic argument, and, indeed, it is; but we are, after all, writing legislation to-day, and I think it is important to make the matter perfectly clear as against the possibility of
396
some challenge in the courts in the years to come.
What concerns me even more is that it could then be argued, if we were to adopt the noble Viscount's wording, that when the national plan had been produced the Council's principal function would be finished. That is certainly not what the Government intend. Obviously, the Council will want to see all port development related to the national plan; but there will be new requirements arising in due course and modification will have to be made to suit them. I do not think the port authorities themselves would want to cater for that kind of change. The intention is, and always has been, that the Ports Council shall be continuing in their activities; and I should not want to risk their planning activities being brought to a standstill on completion of the overall plan. Therefore, my main concern, although I can see nothing wrong with the basic principle, is that we do not get any wording into this clause which will inhibit the Council in their planning activities, either at the stage when they are developing the national plan or in their continuing function when they have done so. Therefore I hope the noble Viscount will think about that point and not press his Amendment to-day.
LORD COTTESLOE: It appears to me, though I may be mistaken, that the objections we have heard to these two Amendments all relate to the second of them. I wonder whether it might not be possible for the first Amendment to be accepted. The second Amendment does not appear to me to be essential at all. The first Amendment would, I think, stand by itself, if the Government are prepared to accept it. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think we have to accept the noble Lord's objections to the Amendments as they are drafted; but I should like to ask him to think again. It is perfectly possible to argue—and I accept what he says—that the clause as drafted will enable the National Ports Council to do what the noble Viscount asked. But we have run into difficulties in the past in the particular functions of national bodies—the noble Lord will agree that we have had some trouble over the precise rôle of the air corporations—and I should have

397
thought the case for this Amendment had been made out by the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, thought it was necessary to move it. If anybody is going to be presumed capable of understanding this clause and the Bill and the purposes of the Bill, it must surely be he; and he is not content with it.
Since I think there is no difference in principle as to what we wish to achieve, I would urge the Minister to think again and see whether he can find a form of words, not restrictive, as he suggested this form might be, and accept that, and make it clear that the purpose, among other things, is an overall plan rather than comprehensive but possibly individual plans. I should have thought it very important to set out in this particular clause, in not purely legal language, what the purposes are. It seemed to me that the noble Viscount made his case on this occasion and on Second Reading; and, indeed, the noble Lord accepts this.
I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that it is always difficult, when you are carrying something out, if you have to argue about your terms of reference. It may be perfectly possible for the National Ports Council to remind itself all the time that this is its function; but it might be challenged in certain of its activities. I do not know how serious this objection is; but I see considerable advantage in getting something along these lines into what are really the principal intentions of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that and, in particular, consider the point which was just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think there is much I would add to my argument. I am grateful that noble Lords who have spoken are prepared to accept that there is strength and importance in what I have said. The only thing I would add, which I am permitted to do, is that the National Ports Council, as set up at the moment, share the concern about possible difficulties such as I mentioned in the future. But I will say no more than that, because I am not arguing against what the noble Viscount and other noble Lords wish to do but merely against the form in which it is done at the present time. If it would help the Committee,
398
I would be quite prepared between now and the next stage to have a look at this matter again, as the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, suggested, and see whether we cannot find a form of words—though I cannot guarantee to do so, I will do my best—which meets both the noble Viscount's point and my own point.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wonder whether the noble Lord, in his consideration of the points that have been made, will also consider whether we should not put into this first clause a requirement that when they are preparing this overall plan (as I think they will have to) they will be required not only to have discussions with the Minister, and obtain his consent, but also to have close and continuing discussions with the Railways Board and other organisations in transport, and, in particular, with the organisations that the Government are now setting up for the development of industry and trade in special localities.
I think we may well find that we have too many ports and that some are not particularly well sited in relation to the development of industry in the next fifteen or twenty years. It seems to me that while the Minister is giving consideration to the principle, which I think the whole House accepts, that there must be an overall plan prepared by the National Ports Council, he should see that this is related, not only to the needs of the shipping interests, but also to the development of industry, especially in the new localities in the North-East and Scotland.
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord has raised a fresh issue. I should have thought that the National Ports Council is to be there precisely not to consider merely the interests of the individual ports. I do not want to say more than that now, but naturally I will look at what the noble Lord has said and consider it before the next stage, and perhaps have a word with him in due course.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for the offer he has made to look at this point again. I am also greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for putting the point so clearly. With your Lordships'

399
permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Constitution of the Council]:
4.52 p.m.
LORD HOBSON LORD HOBSON moved to add to subsection (1):
"and of the members of the Council three including the chairman shall be full-time members."
The noble Lord said: I raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill and I think that this Amendment is well worth considering. The chairman, of course, is to be full-time, and there will be from seven to not more than eleven other members of the Council. The Council has been entrusted with large and responsible duties, and it seems to us essential, if they are to do the job adequately, if they are to prepare an all-over plan and see to its implementation, that there should be more full-time members than just the chairman.
Let us look at the time that will be taken to study the plan. Is it to be done quickly at small meetings, with the chairman's views just rubber-stamped, or is there to be full discussion? I envisage that this is going to take a great deal of time. There is also the question of taking the professional advice which the Council will have to take in the building of new ports and in the modernisation and grouping of ports. Frankly, I do not think that this can be done by one full-time man. I think it is giving him somewhat the powers of a dictator. Those who serve on committees know full well that, in view of the time factor involved, the word of the chairman and the full-time officers usually goes. There is a further complication in the amount of travel that is bound to be involved. The ports in Britain are situated North, East, South and West, and to get around them is going to take time.
There is no question here of an Amendment to provide "jobs for the boys", about which we hear so much. If this Amendment were accepted, there would still be a majority of part-time members on the Council. I think that that is a good requirement. I have
400
held the view for a long time, from by experience in industry and in nationalised industry, that it is far better to have the majority of a board who are not functional members. For their experience and knowledge, they can bring sound common sense to bear on decisions. I am not prepared to be as cynical as a former Prime Minister of France, M. Clemenceau, was, when he said that experts were usually wrong in large things and right in small matters. But in view of the work that is involved, particularly in the initial stages, I feel that it is essential that at least three members of this Council should be occupied full-time, devoting the whole of their energies and knowledge to a scheme which is—I will not use the word "grandiose", but, at any rate, very large.
This is the first time we have undertaken an all-over plan for the docks and harbours of this country. We should have three full-time men, backed up with people of vision and industrial experience, who would still be the majority. There is no intention here of "empire-building", or anything of that sort. I think that this Amendment is eminently practical, and I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord on whether he is prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hobson.)
LORD CHESHAM: Before I begin to deal with the Amendment, I think I ought to say that the noble Lord is under a misconception when he refers to the chairman as being full-time. In fact, the chairman of the National Ports Council is not full-time, nor does the Bill require him to be, though I can well believe that the present chairman is devoting practically all his time to this work. I thought that I had better put that point straight, for the sake of the Record. I know from the proceedings in another place that this is something about which noble Lords opposite feel strongly; but frankly, if the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, will allow be to say so, I am still at a loss to understand why. The important point is that the Council is not an executive body running an industry, like the British Railways Board.

401
Even in that case, there is no requirement in the Act that either the chairman or any of the other members shall be full-time.
If I may direct your Lordships attention again to Clause 1, the terms of reference of the Council are to formulate comprehensive plans, to promote the execution of such plans and, in general, to act as guide, philosopher and friend to the harbour authorities. The Council is essentially a planning and advisory body, and I do not see that there is a place for two or three compulsory full-time members. Surely what they will primarily be doing is coming to decisions on matters of major policy. The material for those decisions, much of which will be statistical and factual information, will have been prepared for them by the Director-General, who, of course, is full-time himself, and his full-time staff.
In that set-up, I do not see exactly what would be the function of the two or three full-time members of the Council. I think there might be a certain amount of tumbling over themselves and overlapping with the work of the Director-General and his senior staff. There are in other Statutes, apart from the British Railways Board that I have already mentioned, plenty of precedents for no actual requirement of full-time Board members: I quote the Iron and Steel Board, the British Transport Board, the Docks Board, the Atomic Energy Authority, the National Coal Board, the Gas Council, the Cotton Board and the White Fish Authority. The only contrary precedent I can discover—I must be fair about this—is the electricity industry, in which it is only the chairmen of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Electricity Council who are required to be full-time.
I appreciate that there may be merit in having some full-time members, and I would say to the noble Lord that there is nothing in the wording of the clause to prevent the Minister from appointing a full-time chairman, and as many other members of the Council as he wants to be full-time members, if at some time in the future it seems to be desirable to do this. I think it may well be that when the Council have been functioning for some time, and have a clearer
402
idea of how they are going to go about their work and discharge their duties, they will come to the conclusion that one or more full-time members may be desirable.
LORD CHAMPION: Before the noble Lord leaves this point, can he tell me where I find a reference to the Director-General?
LORD CHESHAM: There is no reference to the Director-General. I was telling your Lordships that the Director-General was there full-time to prepare the material for the Board to consider. There is no reference to the Director-General in the Bill. This was a piece of information that I was putting forward in support of my argument.
LORD SHACKLETON: Has the Director-General been appointed; and, if so, who has appointed him; and, if not, how does he know the Council are going to appoint him? They appoint their officers do they not?
LORD CHESHAM: As I think the noble Lord knows, because I said so on Second Reading, the Council are now operating on a non-statutory basis. It is the intention of my right honourable friend, when he has power to do so— that is, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book—to appoint them on a statutory basis; and I understand the intention is that the Director-General will also be appointed on this basis. I think that makes the matter quite clear.
What I am saying now is that if the Council find they are having to deal with a heavy and increasing amount of the kind of work which the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, suggested they would find themselves faced with, they might well decide it would be useful to have one or more or a majority of their members full-time; and if they came to this view, and represented it to the Minister, it is difficult to see how the Minister of the day, whoever he might be, could refuse to accede to the Council's request and appoint such full-time members. I think it would be better to leave the matter like that, because the situation is fully covered if it turns out to be as the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has suggested.
LORD SHACKLETON: I must say that the noble Lord is helping us by one or two revelations, and perhaps he can

403
tell us a little more about what the Council have already decided on. I may have misunderstood him, but I thought he said that the Director-General was being appointed by his right honourable friend. Did I misunderstand the noble Lord on that?
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord did misunderstand me.
LORD SHACKLETON: So I take it that this non-statutory body have appointed a non-statutory Director-General under their powers in Clause 8 to appoint a secretary and such other officers, and the Director-General will in effect be the chief executive of this body. I should like to urge, whether we put it into the Bill or not (and this is clearly an opportunity to discuss the composition of the Council), that there should be, in practice, a full-time chairman. There is a reason why I think it is necessary in this particular Council. The Council will have to operate a great deal on the basis of co-operation and consent. It will be the public relations within the industry which are going to be extremely important if they are to get the willing co-operation of the various port authorities involved.
I am not sure whether the arguments in favour of a part-time chairman or part-time members, whether they go into legislation or not, are entirely valid. I take it that the noble Lord was talking about statutory bodies of a kind that are not exercising executive powers, because, if I understand correctly, certain heads of the airline corporations work as full-time chairmen, even if they are not supposed to be. Perhaps the noble Lord could clear my mind. Was he talking of a different type of authority?
LORD CHESHAM: I was. I tried to draw a definite distinction for the type of body (whether you call it "authority", or whatever it may be) which has executive functions. I went on to say that the majority of the nationalised Boards which have precisely that kind of authority do not have any requirement, with the exception of the electricity industry, to which I referred, that any of the members should be full-time. I appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, but, quite frankly, I cannot understand why it is
404
considered so essential to write into the Bill that the chairman shall be full-time. I do not see a great difference of effect, if he gives his time to the work, whether or not he is called statutorily full-time. My main point is that, if it turns out to be necessary that he and/or others should be full-time, that can be arranged.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I suggest that the particular reasons which the noble Lord opposite has given, and with which I agree, about the importance of these posts, the qualities which are needed and the co-operation that will be necessary, make it wiser to leave this matter at large? One can easily suppose that you might find an ideal man, with all the qualities which we should all agree are necessary for this post, but who has other interests as well, who would be willing to take the chairmanship on a part-time basis, but would not be willing to give up all his other interests and take it as a full-time job. If it is left at large, you have the opportunity of taking on a part-time basis a man like that, who would certainly give all the time that was necessary to the job; or, if it were found desirable to have a full-time chairman, this could be done. From experience of appointments of these kind, I think it is wise to leave a wide discretion to the Council itself and to the Minister of the day.
LORD HOBSON: In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, the fact of the matter is that if this work is going to involve the whole time of the chairman, what on earth is wrong with putting it into the Bill? That seems to me a very sound reason for doing so. Let us define what his overall duties are. He can have his other interests but we do not want his other interests to be business interests outside his chairmanship of the Docks Board. We have very goods examples of this. If we take our great companies such as English Electric, I.C.I., Dunlop and Unilever, they have a full-time chairman and the companies take good care that they are appointed as such because of the amount of work and responsibilities involved.
I was interested to hear about the "revelations"—the word which my noble friend Lord Shackleton used—with regard

405
to the Director-General. We shall know that his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has appointed him, and that he is responsible to him and to him only. Is that the position? Could we have more clarification? Is it the intention that the present Director-General should be the chairman of the new Ports Council? These are questions which should be answered.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The noble Lord said there is no reason to have a whole-time chairman and to let him have an outside interest. But he would not be able to have an outside interest if it were laid down in the Bill that he should be a whole-time chairman. That is why it is unwise to put such a stipulation into the Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry that there seems to be so much obscurity on this matter; but the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has, I think, misheard me again. I did not say that the Director-General was appointed by the Minister: I said that he was appointed by the Ports Council. There is no question of his being appointed chairman of the Ports Council, because the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, holds that post. I think that is the answer to the question which the noble Lord asked. I do not really see—perhaps I am being dumb—where the obscurity is.
LORD HOBSON: We are grateful for that information. But to come back to the main words of the Amendment, the reason why we think that the chairman should devote his whole time to the work of the Ports Council, assisted by other full-time people, is precisely because of the duties which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, enumerated and which are contained specifically (I do not wish to weary your Lordships by reading them out) in Clause 1(1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Any one of those three paragraphs involves a vast amount of work and responsibility. If those duties are given to the Council by the Minister, I think it absolutely essential not only that he should be a full-time chairman, but that he should be aided and assisted by two other members of the Council who are full-time. I think that is the only effective way in which the work can be done.
The noble Lord referred to the other nationalised undertakings, and he came
406
round at the end and said that there is the one exception of the Electricity Council. I submit that the duties of the Electricity Council are not so great as the new duties which will devolve on the new chairman of the Ports Council. In view of that, I feel that Her Majesty's Government ought to reconsider this point and meet us on it. From the noble Lord's speech, I do not think that his mind is entirely closed. There is to be a full-time chairman of the Council, and I think that on further consideration, particularly of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1), he will find that our suggestion is good practice and will lead to sound administration and efficiency.
LORD CHESHAM: Beguiling as that invitation may be, I frankly do not feel inclined to accept it, because I think I made my position perfectly clear. For the reasons put forward with great clarity, as usual, by my noble friend Lord Swinton, I think the position will be much better safeguarded, under the arrangements proposed in the Bill (including safeguarding the majority of points which the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has put forward), if we leave things as they are. If experience shows it to be necessary, then it will be possible to appoint full-time directors. I do not think I can say any more than that.
LORD HOBSON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Promotion by the Council of research, and training and education]:
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (2), to omit "in such manner as may be so specified". The noble Viscount said: This is a very small Amendment, but I could not see why the Minister, in being given powers to issue directions in regard to training (and perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this does not affect the training of persons in the actual performance of doing work, a matter dealt with by the National Dock Labour Board, but refers to other forms of training), should specify not only direction for training,

407
but also the manner in which the training should be carried out. This seems to be putting upon a Minister a matter of detail which is surely far better dealt with by people who are to undertake the training.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("in such manner as may be so specified").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHESHAM: AS the noble Viscount says, this is a small matter. I would only say that, from a strictly legal point of view, it would be difficult for the Minister to specify the manner of training. But from a practical point of view, especially as he has first to consult with the Council before he makes a direction, I think it most unlikely that there would be any disagreement about it. The reason for including that phrase, however, is that it was felt that from time to time we might want to ask the Council to carry out some Government policy on training—for example, the Minister of Education's policy on night classes or training courses, or something like that. I do not think there would ever be much difficulty.
But this is not a point on which I want to make any kind of stand, because I think we must agree that the Council are better qualified to form a judgment. It was not intended that there should be strict supervision in this way of their activities on training. I had not thought that the words which the noble Viscount wishes to remove carried the implication that there was to be strict supervision of training, and so on. If he feels, and your Lordships feel, that the words do carry that implication, I should be quite prepared to see them go.
LORD CHAMPION: The only point I would raise in this connection is that I wondered whether these words actually appeared in the Industrial Training Act; whether they have been lifted out of that Act completely so as to bring this Bill into line with the Industrial Training Act in which certain duties are laid on employers' boards, and so on, and the Minister is empowered to issue instructions to the various authorities. I wondered whether these words were lifted out of that Act.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think I can answer that question without notice.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I can, because I particularly looked at that point: the words are not in the Industrial Training Act.
LORD CHESHAM: I had not thought they were, because, quite frankly, if they had been, their implications would have been stronger than I said they were. They were not intended to have any potent magic, so far as I understand it, and that is why I am prepared to see them go.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am in the hands of the Committee, but I should like to press this small Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: Perhaps I should have been more formal; but what I had intended to say was that I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I take it that the noble Lord has also considered the later reference to persons specified falling within subsection (1)(b.) I wonder if that could go too. If we are to leave it as a general power (I know it does not arise on this Amendment, but it is the same clause)
"to promote in such manner as may be specified the training of persons falling within subsection (1)(b) above of such class as may be so specified …"
could it not be left as
"to promote the training of persons falling within subsection (1)(b)"?
Has the noble Viscount considered that point? Because if we are trying to simplify the legislation and make it broader, the present words may not be necessary. However, I appreciate that this is a different point.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I did consider that point, and I think the second reference is all right, because that is providing that the Minister could issue directions, let us say, for the training of managers or for the training of electricians, or something like that. I think that is probably all right. The words I mainly objected to were those concerned with the manner in which the training should be performed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is an Amendment to clarify the wording of subsection (5) of Clause 3, to ensure that it clearly precludes the Council from charging workers in the industry for training and education which the Council may promote. I think it was the view of the Opposition Members in another place that the present form of words did not clearly exclude individual workers from being charged, and an undertaking was given to do something about it. This is that undertaking. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out from ("person") to end of lint; 23 and insert ("in respect of his receiving any such training or education").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to the clause:
"(7) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the establishment of an industrial training board for the harbour industry under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act, 1964, and if such an industrial training board is established, the preceding provisions of this section, in so far as they relate to training, shall cease to apply."
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which is really designed to clarify a statement which has been made on several occasions during the discussion of the Bill, that there is nothing in it which prevents the establishment of an industrial training board and the control of training under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act, if that is so desired. The Amendment is not designed to prejudice in the least whether such a decision should be taken, but I thought it wise first of all to probe whether it is quite clear on the existing wording that an industrial board can be set up, because this legislation is a little difficult to follow, If I am assured on that point, then it may be said that the first half of this Amendment is unnecessary.
I still suggest, however, that it is necessary to have the second half of the Amendment, because if an industrial training board were to be set up, the supervision of training would be under the control of the industrial training board, with further powers in the hands of the Minister of Labour, whereas, of course, under this Bill the training is
410
under the control of the National Ports Council and the supervising authority is the Minister of Transport. If it were decided to set up an industrial training board it seems to me that it would be a very bad form of administration to have dual control over what happened. I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHESHAM: I am glad to be able to give the noble Viscount the assurance he wants about the first part of his Amendment. I have had this point examined very carefully indeed in view of what he said on Second Reading. I am certainly advised that there is nothing in the section for the application of the Industrial Training Act to the industry that precludes the establishment of an industrial training board. Therefore, the noble Viscount is quite right in thinking that the first part of his Amendment is, in fact, superfluous.
I do not, I am afraid, agree with him a bit about the second part, and for this reason. I do not deny for a moment (and I am quite with him on this point) that one would not want a complete overlap and duplication of responsibility in this matter, but I think the important point is, that in the ports industry—and we must remember here that the responsibilities of the National Ports Council are confined to management training, if I can call it that, because the actual training for dock work remains with the Dock Labour Board—
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I intervene for a moment? Is there not something between the two? May there not be the training of other persons employed in the industry, not directly in dock work but not necessarily in management?
LORD CHESHAM: It might be possible to find such a categorisation, but that is not the rule. One would broadly describe the training functions of the Council as being managerial. In fact, the Bill clearly specifies that they shall not overlap with the existing responsibilities of the Dock Labour Board. This is a slight diversion, but their work would in fact be even more, not interfered with, but affected, if there were

411
an industrial training board. In view of the fact that their training responsibilities are managerial, and of the very wide range of training that may be required, I should have thought the justification was, in the event of an industrial training board being established, to retain the provisions for training in the Bill, because the Council, so far as their responsibilities go, particularly on the managerial side, still have a most useful function to perform in filling in the gaps. I do not believe it is realistic to look at this question as a sort of battle of overlaps between an industrial training board and what one might call the residual functions of the National Ports Council. I think we can assume a certain amount of common sense in these matters, and I believe we might live to regret the gaps that might be left by taking away their powers. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will see it like that.
LORD HOBSON: I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. The provision of training is provided for in this Bill and it is also provided by the Dock Labour Board in connection with the docker. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, probably has in mind the ancillary or auxiliary workers, like fitters and electricians. Presumably the bulk of these are already skilled men and will already have had industrial training in the firms they were with before being employed by the Dock Labour Board. I think the whole point, therefore, was met.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his help over this matter. I agree that we do not want to leave a gap. I am very satisfied with his assurance that an industrial training board can be set up, and I think I should feel content to let this thing work itself out. As the noble Lord said, people are going to be sensible about this. I do not know whether anybody with greater industrial training experience than mine would like to add anything before I withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I fully take the points of the noble Lord. I am just wondering whether in all circumstances
412
sense will apply. Vested interests do build up. I am just wondering whether under this clause the Minister has power to direct them not to carry out training, if it is necessary. I would hope this is not necessary. I do not ask for any assurance, but perhaps he would consider the points made a little further. The whole industrial training situation is rather in the melting pot, and I am not quite convinced that even the ancillary trades will always be taken care of by their particular industrial board. This is the difficulty that concerns me. I am sure the noble Lord will think further, but I am certainly not asking for an assurance.
VISCOUNT SIMON: With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provision of funds for the Council
4.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Council to impose on harbour authorities, by means of a scheme or schemes made by the Council and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister in accordance with the following provisions of this section, such charges as will enable them to meet any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred,—

(a) in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under the last foregoing section or in the discharge of liabilities in respect of money borrowed by them;

(b) in respect of remuneration or allowances to, or pensions to or in respect of, members of the Council; or

(c) in respect of the administrative expenses of the Council;

in so far as it cannot be met by revenue accruing to them in consequence of the exercise of powers conferred by other provisions of this Act.
(3) A scheme under this section may—
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "authorities" and insert "operators". The noble Viscount said: This is the first of fourteen Amendments all of which hang together, and the object of them is to make it possible for the levies that can be raised on the authority of the National Ports Council for meeting expenses to be spread more widely than simply to the harbour authorities themselves. So far as training is concerned,

413
I could get that out of the way at once. In so far as other interests benefit from the provision of facilities for training, it is possible for recoveries to be made under Clause 3(5); therefore I do not think we need worry about training.
So far as administrative expenses of the Council are concerned, I think it is arguable that the harbour authorities alone should provide those, although I do not think there is complete agreement about it. But the point I want to make is most clearly exposed if I refer to the proposed levies for research. There are many activities carried out in harbours. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned them on Second Reading. He was at that time rather anxious that they should be excluded from the Bill, but for this particular issue I think it is important that they should be kept in. Might I, for instance, direct your Lordships' attention to research in cargo handling. Improved cargo handling will be for the benefit of shipowners, stevedores, master porters and other people engaged in similar activities. In many cases the port authority is not engaged in that business at all and would have nothing to do with it; certain port authorities are engaged in it, but by no means all. It seems to me it would be quite reasonable that these other bodies concerned in cargo handling should contribute by means of levy to the costs of research into cargo handling.
These Amendments are not mandatory; they are purely permissive. Your Lordships will have seen that there is already provision in the clause for the levy to be raised on a different basis from different classes of harbour authority, and with these Amendments there will be similar provision for the levy to be on a different basis for different harbour operators. There will be plenty of flexibility. The harbour operators other than the authorities need only be brought in in appropriate cases, but in those cases it seems to me reasonable that there should be a provision, which is only permissive, for the other harbour operators to contribute to such a levy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("authorities") and insert ("operators").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHESHAM: I did not imagine that the noble Viscount would move this
414
series of Amendments without bringing forward good reasons for them, and that I think he has done. Certainly there is some merit in his proposition, but unfortunately there are two sides to every coin and there are some rather telling things to say against accepting these Amendments. Of course, it is true that all the multifarious people providing porterage, lighterage, cargo handling services and so on would benefit, but the extent to which they would benefit, particularly from research, would vary very greatly indeed. It would vary from a concern to provide cargo handling service, which would get considerable benefit from it, to another concern which merely warehoused their own goods on a wharf, which might not benefit at all. Will both of them be harbour operators for this purpose? I think that an attempt to assess the benefits which would accrue to them amongst the very numerous and extremely varied bodies of people concerned would be a virtually impossible task.
Even without any attempt to apportion benefit—and I have looked at this very carefully—the difficulties of trying to bring harbour operators within the scope of the levy scheme would be truly enormous. Where harbour authorities are concerned it is possible to envisage various forms of levy based on such things as total dues collected, or tonnage of goods passing the harbour, or gross annual revenue, or something which could be used to produce a reasonably equitable split of the Council's expenses among the various harbour authorities according to the size of their operations, although even that itself is proving to be quite difficult enough. But with the enormous number, and extension in the variation, of harbour operators—if there is to be such an extension—I think there would be an administrative problem in that it would be almost impossible to design a procedure and then to carry it out. This is a matter that I think has not come up before in the passage of the Bill—not that I have anything to say against that whatever. But I think a lot of people might not feel very happy about it, and I do not know whether they would have had, or would be said to have had, sufficient time to consider the matter. I think that is true. But that is not the really important point. The really important point is the quite inordinate difficulties and tremendous

415
administrative problems it would produce. I hope the noble Viscount can accept that from me.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that what I propose would be extraordinarily difficult. But, as I said, there is provision for different classes of operators to be charged on a different basis, which I think deals with the point that some people might be affected and others might not. As the noble Lord said, the same difficulty arises with the port authorities themselves; some are engaged in cargo handling and others are not. If research is conducted into cargo handling, are those who do not engage in it to contribute to the levy? We shall have to take some very difficult decisions, and if one has difficult decisions to make there is a good deal to be said for not making them more difficult.
The noble Lord said he thought the matter had not been raised before. I am speaking from recollection, but I think it was raised in another place on Committee stage, not quite in this form; the suggestion was made that it would be much simpler to raise the levy from harbour authorities, and surely the harbour authorities could pass on their share to the other interests concerned. But that suggestion is made without a correct understanding of the position, because if one takes people like stevedores and master porters they are not under any contractual relationship with the harbour authority and the harbour authority does not exact any charges from them; so there is no way of spreading the load in that way.
I should just like to mention a fact of some interest as an example of the kind of thing that might happen. Considerable researches are about to be undertaken into the handling of timber in unit packages. Under the discussions that are now going on, this is going to be contributed to by the timber trade, by shipowners and by the port authority. But it seems to me that once this Bill is on the Statute Book the other parties might say, "If we sit back and do nothing about it, they will have to pay for it all because that is all that will happen under this provision." I do not say that people would do that because, naturally, they themselves have consider-416
able interest in getting this research moving, but I do not like the idea that these other interests can, if they wish, escape.
I am just wondering whether, before the next stage of the Bill, the noble Lord could look at the possibility of introducing into Clause 3(5)—that is the provision that the Council may make charges in respect of training and education—the power that they may make charges in respect of research. Naturally, I would not ask the noble Lord to make any comment on that now, but perhaps that could be looked at. Otherwise, I do not think that I should detain the Committee further and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.42 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (b) to insert:
"(c) provide for requiring a harbour authority to whom the scheme relates to furnish to the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the scheme, being information relating to any harbour which that harbour authority are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing, to any activities carried on by them at such a harbour or to any property used by them for the purposes of such a harbour, and for requiring the verification of any information furnished in pursuance of a requirement having effect by virtue of this paragraph."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment places harbour authorities under an express obligation to supply any information that is required by the Council to enable them to assess the amount of any charges to be imposed on a harbour authority under a levy scheme. I should tell your Lordships that this Amendment has the agreement of the National Ports Council, who were rather worried whether they would be able to get sufficient information in order to ensure that any levy scheme was properly apportioned and fair. It had been thought that the Council would be able to rely on the powers under Clause 39 to get the information they required. But it is now clear that the Clause 39 procedure involves a most cumbersome administrative process in getting that information, and it would have been necessary to give notice in writing, if necessary, on each individual item to each one of the many harbour authorities that would be affected.
The idea, therefore—and this is what makes the Amendment more a tidying operation, than anything else—is that it will be practicable to prepare a scheme placing on harbour authorities, in the classes where affected, an obligation to provide the necessary information. Except to say that naturally, the information to be provided can be required only for use for the purposes of the levy scheme, I do not think I need say any more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD HOBSON: We on this side readily accept the Amendment. It is sound common sense and practicable.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I just raise a point? I was a little surprised that Clause 39 was not considered to be sufficient. Merely as a technical point, I rather dislike having this sort of provision in two places in the Bill, even though it is within a limited field. Obviously, this is a desirable provision and we accept it; and probably it is not necessary to have it elsewhere. I wonder whether it might have done better if it had gone in under Clause 39, but no doubt this has been considered by the draftsmen.
There is one other small point. My recollection is that there is usually some provision for the security of such information. I think that in all other Bills where information is sought from individuals or private groups there is some provision that, apart from the inspectors who go in to investigate, or some other authorised person, the information is to be secret to the authority. I am not saying that it should always be. There may be occasions when a great deal of that type of information is necessary and can be properly published. We are concerned that we should have the good will of the various port authorities. The noble Lord may like to consider those points. There may be no merit in them.
LORD MERRIVALE: Before my noble friend answers;, may I say that I think it a little strange that this has not been thought of before—or perhaps I am a little suspicious in believing that the Government are trying increasingly to bring small harbours within the
418
scope of the Bill. What is worrying me a little is that a port may be operating mainly for a particular industry, and such information may be inexorably tied up with the business of a parent company. My noble friend will not be surprised if I refer to the port of Par. The industry there is an important one, and merits the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. At times it may be a little difficult to arrive at the detailed information which may be required.
I must say, in another respect, that I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred to the necessity for preserving secrecy for the information supplied by the port authorities.
LORD CHESHAM: I feel that my noble friend has a rather nasty, suspicious mind to-day. I, too, think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton has raised a point at which I shall be delighted to look. What I shall find, I do not know; but I will certainly look at it. I think the suspicions of my noble friend have on this occasion gone a little too far, because there is no sinister implication in this move. As I explained, it is to avoid a cumbersome and more expensive administrative process. If he refers to the Amendment he will see the words,
"such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the scheme".
That is as far as the power can go. Whilst I appreciate my noble friend's concern for the port of Par, there is really nothing to fear here. It is a choice between whether the scheme should incorporate the requirement for information, or whether a stream of letters is received asking for information under Clause 39 of the Bill. I merely advocate that the way in this Amendment is a much better method of doing it, at much less trouble, and I think that it is the way we should do it. I hope that I have set my noble friend's fears at rest.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, provision for imposing penalties in respect of a failure to comply with a requirement having effect by virtue of the

419
last foregoing paragraph to furnish information, so however that no provision imposing such a penalty shall be so framed so as to permit of a person's being punished otherwise than on his summary conviction, or as to permit of the infliction on him of a penalty other than a fine, or of the infliction on him of a fine exceeding £50 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, of a fine exceeding £200.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Control of harbour development]:
LORD CHESHAM: In moving this Amendment, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for not having said earlier that Amendments 14 and 15 went together. Your Lordships were good enough to take them as such. Amendment No. 23, which I now beg to move, is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, leave out from ("for") to end of the line and insert ("use in the execution of any such works as aforesaid or for use as mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Enforcement of control of harbour development]:
LORD CHESHAM: Odd as it may seem, this Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 21, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Grants for execution of harbour works, &c]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SIMON: This is a very small point to which I have drawn Lord Chesham's attention. It seems to me that the important proviso at the bottom of page 11 of the Bill, which reads
"provided that, in the case of assistance in respect of expenses incurred, he"—
that is the Minister—
"is satisfied that the expenses are such as ought properly to be regarded as being of a capital nature"
420
is not, judging by the present wording, imported into Clause 12, although I am sure it is intended to be. For in Clause 12(1)(a) the words are
"in respect of expenses incurred by them such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of Section 11(1) of this Act"
but the proviso is outside paragraph (a). Could the noble Lord clear my mind on this point?
LORD CHESHAM: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having told me about this. It was left out of Clause 12 deliberately. The reason was that the provisions in Clause 12 for grants are intended for use only in quite exceptional cases usually associated with emergency—things like flood relief or disasters of that kind. It is true that they would be for purposes covered by Clause 11(1)(a), but I think the Minister will have more scope to help disaster cases if his assistance is not restricted to expenses "of a capital nature". He could thereby make a grant for maintenance works if in exceptional circumstances he wanted to do so. That is the idea behind leaving it out of Clause 12.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Maximum amount of loans and grants under sections 11 and 12, and cesser of certain other powers to give financial assistance]:
5.54 p.m.
LORD HOBSON LORD HOBSON moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words after "exceed" and to insert:
"£100,000,000 or such larger sum as is provided by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament".
The noble Lord said: We brought up rather strongly on Second Reading the point as to the question of raising the available capital from £50 million to £100 million. Let me hasten to assure your Lordships that it is not our intention to divide on this matter, for reasons which are obvious. I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend have considered our request very seriously. Nothing would give us greater pleasure than if he accepted our Amendment.
The urgent need for modernisation of our ports has been proved beyond any doubt. Not only has the question of modernisation to be considered, but

421
there is a tremendous amount of reconstruction to be done. An enormous amount of work will also be involved in the re-grouping of ports, and this cannot be done without the spending of money. It is a question of applying a certain percentage of the national cake to a very important function, the function of improving our ports—because it is by trade that this nation lives. We cannot continue to lag behind the great European ports of Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp, all of which have been reconstructed. Even in the case of modern ports, those re-equipped prior to 1938, or rebuilt as a result of the bombing, right up to 1950 and 1955, we are now faced with much larger ships. The length, beam and draught are much greater, and this of necessity involves a tremendous amount of dock reconstruction. We cannot escape this. It is urgent capital expenditure required for the trade, commerce and the well-being of this country.
There is also the question of new discharging plant. With labour at a premium, and very costly, it is necessary to have modern equipment. This cannot be provided without the spending of a great deal of money on cranes and other ancillary equipment. In view of the urgency of the requirement, we feel that £50 million is a very modest sum to be included in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us an encouraging reply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, leave out from ("exceed") to end of line 4 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hobson.)
LORD CHESHAM: I am certainly not going to disagree with the noble Lord as to the necessity, if we are going to do this sort of thing, of doing it as soon as possible, and properly. I am sure he will also agree with me that it is a standard practice nowadays, when Ministers are given powers to come to the assistance of particular industries, for the upper limits; of the amount of such a system to be written into the relevant Acts. The precedent for the present provision is to be found in the Transport Act, 1962, which set specific limits to the amounts which could be borrowed by, or made available to, the various Boards set up under that Act.
422
This Amendment would leave the Exchequer commitment quite open-ended. I do not feel that it would be quite right for there to be a Resolution in another place to allow for any amount to go on and on, without their having to go back for any specific legislation for it. To a certain extent I agree with the noble Lord that it is difficult, until the Ports Council has completed its overall plan and submitted it to the Minister, for anyone to say how much will be needed for the rehabilitation and modernisation of the ports which the noble Lord and all of us want, and which it is the object of the Bill to secure.
Secondly, it is not possible to say how much of this will have to be found from Exchequer sources by way of loan or grant, in the exceptional cases of a grant being used, and how much can be financed from the internal resources of the ports or through ordinary borrowing from the market. Having said that, the information that we have endeavoured to collect from the port authorities about their investment plans suggests—and this was the basis for the imposition of these limits—that the amounts specified in the clause ought to meet requirements for assistance in the foreseeable future. I should like to remind the noble Lord and the Committee that, in other words, this is as realistic a guess as can be made at the present time. I would also remind the Committee that in reckoning this up we discount the money which will be needed for the nationalised ports, because that comes, of course, by other means and would not be included in this total. I think that is rather an important fact, because the picture looks quite different with that light on it.
With great respect, I do not think it is necessary to put in a higher figure at the present time. I do not think it will help matters along at the moment, as if £50 million is found not to go very far in the early stages of development, it is perfectly easy to raise that up to £100 million; a Resolution will do that. If it turned out in the years to come that more than £100 million was required for this, I do not think it would be very difficult to find ways and means of providing it. I think that we really ought to leave it to be decided at that time, in view of the figures we have en-

423
deavoured to get in coming to this limit, rather than try to decide it now. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree with me.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord told us that the Government had made some inquiries about the possible amounts that might be spent under this clause. I wonder whether he has any idea of the proportion of loan and possible grant, as a result of his inquiries.
LORD CHESHAM: No, I have not. We were collecting information about proposals as best we could to-day, and, no port authority is able to say whether there will be a loan or grant. This is the cost of what they propose to do, and how it is met is not something that can be formulated in advance. I repeat what I said on the last Amendment, that the grant is intended to be used only very exceptionally.
LORD HOBSON: We accept the detailed explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham; and, of course, as I have just been reminded, there is nothing to preclude the introduction of a short Bill to increase the borrowing powers. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a very small Amendment. Its object is to make it clear that fishery harbours and marine works are also excluded from the provisions of paragraph (b). This is because it is intended that no changes shall be made in the existing arrangements, and that fishery harbours and marine works shall continue to qualify for financial assistance from the Public Works Loan Commissioners under both the Harbours and Passing Tolls, etc., Act, 1861, and the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, as they have been up till now. As your Lordships know, different arrangements are being made for other harbours, but these are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. It is necessary to insert these words to make sure that these works continue to qualify for the usual help. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("harbour or pier") and insert ("or pier elsewhere than at a harbour which is not for the time being a
424
fishery harbour or marine work or for the purposes of a harbour which is not for the time being a fishery harbour or marine work.")—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: Am I to understand that the effect of this Amendment is that loans and grants will be made available for these particular fishery harbours or marine works? And, if so, might there not be a conflict with other authorities who may be supporting them? I have in mind the particular support in certain areas of Scotland.
LORD CHESHAM: No; I do not think there is any conflict at all. This is not much more than a clarifying Amendment. The position is that up till now the Acts I mentioned have been applicable to all the harbours which will come within the scope of the Bill, and for which new arrangements for assistance are being made. Fishery harbours and marine works are being taken out, and this is just to make it clear that they will continue to get the same loan assistance as they have had before.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Minister's power, on application of harbour authorities or others, to make orders for securing harbour efficiency]:
6.7 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"but nothing in this section or in the said Schedule shall authorise the making of an order which would enable the harbour authority to require the registration of vessels not used for the carriage of goods or passengers for reward which use the harbour in relation to which the order is made".
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the harbour authorities will not require the local registration of vessels which are really pleasure craft; and, of course, pleasure craft would mean yachts and dinghies. The imposition of a system of compulsory registration on pleasure craft would discourage sailing and power-boating, by increasing the expense beyond that which is reasonable for those of limited means, and would impose unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on the owners of small craft. I would remind your Lordships that a petition against a Bill promoted recently

425
by the Dover Harbour Board, with regard to the registration of pleasure craft, was successful and provisions for dealing with registration were withdrawn.
There is no doubt that yachting to-day is a great national sport, engaged in by people of all ages and incomes, and many thousands of them are afloat in their small cruisers and sailing dinghies. I suggest that it would be a great mistake if anything were done to discourage this healthy sport by the local registration of craft with, of course, the consequent charges. Are we to have small boats and dinghies covered with large white figures for the purpose of registration? I think that would be quite an impossible thing to consider. There would be a multiplicity of local registrations and charges in the different harbours, and I think it would be a nightmare to yachtsmen. But if registration is deemed absolutely necessary, I would say that it must be on a national basis. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 27, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD CHESHAM: What the noble Lord seeks to do here, I gather, is to exclude from harbour revision orders schemes for small-craft registration. I had every reason to realise that this was a yachting matter, and I may say that it is a fairly controversial yachting matter, because, as with everything else, there are two sides to this particular coin, of which my noble friend has presented only one. I understand, however (I am not going to present it, because it is not my business to do so), that there is an opposing school of thought about the desirability of such schemes of registration. My feeling is that, as between these two schools of thought, we ought not to prejudge this issue by writing it into the Bill in this form.
It would, I agree, be possible for a harbour authority to apply for a revision order proposing a local craft registration scheme. They could do that under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2; but there is nothing in the Bill—no slant, no bias—to suggest that that kind of registration is desirable, or that the Minister should be in any way committed to the principle. If a harbour authority made such a proposal,
426
the yachting interests would be able to raise their objections to it, first, under the quite stringent objection procedure set out in Part I of Schedule 3. They could also object later, when the order is laid before Parliament, under the Special Parliamentary Procedure, when any petitions of objection would be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and a Motion to annul the order could be moved. So they would, in fact, have just as much opportunity to have their objections considered as they have now, if the harbour authority made propositions for such a scheme in a Private Bill, as in fact has been done on two occasions—in the cases of Great Yarmouth and Bristol.
I think I am right in saying now, even if I was not before, that this is the first time that this point has cropped up in the passage of the Bill. I should have thought that the real way to proceed would be for those who hold opposing points of view to discuss them. Naturally, I do not speak for them, but I am told that the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association, on the other hand, favour such a proposal. I should have thought that it was a matter that would be suitable for discussion between the two interests and any other bodies concerned, and that it would be wrong to imply that schemes of local registration of craft are undesirable by writing it into the Bill now, without having given the matter a good deal more consideration from all points of view. In view of the fact that, as I say, there is nothing that slants the Bill towards the desirability of doing this, and that there would be ample opportunities for objection to any order, if one were made, I feel that I should recommend your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the explanation given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—as I understand it, that the yachting interests will still have an opportunity under the Bill to voice their objections—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to add to subsection 2(b):
"or of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods or passengers by sea."
The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment down with a view to discouraging monopolies and facilitating efficiency in transport services by competition. At certain harbours in Great Britain certain rights and privileges are enjoyed by only one operator. For instance, in Section 130 of the Dover Harbour (Consolidation) Act, 1954, there is an absolute right of priority given to one operator to operate shipping services to the exclusion of all other operators. Such a right acts as an effective deterrent to operators wishing to run new services from that port. However, in paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 one of the objects for which a harbour revision order may be made is—and I quote:
"Varying or extinguishing any exemption from charges levied by the authority at the harbour or any other right or privilege enjoyed thereat."
Under Clause 14, subsection (2)(b), on an application received by the Minister he would be empowered, as I understand it, to make the order only if he were satisfied that the order
"is desirable in the interests of securing the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour in an efficient and economical manner."
As the Bill stands, he does not have to take into consideration the question of facilitating efficient and economic transport services, as he does have to with regard to new harbours under Clause 16, subsection (5).
I feel that the facility for greater competition at existing harbours, or at an existing harbour, could lead to a more efficient and economic harbour by increased business arising out of a greater variety of competing services. For instance, an operator may wish to provide a more efficient and economic transport service by putting into service a new ship, whilst the priority operator, conscious that the Minister has to consider only the efficiency and economic operation of the harbour, may exert his right (that is, the priority operator's right) and offer a less economic and efficient service for goods and passengers by putting into service an older ship. One example of that which comes to mind is the fact that British Railways have refused to allow Townsend Ferries to operate a new service with a new ship, and have pre-428
ferred to bring back into service the old "Falaise". It is for these reasons that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, at end insert the said words.—[Lord Merrivale.)
LORD CHESHAM: I think my noble friend may wish to know exactly what was the reason for using different ground for harbour empowerment orders from that which is in the Bill for harbour revision orders. It was that the pre-requisite used for revision orders—that is, in the interests of securing the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour—was inappropriate to an empowerment order, which presupposes that there is not a harbour anyway, and that you are going to make a new one. One can hardly improve, maintain or manage something which does not exist. Other words, therefore, had to be found. I must admit that, although there were other words, they were not regarded as having any very great significant difference of meaning. It had been our opinion all along that Clause 14(2)(b) provided sufficiently wide grounds for assessing the merits of a harbour revision order; and, quite frankly, I do not really believe that the proposed Amendment adds anything really very significant to the clause.
However, I would tell my noble friend that, if he wishes to have these words put in here, I am happy to accommodate him and accept his Amendment. But I must emphasise that I did know about the activities of the Townsend Ferries and that, if I accept my noble friend's Amendment, he must be perfectly clear that this is a matter of principle only and has nothing to do with anything he may have said about Townsend Ferries. It is on a matter of principle only that I accept these words. So long as he is clear about that, I am glad to accept his Amendment.
LORD HOBSON: The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. I accept his explanation, but I am under the impression that any ship can leave a British port, go to her destination and come back to that port; and that the only power the Minister would have is in so far as these would be regular sailings involving regular use of that port. Surely there is nothing to preclude a ship from going from Dover to Calais, whether

429
it be owned by British or French Railways; there is nothing to prevent that from happening. It could be prevented if it were a regular service; but the Minister could not preclude a ship from going irregularly—as in the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale—from Southampton to Le Havre as in the case of the "Falaise."
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friend for accepting my Amendment and the principle behind it, because it seems to me logical that if one has the words
"or of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods or passengers by sea",
when the Minister is considering harbour empowerment orders, there is no reason why the Minister should not consider the same things when he is considering harbour revision orders. Whether you are talking about new or old harbours it is important that the transport services to and from these harbours should be efficient and economic. For this reason I am grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: Amendment No. 29 is linked with No. 35, and they are drafting Amendments for clarity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, leave out ("penal provisions") and insert ("but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, penal provisions and provisions incorporating, with or without modifications, any provision of the Lands Clauses Acts or any other enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: Amendment No. 30 goes with Nos. 31 and 32. I find myself in a slight difficulty in describing them as "consequential". In fact, they are, but to an Amendment which we have not yet come to. Therefore, whether I can describe them to the Committee as "pre-consequential," I do not know. The fact is that they are consequential in themselves on Amendment 92 which we shall come to in due course. If it is agreeable to the Committee, I would suggest that we say anything we are going to say about that Amendment when we come to it; and if by any chance the Amendment is not accepted I should have to move these consequential Amendments out again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 16, after ("16") insert ("and 10A")—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: I think the word the noble Lord is seeking is "paving", not "pre-consequential", and I am not sure that he should not tell us something of what the Amendment is paving to. I take it that Amendment No. 92 is one that the noble Lord thinks will go through very easily.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not anticipating a great deal of difficulty with it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 18, leave out ("and").—{Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 18, at end insert ("and the second reference in paragraph 10A").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Minister's power, on application of potential undertakers, to make orders conferring powers for improvement, construction, &c, of harbours.):
LORD CHESHAM: Amendment No. 33 is another "presequential" Amendment.
A NOBLE LORD: Anticipatory.
LORD CHESHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is anticipatory—except that it follows from something that has not happened. I do not feel that "paving" is quite the right word.
A NOBLE LORD: It is "antediluvian".
LORD CHESHAM: No—not that. But, whatever it may be, this Amendment is little more than drafting. It is to remedy a small deficiency in the Bill which will arise from later Amendments to the charges clauses which, as the Committee will know from their study of proceedings in another place, are to do with reasonableness—a concept imported into the Bill in another

431
place. This stems backwards—if one can stem backwards—from those Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 40, after ("compulsorily") insert ("and to levy charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, after ("or") insert ("of").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: This is the Amendment that hung with No. 29, which was a drafting Amendment, for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 45, leave out from ("of") to ("but") on page 17, line 1, and insert ("Lands Clauses Acts or any other enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18. [Harbour reorganisation schemes]:
6.30 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (e):
"Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any fixed or movable property used by any person for carrying out harbour operations at a harbour which is maintained and managed wholly or mainly for the purposes of a particular trade or industry and which is not comprised within the limits of jurisdiction of, nor otherwise subject to the control of, any other person or authority maintaining and managing a harbour in pursuance of statutory powers and duties."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that any person who is carrying out harbour operations wholly or mainly for the purpose of a particular industry shall not come within the provisions of the Bill in so far as harbour reorganisation schemes—in other words, amalgamation of harbours—are concerned. Should noble Lords feel that this is asking too much, I would mention that the scope of the Amendment has been greatly narrowed by the insertion of the provision that it would apply only to a person that did not come under the control of a body who was managing a harbour in
432
pursuance of statutory duties or powers. For example, the port of Fawley, which is a non-statutory port, would not be affected by this Amendment: it is dependent on the Southampton Harbour Board's by-laws.
On Second Reading, I drew your Lordships' attention to what I think is the undesirability of the amalgamation of a general-cargo port with a specialised port mainly concerned in handling bulk traffic. That the Government are not averse to certain exemptions for certain industries is apparent from the fact that marine works are excluded from the provisions of the Bill; and under Section 31 of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, a "marine work" means
"any harbour, pier, and ferry or boatslip which in the opinion of the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Transport is principally used or required for the fishing or agricultural industries."
My contention is that a special case can be made out for another industry, the china clay industry. This industry is vital to Cornwall, providing employment for a large number of persons. The English China Clay group of companies employ around 3,600 persons on production and another 2,600 in their offices and within allied industries. Furthermore, the china clay industry meets over £250,000 of the total rate burden of the county. Ancillary industries—for instance, road transport and railways—benefit in consequence of the prosperity derived from this main industry of Cornwall.
Compared with the port of Fowey, the port of Par has various advantages for the efficient loading of china clay ships. For instance, it is in closer proximity to the clay-drying and processing plants, and it also has rapid loading facilities. There is both road and rail access to the port, whereas at Fowey access is limited to railway only. The port of Par is developed entirely for the benefit of, and to meet the needs of, this specific industry. Finally, within the context of the country's economy, the industry's exports are second in tonnage only to those of the coal industry. I feel that here there is a special case.
Noble Lords may wonder why I specifically mention the port of Par, but I believe that, if accepted, this

433
Amendment would be applicable only to the port of Par. I do not want to make this into a Hybrid Bill, and I do not think that by this Amendment I am dong so, because it might apply to some other harbour; but in effect the port of Par is the only one at the moment which would be affected by the provisions of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, without any discussion on the hybridity of the Bill, it had occurred to me that the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment was to exclude the port of Par from this Bill. In general, I think that his fears on behalf of the port of Par are exaggerated. Also, I do not think that it is right that my noble friend should do, what he has confessed to doing, something for the port of Par by importing into this Bill a question of principle which may have much wider implications that he believes to be the case.
My noble friend told us that, so far as he knows, the port of Par is the only one in this particular position. That may well be so; I would not try to dispute it. What is certain is that other private ports (if I may call them that) very nearly come within this specification, and once the principle has been breached, no doubt we shall be under heavy pressure to widen it a little more. If we do that, then we are really abandoning the principle which the Rochdale Committee laid down and which the Government have accepted and incorporated in this Bill.
My noble friend does not want the port of Par or any other similar port in a reorganisation order. A reorganisation scheme is to be the means of improving the efficiency at a group of harbours, and I do not see any justification for laying down statutorily that, if one of the harbours concerned is operated for private industry, it must be left out of the scheme. I think that that would be wrong.
If I may come to my noble friend's fears about the port of Par, when a scheme is put up to the Minister where there is clearly no merit in including a harbour in the scheme, the Minister can
434
amend the scheme so as to exclude the harbour in question. There is ample opportunity in the procedure which is set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill for making objections when schemes are submitted, and the harbour reorganisation schemes are subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure, so that it would be possible to move a Motion in Parliament to annul an Order. I think that all this really affords ample protection for the case my noble friend has in mind.
I would only add that, so far as I can see, as a practical consideration, there seems to be no prospect that the port of Par will be involved in any harbour reorganisation scheme, because it simply does not form part of any natural group of harbours. But even so, I do not think it provides justification for putting it, and any others that may be in the same position, out of the Bill and thereby breaking a rather important principle.
LORD SHACKLETON: I still do not quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has moved this Amendment and what his particular preference is for the port of Par. We are well aware that there are ancient separatist feelings in Cornwall, and that the River Tamar really divides Cornwall from the United Kingdom. But this seems to be an even narrower interest. I must confess that I always thought Par was a railway junction, but I gather that it is a private port. I can imagine circumstances in which other harbours, possibly even St. Austell, might wish to be excluded; I do not know. It seems to me quite impossible—and I am at one with the Minister on this—to exclude one particular group from the operation of the Bill. There are ample provisions in the Bill for protecting interests, and I think the noble Lord will have to make a very special case for us even to contemplate his Amendment at all seriously.
LORD MERRIVALE: While I thank my noble friend for what he has had to say, it did not quite meet my point. I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the port of Fowey, because the principle underlying this Amendment was that Fowey should not be amalgamated with Par, should the Minister so desire, because in effect at the moment Fowey can take ships only

435
up to a tonnage of 10,000 tons. It was felt that if the china clay industry, through their subsidiary, the port of Par, wished to extend their facilities by building there a jetty which would take bulk carriers of the tonnage of around 16,000 tons, it would be more economical and more efficient, in view of all the facilities already there, that Par should be developed and not Fowey, in the event that the Minister or British Railways felt that increased business should go through Fowey.
At this stage I do not wish to press the Amendment, but there is one thing I should like to ask my noble friend. As we are considering harbour reorganisation schemes and amalgamations, would he agree that it is undesirable to amalgamate a general cargo port with a port which handles mainly bulk traffic? I think that was one of the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee, and I should like my noble friend to say whether he agrees with that recommendation.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think one can easily agree or disagree with it. I should have thought—and this, I think, was the real bite in the Rochdale Report—that one had to look at cases on merits.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 29, after ("including") insert ("but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
Compensation for loss of office, &c. in consequence of orders and schemes
.—(1) The Minister shall by regulations make provision requiring such person or body, being a person or body subject to any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme, as may be determined by or under the regulations to pay, subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, compensation to, or in respect of, persons who are or, but for any national service of theirs would be, the holders of any such situation, place or employment as may be so prescribed and suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or
436
pension rights in consequence of any of the provisions of the scheme.
(2) Where it is proposed to make a harbour revision order or a harbour empowerment order, the Minister of the Crown by whom the order is to be made shall consider whether any person, who is, or but for any national service of his would be, holder of any situation, place or employment with a person or body subject to any of the provisions of the order, might if the order were made, suffer any loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of any of the provisions of the order; and if it appears to that Minister that such a person who is or would be the holder of such a situation, place or employment would suffer any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid and that compensation should be paid in respect of that loss or diminution, he shall not make the order unless he is satisfied that it secures the payment of compensation to or in respect of that person comparable with, but not more than, that payable by virtue of regulations made under subsection (1) of this section to or in respect of the holder of a similar situation, place or employment, in respect of similar loss or diminution suffered in consequence of any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme.
(3) Different regulations may be made under subsection (1) of this section in relation to different classes of persons, and any such regulations may be so framed as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision thereof is to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made shall not place any person other than a harbour authority in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only as from the date on which they are made.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) of this section may include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom, any claim to compensation is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.
(5) In this section "national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under subsection (1) of this section.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to introduce a new clause I which does two things. First of all, it covers the case where a harbour reorganisation scheme transfers rights or powers, and so on, to a person or a body. Subsection (1) of the clause requires the Minister of Transport to make regulations providing for the payment of compensation by such person or body as is set out in the regulations. It will be paid to persons who suffer loss of employment, or diminution of emoluments

437
or pension rights, as a result of the scheme. Secondly, subsection (2) of the new clause requires the Minister making a harbour revision order or harbour empowerment order to consider whether anyone will suffer loss of employment, or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, as a result of the order. If so, and he decides that the case is one where compensation should be paid, he must ensure that the order provides for payment of comparable compensation to that which would have been payable under regulations made under Clause 1 for a reorganisation scheme. This Amendment has been put down to honour an undertaking given by my honourable colleague in another place, and it follows the precedent already existing in the Water Resources Act, 1963, and in the Transport Act, 1962. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out "would" and insert "might". The noble Lord said: This new clause, which I am glad to say in its general approach is acceptable to the National and Local Government Officers' Association, is, I think, framed in an unusual way. Under subsection (1), as the Minister has said, there is the usual provision for regulations covering compensation, and this provision satisfactorily deals with compensation arising out of harbour reorganisation schemes under Clause 18 of the Bill. I think the noble Lord made that point quite clear. In relation to harbour revision orders, under Clause 14, and harbour empowerment orders, under Clause 16, apparently the Ministry of Transport formed the view that it would not be satisfactory to cover this by regulations, and that each order under these powers should itself contain the necessary provisions for compensation. I think I have that right. Of course, this is contrary to the Water Act, 1945, but so long as satisfactory compensation is provided for in some form or another the Association do not consider that the proposal to deal with the matter in each individual order is in itself objectionable. The intention of subsection (2) of the new clause is to make the necessary provision.
Now I come to a point of disagreement. The Association, in accordance with usual practice, were given an opportunity of considering the new clause in draft. At that time subsection (2) differed in two respects from the subsection as included in the Marshalled List. The word "might" in line 6 of the subsection, as printed in the Government Amendment, was originally "would". The Association pointed out that in the existing form subsection (2) would have applied only in a case where a Minister was able to say positively that compensation to someone was bound to be payable.
This, I submit—and I think the Minister would agree—is wrong in principle and contrary to past practice, since it is not always possible to tell in advance whether compensation will be payable in a particular case or not. In the Association's view, the right criterion was whether the order was of such a nature that it would give rise to detriment calling for compensation, even if it would not necessarily do so. This point was accepted, I am glad to say, by the Ministry. But the only alteration which they made was that in line 6 of the subsection. The words in line 11 of the subsection "would suffer any such loss" remain, and it appears to the Association that, despite the first alteration, if this wording remains in the latter part of the subsection the Minister would still be bound to include compensation provisions in an order only if he was certain that they would be required.
I submit to the Minister that no one can foresee, at a time when an order is made, all the possible repercussions of that order, and I am sure it is not the desire of the Ministry or the Minister to do any injustice to any person who may, as a result of the passing of this Act, suffer loss of payment, and so on, as might easily arise if the word "would" is retained in the subsection and is the operative word, and not "might", as obtains in the first part of the subsection. If I may put it to the Minister, as it reads now it is illogical. Which leg will the Minister stand on—the "might" or the "would"? I suggest that we should get the matter right and accept the word "might" in both instances, which will be acceptable to the staff who are no doubt watching this legislation very carefully. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 11 of subsection (2), leave out ("would") and insert ("might").—(Lord Burden.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Your Lordships may find it convenient to have a general debate on these three Amendments together, but I cannot call the next one, No. 40, and will not put No. 39 until your Lordships have finished debating upon it.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am quite prepared, if it would be for the convenience of the Committee, to develop what I have to say on the second Amendment, and then we could have a general debate.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It would be quite convenient for the noble Lord to do that, but I cannot yet call Amendment No. 40. The noble Lord can, if it is more convenient, debate all three together.
LORD BURDEN: I will deal with Amendment No. 40 now.
LORD CHESHAM: If I may say so, I think it would be more convenient to deal with them one by one. While they are connected, they are not on the same point. I suggest that we should deal with Amendment No. 39 and dispose of that, one way or the other, then with No. 40, and then revert to the main Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: This is a matter of convenience, and it depends upon whether Amendment No. 40 is, or is not, on a similar point.
LORD BURDEN: They are not related.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: From what has been said, I understand that it is not, so perhaps it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 together.
LORD HOBSON: We on this side welcome the new clause. It provides compensation owing to loss of office on amalgamation. It is characteristic of many of the nationalisation measures. One can only hope—and this is all I propose to say—that Her Majesty's present advisers will try to persuade industry to do likewise. If that
440
happened, I think industrial life in this country would be much happier. But we welcome the fact that the Government have put down this new clause dealing with redundancy.
LORD MERRIVALE: On Amendment No. 38—
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry, but I think I am entitled to suggest that we should deal with Amendment No. 39 first, otherwise we shall have all three jumbled up together and shall get into a muddle. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, said, I have no more to say yet about Amendment No. 38, except to thank him for what he said. Now may I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said on Amendment No. 39? So far as this is concerned, it seems to me that there is nothing sinister here except drafting as between "might" and "would". Naturally, I much prefer to stand on a wooden leg than any other kind, so long as I do not turn out to have feet of china clay.
LORD HOBSON: You might. You would sink into that.
LORD CHESHAM: On this particular Amendment, I thought that the Minister was already under obligation, in line 3 of subsection 2, to consider whether anyone "might". The Minister having considered it, and having made his decision, we need the word "would" and not "might", because the element of uncertainty in the matter has by then gone. So "would" is the word there, and "might" in the earlier stage. Therefore, as it is the better drafting, I think we should leave it at that.
LORD BURDEN: I am not a lawyer and this has been put to me by competent Parliamentary draftsmen who feel there is doubt in regard to the point. If, however, it is clear and definite that the operative word for including in an order is that a person "might" suffer loss, et cetera, and it followed from that that the Minister "would" make the provision, and if that is the interpretation put on the subsection, that is one way of reading it. With the understanding that I shall consult my advisers in regard to it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in line 15 of subsection (2), leave out "comparable with, but not more" and insert "not less favourable". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, as was pointed out, refers to the words a little later in the subsection, which read "comparable with, but not more than". This subsection deals with the situation where compensation has to be covered in an order. We have moved on from the stage of saying it "should be" to the stage that it "is to be" provided. In its present form the subsection provides that the compensation is to be "comparable with, but not more than" is payable in relation to a harbour reorganisation scheme under subsection (1) of the new clause.
The National and Local Government Officers' Association have submitted to me that there are two objections about this form of words. The words used could be paraphrassd as "similar to, but not necessarily the same as, and not better than". In other words, while some difference between the compensation under the Order and the compensation under the regulations is not excluded, the form of words adopted appears to prescribe that if there is to be such a difference it must not improve the position of the person to whom the compensation is payable. It follows logically, therefore, from that, that any difference must be detrimental to that person.
I submit to the Minister that a provision of this kind is quite contrary to post-war practice and precedent. In the London Government Act, 1963, Section 85(3)(a), which deals with terms and conditions of employment of transferred employees, is in the following terms:
"so long as he continues in the employment of that other authority by virtue of the transfer and until he is served with a statement in writing of new terms and conditions of employment, he enjoys terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer;"
Again, paragraph (b)(ii) reads:
"other terms and conditions of his employment, are not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer."
Further, in relation to transfer, practically every order made under the Water Act, 1945, in recent years involving the
442
transfer of employees has provided that these terms and conditions of service after their transfer are to be "not less favourable "than those applicable before the transfer.
I readily admit that these examples are not entirely on all fours with the present provisions, which deal with compensation and not with terms and conditions of employment. The principle, however, is the same, in my view and in the Association's view, and the reason for the difficulty in finding a precedent on compensation is that compensation in the past has been dealt with in each enactment on a unified basis by the application of the same set of regulations.
I now come to a point which really one finds difficult to understand. If my Amendment is accepted, the new clause would be in every respect identical with the earlier version circulated by the Ministry of Transport. Why the change? I am told that the alteration was due to some representations made by the Treasury. I have a very great regard for our Treasury officers; they are some of the finest in the Civil Service; but why they have stepped into the field in this matter is difficult to see, since the compensation would almost always be coming from an independent statutory body and not from funds provided by the Treasury. We are bound to make a stand in regard to this particular alteration regarding compensation, because once this precedent is accepted and it is down on the Statute Book it can be quoted in regard to other instances.
I put it to your Lordships that local government officers to-day in the organisation of local government now in progress are deeply concerned and deeply worried with their future. Everyone will agree that if the new structure of local government and, if you like, the new structure as provided and as will be built up under this Bill when it becomes an Act is to function effectively, it will not always depend entirely on the people at the top who are giving orders but will depend upon the goodwill and the active co-operation of the officers right down the ladder of authority. Therefore, I beg your Lordships and the Minister not to confuse matters by introducing, as the Government have done in this clause, words which may cause anxiety

443
among the staff, anxiety which I have endeavoured to show is quite unecessary and which the Minister himself in his earlier draft recognised was unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 15, subsection (2) leave out ("comparable with, but not more") and insert ("not less favourable").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Burden, or, I should have said, his advisers in this matter, really seemed to me to be seeing ghosts and bogies about the place in a way which I cannot see myself. I think that they are seeing something very much greater in this and deducing that some deep principle is at stake, which I do not think is the fact at all. But I am not going to take it up at length, except to say this to the noble Lord: that, between now and the next stage, I will certainly look at what he has said very carefully to make quite certain that the ghosts and bogies are not in fact there, as I believe them not to be.
I am going to ask him to withdraw this Amendment now because I do not believe the situation is as he said. I am prepared to check that, but I do not think it is, and even if it was it would not be a good idea to try to put it right by making matters worse. I do not know whether his advice has gone right to its conclusion, because what the noble Lord has actually moved to do in his Amendment is to leave the Minister free to approve compensation provisions in revision and in Parliamentary Orders which are more favourable than provided in the regulations under subsection (1) in relation to harbour reorganisation schemes. I do not know why the noble Lord should wish to do that, because it does not seem to me the right thing to do.
First, I think he will agree that it has been Government policy to endeavour to standardise compensation provisions in Statutes to avoid discrepancies in the treatment of problems of an analogous kind in different industries. Secondly, it really does seem wrong that the provision for compensation in revision orders, which on the whole would not be expected to arise very often, should be on a more
444
generous basis than in reorganisation schemes, where I think there will always be problems of compensation. That does not seem to me right either. That is why I am going to express the hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment to my Amendment.
I would also ask him to remember—and I can certainly assure him of this—that in the cases he mentions there is nothing to stop any of the authorities concerned from making additional compensation arrangements outside the order or scheme made by the Minister. I think that is quite important. The accepted principle is that the Minister shall provide an acceptable minimum standard. The basis of the whole idea of making these provisions is that there is an accepted minimum standard; and that is what my new clause provides for, and it certainly is not to be regarded in any way as maximum.
LORD BURDEN: The Minister has made a very clever debating point, but he knows that in my speech I never said or implied in any way that we would expect an order to give compensation provisions better than those under subsection (1). The Minister obviously would not approve them. No one would ask him to approve compensation other than he would have power to do. That is not the point. The point is that he would never approve, and we should never ask him to approve, anything better than the general standard which would be laid down as operating under subsection (1). The Minister and his advisers know that. I congratulate the noble Lord on finding a clever debating point.
The real object of the clause as it stands is that the Minister will have power to approve something worse than the general standard which will operate under subsection (1). I take his word that he will look at the matter again to see that there is no loophole at all for the staff to think they may come off worse than under the provisions of subsection (1). I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, leaving myself free to look at the matter with the Minister at Report stage.
LORD CHESHAM: I will, of course, look at it again, as I said, but I do not think the noble Lord ought to make so

445
much of calling this a debating point. It is, in fact, the effect of the Amendment he had on the Order Paper, and if that is a debating point I am very surprised.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERRIVALE: Whilst I would sincerely agree that provision should be made for compensation for employees who suffer loss as a result of a reorganisation scheme under Clause 18, it seems to me quite unfair that a person who has his harbour transferred under subsection (2)(e) of Clause 18—that is, the transfer is against his will—should be required to compensate his employees for loss of employment. Surely, such compensation should be the responsibility of the authority who has initiated the transfer. Thai is all I wish to say on this new clause. Perhaps my noble friend could say who is to pay the compensation—the instigator of the transfer or amalgamation?
LORD CHESHAM: Would my noble friend be kind enough to check his reference again?
LORD MERRIVALE: I am looking at Clause 18, "Harbour Reorganisation Schemes". Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) reads:
"transferring to any of the relevant authorities or to such a body as aforesaid interests of a person in fixed or movable property used by him for carrying out harbour operations at a harbour that is comprised in the group or is adjacent to any of the harbours so comprised, not being a person engaged in improving, maintaining or managing that harbour in the exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties;"
In other words, such a person could be forced against his will, to be amalgamated with a harbour authority. Under these conditions I feel that it would be a little hard on such a person if, having been forced into such a thing, he were also to be compelled to pay the compensation. Surely it should be the instigator of the amalgamation or the reorganisation scheme who should be required to pay the compensation.
LORD CHESHAM: If my noble friend will look at the beginning of the new clause he will have his answer. It begins:
"The Minister shall by regulations make provision requiring such person or body, being
446
a person or body subject to any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme, as may be determined by or under the regulations to pay"
and so on. So there is the answer. It is the person concerned.
LORD MERRIVALE: In other words, the person who instigates the amalgamation?
LORD CHESHAM: No.
LORD MERRIVALE: Then it seems to me exceedingly unfair.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I help here, because I think that I see Lord Merrivale's point? Surely, as the Minister has said, the provision is that the Minister "shall make regulations" for such "person or body", being one of the people who is concerned with the scheme, as may be determined; and clearly the Minister would not determine that the person who was losing his business should provide compensation.
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Viscount is correct. It is the instigator.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank my noble friend and the noble Viscount opposite very much indeed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I think this is generally agreed to be a good moment to cease our activities. So I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved according, and, on Question Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL

  ISLE OF WIGHT RIVER AND WATER AUTHORITY BILL
  Brought form the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.