Lords Sitting of 24 March 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 Bristol

MANUFACTURING POWERS OF BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD
2.35 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the British Railways Board are advised that they have powers to tender for the manufacture of privately owned railway equipment to be used on British Railways or on the railways of any other Board; whether the proposal of the Board to exercise such powers has been vetoed by the Minister of Transport; and, if so, why.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of what advice the British Railways Board have received, but the question of their legal powers is not the issue. The Board have submitted to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport certain proposals under Section 13(4) of the Transport Act, 1962, for the exercise of their manufacturing powers. My right honourable friend has stated in Parliament that he decided not to approve the proposal by the Board to tender for the manufacture of rolling stock for ownership by private firms because this proposal would not have been in accordance with the Government's policy, which was made clear on several occasions when the Transport Bill was before Parliament. The primary task of the British Railways Board is to provide railway services, and the Government consider that, as hitherto, there is at present no
1124
justification for the nationalised transport undertakings entering the field of manufacture for outside customers.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for not contesting the legality of the request of the Railways Board. I, personally, think they have the powers, and that is not disputed. What is in dispute is the veto of the Minister, which is lawful in itself, by which he is preventing the British Railways Board from competing. May I put this to the Parliamentary Secretary? Here is a great railway undertaking; it is experienced in the manufacture of railway equipment; and all it is asking is the right to tender, in competitive tendering, for contracts in relation to private undertakings using the railways. If it wins the contract on merit, then it wins it; if it loses, it loses it. And it would not tender on a basis that would cause a loss to the Railways undertaking. The Government are in favour of competition, so they constantly say. Why impose a veto against competition on this occasion? Is it not the fact that the veto is imposed for purely dogmatic and doctrinaire purposes, and is that not a confession of the stultifying bankruptcy of the present Administration?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the broad answer to the noble Lord's question almost throughout is, of course, No, certainly not. But I would say this. I do not think anything that the noble Lord has now asked me justifies adding anything to what I said in my original reply. I think the Government's policy and attitude in this matter have on several occasions been made abundantly clear in both Houses when the Transport Bill was before Parliament, and they have not changed in the slightest.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Lord not answer whether this is not dogma? Is it not in response to a doctrinaire view; and is it not the case that it would be good for British Railways to make a modest profit out of something? Those contracts could be worth millions of pounds. Would it not be a good thing if some of the railway workshops had a little more work to do, instead of staffs being ruthlessly reduced? Will the noble Lord deal with these points?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have already said, No, certainly not, to the noble Lord's first question on the point. I do not quite know for what reason he thinks redundancy will result from this, because in the two workshops that could do this work it is known there will be no redundancy this year. If they are not making wagons they will be engaged on repairs and maintenance; and this is what they are for.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may we take it that the Government do not care what happens to towns like Swindon, Crewe and the rest which depend on the railways, and that they are prepared to scrap them in spite of all their talk of the redeployment of industry?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl can take nothing of the kind, because any such action, if it happened, would not affect any of the towns he mentioned. The question, therefore, does not arise and I do not think it was a very worthy one.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be a little better if the British nation as well as Parliament knew how little consistency there is in this policy regarding the railways? Is t not a fact that the electricity undertakings compete in almost every sphere in retail and wholesale trade? Is that not so, and is it not right that it should be so? Is it really the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go on with the kind of policy they had when they sold out the road transport belonging to the British Transport Commission? They still have had to keep some of them—and they are making a profit to go into the general fund. When will the Government have some consistency about this and treat the people of the country in a decent manner with regard to transport?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not going to attempt to deal with the six fresh questions which the noble Earl has just raised, but I will say that the policy of the Government in this matter has been completely consistent throughout.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord
1126
whether he suggests there is no likelihood of redundancy because of the Minister's decision? And may I ask him whether there is likely to be redundancy in the Doncaster railway workshop, which has been one of the most enterprising and efficient in the country for a long time?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Doncaster works are not involved in this question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, was the noble Lord correct when he said that the primary duty of the British Railways Board was to run the railways? Would the noble Lord not agree that the duty the Government laid upon Dr. Beeching was to make the railways pay? Are we to take it, therefore, that when the Government and the Minister criticise the judgment of the British Railways Board they are in fact criticising the commercial judgment of Dr. Beeching?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is not to take anything of the kind. I am well aware, and so is the House, of the duty laid upon the Railways Board in this matter, and when it was being laid upon them it was made perfectly clear that it was not to include manufacturing for outside interests.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, one moment. Are we to take it that a speech by a Minister in a Standing Committee of the House of Commons is to bind the Government for all time? If this was to be done, why was it not done by legislation? If it is left to the discretion of the Minister, why is the Minister's mind made up in advance, well before the application is received? The Government are trying to elevate a minor ministerial speech in a Standing Committee of the House of Commons into Statute Law, and it is nothing of the kind.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not doing anything of the kind, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so. I am merely repeating what was stated, not only in the Standing Committee, but also at various stages of the Bill, in another place and in your Lordships' House, to be Government policy. It does not bind the Government for all

1127
time, but so long as the Government remain of the same opinion, their policy will remain the same.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are shocked by this display of inconsistency and of animosity towards a nationalised industry belonging to the country. We will raise this in a debate at the earliest possible opportunity. Perhaps we shall start at once with an Unstarred Question.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course, it is always open to the noble Earl to ask for a debate or to put down an Unstarred Question on any subject he wishes, but I am very surprised that he should express himself as either shocked or surprised at what I have said, because it is so completely consistent with what has been so often said before.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, is it not clear that if the Government are pursuing stupid policies like this, it is high time they gave way to another one?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords.

AIR SERVICES BETWEEN SCOTLAND AND SCANDINAVIA
2.45 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what alternative arrangements are being made to enable people to travel from Scotland to Scandinavia, and vice versa, after April 1 on the days when Scandinavian Airlines System's flights are not permitted to operate through Prestwick.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in the event of the Scandinavian Airlines System's services through Prestwick to New York being reduced it will remain open to the airline to operate a service between Scotland and Scandinavia at whatever frequency it chooses. I would remind your Lordships that there is, in any event, a daily service between Renfrew and Copenhagen in the summer.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, does not my noble friend realise that the continued indecision about this matter is causing great difficulty to Scotland? Can he tell us when the Government will be able to come to some decision on this matter? Is he aware that the severing of these vital links between Prestwick and Scandinavia would not be in the interests either of Scotland's tourism or of industry, as I find it hard to believe that the Scandinavian Airlines System would find it worth while to run daily services between Prestwick or Renfrew and Copenhagen were they not, in addition, able to carry some cross-Atlantic traffic?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is rather a prolonged supplementary, but I will try to answer it. I would tell the House that the present state of play is that the discussions continue. Representations to the Foreign Office have recently been made by the Scandinavian Ambassadors and these are now being examined. I think that the noble Duke mis-stated the position slightly when he implied that terrible things were happening in Scotland because of the uncertainty over this matter, because the airline is not running daily services through the winter. As I have explained before, and will do again in future when the noble Duke's Unstarred Question comes up, I do not think that Scotland will suffer as a result of the rearrangement.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us why it has been found necessary to restrict the services between Scotland and Scandinavia?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, briefly, under the agreement, the S.A.S. are permitted to land at Prestwick in connection with the traffic from Scandinavia to New York. In fact, it would appear that they are collecting most of the traffic at Prestwick.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the last year for which I have figures, 19,500 passengers flew by these services from Copenhagen to North America, 14,000 from Scotland to Copenhagen, and 16,000 from Prestwick to North America—so it seems slightly unfair, would he not agree, to say that the majority of the traffic originates in Scotland?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps, in the heat of the moment, I was in error in my last remark. I should have said, 40 per cent., which is the figure.

THE NEW ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL
2.47 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange for a model or perspective drawing of the revised design of St. Thomas's Hospital to be exhibited in the Palace of Westminster.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has the Hospital Board's new proposals under consideration, and if it is decided to revise the design, he will arrange a display on the lines suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Lord say when it is likely that the Minister will come to a conclusion about the revision of the design? I was under the delusion that a decision had been made to abandon the design, a model of which has already been exhibited in the Palace of Westminster, and to substitute a new design.
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, I would not say that the noble Lord is under a delusion, but he is not quite right about this. Last week, the Board submitted for my right honourable friend's approval detailed proposals for the next stages of rebuilding and it is those proposals which my right honourable friend is now considering, in the context of operational efficiency and costs and also, of course, of any possible effect on the building timetable.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the Minister also have regard to the great importance of this site æsthetically, as
1130
perhaps the most important site in London from the visual point of view.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, my Lords, if it is decided to revise the design, the local planning authority and the Royal Fine Art Commission will be consulted, as they were originally.

SUPREME COURT JUDGES' SALARIES
2.50 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Supreme Court Judges in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have had no increase in their salaries since 1954, while those of the lower judiciary have been increased on three, and in some cases four, occasions since that date; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary action to increase these salaries.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, the answer is, Yes. It is the Government's intention to introduce next Session legislation to provide for increases in the remuneration of the Superior Judiciary.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Can he tell us whether the Judges of the Supreme Court will be equally grateful?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should hope so, in due course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will be making a statement on organo-chlorine pesticides.

FILMS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Films Act, 1960, in its application to newsreels. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PORT OF LONDON (EXTENSION OF SEAWARD LIMIT) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

HOLY TABLE MEASURE 1964
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper:
"That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Holy Table Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent."
The Holy Table Measure is the first of a number of Measures which will be coming before your Lordships' House as a consequence of the revision of the Canon Law of the Church of England, a process that has been going on for some twenty years. I would, therefore, ask your Lordships' indulgence if, before coming to the Measure itself, I say a word or two in general terms about the need for Canon Law revision and the reason for the Measures which are related to it.
The Canon Law is the domestic law of the Church—the code of faith, morals and discipline. In this country the canon-making bodies are the Convocations of Canterbury and York, acting under Royal Licence. They can, however, make canons only so long as they do not conflict with the existing Statute Law of the land. If there is any such
1132
conflict, then the Statute Law must first be altered so that a canon may subsequently be promulged.
The Canon Law of the Church of England was last revised in 1604, and the greater part of its provisions are out of date and unrelated to the needs and circumstances of the present time. The Church of England is as anxious as are its critics to restore a proper measure of discipline to its life, but it is impossible to do so when, as is the case at the moment, there is so wide a gap between the Canon Law and the normal practice of loyal churchmen. So we have been engaged upon the massive and often wearisome task of a complete revision of the code.
In the far greater number of instances there is no difficulty, since we shall recast some existing canons in terms applicable to the modern day, and we shall repeal the canons which no longer hear any relevance. But there are a certain number of matters with which we must deal and which are now established practice of the Church of England, but which are technically illegal. We desire to make canons which will reflect current thought and action. So first we must change the law, so that consequently we may make the canon. Thus there will be, in the coming months, a number of Measures, some dealing with matters which are quite trivial and others with matters of moment, before your Lordships' House, the effect of which will be to enable the Church of England to legislate for its life in the way that its constitutional assemblies desire.
The process is, as I have remarked, a long one; but at least your Lordships may rest assured that each matter which will in this way be brought before you will have been debated with a thoroughness seldom accorded to legislative enactments. Each one has first passed through all the stages of a draft canon in the Convocations and the House of Laity of Church Assembly. Having been approved as a draft canon, it is then redrafted as a Measure for the Church Assembly, and it is debated all over again in the Church Assembly. It must then be subjected to the scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. So your Lordships may rest assured that these Measures have received prolonged and meticulous examination.
The first of these Measures, the Holy Table Measure, is concerned with the character of the Holy Table upon which the Holy Communion is celebrated. The existing law is contained in Canon 82 of the 1604 Code and in the rubric of The Book of Common Prayer. The canon requires that
"Convenient and decent tables"
shall be provided and covered with a
"carpet of silk or other decent stuff".
The rubric in the Prayer Book orders that the Holy Table shall stand in the body of the church or in the chancel. There is in these enactments nothing about the material of which the table is to be made nor what it is to be like, but, as a result of a judgment in 1845 in the case of Faulkner v. Litchfield and Stern, the law has been interpreted as requiring that the Holy Table must be made of wood and must be movable.
This judgment was a reflection of the controversies at the time of the Reformation, when the medieval stone altars were in large measure destroyed because they represented superstitious beliefs connected with the sacrifice of the Mass. It is difficult to discover, in fact, how much doctrinal significance was attached to the material of which the Table was made. We know, for instance, that there was a pre-Reformation wooden Table in Canterbury Cathedral. In any event, a number of stone Holy Tables were erected between 1559 and 1845, both in England and Ireland. But in a judgment delivered in 1938, Mr. Justice Stable, who was then the Deputy Dean of Arches, held that the ecclesiastical courts are bound by the 1845 judgment and are precluded from granting faculties for the principal Holy Table unless it is made of wood and movable.
However, my Lords, the situation is anomalous and uncertain. Many churches, from Westminster Abbey downwards, have stone Holy Tables, and some of them are churches of an evangelical tradition. Those erected between 1559 and 1845 were undoubtedly the main Holy Table of the Church. Some chancellors have granted faculties for stone tables. There is, further, no question at all but that so long as the main Table is of wood, any other Table, in a side chapel, for instance, may be made of stone and need not necessarily be
1134
movable. In short, the law raises no objection to stone Holy Tables as such, but only when they are the main Holy Table, and for many centuries, since the Reformation up to 1845, there seems to have been no question raised about the propriety of stone Holy Tables as the main Table in the church.
It is clear that Chancellor Garth Moore's observation in the case of St. John the Divine Richmond in 1953, that
"No doctrinal significance should be attached to the name by which the article is called, whether table or altar, nor to its material, nor to its position in the Church"
expresses the mind of the Church of England to-day. The opposition to this Measure in the Church Assembly amounted to only one in ten of the votes cast. The desire for this Measure stems from the need first to clarify an unsatisfactory legal position and, secondly, to give freedom to those who on æsthetic grounds consider that the design of a church requires that the Holy Table should be made of some substance other than wood, and should possibly be immovable. This Measure gives that permissive freedom. I trust your Lordships will agree that the Measure is desirable, and should receive the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Holy Table Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
3.2 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, once more I have to follow the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chester. Evidently he is at every stage going to be a kind of counsel for the introduction of Canon Law which is brought before Parliament by way of Church Measure. The speech which he has just made on the Holy Table is, of course, one full of historical research and knowledge as to what has actually happened. But there cannot be any doubt in the minds of any of those people who are connected with myself in the United Kingdom Council of Protestant Churches as to the general influence which is being used nowadays to alter the Canon Law of the Church of England.

1135
I think it must first of all be remembered that these Laws are required to come to this House only because they relate to the State Church. It is ineradicably linked up under the law with the Crown. Her Majesty is the Head of the State Church. Her Majesty stood over there when the Lord Chancellor presented her, at the beginning of her first Parliament, with the Declaration she had to make: "I declare that I am a faithful Protestant."
The question as to how changes of this kind should take place has, of course, been discussed over and over again. But it is not so many years ago, when we think of all the depths of history that the right reverend Prelate has gone into this afternoon, that in 1906 there was a Royal Commission which inquired very carefully into all these matters, including, so far as I remember, the matters relating to the Holy Table. It certainly referred to the kind of decision that was made the other day, so far as the Church Assembly is concerned by a large vote of the clergy, with regard to legalising the use of the sacramental vestments.
Of course, there can be no possible doubt that these changes are being made, step by step, only in order that the Church may move further Rome-ward in its policy. The right reverend Prelate shakes his head, but he must remember, when you come to deal with, say, the kind of Holy Table that you have, that the only real idea behind a stone table is to turn it into an altar—which is not used according to the Prayer Book, so far as I remember—and an altar was built of stone because it was upon that kind of structure that, according to the Old Testament, sacrifices were made.
It is perfectly certain in my mind, too, that the whole objection to the use of sacramental vestments is that it raises once more the fact that many of the priests of the Church of England now believe as substantially as the Roman Catholics do—only the Roman Catholics are more courageous and belong to the Chuch in which it is the proper practice—that transsubstantiation is right for the Church of England; and that, in spite of great passages of scripture such as Hebrews, Chapter IX, verse 24 to the end, in which the sacrifice of the beloved Master was once and for all, and not to
1136
be offered often. Those things are there, and indisputably so.
Therefore, I very much regret that we are gradually being led, stage by stage, in the State Church to surrender to those who are going more and more back to the doctrine of Roman times, the Roman Catholic practice. That I very much deplore (I speak only for myself; my colleagues who sit on these Benches must all have their own opinions, and they are perfectly free to have what opinions they like; we all know that), but I personally will never consent to a Measure of this kind by voting for it—never.
I was brought up in the Church of England. I love so much of it, especially its Prayer Book, that when I begin to see these alterations in the Prayer Book, which set up the first true basis of civil and religious liberty in this country (it had not existed until then), and the example which, in religious and civil and political life, has had so much to do with the growing greatness of this country in the last 300 years; the setting up of its Commonwealth, as well as the examples that have been given over and over again by those who hold our belief in civil and religious liberty according to the reformed Church of England, I find it a sad sight to see Prelates hurrying to get through this kind of Measure which is upsetting the doctrine. I am equally shocked to find that some clergymen and some of the Prelates, whom we had regarded as well grounded in what we call the evangelical faith and practice, are beginning to vote for Measures of this kind. It will not lead to, shall I say, the strengthening of the State Church in this country. I believe that it will lead gradually to more and more controversy, and I very much regret having to speak to such a Measure this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

FACULTY JURISDICTION MEASURE 1964
3.10 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend

1137
Prelate said: My Lords, the Faculty Jurisdiction is that branch of the law which is exercised by the chancellor in the Consistory Court of a diocese, and it has four main purposes: first, to protect the interests of succeeding generations of parishioners, and the fabric and treasures of their parish church; secondly, to settle disputes between interested parties; thirdly, to ensure that nothing unsuitable is done in the church, and, fourthly, that nothing illegal is introduced.
The exercise of this jurisdiction has been largely regulated by the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938. The whole question of this jurisdiction was considered by a Commission of the Church Assembly which reported in 1959. That Commission recommended that the jurisdiction should in the main continue unchanged, but it suggested certain modifications. This Measure therefore repeals and replaces the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938, but it introduces certain new provisions, most of which were recommended by the Fees and Faculties Commission. The provisions of Clause 2, however, arise from recommendations made by another Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, which considered the whole complicated question of what should be done with churches which are redundant. Some attempt was made in the Church Assembly to achieve a more radical reform of the whole system, but the amendments to that end met with little support. Only amendments of detail were made and at no stage was there a division.
The principal changes in the existing law are, first, that Clause 1 contains provisions for dealing with aisles or other parts of parish churches which are in private ownership, the owners of which cannot be found or who have proliferated so that there are a number of them, or who have neglected to carry out repairs for seven years. It sometimes happens that the whole fabric of a church may be imperilled because the private owner of some part of it has not done his job in keeping it in repair. An incumbent or a parochial church council may therefore apply for a faculty vesting such parts of the church in the person or persons who own the remainder of the church and thus make it possible for the parochial
1138
church council to carry out the necessary repairs.
Clause 2, while providing for demolition in cases where either the building is a dangerous structure or it is necessary for the purposes of enlargement, rebuilding, replacement or repair, makes it impossible for a faculty to be granted for the demolition of a church solely on the grounds of redundancy. That is because we hope further Measures will be coming before us from the Bridges Commission which will deal with redundancy. However, this clause very much limits the existing powers of chancellors to give demolition orders for churches, and they have to carry out certain consultations even when it is permissible for them to do so.
Clause 3 provides for a faculty to be granted for the removal of a monument, notwithstanding the fact that the owner objects or cannot be found. Experience has shown that entirely desirable schemes of improvement in both churches and churchyards have been held up because the consent of one owner of a monument cannot be obtained. He would have the right to object and have the case heard, but his objection would not be conclusive.
Clauses 6 and 7 deal with two questions which affect modern church buildings. It is often the case that when a building is first erected in, say, a new housing area, either because it combines both church and hall, or because it is not suitable at that moment to become a parish church, such a building is only dedicated and not consecrated, and it does not come under faculty jurisdiction at all, so that the parish priest is free to furnish it in whatever way he thinks proper. Nevertheless, it may well happen that after a number of years that church will be consecrated and then there may be the trouble that certain things have to be taken out which may have endeared themselves to the people who worship in that church. The Measure, therefore, authorises a Bishop, in appropriate cases, to make an order bringing such buildings under faculty jurisdiction.
Next, for reasons of health the land which surrounds a new church in an urban area in these days cannot be used for burials, and it is therefore often not consecrated ground. The question has

1139
sometimes been raised whether or not it is within the faculty jurisdiction. The object of Clause 7 is to remove any doubt about this. It is obviously desirable that the ground around the church should be subject to faculty jurisdiction and that the chancellor should have some control over what is put on it.
The other provisions of the Measure are fully described in the Comments and Explanations submitted by the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, and they are printed as an Appendix to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that this Measure is desirable and is one that should receive the Royal Assent.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WAR DAMAGE BILL
3.17 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41, having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The reference is to Bill (91) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Schedule 5, page 134, line 11, leave out ("so").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This is merely a drafting Amendment, arising out of an oversight in the original text of the Bill, the word
1140
"so" not having appeared in the Acts consolidated.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PERPETUITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 9 [Options relating to land]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a right of pre-emption conferred on a public or local authority in respect of land used or to be used for religious purposes where the right becomes exercisable only if the land ceases to be used for such purposes."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment carries out an undertaking that I gave in the course of the Committee stage to move an Amendment which would give effect to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and so make special provision for the cases where land has been let by local authorities to churches, with an option to re-purchase should that land no longer be required by the churches.
LORD SILSOE: My Lords, I express the gratitude of all Churches for this Amendment. It entirely meets the point I was asked to raise and the Churches are grateful to the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 19), Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House.

1141
that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1923 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
3.22 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is ill, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord St. Just.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HARBOURS BILL
3.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I move, "That the Bill be now read a second time", I feel that I must first say a word or two about the Rochdale Report, which is the background for all Government policy on ports, and on which the Government have drawn in very large measure for the provisions that are in the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will be as pleased as I shall be to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, is proposing to say a little later in this debate.
The port industry, Parliament, and indeed the country as a whole, owe the noble Viscount an immense debt. The Report he and his colleagues produced in sixteen months of hard work has been so widely praised that I do not think it is easy for me to try to add anything; but I must place it on record that it was described by a speaker in another place as the most important event ever to have taken place in the history of the port
1142
industry—and I do not think that is overstatement. The noble Viscount has put the Government and the ports industry further in his debt by agreeing to become the Chairman of the National Ports Council, about which I shall have a good deal more to say in a moment.
But first I must state the main objective of my speech this afternoon, which is to give your Lordships a brief factual outline of the contents of the Bill. It certainly looks a formidable affair, with 61 clauses and 6 Schedules, and while much of it is of very considerable complexity, I hope to be able to satisfy your Lordships that the basic objectives of the Bill are straightforward, simple and, above all, commendable. They are, if I am not over-simplifying, to provide means whereby a comprehensive, coordinated plan for the systematic development of our ports over the next 15 or 20 years can be worked out. I should perhaps apologise to your Lordships if I rather over-simplify matters, but I shall try to present this very complex measure as best I can; so if I err in that way your Lordships will no doubt tell me about it in due course.
So I begin with the establishment of the National Ports Council and its proposed functions and duties. The draftsman, quite rightly and properly, put the provisions which deal with these in the forefront of the Bill, in the first eight clauses. The establishment of a strong central body to plan, in conjunction with the ports, the future pattern of development of the whole system was one of the chief recommendations of the Rochdale Committee and the Government were never in any doubt that it must be accepted, although I must tell your Lordships that the exact powers and functions of the Council as proposed in the Bill now before us are not in every respect identical with what that Committee recommended. The Bill, then, provides for the setting up of the National Ports Council and spells out their duties in Clause 1. These are so important that while I am not actually going to read them out, I want your Lordships to look at Clause 1 with great care, because the words have been very carefully chosen, and it is important that their significance should be fully understood.
As I said, the primary task of the Council is the working out, in close co-

1143
operation and conjunction with the ports themselves, of a comprehensive, coordinated national plan. I think the word to stress here is "co-operation". The National Ports Council will have no dictatorial powers such as would enable them to compel a port authority to undertake a project they did not want to do. It is cardinal to the Government's policy that the ports must do everything they can to help themselves and to feel as free as they possibly can to manage their own businesses within the overall concept—and when I get to the part of the Bill about charges, my Lords, we shall see how this principle applies in practice. Your Lordships will wish to know that the National Ports Council is already very hard at work, though of course on a non-statutory basis, on various aspects leading towards the plan and on their main duties which are, in effect, to give port authorities every possible help and encouragement, both in the formulation and execution of plans and for capital development and in assisting by way of their advice any port authorities that want it.
Clause 2 deals with the composition of the Council and says that the members are to be appointed by the Minister on the basis of experience and knowledge of various suitable kinds. It also provides for the possible appointment of people with experience of working in harbours and people with knowledge or experience of matters affecting the fishing industry, among others, who might have useful and special knowledge and experience. The real point is that it is not intended that the National Ports Council should be strictly representative of sectional or regional interests, but that it should provide a blend of experience and capacity in a number of different and appropriate fields.
Clause 3 is to enable the Council to do what seems to them to be practicable and desirable for the promotion of research into matters of management, construction and improvement of harbours and the carrying out of harbour operations and training and education. Their training and education activities are not to overlap those of the National Dock Labour Board, but they will be able,
1144
for instance, to train dock workers for white collar jobs on the management side. My right honourable friend can direct the Council to promote research into any specific problems as he may think desirable, and the Council, if they promote research to be carried out by other people, can give financial assistance for it.
Clause 4, my Lords, is important. It provides that the Council's expenses are to be met by means of a levy on the port industry, subject to the Minister of Transport's prior approval of both the actual scheme itself and the amount that can be raised under it. This clause was hotly opposed in another place, largely on the ground that the Council should properly have been financed by way of Exchequer grants. It would take too long if I went fully into the reasons why the Government rejected this course—perhaps that may come later—but I think it will do at this stage if I say that the Government are quite convinced that for the Council to derive its income from the port industry will both encourage it to be as independent as possible and, at the same time, promote close relations with the port authorities with whom the Council must work. Perhaps I should at this stage just say that I am not going right the way through the Bill in this way, but these first eight Clauses are very important, and I thought I ought to give them special attention.
I will go on to the second main section of the Bill, which deals with the control of harbour development. I think your Lordships will agree with me that it the concept of an overall and comprehensive national ports development plan is to be effective, there will clearly have to be powers to disallow major developments if these do not fit in with the national plan. Clause 9 therefore proposes that the Minister shall have powers of this kind, and he must consult with the National Ports Council before he can act. Some fears arose in another place that the Minister and the Council might use these powers in such a way as to control minor and relatively unimportant capital works, and the Bill was therefore amended to provide that the control will not operate on works costing up to £500,000; nor will it be used to control routine maintenance and repairs. I think that change was quite

1145
widely welcomed, and certainly I think it should relieve the worries of the smaller ports, who thought they might have to go through a cumbersome procedure for quite small projects, although that, of course, was never the idea of the clause.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is an important point. I accept that for a port authority like the Port of London Authority £500,000 is very little, considering the work they have to do. But, if we consider a small port somewhere else, £500,000 is more than will ever be spent. Should there not be some relation between the size of the port and the work to be done?
LORD CHESHAM: I think that would be difficult to write into the Statute. The sum of £500,000 was settled upon as the most reasonable compromise that could be made, and the Bill of course has provision for varying that figure if it proves to be either too high or too low.
Clauses 11 to 13 provide that the Minister, with Treasury approval, and having consulted the Council, may make grants or loans to port authorities for the various purposes set out in Clauses 11 and 12. I think I can best express to your Lordships the real intention of these clauses by saying that Government policy will be that no approved major capital project which fits into the national plan shall be stultified by lack of funds to carry it out. I think that is putting it as simply as I can. Clause 13 puts the limit of the aggregate of these loans and grants at £50 million, which can go up to £100 million if another place so provides. I think in these cases where a Minister is granted powers of financing assistance to an industry it is now usual to write a maximum into the Statute.
I come to harbour revision and empowerment orders in Clauses 14 to 17, which are also important. The intention is to enable harbour authorities, on the one hand, and persons or bodies who wish to construct new harbours, on the other, to have a new and rather simpler method of getting the necessary statutory authority. Until now, the only way they could get new powers was by Private Bill or Provisional Order, both of which have to go through a lengthy and often expensive process before they
1146
become law. Under the new procedure, measures—certainly those which command general assent—should go through much more quickly. I would point out that the amplest safeguards have been written in to ensure that proposals of this kind are thoroughly aired and any possible objections to them examined. Without going into the whole detail, which is very long, I would say that they provide for extensive advertisement, a reasonable time for objections or representations, and a public inquiry where the Minister thinks it desirable—and I imagine that he would think it desirable in any contested proposal. On top of that, when that has all been done and the Minister lays an order before Parliament, the Special Parliamentary Procedure to which it is then subject provides also the fullest opportunity for detailed scrutiny. The objects for which these orders can be made your Lordships will find in Schedule 2, and Schedule 3 spells out in great detail the procedure that is to be followed before the Minister lays an order before Parliament.
The Minister himself is given related powers, in Clause 15, to make harbour revision orders off his own bat, but he can do that only on representations made to him by the National Ports Council; and even then he can, in effect, only reconstitute a harbour authority or alter its constitution or regulate either in whole or in part, its procedure. This was thought necessary because it could happen (although I should hope only very rarely) that both the Minister and the National Ports Council were satisfied that changes of some kind ought to be made in a harbour authority's constitutional procedure for which that authority, for some reason or other, was unwilling or reluctant to ask; and I think I can see where it might be less embarrassing for the Minister to act of his own motion on this than for the authority to start the action itself. Harbour empowerment orders, on the other hand, deal with the situation where some person or body wants to construct a new harbour, and the procedure is, in fact, very much the same as for harbour revision orders.
Clause 18 brings us on to harbour reorganisation schemes. The Rochdale Committee came to the firm conclusion that there was a lot to be gained by the

1147
unification of port facilities in an estuary or river in a number of places around the coasts. The Government accept this in principle. Proposals can come either from the Council or from all or any of the harbour authorities concerned; and once again the procedure they have to go through has been designed to provide for the fullest possible scrutiny. Under Clauses 19 to 24 the Minister can make orders, called "Control of movement orders", to set up schemes for the control of movement of ships entering or leaving harbours; and how harbour authorities apply to my right honourable friend for such an order is set out in Schedule 5. I should say that what is in these clauses is a self-contained section of the Bill, not closely related to the main objectives of the other important parts of it; although I think one could argue that the effective control of ships entering and leaving harbours is probably conducive to their commercial efficiency. What we hope to see happening is further progress along the lines which have already been successful in the Mersey and Thames estuaries; but again I stress that the initiative again lies with the harbour authorities concerned.
My Lords, I come next to what might be the most important single section of the Bill—important both because of what it does and because of what has been thought and said about Clauses 25 to 38, which contain the provisions about the control of charges. They are, quite frankly—and particularly Clauses 25, 29 and 30—exceptionally complicated in detail, but I think I can put their essential objectives fairly simply.
At present, the charges which a harbour authority can make may be subject to a variety of controls, or to no control at all: it all depends on whatever is in the appropriate one of the large and various number of Private and Public Acts which govern the powers of harbour authorities to charge. The Rochdale Committee thought the existing system inadequate, inconsistent within itself and to a large extent unnecessary. The Government accept this, and accordingly the general objective is to free the authorities from all statutory controls which may be contained in Acts of general or local application and to leave them at liberty to make such charges as they think right in
1148
respect of dues on ships, passengers and goods or of charges for other services such as stevedoring, warehousing and so forth. I must, however, point out to your Lordships two important qualifications to this freedom—one already written into the Bill and another which I propose to move in Committee. First, so far as dues on ships, passengers and goods are concerned, the freedom of harbour authorities to make such charges as they think fit is qualified by the right of a port user to object to paying a particular due. These objections are to be heard by the National Ports Council, whose decision is to be final. If they think that the objection is justified, they can direct a port authority to fix that due at a given figure which will thereafter remain frozen for a period, not exceeding twelve months, to be fixed by the Council.
The second qualification arises out of an undertaking which the Government gave late in the progress of the Bill in another place, and it is that charges which a port authority are entitled to make, other than ship, passenger and goods dues, are to be subject to the limitation that if they were required by Statute before the passing of this Bill to be reasonable they must continue to be so. I think that this is something we shall have to discuss in more detail in Committee when I move the necessary Amendments, and that your Lordships might be content to leave the matter for the present.
I want to come to Clause 30, which is also important, because it provides that the National Ports Council, if they are unable to reach agreement with a particular port authority on the level of all or any of their charges may submit to my right honourable friend a scheme for adjusting those charges, for the Minister to approve if he so decides.
I will not try to conceal from your Lordships that these provisions have been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate, both in and out of Parliament and have been strongly objected to by many of the important interests concerned. I do not think I should take time to-day to go in detail into the grounds of this argument, though I have little doubt that we shall later on; but broadly, however, the argument is between those who think that in the last resort the control of charges made by harbour authorities should rest, as it

1149
has hitherto, with the Minister of Transport, and those who think that it is high time for statutory control of this kind to be abolished. The Government have never had any doubt that the right course is the one recommended in the Bill, which incidentally conforms precisely in this respect to the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee.
Let me remind your Lordships that it is a cardinal principle of the Bill that harbour authorities should have the maximum degree of freedom to regulate their affairs, including, of course, their financial affairs. It would be inconsistent with such a principle that the Minister should retain the powers which he has now to regulate port charges; but at the same time, in view of the special position of the ports, it seemed right to us to provide, as a counterpart to this freedom, a right of objection to a particular due on the grounds set out in Clause 29. We are satisfied that this kind of objection should go to the body which the Government have set up, charged with the general oversight of ports, rather than to the Minister.
But it is not the same when we come to Clause 30. I think I should say, and make quite clear, that we regard that provision as very much a reserve power; we certainly do not think it very likely that it will have to be invoked in many cases. But—and here again we accept a recommendation of the Rochdale Committee—a situation could arise where a particular port was not making proper provision for depreciation and reserves and refused to listen to the advice of the National Ports Council that it should review its charges in order to put itself on a more satisfactory financial basis. Then the National Ports Council, if they fail to reach agreement with the port authority, will be able to make recommendations to the Minister, but in a matter of such importance we feel that the final decision on it should be with him.
Clauses 39 and 40 deal with the furnishing of information and statutory harbour authorities' annual statements of accounts. I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am not going in detail into the rest of the Bill; that is, Clauses 41 to 61 and Schedules 4, 5 and 6. They contain the usual miscellany of matters which have to be covered in any major Public Bill, like
1150
penalty provisions, application to the Crown, inquiries and hearings, date of coming into operation and so forth. I need only direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 52, which sets out the orders made by my right honourable friend the Minister, which are to be subject to Negative Resolution procedure, with its consequent safeguards.
I have referred already to one major Amendment, or rather series of Amendments, which in due course I shall ask your Lordships to approve. I should perhaps mention another. Late in the Bill's progress in another place the Opposition introduced an Amendment providing for the payment of compensation for loss of employment or worsening of conditions of employment arising out of the operation of certain provisions of the Bill. It was withdrawn on an undertaking being given that the Government were sympathetic to the principle behind the Amendment, but would like to consider in more detail exactly how it should be applied. I have little doubt that when your Lordships see what I shall be moving in due course you will agree that it is one which fully satisfies the undertaking.
My Lords, I have done my best to give your Lordships a complete but not too lengthy description of the principal points of what is in this long and complicated Bill, but I realise that I have had to deal rather summarily with many matters of considerable weight. If, however, I have managed to place before your Lordships the main objectives of the Bill under its different heads with reasonable clarity, I shall consider that I have succeeded, but no doubt there will be many queries and matters which we shall have to discuss. We have reached a critical point in the development of our ports, and this Bill therefore comes at the right moment.
One of the many pregnant observations in the Rochdale Committee's Report was that we ought to prepare for a 100 per cent. increase in the volume of our imports and exports by 1980—and, in fact, it might be earlier than that. If we are going to achieve that kind of expansion it will need the best brains we can get and the close and positive co-operation of all concerned. It is not a matter in which one can lay down hard and fast lines and rigid policy directives. The Government will expect

1151
a far-seeing and imaginative report from the National Ports Council and also the fullest co-operation from the port authorities in developing in accord with it. The Ministry of Transport will be available at all times to give advice and assistance as may be required of it, and not least, perhaps, financial assistance. Her Majesty's Government have every confidence that a working partnership between the National Ports Council, the port authorities, whether they are independent or nationalised, and the Ministry of Transport will produce the best possible results. The first step towards that is this Bill, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)

ORGANO-CHLORINE PESTICIDES
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were now to make a statement, similar to the one being made by my right honourable friend in another place. I will use his own words. This statement relates to the use of certain toxic chemicals in agriculture.
"I have received the Report of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage on the persistent organo-chlorine pesticides. Copies of the Report are now available in the Vote Office. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Sir James Cook and the members of his Committee for their work.
"The Committee found no evidence of any serious immediate hazard to human beings from the use of these pesticides, or to wild life, apart from certain species of predatory birds. In particular they reject the suggestion that these chemicals may be severe liver poisons or that they can be condemned as presenting a carcinogenic hazard to man. On the other hand, they regard it as a matter of concern that traces of the chemicals are being found in so many situations and express the firm opinion that accumula-
1152
tive contamination of the environment by the more persistent organo-chlorine pesticides should be curtailed. The Committee do not advise that the situation calls for urgent action, but they recommend that a start should be made as soon as possible by restricting certain important uses of aldrin and dieldrin. Other uses of these chemicals, and the use of D.D.T., should be reviewed again at the end of three years.
"Consultations have taken place with organisations representing the interests concerned. The manufacturers of aldrin and dieldrin have informed me that they disagree strongly with the Committee's scientific conclusions, since their own scientific researches suggest that, after reaching a certain harmless level of concentration, the chemicals cease to have further cumulative effect. The National Farmers' Unions have drawn attention to the considerable significance that restriction could have for agriculture. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to give effect to the Committee's recommendations and I am glad to be able to tell the House that I have had assurances of co-operation from all the interests concerned in curtailing the use of these chemicals on the lines recommended by the Committee. This will be done through the voluntary schemes operated jointly by the manufacturers and the Government.
"The principal changes will be that fertilisers containing aldrin, products for garden use containing aldrin or dieldrin, and dips and sprays for sheep containing these chemicals will cease to be available. Generally, these and other recommended changes will take place at the end of the 1964 season, though in the case of sheep dips more time will be needed and the change will take place at the end of the following season. Further consideration will be given to sanctioning certain relatively minor uses.
"The Committee stress that their recommendations are based purely on the situation as they see it in Great Britain and may have no relevance to conditions in other countries. In developing countries in particular these chemicals have made a striking

1153
contribution to solving the problems of malnutrition and disease and, under these different conditions, the gains from their use may well outweigh any potential hazards.
"The voluntary scheme has so far worked well, but as scientific knowledge increases and more restrictions are found to be necessary, it comes under increasing strain. The Government are asking the Committee to examine the present voluntary safety arrangements and will consider whether legislation, which the manufacturers of agricultural chemicals now advocate, would be desirable.
"The Advisory Committee, whose terms of reference are at present limited to agriculture and food storage, has drawn attention to the use of organo-chlorine pesticides for industrial and domestic purposes such as wood preservation and mothproofing. The Government have decided to extend the Committee's terms of reference to include these purposes and also to enable them to report on other toxic chemicals which the Government might wish from time to time to refer to them. In view of this extension of the Advisory Committee's responsibilities, it will in future be primarily responsible to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but will continue to advise other Ministers as necessary."
My Lords, that is the statement. And, of course, my reference to the Report's availability in the Vote Office in another place means that it is also available in the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we welcome the Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Cook Report and we regard it as a first step. But, having listened to the noble Lord, I think everybody in this House must express concern on learning that the manufacturers of these products do not endorse the Government's attitude or endorse the Cook Committee's recommendations. In view of this, does not the Minister think that, with science advancing so rapidly in this field, the test for toxicity should be taken out of the hands of the manufacturer of the product, and an indepen-
1154
dent central organisation be set up to test all these products and then to recommend that they can be distributed?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think the noble Lady is a little astray in saying that the manufacturers of these products do not endorse the Committee's recommendations. In fact, one manufacturer has disagreed, and has given reasons for disagreeing which were considered by the Committee. But as the noble Lady will have seen, the Government have continued with the action which the Committee recommended. In fact, another manufacturer of a chemical called heptachlor chose to withdraw that particular chemical slightly before the Committee made its Report. This shows, I think, that the views of its own scientists were going in the same direction.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Could the noble Lord answer the question whether he thinks the time has arrived when there should be an independent organisation set up to test these substances?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords. We always treat the noble Lady's views with great respect, but we believe the voluntary system does work. As I mentioned in the statement, the question of the possible introduction of legislation is being looked at; but at the moment we find the voluntary system works, and we hope it will carry on working as effectively as it has up to now.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, as I had occasion to be somewhat critical of the noble Lord's attitude when this matter was last debated in your Lordships' House, I should like to say that all naturalists in this country will appreciate, I will not say the change of heart, but at any rate the modification of the noble Lord's attitude and that of his Minister in regard to these chlorinated hydrocarbons, which have done such immense damage to the wild life of this country. Nobody disputes the importance of the use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture, but I would remind the noble Lord that it is only recently, as a result of representations by the naturalists and, in another country, Rachel Carson, whose book had such an influence, that it has come

1155
to be recognised that damage is being done.
In thanking the Ministry for the action they have taken, and whilst recognising the great importance of restricting the use of, in particular, aldrin and dieldrin, may I also say that, in spite of the reservations which seemed to be attached to his description of the manufacturers' attitude, we recognise that they also have approached this particular problem with a considerable degree of enlightenment?
May I put one or two questions to the noble Lord? First, may I take it that the Ministry's pamphlet to gardeners which caused so much feeling and was the subject of so much criticism a year ago will now be withdrawn or very substantially modified? May I remind him that it contained the statement that these substances, including those he has mentioned, are
"quite safe for use in the garden if properly handled"?
My Lords, does he not now agree that the use of aldrin and dieldrin by gardeners who have little idea what they are using, or of the damage they can do, has in fact done immense damage to our insectivorous birds?
I would not dispute that these substances are quite safe to human beings if properly handled, but does he not agree that, in destroying the insects, they have also destroyed a vast number of birds? May I put one other point to the noble Lord? Does he not think that the fact that our water is now carrying quantities of these particular substances and appears to be affecting all aquatic birds is in itself a matter which requires further research?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I remember the noble Lord's criticism, which naturally I took very much to heart. I am happy that he is pleased at the direction in which we are moving. He may have noticed that chlorinated hydrocarbons, which we were discussing at that time, have now become organochlorine chemicals. I hope he will not ask me why. As regards the booklet he mentioned, I can tell him that a revised booklet will be issued. I ought to tell him—though he may think this is splitting hairs—that the Committee found no evidence in their studies of
1156
birds being killed by the use of chemicals in gardens. He related that question to the pamphlet, I think. I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on the levels of these chemicals in water. I do not think they are known; but, of course, we shall pay attention to what he has said.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is the Minister really satisfied that, if it is not safe to use these chemicals in this country, it really is safe, right and proper to send them out to primitive peoples with very much more primitive methods of handling them in tropical agriculture?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I included a reference to that in my original statement.
LORD TAYLOR: That is why I asked.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I know. I drew attention to the fact that it was the cumulative effect of these chemicals which, though it had not become dangerous, looked as if it might do so. I also said (and this is the statement to which the noble Lord is drawing attention) that in some countries the value of these chemicals in food production might outweigh the existing potential risks.
LORD TAYLOR: But if these potential risks are there, am I not right in thinking that they are handled in a very sloppy way, quite often, by primitive agriculturists (for which they cannot be blamed), and that there are very real hazards to health arising from them? In fact, the World Health Organisation has a special section dealing with this question.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, that question does not come under the Ministry of Agriculture or Her Majesty's Government.
LORD TAYLOR: Yes, it does, if the chemicals are exported.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: You have mentioned them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why, if the Government have accepted the Committee's recommendations, they will not be implemented, in the case of sheep dips, until 1965?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Because, my Lords, we have to give the sheep farmers time to replace this particular chemical with others equally effective. It would not be fair to withdraw this as quickly as the others are being withdrawn. It is true that there are effective alternative dips, but they have to be used two or three times a season, whereas this has to be used only once a season; and in certain parts of the country physical conditions make it extremely difficult for farmers to do that. We think it is only fair to give time for another effective chemical to be produced.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord not saying that he thinks it is only fair to allow the farmers to use up their stocks of poison?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, I am not saying that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain why this confident prediction is made; that the accumulation of these poisons in the human body will not do anybody any harm? What research has been done on that subject?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, what I have said, or what I ought to have said, and what I hope I did say, is that there is no evidence that the present levels have done anybody any harm. The fact is that we do not know, and nobody knows, what exactly are the tolerances in the human body. The noble Lord will be well aware—more aware than myself—that tolerances vary between one animal and another, and between animals and human beings but we have no evidence to suggest that the buildup of these chemicals in the human body has reached the point of harmfulness.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Yes, my Lords; but has the noble Lord any evidence that it has not reached that point? He has said that he has no evidence at all. Since when has no evidence become evidence?
LORD ST. OSWALD: It would need positive evidence before we should feel justified in taking any stricter and swifter action than we are taking already. We believe that the action we are taking is sufficiently strict.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is it not desirable to have positive evidence of safety?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, following on that last and very important question, can the noble Lord assure us that his Department, or some other Department, is in fact urgently engaged on a research programme which is going to provide evidence, whether it is positive or negative, rather than simply leaving it to—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Autopsies.
LORD WALSTON:—autopsies to show whether or not there is any evidence of any harm? I think the House would he most grateful if the noble Lord could give us that assurance now.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords, I can give an assurance of that nature. The Government are referring the Committee's Report to the Chief Medical Officers' Committee on the Medical and Nutritional Aspects of Food Policy for advice on tolerance levels (I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, wanted to know) and in the light of the views of that Committee will again seek the views of the Food Standards Committee as to the making of regulations under the Food and Drugs Act to provide for maximum residue levels. Such regulations—and this is a partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—would have to apply to home produce and imported produce alike. The figures given, which noble Lords will find in Appendix F to the Committee's Report, indicate that, on the whole, imported produce does not compare unfavourably with home produce in the matter of dieldrin residues.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that these long, future programmes that he has read out are in any way comparable to actual scientific experiments designed to decide these very important questions on which there is, on his own admission, no evidence? Referring something to a Committee is not exactly the same as carrying out a scientific experiment.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Committee will, of course, have at their command the physical means of making these experiments.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, have I understood the noble Lord to say that his Committee denied that there is any evidence of the death of wild birds, other than of birds of prey, as a result of these chemicals? If so, how can that be reconciled with evidence produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology, which shows that the bodies of a very large number of dead birds, of a wide range of species, have been found, on analysis, to contain a high concentration of these substances? And that they were dead certainly cannot be denied. Can the noble Lord further say how he reconciles what he says with the fact that a large number of eggs were found to be infertile?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, we are back on a subject which the noble Lord and I have discussed before. This learned and conscientious Committee received the sort of evidence that the noble Lord mentioned, and in their conclusions they say that the only convincing evidence of death of birds caused by taking in these chemicals was among predators.

HARBOURS BILL
4.12 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his clear and interesting exposition of this very complicated and lengthy Harbours Bill. I want, first of all, to raise the question of dry docks. It is rather significant that within the Rochdale Report there are long references to the dry docks, but no provision is made within the Bill for providing dry docks within our ports and for financing them. Rochdale made at great length the point that, by comparison with modern European and American countries, we are very short of adequate dry dock facilities. This seems something that ought to be put right quickly, and it is rather strange that there is no reference to this within this Bill. I should be grateful for an explanation from the noble Lord.
We are pleased on this side of the House that the noble Lord has intima-
1160
ted that an Amendment is to be moved to deal with the problem of redundancy. That is something my Party advocated in another place, and we are grateful that the noble Lord is going to produce an Amendment dealing with compensation for people declared redundant in the reorganisation scheme. We on this side of the House support the Bill and we shall do all we can to facilitate its passage during the remaining stages. That does not mean to say that we shall not move Amendments in order, as we see it, to make the Bill better and more effective; but I hasten to assure your Lordships that our Amendments will be constructive, methodical and certainly forthright.
As the noble Lord has said, this is a very large Bill: it has 61 Clauses and there are six Schedules. It follows the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee which are accepted by both sides. So there is no question of controversy in this Bill at all. It is just a question of both sides of your Lordships' House getting together to make it more workmanlike and effective. The noble Lord has already expressed thanks to Lord Rochdale for his lucid and comprehensive Report and the splendid analysis of the docks industry; and I am sure it must be an added pleasure that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, is a Member of your Lordships' House. We are also pleased on this side that Lord Rochdale found it possible to become the new chairman of the Ports Council.
We are forced by this Bill to deal with the legacies of the past. Having been the first industrialised nation, many of our installations are now hopelessly outdated and do not fulfil modern requirements. We must face the fact that it is going to involve this nation in very considerable capital expenditure. We are also grateful that, under the Bill, noble Lords opposite have accepted the principle of planning. This is the first time we have had a measure dealing with docks which is providing for planned dock facilities and developments in this country. For far too long "planning" has been an ugly word, and we of the Labour Party were often denounced for advocating planning after 1945. We are, therefore, pleased that noble Lords opposite and members of their Party in another place have come round to accepting our premise that if we are

1161
going to have an efficient industry we must have planning, whether it be national or private.
I have already said that tremendous leeway has to be made up; and I think those of your Lordships who have visited Rotterdam and the new Europa Port, and have seen Antwerp and Hamburg, will appreciate the tremendous effort that we, as a nation, must make in order to bring our port facilities up to date. Paradoxically, the reconstruction of these large European ports was facilitated by their destruction by the enemy. Now they have been rebuilt and, in my submission, from the point of view of equipment, they are the most modern ports in the world.
The first seven clauses of this Bill, as the noble Lord has said, set up the National Ports Council and define its duties. The consequence of this is that, for the first time, we are to have planned development of our ports according to the needs of our nation. Development is no longer going to be pragmatic; it is no longer going to depend on whether a company or municipality have sufficient resources to raise the capital to develop their particular ports. Now we are to have the whole of the nation considered for port development in relation to location and to trade needs.
My first observation on these first seven clauses is that we are concerned that the Ports Council which is to be set up will have among its members representatives of dock labour as well as dock employers. We feel that dock labour, as such, should be represented; and, of course, there must naturally be among the Ports Council people of proven industrial merit. My idea of an effective board is one that will contain representatives who are functional, who know their jobs, who are representatives of labour engaged in that industry; and I believe that quite a large percentage of the total board should be people with wide industrial knowledge who have made their way in life and can bring to bear sound common sense on decisions.
We should also like the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, to tell us how many members of the new National Ports Council are to be full-time and how many part-time. There is obviously to be a full-time chairman and deputy chairman; but it seems to me that there ought to be a large number of the Council
1162
—and there are only eleven at maximum—who are full-time, in view of the magnitude of the task of having to plan development, and also because the distances between the various ports will involve a large amount of travel.
We feel that Clause 3, which the noble Lord dealt with and which concerns training and education, is commendable. It will enable a docker to receive the training which will enable him, if he so desires and if he be adequately qualified, to rise to the top. There is always a danger in industry, in my experience, that promotion for the manual worker stops half-way. This clause makes it certain that, should a docker qualify, he can proceed to even the highest effective position in the managerial ranks. I believe that this is the first time we have had a Government Bill in which this is actually written down.
I think that at this stage it would be pertinent to pay tribute to the work of the National Dock Labour Board training scheme. The Board set up this scheme in advance of the Industrial Training Act, which was before your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, and they have been very successful in their training of new dockers as they come into the industry. I should think that what will happen is that some of the bright men who received their original training in the Dock Labour Board schemes will pass to further education and provide the "sergeants" who will eventually become the "generals" in this industry.
Obviously, we accept the provision in Clause 8 for the presentation to Parliament of report and accounts, but I wonder whether we might consider going a little further. The present position is, that we cannot question a Minister on the annual report and accounts of any nationalised industry. I have always thought that that was drawing things a little too far. I remember raising this matter with two previous Prime Ministers, and whilst they viewed my contention sympathetically, they did not give way. I do not believe in interference by question and answer in the day-to-day management of any industry, whether nationalised or private, but this question of the degree of the accountability of nationalised concerns is something

1163
which both Houses of Parliament will have to consider sooner or later. So far as the other place is concerned, only six days are allocated for the discussion of the reports and accounts of the nationalised industries and, of course, it is always those which are most contentious, or where there has been a strike or shortages, which are most discussed. Therefore, it seems to me that, in future, consideration will have to be given to the accountability of these large public and semi-public organisations.
Clause 9 deals with the control of harbour development. This is to be achieved by the central control of national port investment. This, of course, is essential and we accept it without any reservations. Otherwise, if it is going to be left to the individual port authorities, there would be a useless duplication of capital expenditure. One can point to occasions at various ports when this has already happened. The Government and the Ports Council can take into consideration the location of industry.
This ports development is to be laid down by way of orders in Parliament subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Why not the Affirmative Resolution procedure? We are faced with a fait accompli if a port is closed down or developed, when we have the Negative Resolution procedure. It seems to me far better that this should be in the form of an Affirmative Resolution before action is taken. Frankly, the longer I live and am associated with Parliament, the more suspicious I am of the Negative Resolution procedure.
Here I think it is relevant to deal with the capital sum for the development of our ports, which is to be between £50 and £100 million "to fit them for their responsibilities for fifty years", to quote the Minister in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, put on another 30 and said, "80 years". I want to ask two questions on this. First of all, is this sum large enough? Secondly, are the ports going to receive an adequate share of the national "cake"? I doubt it very much. After all, £100 million in 50 years is £2 million a year. One does not get so very much maritime engineering for £2 million nowadays. And this is a very urgent task for this country.
1164
If it is going to survive and to be preeminent as a trading nation, it has to have up-to-date ports.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord's argument properly. He is dividing the sum available into fifty years, but he is misled. I said 15 to 20 years, and not 50 to 80 years.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I put down 80, but I must have misheard him. I accept his statement. But, coming back to the argument, I doubt very much whether the amount of capital to be provided is adequate. I know the difficulty. We on this side are not stupid enough to say that there are millions of pounds available for the development of every industry. We know pretty well what the national "cake" is, and the amount of capital available. It is a question of which industries are going to get a share—and it largely boils down to the question of what the nationalised industries are going to get. I went before several Cabinet Committees, during the time that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was a Minister, to plead for more capital expenditure for the Post Office. I know that one cannot pursue a personal ministerial line on these matters. Nevertheless, I doubt very much whether the sum included here is sufficient to modernise our ports.
Let me develop this aspect one stage further. With the change in the type of ship, with ships of increased length, wider beam and greater draft, in nearly all our major ports, except the double tidal ports, such as Southampton, there has unquestionably to be almost immediate capital development. This brings me to a question which may be rather controversial on both sides of the House. As the Bill now stands, and as the noble Lord has stated, harbour authorities can spend up to £500,000 for their own development. At first sight, this is satisfactory: they should not have to run to the Minister for re-equipment, for some cranes or for minor alterations. But, as my noble friend Lord Lindgren pointed out in his intervention, this is rather a two-edged weapon, and I think that between now and Committee stage the noble Lord may care to have a look at it. Half a million pounds to the Port

1165
of London, Tilbury or Southampton is (to use a colloquialism) a "flea-bite". But some of the smaller ports could make themselves into quite large ports on that amount of development and so undermine the whole idea of national port development. I think that there will have to be some new wording here, or some lowering of the amount of money, to prevent that from taking place.
We welcome, in Clause 16, the streamlining of the cumbersome Private Bill procedure to which harbour authorities have to resort. Those of us who have sat on these Private and Hybrid Bill Committees appreciate that that procedure is far too cumbersome, and welcome the provisions made here. There is no doubt that in the past many desirable improvement and development schemes have been pigeonholed purely because promoters have been frightened of this cumbersome legal and Parliamentary procedure—I am too respectful of lawyers to mention cost.
In Clause 18, we come to harbour reorganisation schemes—and to a rather awkward word which I, as a Yorkshireman, find hard to get out—estuarial groupings. We accept that of course. There has to be development; there has to be retrenchment. But I hope that the Ports Council and the Minister—who, after all, has complete power, in the last analysis—will be aware of the social consequences of closing down any port. Here I think it is fair to pay tribute again to the National Dock Labour Board. Where ports have been running down there has been very little trouble, because they have seen the need ahead of time, and through resignation and stopping of recruitment the matter has gone off without trouble. But I would give a warning that plenty of notice must be given in order to avoid trouble, because of the social consequences involved.
Here again, on Clause 18, the approval of this scheme is subject to the Special Parliamentary Procedure—that is the wording in the Act. I read the Report of the Third Reading debate in the other place, and frankly (I speak with 14 years' experience of the other place) I do not yet understand what form this special procedure is to take. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will give us some indication of what this
1166
special procedure will be, not only as it affects the other place, but also as it affects your Lordships' House. I do not know whether what is meant is that an order will come before a Select Committee, and will then come down to the House for approval, or what it means. With due respect, I found the Minister's explanation on Third Reading in the other place very nebulous.
I come now to Clause 19, which deals with the control and movement of ships in harbour. This matter, of course, at the Committee stage in another place was one of the most controversial issues. The Parliamentary Secretary has a great record in Her Majesty's Navy—he certainly knows something about ships and their movement—and we pay due tribute to the work that he did on the Bill. But his great idea in life (it is a very worthy one, and it makes me feel rather humble in criticising this clause) is the question of safety. It was because of his concern for safety that Clause 19 was drafted. But it soon got into trouble, probably not so much as a result of stupidity as from forgetfulness. Why on earth was there no consultation with the pilots, the marine officers, the navigating officers, the Chamber of Shipping and the National Union of Seamen before this contentious clause was drafted? There have been consultations since. Indeed, I believe the reason—which I shall not give, but which my noble friend Lord Lindgren has mentioned—is the reason why Clause 20 is included in the Bill. But this is stupid. If there had been consultation before, there would not have been half the trouble over the clause that there has been.
But what we are concerned about here is that, first, this is unilateral action on behalf of the United Kingdom. We think that this is wrong. We think it is wrong, not because we are against safety at sea, or because we are against safety in the harbour, but because of the retaliation that may be taken against our British merchantmen when they enter other ports. I do not want to delay your Lordships by giving illustrations, but noble Lords can think of many countries that have not the same sense of justice as we have in Britain. I know of one case where a British merchantman went into a foreign

1167
harbour and got into trouble by misunderstanding; and the retaliation that may be taken against British merchant seamen could well be severe.
I think this is something which should be done gradually. Presumably, what is involved in Clause 19 is the V.H.F. radar system. Let there be no doubt that we certainly have the finest radar system in the world. But the point of the matter is that we should proceed gradually with this control scheme, in order to see that other nations adopt our system. I do not want to weary your Lordships, but I think you will find, on examination of the facts, that the number of foreign nations which adopt our system of V.H.F. radar is increasing every year. Therefore, it seems to me that this is rather precipitous action. We could even forgive that. It may be said: "We are pioneering; we are doing the right thing." But when it comes to having a penal clause, with provision for a fine of £100, it seems to me to be going a little too far. Again, I cannot understand the contradiction that noble Lords get into in this matter. We went from 1960 to 1964 before we ratified the Geneva Convention for Safety at Sea—I think it has just been ratified. That took us four years; but here we are proclaiming this form of safety, regardless of the consequences, immediately.
This is an interesting Bill and, as I said, we approve of it in principle. But its success depends upon the cooperation of both sides of industry. I believe that one of the greatest inducements to the success of this scheme will be an early complete de-casualisation of dock labour. Casual labour is a Victorian concept; it is out-dated and undignified, and it should be abolished at the earliest opportunity. Both sides of the industry having agreed to this in principle, surely something can be done by the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour to see that the details are worked out as a matter of urgency. It is often said that we get a great many strikes in this industry. Well, in point of fact, we do not. I will not weary your Lordships with figures, but having had a long experience of industry, having been in strikes and stopped strikes, I think sometimes we expect a little too much. After all, there
1168
is no doubt that the only place where there will be complete harmony is in the graveyard. Therefore, in a complicated industry, where such things as dirty money and dirty cargoes are involved, I think there is bound to be friction. But, by and large, the record is a good one.
I think, too, that we could nail the lie of the slow turn-round of ships in British ports. It is always possible to quote exceptions, but this is something in which I have always been interested, and I have taken the trouble to get some Press cuttings. One says:
"Fast turn-round at Immingham. Eight days for two 14,000-ton cargoes."
Another says:
"7,506 tons of coal in eleven hours."
Then:
"Quick discharge at Thames tier."
So I could go on. I could also give a very fine quotation, which is fact, of the way the dockers have readily accepted the new methods of unloading. Therefore, as I say, the dockers are a great body of men, and loyalty is probably their greatest trait. There are not a large number of disputes. I am sure that, given this scheme, with active and urgent support by the Minister of Transport, they will co-operate to make this industry efficient and pre-eminent.
4.39 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he introduced this Bill, and indeed for introducing it. It seems to me that the more difficult his task—for he properly described this as a long and complex measure—the better he seems to do it. I wish to congratulate him. I should also like to pay my tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and his Committee for producing a Report which, though a difficult one, touching a lot of rather difficult points in the industry, yet seems to have earned the approval, in general and in principle, of all the major ports in the country.
This is not a Party matter—I hope, also, that it is not controversial—and, therefore, I do not speak in a Party sense. But I must declare an interest, in that I am connected with various companies engaged in port activities. I see I am to be followed by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and the

1169
noble Viscount, Lord Simon, both of whom probably have much more experience than any of us in shipping and the handling of ships. But I speak merely as one connected with those who do the things which happen inside the ports when the ships get there.
In general, I would say that the people I presume to represent—I have no particular brief—approve of this Bill. But it seems to us—that is, the port people—that in one sense it impinges dangerously on the private sector of the industry of port work. The people about whom I speak are tug-owners, lightermen, warehouse keepers, wharfingers and waterside manufacturers. They feel that if this Bill goes through in its present state it will have a damaging effect on the private sector in industry. The sector, as I say, comprises tug and lighterage operations, stevedoring and wharfage, which has, of course, very specialised storage services, and all of which demand great expertise. These operations, done in these different branches, are essential for the speedy handling of shipping, to which the noble Lord has just referred. The slow turnround is a great obstruction in our shipping industry, and we must do everything, in the interests of import and export trade, to improve it.
I think your Lordships will agree that as a nation we have a genius for marine matters; and these things are handed on not necessarily from father to son or family to family, but within a tradition they go down from one firm to its successor, and it would be a pity to see the free enterprise firms swamped by the powers which seem to be given in Clause 9 of this Bill. I think it is inappropriate that companies should be brought within the control of development provisions of that clause, and I would ask that when we get to the Committee stage steps will be taken to take out private enterprise as much as possible. It will not be possible to get the speedy work necessary in turnround that we want if we are to hand over these powers to the port authorities. For instance, if they are to indicate to tug-owners that such a practice shall cease, or another practice may take place, it is impossible to put that into effect in a short time; and a tug-owner is naturally going to think a good long time before he spends the money necessary for a
1170
new tug which, as your Lordships may not know, is very often between £100,000 and £200,000 a vessel.
I am not going to keep your Lordships longer, but when we come to the Committee stage I should like Clause 9 and also Clause 55 (which is the interpretation clause) to be looked at. It defines "harbour land" as
"land adjacent to a harbour, and occupied wholly or mainly for the purpose of activities there carried on."
I see a danger there that waterside manufacturers, for instance, may well come under that clause. People who should not properly be controlled or directed by the port authority may find themselves in real trouble. It is only a question of definition. With these few words I should like to welcome the Bill, and hope that Clauses 9 and 55 in particular will receive special attention when it comes to the Committee stage.
4.44 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence if, while speaking in this debate, I do not stay till the end of it. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that in Holy Week my place is in my diocese, and I have to get back there to-night. If I have to leave early, I do not intend any discourtesy to your Lordships' House. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord for the way in which he has introduced this Bill, and for the clarity with which he has set before us matters of extreme technical complexity. It is because of those complexities that I intervene in this debate with some trepidation.
But there is one aspect of the Bill which has caused considerable annoyance to a body of men with whom I have some contact, the master mariners, and to which I desire to call the attention of your Lordships' House, although the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has already touched upon the matter. It is the penal clause in Clause 19, which subjects the master of a ship, if he is convicted on indictment for a failure or contravention of a control of movement order, to a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months. This possible imposition of a prison sentence upon the master of a ship has caused, to put it mildly, extreme resentment on the part of

1171
master mariners. They point out that nothing must be done to challenge the responsibility of the master for the safety of his ship. They feel that the present system of control (which I understand is by by-laws) has worked perfectly satisfactorily, and they stress that the knowledge that they may be taken to the Admiralty Court and their company mulcted of heavy damages should they show incompetence or carelessness in the face of a control order, is in itself a sufficient safeguard.
It is no consolation to these men to point out that under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the master of a ship may be sent to prison, because they contend that the offences which are contemplated in that Act have a real element of criminal impropriety about them, whereas the threat of imprisonment in this Bill is imposed upon the exercise of professional judgment by a master concerned for the safety of his ship and all shipping. Nor does the fact that the defences provided in Clause 20 of the Bill bring any assurance, since, it is argued, if it is so unlikely that a master will ever be sent to prison under this clause, then why retain it in the measure at all, together with the hurtful sting which it inflicts upon a fine body of men?
This penal clause in the Bill has been condemned by the Chamber of Shipping, the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association, the Mercantile Marine Service Association, and by the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, a formidable body of opinion. There is, I venture to say, no finer body of men in this country than our master mariners: men of the highest professional competence and skill, men exercising daily great responsibility, men of character, and men who are jealous of the dignity of their position. They are deeply hurt by this penal provision in the Bill, and they regret that, despite many protests in another place, Her Majesty's Government have declined to meet what they regard as a reasonable request. Surely, my Lords, this is an occasion where a little generosity and understanding would reap a harvest of goodwill. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will re-examine this matter and meet the legitimate complaints of this responsible body of men.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALKLAND: My Lords, if it were not for the known tolerance of your Lordships' House, I should not have the temerity in a maiden speech to address your Lordships on so technical a Bill as this, especially as, if it had not been for the special provisions in Section 4 of the Peerage Act, I should not be here at all—at least not in this Parliament. As I am a West countryman by descent I am, as you might say, masquerading as a Lowland Scot. I doubt very much whether my fellow Scottish Peers would even have considered electing me. I have lived in Cornwall for a good many years now, and certain aspects of this Bill have been brought to my notice.
Although I have no vested interest in the china clay industry, I have a great many friends—I might say, most of my friends in my part of Cornwall—tied up with the industry in one way or another. It is on how this Bill might affect the china clay industry in Par Port, in particular, that I should like to address your Lordships, as briefly as possible. Perhaps I should not say that the Rochdale Report has exceeded the terms of reference, but it seems to have included such small ports as Par in its recommendations without having previously heard relevant evidence, at least from the china clay industry; and if it were not for the china clay industry the port of Par would not exist.
Weighing up all the facts, it seems to me that the Bill, as at present drafted, could seriously affect the port, especially Clauses 22 and 28 which refer to costs. On the face of things, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to change the status of ports such as Par, but it seems to me that various clauses in the Bill could do so. I am sure that any uneasiness as to the effect of the Bill on small ports could be allayed if a clause were inserted to make it possible for the Minister to make, at a later date, an order excluding certain harbours from its provisions. This would enable any small ports such as Par to state their case to the Minister after the Bill becomes an Act.
I must tell your Lordships that the Port of Par is a private, specialised port which was originally developed to serve the copper and tin industries, which

1173
have now been replaced by china clay. The china clay industry is a little known one, but any of your Lordships who have visited Cornwall must have seen the white pyramids known by the locals as the Cornish Alps. This is the solid waste from a clay pit, which is tipped on to this distinctive conical burrow. The clay stream is passed by a pipe-line until it arrives at the dries. The dries are often many miles away from the pit, and some of them are in fact alongside the quays at Par. If any of your Lordships are interested in china clay workings and cannot find the time to visit one in Cornwall, there is an excellent model of a pit and workings in the Science Museum in Exhibition Road, South Kensington.
Par Harbour has been enlarged and improved at the expense of English China Clays Limited. The port is now a subsidiary of English China Clay and has long overtaken Fowey Harbour in the tonnage handled. No general trade has been accepted by Par since before the war, except for a few isolated shipments amounting in all to about 54,000 tons, to honour arrangements entered into in the past, on which local merchants rely. No new general trade has been accepted since 1960. The harbour has handled, in each year during the last two years, three quarters of a million tons of cargo, 89 per cent. of which is china clay. It owns its own locomotives and has five miles of private track, with two connections to the main line, chiefly occupied in serving the adjacent clay works. It has a firm of stevedores and operates its own mechanical equipment.
It does not come under any statutory authority, which I think makes it unique in the United Kingdom. Plans are in train with the trade unions for the complete integration of the port sector of the china clay industry, which would lead to the "decasualisation" of dock labour, which is much encouraged by the Government and Opposition. In debate, the Government have argued that the exclusion of private ports generally from the Bill would create a precedent contrary to their general intentions. But, as I have already said, I think the port of Par is unique in the United Kingdom.
1174
I hope that the National Ports Council will hear evidence from Par if any of its plans are likely to affect the port. I would assure your Lordships that exclusion from the Bill is not sought for the sole benefit of the Port of Par, but for the whole china clay industry that it serves. Since the decline of copper and tin mining, china clay has become the life-blood of Cornwall. During the year 1963, china clay exports earned more than £10 million in foreign currency.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, it is my good fortune to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. We all have this hurdle to overcome at some stage in our career; and very difficult it is! I am sure your Lordships will agree that my noble friend has acquitted himself very well. He has managed to be entirely non-controversial yet, at the same time, has made an important point in respect of the smaller ports, such as the port of Par, which we have discussed. And, while saying that I hope we shall hear him again, I would also say that I hope he will gain some encouragement with regard to the smaller ports from what may be said later this afternoon during the debate.
My Lords, may I also add this? I feel that I should be less than courteous if I did not express a word of gratitude to those noble Lords who have paid a compliment to my Committee and myself on the production of our Report. It has been a matter of great satisfaction to all my colleagues that this Report has been received throughout the country in the way that it has. To-day, in particular, is a day of some significance to me, when we come to the Second Reading of the Harbours Bill. It so happens that Sunday next will be March 29, and it was on March 29, 1961, three years ago to the day, that the Minister announced in the House of Commons the terms of reference of my Committee. Hence it is almost exactly three years from the first announcement of the establishment of the Committee to the occasion when the result of the Committee's deliberations, embodied in a Bill which has passed through another place, are being debated on Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House. If

1175
I may say so, I would suggest that this is not too bad going.
It is also just about twelve months ago since the Minister indicated that, following the publication of the Report, he proposed to establish straight away a non-statutory advisory committee, to be called the National Ports Council. He announced the appointment of this committee in Parliament, so that it could proceed with a mass of preliminary work which could usefully be done, pending legislation to bring into being a statutory body of the same title. The Minister invited me to be chairman of that non-statutory committee. We have been working now for some months, and we had a Council meeting only this morning. As Chairman of that Council I was in some doubt whether it would be in order for me to take part in this debate this afternoon, and I took care to inquire in the appropriate place whether I should be in order in speaking. I was informed that as it was a non-statutory body, provided that I declared my interest, which I now do, I should be in order.
My Lords, with very few exceptions, the Bill deals with all the proposals included in our Report. It does not always deal with them in the way suggested in the Report; but here, as in most other activities, there are usually more ways than one of doing the same thing. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a concise summary of the Bill, and I think and hope that it may be useful if I pick out two or three major matters which I regard as particularly important, and then try to indicate the thinking underlying the recommendations in the Report which have now been embodied in the Bill.
A large part of the Bill—Clauses 1 to 18, and the first four Schedules—deals with the subject of organisation, and it may well be asked why is all this necessary? Why do we need harbour reorganisation schemes? Why do we need revision or empowerment orders? I should like to say a word on that point. I have no doubt that in every industry there will be found any number of armchair critics, and I may say that we in the Committee of Inquiry certainly found that to be true in the case of the port industry. We had a great many pieces of critical evidence, and the two
1176
most favoured general avenues for criticism were, first, the alleged failure of the industry to use sufficient modern mechanical equipment for cargo handling, and, second, the problems surrounding dock labour.
We recognise that these matters are of transcendent importance, but further than that my Committee could not agree with many of the critics. It was abundantly clear to us that, in so far as there might be some truth in these criticisms, which would certainly call for, and should receive, urgent and careful attention, they were matters which should be regarded more as symptoms than as causes of some of our dock problems. What stood out to us very clearly was that it was the organisation that needed attention; and that if, in certain respects, that could be put on a better basis, then the rest could reasonably be expected to follow in due course.
In saying that, my Lords, I want to make it quite clear that what I have said is not to be regarded in any way as derogatory of port management for not having put, so to speak, their organisational house in order before. As has already been mentioned, the structure of the industry is largely established by Private Acts of Parliament, and without some such enabling measure as this Harbours Bill it could be virtually impossible to break through what in many respects amounts to a vicious circle. The port industry is one of some considerable antiquity, but, unlike so many other older industries that we know of, while there may be much out-dated and therefore redundant capacity, it is not an industry which can be either expected or allowed to contract. It must expand, and its expansion must look not at the needs of to-day but at the needs as we can expect them possibly to be in ten, twenty or even thirty years ahead. This expansion must be substantial, particularly so in respect of deep water berths.
The question therefore arises: how can we reasonably expect a medium-sized or small port to develop on this grand scale when it may well be in daily and continued competition with other ports in the same estuary, often all tending to be weak sellers? Looked at in that way, we were convinced that if the needs of to-morrow were to be matched by development to-day then there must, first of all, be a

1177
national ports plan within which major development would be concentrated at selected major ports. We were also convinced that the responsibility for development and management of these great projects should be that of large port authorities often established on an estuarial basis and enjoying all the advantages to be gained by economies of scale.
Of course, there is nothing new in the concept of an estuarial port authority. The Clyde Estuary Committee, under Lord Cooper, some twenty years ago recommended such an authority for the Clyde; that there should be one authority that should stretch from Glasgow, or, in other words, the territory of the Clyde Navigation Trust, away to the West down to the Cumbraes. It is an indication of the difficulty of getting agreement of this sort from within the authorities themselves—I think there were something like seven at the time—for us to remind ourselves that this great major Clyde authority that Lord Cooper's Report suggested is still something for the future; though I must pay a tribute, having said that, to those who are still to-day actively endeavouring to bring one about.
Since then there have been other ideas in different parts of the country about estuarial authorities, but those ideas have again led nowhere. But perhaps the best example of an estuarial authority is to be found in the great Port of London Authority, presided over by my noble friend Lord Simon. He will, I am sure, agree with me that that came into being in 1909 only because crisis conditions on the Thames resulted in no less an arrangement than a Royal Commission to bring it about. It had to be brought about from outside. The whole purpose, therefore, of the clauses in this Bill which deal with harbour reorganisation schemes is to provide adequate machinery for grouping existing authorities, where this may seem advisable, on an estuarial or some other area basis, with reasonable expedition and with proper safeguards for those concerned. This aspect of the Bill I regard as of the greatest importance.
Just as the harbour reorganisation schemes are intended, shall we say, to look outwards and to deal with the major aspects, so the revision and empowerment orders can be said to look inwards, to deal with internal matters of organisa-
1178
tion and powers as they affect the authorities themselves. Most ports, as we have heard, derive their powers and their organisation from private Statutes, often very old-fashioned. They can, of course, be amended by private legislation, and frequently are, but this takes time, is costly, and can often too easily be frustrated. These revision and empowerment orders seek to streamline procedure and help authorities in this respect to get on to a more modern basis.
As a Committee we saw several ways in which internal organisation could, with advantage, be altered so as to make it easier for the port authorities to do justice to themselves and to their users. I certainly do not propose to go into any detail of the sort of points I have in mind; they are all set out in the Report for anyone who is interested and range over all the activities of a port, including—and this is quite an important one—the size and function of the authority itself.
I should, however, just like to mention one important matter which has been referred to already: the question of cargo handling and who shall be responsible for carrying it out. Some port authorities do not themselves handle cargoes at all; it is left to private companies, ship-owners, master stevedores, master porters and all the other kinds of interest which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to in his speech. Examples of ports where the authorities virtually do not handle cargoes at all are Liverpool and the Clyde. Going to the other extreme, there are some ports who virtually do all handling themselves, and here we have the example of Manchester or the great new port of Lackenby Dock on the Tees. Other ports, such as the Port of London Authority, do some of the work themselves, and leave a very great deal, perhaps the bulk, of the work to private firms of one kind or another.
The view we took in the Committee on this general point was that it was right, and indeed desirable, that the port authority itself should be one of the employers of dock labour and that otherwise, apart from the specialist firms, whether large or small, there should be in any large port a much smaller number of employer firms than is sometimes the case to-day, so that those that were

1179
there could be firms of substance with a real stake in the port. This we regarded as a matter of considerable importance when considering such matters as management, dock labour problems, the use of machinery and equipment, amenities and the general smooth running of a port. Under present Statutes I think it would be very difficult, if at all possible, for a port authority to begin to make changes to bring about the sort of organisation we have in mind; and the revision order procedure will, I hope, open the way for this to be thought about and brought into being if the port so thinks fit.
I have already mentioned the national ports plan. This arises under Clause 1 and it is obvious that this will be one of the National Ports Council's most importance functions. The Council will need information and statistics to produce it; and, in passing, I may say that statistics in the port industry to-day are woefully inadequate. We found this a great problem when we were producing our Report, and we had from the start ourselves to create many of the statistics. This provision of statistics is adequately provided for in the Bill. But to do this the Council will need something else; it will need goodwill and co-operation from the industry. That, I believe, is assured provided the Council itself behaves sensibly.
However, that raises one difficult matter. I have already referred to the need to concentrate major development on selected major ports. That implies that some ports will not be so selected, and this is where I see some heartburning arising. But this concept should not be taken as suggesting that other ports will necessarily need to stagnate or that every small port is doomed. Far from it, particularly with specialised ports. But what it does mean is that, as regards major projects, where there is only a limited amount to spend around our shores on port development—and looking at the national economy, with so many calls on its resources the amount must be limited; whether the amount to be spent on ports is the right amount or not is another matter—wherever the money comes from, whether it comes from private or public sources, that major
1180
development will, for the most part, have to be concentrated on those ports where it can make the most impact. Whatever happens it must not be shared all round so that the butter is spread far too thin and nothing is achieved. I have heard the view expressed that everything would be all right provided that the port was pegging along on an even keel, perhaps even making a modest investment from its own hard-earned reserves, but at any rate "out of the red"; but it is not good enough for a port merely to be doing that. If the national needs are to be met in the years ahead, some ports must be given priority, perhaps some financial help, so that by their very efficiency and enlarged facilities they will stand preeminent and will attract the ships and trade. It follows, of course, that some other ports will be hard pressed to compete with them.
All this concept is provided for in Clause 9 and 10 under the control of harbour development, and in passing may I mention that I would expect—and I hope that this will give my noble friend some comfort in regard to Par—that the sort of development that a smaller port might reasonably contemplate would escape through the pretty wide mesh in Clause 9 (6). This raises in my mind an interesting point. I was very interested to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, on the question of whether a figure of £500,000 was the right figure for all ports. I would merely make this observation. This was a point that we considered in great detail in the deliberations of the Committee. We took the view that what we did not want to do was to go round each port and say, "This port shall be enlarged so much, and that port shall be enlarged so much", the amount being dependent on the size. That was not our concept at all.
Our concept was a different one. What we were trying to do was to control major development, which is, after all, the major matter that affects the port industry as a whole; and, provided that we had control to be able to say where the major development was to be, it did not really seem to us to matter what the little ports did, as long as they did not get swelled heads and become attached to some big financial house which

1181
could turn them into major ports. When they tried to do that, then of course the control would come into being. But we did not feel that the single figure was a wrong concept, and in fact the Bill as it now stands entirely reflects the thought and discussion we had during the deliberations of the Committee.
That leads me to say something about charges. Our ports have sometimes been criticised as being expensive, and this of course can be a very serious matter. But what I would suggest for your Lordships' consideration is that even more important is the overall costs of bringing our imports from the original port of despatch overseas or taking our exports to their ultimate destination. Looked at in this context a port's efficiency may be even more vital than its charges because on its efficiency can so well depend freight charges and premiums, which can easily nullify any advantage from very low port charges and dues considered in isolation. Having said that, let me hasten to add that this does not in any way indicate that the Committee had in mind a wholesale increase in charges. Far from it.
However, it was painfully clear to us that there was no major port which we investigated which over the years had achieved what we regarded as reasonable financial objectives—not one. Those objectives, I might remind your Lordships were that ports should aim to provide for the following: first, working expenses; second, interest on loans; third, depreciation of assets at replacement cost; fourth, taxation; and we hoped that it would be possible for a port to provide a modest margin for reserves to meet contingencies such as premature obsolescence. No major port has achieved this end, and in general terms one can say that the outcome was that without fresh borrowings they would be unable to replace their fixed assets as they wore out. In other words, these ports could be said financially to be running down.
This was the basis, the background, of the recommendation we made that, whilst doing everything possible to reduce expenditure and to improve efficiency, ports should have greater freedom in regard to charges and dues. And so it comes about that Clauses 25 to 38, subject to certain safeguards, aim
1182
at giving authorities greater latitude in this respect. I would just add that the existing statutory control of charges is cumbersome and has therefore often led to authorities, when applying to Parliament for an increase, to ask for, indeed receive, as much as 25 per cent. increase at a time. This, of course, means that the present system is often in fact serving no useful purpose, because these large increases would be expended over a number of years. Nevertheless, I am quite convinced that greater latitude for the port authorities in respect of their charges and charges system is of real importance if they are to make themselves financially viable.
Those are the main points about which I wanted to speak. There are other points one could talk about, very important points, large and small—for instance, research, management training, and so on. But I hope that what I have said is sufficient to indicate the need for some central body, first, to hold the reins, second, to prepare a national ports plan and to promote the execution of the plan, and generally to be a focal point of the industry. I believe that in this way, with an organisation of this type—major port authorities, smaller specialised ports and a national authority speaking for the port industry as well as the Government of the day—we shall see that the skill, the experience, the enthusiasm, and (may I say?) the pride that there is to-day in the industry, both in management and in the dock workers, will have the best opportunity for showing its mettle and working together for a common end.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to join in the welcome that has been given to this Bill; but before doing so, I have to declare a double interest, both as Chairman of the Port of London Authority and as President for the time being of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association. In both these capacities I have been closely in touch with the discussions which have been going on and which have led to the introduction of this Bill. I should like also to pay a tribute to the Minister, to the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, and to the staff of the

1183
Ministry of Transport for the understanding way in which they have approached the problems of the port authorities. Having said that, may I go on to extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Rochdale and his Committee for their really magnificent Report which sets out so clearly the situation with which we have to deal.
The first objective of the National Ports Council (this has been repeated to-day both by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale) is to prepare a coordinated national plan. That was laid down by the Minister, speaking in another place as long ago as July 10 of last year. So that it came as something of a surprise to me to find that there is no reference in the Bill to a national plan. If your Lordships will refer first to Clause 1 of the Bill, you will see that the words used are that the Council
"shall be charged with the following duties, that is to say
(a) formulating comprehensive plans"—
your Lordships will note the word "plans", in the plural—
"for the improvement of existing, and the provision of new harbours … and of services and facilities …"
The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, has made it clear that his instructions are to proceed towards the production of a national plan, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when he comes to reply, can explain why this has been left out of the Bill. I must say that an ordinary reading of the words in the Bill suggests to me that the intention is to provide comprehensive plans for each and every port. That, I am sure, is far from the intention, and I would ask the noble Lord whether the Government would consider accepting an Amendment which would make specific reference to the preparation of a co-ordinated national plan, and would link the comprehensive plans for the development of ports within the co-ordinated national plan.
If I had a suspicious nature, there are several curious points during the discussions on this Bill to which I might call attention. For instance, the Minister, again speaking in the debate on July 10 in another place, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 680, col. 1252]:
"… it is no part of our overall plan
1184
to control the day-to-day developments in our smaller ports."
My Lords, why "in our smaller ports"? Is the implication that it is part of the plan to control day-to-day developments in our major ports? I know that it is not. But why was it put in that curious way? Later on, in the Report stage in another place, there was an even more curious remark, when the Minister, in resisting an Amendment on the lines referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, about the inclusion in the National Ports Council of a representative of the dock labour, said that if we did this we might have port interests urging representation, in which case the whole managerial function of the body, the National Ports Council, would be destroyed. As I say, I have not got a suspicious nature, but one wonders whether, behind the Minister's mind, there is some idea of extending the control of the major ports, at least. I feel that it would put the major ports in a much happier position if what is, I am sure, truly intended could be written into the Bill and not left to be inferred from the speeches that have been made from Government Benches. Incidentally, as I have mentioned that Amendment, might I tell the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, who asked for representation on the Council of dock labour as well as of dock employers, that there is no representation of dock employers on the Council, and it was indeed specifically recommended, and accepted by the Government, that there should not be.
Assuming that I am right, and that there is no intention of avoiding this primary objective of creating a national plan, I want to ask how effective is the machinery that is provided in the Bill. Have the National Ports Council or the Minister sufficient powers to make this plan effective? Can this be done by the control of major capital expenditure? I believe it can. There have been arguments that the powers of the Minister could have gone further. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and the Committee recommended that they should have power to compel in some way the execution of a plan which was thought necessary.
My own feeling is that the balance in this Bill is just about right. I think that if you went any further you would really have no stopping place until you

1185
came to nationalisation of the ports. I am not in the least dogmatic about nationalisation, but if it involved central control of all the ports of the country, I am quite sure it would not work. It would lead to atrophy of local initiative. It would lead to the inability of the ports to attract the best brains into harbour management—that is a point on which Lord Rochdale rightly expressed concern. In my view, the control of major capital expenditure, although it is admittedly a blunt instrument, will, in fact, do all that is required, because I am convinced that the ports of this country will be anxious to collaborate once they know what the national plan is. If they have grown up in a haphazard way, it is not from any original sin in them; it is simply that there has not been a national plan within which they could work out their proposals. I believe that they will be not only happy to co-operate, but most pleased to have a lead from the National Ports Council as to where development is wanted.
I was glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, say that he did not visualise that any port would be likely to contract under the suggestions of the National Ports Council. That agrees strongly with the view that I have formed: that if there is any hope of dealing within twenty years with an increase in trade of 100 per cent., every single port in existence will have to be used to full capacity, quite apart from any development of other ports.
How then, is this control going to work? I must confess that I think the procedure in Clause 9 is rather wasteful and time consuming. The port authority which has a proposal which exceeds the limit of half a million pounds is required to go to the Minister; the Minister then goes to the National Ports Council; the National Ports Council then seeks the advice of interested parties and consults with the port authority, and then recommends back to the Minister who reaches his decision. I must say that it seems to me that it would be much simpler if the port authority went to the National Ports Council in the first place; if the consultations then took place, and if the port authority and the National Ports Council then went hand in hand to the Minister and said, "Here is a proposal which is jointly agreed." I am assuming that there is a constitutional
1186
reason for the Minister to have the final decision. I, for my part, would rather have seen the National Ports Council in a relationship with the Minister similar to that of the Research Councils to the Minister for Science, where they would have a certain amount of money and within that money could deal themselves with the port authorities. But I quite understand there may be difficulties there, and the analogy is not a complete one. In practice, I think we shall find that the procedure I have suggested will be adopted. I certainly hope so.
Then the question arises on any project: how many technical evaluations are there going to be? First of all, any project of this size will obviously be examined with great care by the port authority with its own technical advisers or perhaps with consulting engineers. The project then goes to the National Ports Council and, as I understand it, they will look at it again with their technical advisers. When it goes to the Minister he has the discretion and, therefore the responsibility, of deciding whether to accept the proposal or not. Is it going to another set of technical advisers?—because for a scheme of this kind to go through three hoops like that is not only going to be time-consuming but also liable to lead to frustration. In the engineering profession, as in other professions, experts do not always think alike; and it is quite probable the three experts would think quite differently as to which was the best way to do a scheme. I come back to the point of retaining really good people in the port industry and how we are going to retain them, if what they propose is subject to being taken to pieces not only by one but by two advisory bodies.
Another important point arises which I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. As I see it, proposals of this kind will have to be considered from two aspects: both whether they are technically sound and fit into the national plan, and also whether they are financially admissible. I consider that it would be very unfortunate if plans which have been agreed between the port authority and the National Ports Authority as desirable and necessary were then to be turned down by the

1187
Minister on the grounds that the country's resources could not afford them. I hope it will be possible for the Minister to keep the National Ports Council fully advised as to the financial position, so that that situation does not arise and so that the National Ports Council will not accept the proposal and bring it forward if it is going to be turned down on financial grounds.
I come to Clause 4, dealing with the finances of the National Ports Council. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, dealt with this very fairly, but I would disagree with him. I think the proposal that the administrative costs of the National Ports Council should be met, in effect, by a levy on the port authorities is quite unsound in principle, because here you will have a body which is spending quite a substantial amount of money on an organisation and getting its finances by a precept on people who have no say whatever on how the money has to be spent. It is quite true that the Minister determines the salaries and allowances of the members of the Council and therefore exercises control over that aspect; but all the other administrative expenses are determined solely by the Council.
I have the greatest confidence in the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and in his very capable Chief Executive, and I am quite sure they will keep these things well under control. Nevertheless, the principle seems to me unsound. And your Lordships will remember that the Rochdale Committee recommended that the costs should be borne by public funds, at least in the early years. I do not think we can do anything about that here, but I thought it was worth while to mention the point. The burden is not heavy, though it may fall quite heavily on some of the smaller ports. We may hear more from them on the subject later. I am not suggesting that the cost of research and training should be borne otherwise than by the industry. I think it is perfectly right.
I would turn for a few moments to the point I raised when discussing the Industrial Training Act, as to the question of training arrangements in this Bill. I cannot see why at the time when the Industrial Training Bill (as it then was, for it is now an Act) was going through Parliament it should have been
1188
thought desirable to introduce a separate system of training for the ports industry—that is, the ports industry excluding dock labour as such, for which the National Dock Labour Board have done such good work already. It seems to me that the scheme proposed in the Industrial Training Act is better, for three main reasons: first of all, that by adopting a scheme under that Act the industry would enjoy the expertise which will grow up in the Ministry of Labour in dealing with these matters. It will have the exchange of information with other industries; and it will in particular have clear access to training courses provided for industry in general, such as training in management, training for engineers, electricians, and so on. From that point of view it would be much better.
The second reason is that an industrial training board under the Industrial Training Act is composed largely of representatives of the employers and the employees—and I should have thought it necessary to get those into a training board. Yet the National Ports Council has neither. Finally, there is the matter of participation in Government grants. Under the Industrial Training Act grants are payable for approved training facilities in any industry where an industrial training board has been set up; whereas in this Bill—and it is a rather curious provision—in Clause 6(1)(a) a grant is payable for training only where the Minister has issued a direction under Clause 3(2). One might almost think that the employers (I am sure they would not) would be found dragging their feet, in the hope of nudging the Minister to issue a direction; because if he does so they can get the grant, and if he does not they cannot.
When I mentioned this matter previously, the noble Viscount who was in charge of the Industrial Training Bill said that he did not see any reason why the port industry should not enjoy the benefits if both sides of the industry thought it right. And the Minister, speaking on Second Reading of the present Bill in another place, said that the Council would co-operate with the National Dock Labour Board or with any training board set up under the Industrial Training Act. I think that that is probably all right, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would

1189
ask the draftsman to consider this point carefully, and perhaps give us an assurance that, if both sides of the industry want to take advantage of the Industrial Training Act and if an industrial training board is set up, then nothing in this Bill will prevent the organisation of training by the industrial training board without interference from the Minister or from the National Ports Council. For the Minister has power to give directions under Clause 3(2), and of course the National Ports Council have the duty to take steps that seem to them desirable in this direction.
May I move on to Clause 19, about which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester made such an interesting speech in regard to the control of movement orders? I cannot help feeling that on this matter there has been a complete misunderstanding and I hope that it can be cleared up. I do not believe that anybody has ever contemplated people sitting ashore and directing a master of a ship when to reverse his engines, or how far to turn the wheel. It seems to me that the fears of shipmasters in this matter are quite illusory. There are many ports in the world (I think the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, will agree when he speaks later) where a ship approaching the port has to comply with certain instructions. There are ports with narrow approach channels where one must not go in if a ship is coming out, and a signal is put up on the flagstaff accordingly. There are also ports which it is not possible to enter at night, and the shipmaster makes his arrangements accordingly. All that is contemplated in these schemes is a series of perhaps rather more elaborate traffic instructions, like "No parking between 6 a.m. and 12 noon", or "One-way street", or "Clearway during peak hours", or whatever it is. No master complying with such an instruction is being asked to surrender for one moment his responsibility for the safety of his ship. While on this subject, I should like to say that I fully agree with what the right reverend Prelate said about penalties, and I would join with him in expressing the hope that at the Committee stage we may remove the penalty of imprisonment in this clause.
I should like next to say a few words about harbour charges, which were fully
1190
explained by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. The Bill begins in Clause 25 by removing statutory control, and one may pause, if one is a port operator, and wonder why it should not be left there. Why should the port authorities be the only people in the transport chain who cannot charge what they like? The railways can; the road traffic authorities can, and the shipowners can. All the people that we have to deal with can charge what they like; but the Bill has proposed that we should be subject to regulation. The principal reason put forward for this when it has been discussed in another place appears to be that the ports have some kind of monopoly. My Lords, I think that is a complete misconception. There is the keenest competition, I can assure your Lordships, between, let me say, the Port of London, the Port of Liverpool, the Port of Bristol and the Port of Hull for Midlands traffic; there is very keen competition between the Port of Glasgow and the Ports of Leith and Grangemouth for Scottish traffic; and, in a different sense, and coming nearer home, there is very keen competition between the Port of London and the periphery ports, like Felixstowe and Shoreham, for the traffic for the South-East of England. I think this idea that there is a monopoly is quite misconceived.
It is true that through the years there has been provision for appeals, at present to the Minister of Transport, and the port authorities have accepted that there should be a right of appeal to the National Ports Council, as provided for by Clause 29. I believe that there are here considerable difficulties which will, I trust, be overcome as we go along. There is no criterion laid down, and any of your Lordships who have been associated with the transport industry and tariffs will know how difficult it is to establish a proper criterion for the relative charges of one particular service as against another. I cannot help feeling that the National Ports Council will have difficulty here. The Minister was good enough to suggest that if anybody could produce a good criterion he would be willing to consider it, and I am hound to admit that nobody did produce a good criterion. Nevertheless, though I think there may be some difficulties, I feel fairly confident that they will be ironed out as we go along.

1191
Then I come to Clause 30. And this Clause, I must say, sticks in my gullet. Here is the Minister taking power, on the advice of the Council, to revise tariffs when no complaint has been made—because, of course, if a complaint had been made, it would be dealt with under Clause 29. The first object of this that was suggested to us—by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale—was that the power of revision should be exercised if the Minister was satisfied, on examination of the accounts (I beg your Lordships' pardon: this is actually from the Rochdale Committee's recommendations) that charges were not being made on an economic basis. That, I think, was the gist of the argument which the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, used this afternoon. Could this power perhaps be limited to such cases? Could it be limited to those ports that were running in the red? The Parliamentary Secretary in another place said, "Oh, but the accounts might not be right; they might be misleading". But provision has been taken for accounts to be put forward in a specified form, and I see no reason why they should be misleading. But there is an even more difficult question on this. Suppose it is established that a port is running into the red and the Minister decides that its charges should be increased. Does the Minister guarantee that the revenue of the port will go up? It does not follow that, if you put up your charges, you will get more revenue; you may get less. That is one of the fundamental judgments which management has to make.
A number of other suggestions have been made as to the use to which this clause might be put, and they seem to be widening all the time. There was a suggestion that a port might be unfairly reducing its charges to compete with a new development which had been financed by the Government under the National Ports Council's advice. Surely, a new development has to be prepared to stand on its own feet, and ought not to be freed from the possibility of competition. Then, the Permanent Secretary in another place produced a new, additional reason. He said:
"If we make a loan, we must have power to protect the public purse".
That is extremely arguable, but I would have thought that, if a loan were made,
1192
the Government could impose any conditions they liked on the loan without having this provision in the Bill.
Then, a still more (if I may say so) sinister suggestion was made during the Report stage in another place. There the Parliamentary Secretary, again, suggested that this clause could be used to revise other charges which might have become, I suppose, out of line following a decision by the Council on an appeal under Section 29. That is certainly extending the use of this clause far beyond the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, in the Committee's Report. I cannot help feeling that, while this may be a very convenient arrangement, it is an example of "Whitehall knows best"—or, in this case, North Audley Street.
It was said somewhere—I am sorry I cannot give the reference, but I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House—that one of the main aspects of managerial responsibility for running a business is fixing rates and charges, and I think it will be a great pity if this responsibility is taken away from the dock authorities. But if the Government are quite convinced on this—and they certainly indicated as much in another place—I wonder whether it would be possible to get a stop of some kind put upon it? Could the Sword of Damocles be put away in a cupboard, just to be brought out by the Minister, by an Order in Council, if he really found that it was necessary to do so? My Lords, we are dealing here with people, and I ask your Lordships to think of the people who are running the Ports, who feel that they alone in the transport chain are not being trusted to put their charges right, are not being trusted to be reasonable. I believe it would do a great deal to foster the co-operation which I am sure we are going to have with the National Ports Council if it were possible for this proposal to be in some way kept really as a reserve power, not to be brought into force until the Minister had come to Parliament and said, "This is happening, and it is really necessary to do so".
After the welcome I gave to the Bill in my opening sentence, your Lordships may feel I have been doing little but criticise. I confess that I think there are defects in this Bill, but I do not believe

1193
that any of the defects are overwhelming. I believe that the port authorities will co-operate with the National Ports Council, and with the national co-ordinated Plan which they are to bring forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, referred, very properly, to the question of dock labour. As I see it, it does not really arise under the Bill, because, if I am right in thinking that the National Ports Council has no managerial functions, it will not in fact concern itself with negotiations with dock labour; but I think that, as the point has been raised, I should like, if your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes, just to refer very briefly to this. Most of the port authorities, whether they undertake the handling of cargo or not, are in fact employers of registered dock labour, and as such they play their part, with other employers, in the talks going on about "decasualisation"; and I think everyone on both sides of the industry is disappointed that the progress has been so slow. But anyone who is familiar with this complex industry knows that it is easier to agree a principle than to agree the detailed application of it. I am afraid that that is what has happened in our two greatest ports, London and Liverpool, where we are very near deadlock.
I have tried to find out how this arises—it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, can help over this—and I think it arises because the dock workers have somehow got the impression that the employers are wanting to "ditch" the National Dock Labour Board. The employers have done their best to dispel this belief, which is completely erroneous. What they have suggested is that, to make "decasualisation" possible, it will be necessary for the port employers to form consortia so that men can be moved freely from one job to another; and, in doing that, they will be acting in conformity with the Rochdale Committee recommendation that the number of employers should be reduced.
The suggestion that the place of these consortia could be taken by the local dock labour board is fallacious. The Dock Labour Board, although they are the legal employer; of registered dock labour, and look after a number of matters as well as discipline, have never directly employed labour in the sense
1194
that they tell a man what to do; and they are not equipped for this task. Under these proposals the Dock Labour Board functions will not be altered by the establishment of the consortia. The consortia will stand in the same relationship to the Dock Labour Board as any other employer who employs weekly paid labour as many do to-day. I hope that this misunderstanding can be cleared up because it is bringing these negotiations, which we all want to see finished as soon as possible, to a dead stop.
My Lords, I have no more I want to say, except just to state that I hope the National Ports Council will get on with their national Plan, that they will publish it, that they will see it is not too tightly drawn, so that there is still room for competition between the ports, and that it does not get down to a case of cargo being directed to a particular port because the capacities are so small. I hope we can, above all, get some planning that has a certain life to it. I realise the difficulties from the point of view of the national finance position; and of course one wants a plan to be flexible enough not to knock one's head into a brick wall that was not seen when the plan was drawn up. But port development is a long-term business, and I hope we can reach a position where the National Plan is laid down to cover, let us say, the next five years, and the ports can get on with development and fill in the details of that Plan.
In national planning there is always a tendency to tinker with the plan, and I do not know any field in which it is more true that the best is the enemy of the good. The artist may go back, picking a little here and altering a little there, but in this matter we shall waste so much if the Plan is altered once it is under way that I hope it will be possible for the Plan to last for a reasonable length of time. If it is, I am quite certain that the National Ports Council will have the support of the port authorities.
5.55 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, with the welcome proposal before us to set up a national body which highlights the importance of the port industry to the national economy, we seem to have travelled a long way from the time when,

1195
under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, the master of a vessel could be fined up to £10 for navigating under sail in or into any dock. However, Her Majesty's Government should be complimented for taking the necessary steps to implement the main recommendations of the Rochdale Committee—although possibly, as the noble Viscount said, with a certain difference with regard to emphasis.
Here, I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Rochdale and his colleagues for having produced such an extremely interesting document. I would however, with respect, make one comment: In view of the fact, as was mentioned in the Report under paragraph 609, that there are about 300 small ports around the coast of Britain, it would seem to me a pity that recommendations should have been made by the Committee (and these recommendations are applicable to all docks and harbours) without the small ports having been given the opportunity to submit evidence. In this context, a port which has already been mentioned springs to mind: I refer to the port of Par, which was stated, in Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette on September 6, 1963, to be the busiest small port in the country.
To revert to one of the most important recommendations of the Rochdale Committee—and it is one which has been accepted by the Government; that of the urgent need for the development of a co-ordinated national plan for port development—it seems to me regrettable, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that there is no reference in the Bill to a national plan. The Rochdale Committee, in paragraph 146 of their Report, stressed that the most vital function of the Council would be to supervise the development of ports in accordance with a national plan which would involve examination of the schemes of individual authorities and the assessment of priorities. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, referred to it as "dividing the cake". However, Clauses 1(1)(a) seems to go much further; and, indeed, further than the Government statement of July 10, 1963 (to be found in column 1251 of Hansard of another place), that a central
1196
planning agency should formulate a national plan and supervise its execution. For it seems to me that the Bill would place on the Council the onus of responsibility for detailed planning; and I should have thought that it would be necessary purely to have a general national plan, the details then coming from the port authorities.
Moreover, the Rochdale Report recommended, in paragraph 57, that developments should take place at selected major ports, as the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, mentioned this afternoon, while the wording of the subsection to which I have referred would seem to imply the formulation of comprehensive plans for the improvement of all existing harbours. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the wording of the Bill; but it seems to me that the stress is laid here in the Bill on the improvement of all existing harbours. It could well be that some of the smaller ports may not need development at all. As the Bill is worded, I feel that the national body which is to be set up will be empowered to act in much more than an advisory capacity. But I should have thought that the Council's main functions should be merely in keeping under review likely changes in the pattern of trade and ship design, the improvement of cargo-handling facilities, and the action required to ensure adequate present and future port facilities and services. The Council should also advise the Minister regarding major construction proposals emanating from the port authorities, within the framework of the national plan as set up by the Council.
On the question of the contribution by all the ports to a levy, the Rochdale Committee may be right when they say that it should be possible to arrive at an equitable basis on the volume of shipping and tonnage of cargo handled, but I think it should not be forgotten that not only the port authorities will be benefiting from any action taken by the National Ports Council, but also those firms or other organisations who are providing facilities and services at harbours.
With regard to the provisions of Clause 9 and the insertion of the sum of £500,000, as the figure above which harbour development will have to be

1197
approved by the Minister I would express the hope that when the Minister is exercising these powers he will bear carefully in mind the particular requirements of specific industries. The china clay industry has already been mentioned, and I would stress its importance to Cornwall. The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, said that the port of Par may be able to go through the mesh of Clause 9, but I believe that the port is considering extension works—the construction of a jetty—which would enable larger ships to come alongside. At the moment, there are shipments for America which have to go to Fowey, and shipments for Continental ports which have to leave from Par—not a very satisfactory arrangement. With regard to the non-statutory ports, could my noble friend say whether the provisions of Clause 9 would put such a port within the definition of a harbour authority, should such a port seek approval for development from the Minister? My understanding of the definition of a harhour authority under Clause 55 is that it would not, but I should like an assurance from my noble friend on this point.
I feel that the efficiency of an industry could be interfered with by the powers given in Clause 18, which authorise the Minister to transfer property, and even labour, from private hands to harbour authorities. This could also apply to amalgamations. For instance, a port principally used or required by a specific industry may be called upon to amalgamate with a port handling quite different cargoes—in effect, the amalgamation of a general-cargo port with a specialised port handling bulk traffic in the main. Surely such an amalgamation would not he compatible with recommendation 77 on page 224 of the Report, to the effect that in appropriate cases specialised bulk-cargo installations should be financed by firms or consortia of firms in the industries concerned.
My noble friend Lord Simon, with a greater knowledge than I have, has referred in much detail to the proposals in Clause 30. I agree with him that they are unprecedented. Harbour authorities are in competition, and I believe that they should remain so; in fact, the Rochdale Committee stressed that ports should be regarded as commercial undertakings. In paragraph 192, the Committee state that the permissive powers contained in Clause 30 would seldom, if ever, be needed by the
1198
Council, for settlement would generally be achieved on an informal basis. I agree with my noble friend Lord Simon that it would be interesting if, on Committee stage, Her Majesty's Government would consider his suggestion of shelving this clause and bringing it off the shelf only by an order initiated by the Minister, which could be considered by Parliament.
I should like to add a few words to the plea made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for the port of Par. I intend at Committee stage to put down an Amendment on small ports. The port of Par was originally created 131 years ago, and has recently been modernised and enlarged. It serves an industry responsible for one of Britain's large and valuable bulk exports. This port, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, feels that it is unique; and I believe it is unique, because not only is it a non-statutory harbour, but also it does not come under any by-laws which could have been made pursuant to the 1847 Act. I believe that the Port of Fawley is a non-statutory harbour, but it comes under the by-laws of the Southampton Harbour Board, so I think I am right in saying that the Port of Par is unique. I would ask my noble friend Lord Chesham to bear in mind the interests of an industry which is so vital to Cornwall, and also to recognise that the problems of Par are special. Possibly this port should fall into a special category. Apart from those few comments, I welcome this Bill most heartily.
6.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, at this late hour I hope not to detain your Lordships for long, particularly as I may find myself under the unhappy necessity of asking for your Lordships' indulgence, and especially that of my noble friend Lord Chesham, if I have to leave the House before the end of the debate. It is my first duty to declare my interest in this matter as a shipowner—I think perhaps the only one who has spoken this afternoon. I am particularly glad to do this, because it gives me an opportunity—though, naturally, I have no mandate to speak for anyone but myself—to say what I think I can say with fair confidence; that is, that the shipping industry as a whole welcomes this Bill warmly

1199
and is extremely hopeful of the good that may flow from it.
If I should be a little critical of the Bill, it is on one fundamental ground, which can perhaps be most simply expressed by saying that I think the relations between port authorities and shipowners are rather like those between a man and the Sabbath. You can, after all, and in some parts of the world still do, conduct overseas trade by ships without the intervention of a port at all. But a port, however elaborate, which does not attract shipping to it is not likely to perform any very useful function. I cannot help detecting here and there in this Bill a slight feeling (I hope I am not any more suspicious than my noble friend Lord Simon) that ships are being considered rather as objects which port authorities can order about and levy dues on, those ports being considered as places designed to facilitate the movement of goods and persons by sea. Perhaps I may illustrate this for a moment with three points, all of which have been mentioned in your Lordships' House this afternoon, but all of which, if I may say so with respect, deserve mentioning again.
Two of the points arise from the control of movement of ships in harbours. I agree with my noble friend Lord Simon that there is already, and should be, a measure of control. But I doubt, with respect, whether the extremely elaborate provisions set forth in this Bill are really necessary, or even desirable. For it cannot be denied that the existence of powers is always a temptation to use them; and it cannot be denied, either, that for the highest possible motives zealous professional men are rather apt to think that the good of the whole is necessarily best served by the proliferation of their own activities.
I am not happy about the provision which requires certain specific equipment to be carried by a ship, in default of which she may be refused entry into a port on the authority of those who control the port. The provision of equipment in ships is, at least it has been hitherto, an international matter—after all, shipping is an international business; even more so than ports, which in their own ambit are highly domestic
1200
affairs—and it seems to me that you are risking the introduction of a dangerous element into the conduct of international shipping affairs if you are going to say that the equipment required to be carried by ships for safety purposes is to be determined, not by international agreement and convention, but by what might almost, in an extreme case, be the whim of a particular professional adviser to a particular port or authority.
Allied to this is the provision, which had already been attacked with such eloquence by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester that I would not seek to add to what he said about it—namely, the entirely novel and wholly undesirable suggestion that a master mariner can render himself liable to six months' imprisonment for disobeying a movement order in a port. As has already been said, those things for which a master can be imprisoned are those which involve and imply criminal intent. I do not think it is too fanciful to say that under this Bill, if I interpret it rightly, it would be possible (I am sure it would be most unlikely) for a master, on the one hand, to risk imprisonment for not taking his vessel to sea when ordered to do so, because he might fear that the port authority would not accept a defence that in his view she was not in a fit condition to proceed to sea; whereas, on the other hand, if he did obey the order and take the risk, he might be prosecuted under the Merchant Shipping Act for taking a vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition. That, I know is an extreme case, and it is almost a reductio ad absurdum. But I do not think it is wholly impossible under the Bill as it is drafted. I beg the Government to consider again this particular penalty when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
Both of these matters of equipment and penalties, as the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has already justly observed, have their repercussions abroad. There is, happily, I think, a tendency on the part of several emerging countries, notably those of the British Commonwealth, to model their legislation upon the legislation of this country. But I am not at all sure that they are apt, as yet, to be as understanding in the application of the penalties which that legislation empowers them to impose. While, if the Parliamentary Secretary says that

1201
the risk of a master ever being imprisoned under this Bill is negligible, I should be inclined to believe him—only asking him, if that is so, why there is any point in putting the provision in the Bill at all—I should not be prepared to accept an assurance that the risk was negligible if the clause were incorporated in legislation copied from our own by some countries less experienced and less wise. The same is also true, I think, even with more experienced countries, when it comes to questions of equipment. If these are to be things which can be the unilaterally-made conditions for the use of certain harbours, I think the more gadget-minded nations of the world, whom I will not name to your Lordships (I am sure you can readily name them to yourselves) will be inclined to have too much of a field day.
On the financial side, which is, naturally, important to shipowners, since they are inevitably largely going to provide the finances, there is only one thing I would say. I shall not seek to attempt to lead your Lordships through what is still a difficult maze of financial provisions in this Bill, but I think I am right in saying that it is still possible for a situation to arise where, the National Ports Council having directed a harbour authority to make certain charges, the objection by the users to those charges can be made, in the ultimate resort, only to the National Ports Council on whose instigation the charges were originally imposed. I am not for one moment suggesting that the National Ports Council would not act with perfect wisdom and propriety. What I am suggesting is that it is a bad provision in any Bill to put any body in the position of being advocate and judge in its own cause. I hope that that point, too, may be looked at, and some action taken on it in Committee. Having said this much, I should not like to detain your Lordships any longer other than to say that I hope in these ways it may be possible to make a good Bill even better.
6.21 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we are now coming to the closing stages of this debate and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and his colleagues must be proud of the very warm reception given to his Report. We are even more grateful that it has been made the basis for the
1202
Bill which the Government have now brought forward. Although he is not here at the moment, may I congratulate from this side the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his maiden speech. It was a speech for a specialised port, in which he seems to have more than a passing interest, and I hope that the phrases used by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, have gone a long way to allay the fears he had about his port at Par.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised some objection to Clause 4 and the levy on the harbour authorities. I will be quite frank. For myself, I would prefer the charges to be a national charge.
I cannot go all the way with the noble Viscount, because he seemed to object to the fact that those on whom the precept was made would not have a say in the manner in which it was spent. Perhaps that is owing to my local Government background, because in local government it is happening all the time. When the county council levies a precept on the district councils, neither the district councils nor the person who pays the rates really has any say in how the money is spent—although, of course, if they have the courage they can sack the councillors when the local elections come along. However, we have to face the fact that we have a Tory Government.
LORD CHESHAM: Hear, hear!
LORD LINDGREN: The cheers may not last long. A provision of funds from the Treasury would be a subsidy to the shipping industry. There is not the slightest doubt about that, because it has its reflection in the industry on the costs charged by the ports and harbours.
I was not quite sure whether the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, was that the ports and harbours thought that ships were made for them, or that the ports and harbours were made for the ships. Somehow or other we have to get away from this attitude. It is a partnership. Shinning could not be facilitated unless there were adequate port facilities; and the more efficient they are the better it is for shipping and for our country. Ship-owners are not any different. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has to deal with this problem in regard to air. Those who use aerodromes think they ought to be provided, and that they ought to be

1203
allowed to enter without paying for the facilities which the airport gives. We have more arguments over the scale of landing fees than perhaps anything else.
From this side, as my noble friend Lord Hobson made quite clear in his speech, we welcome this Bill. It appeared to me, as one not directly associated with the dock industry, to be a very technical and complicated Bill. I must add my appreciation of the detailed explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, gave to the Bill. With his explanation the Bill becomes comprehensible to one who has read the Rochdale Report, if one is not directly associated with the industry. While talking about the Rochdale Report, may I also say that this is the first time that there has been a Report on the industry outside the shadow of a dock strike.
It has not been said to-day, but I think we ought to say—and perhaps we can say it better from this side of the House—that, by and large, the industry emerges from the Rochdale Report with credit to itself and to Britain. Of course, there are some very efficient harbours and docks; there are some not so efficient; and there are some which are inefficient. That was the reason for the setting up of the Rochdale Committee, and it is really to deal with that problem that we have the Bill which is before your Lordships to-day. If everything in the garden had been lovely so far as the ports and harbours of this country were concerned, then, of course, there would have been no necessity for the Committee and no necessity for this Bill.
We can only emphasise what has been said before in a different form: this country of ours is dependent upon imports and our shaping of those imports for exporting as manufactured articles. We have only one basic raw material ourselves, which is coal, and if we are to live as an industrial nation then we must import and export. If we are to survive, then the manner in which we are able to survive depends not only upon the skill of the worker in the field, factory, workshop and mine but upon the efficiency of the ports to handle the incoming materials and the outgoing products. If those ports are inefficient there is an added charge on the industry in
1204
freight charges, and an added inconvenience for those who are purchasing or selling the goods.
We agree that, to secure real efficiency throughout the whole of the port and harbour industry in this country, there must be planning, and that planning must have relation to the siting, to equipment, and to the operation of the ports. We are delighted, as my noble friend Lord Hobson has said, to congratulate the Government upon having made this deathbed repentance, not only in this Bill, but in one or two other Bills recently, and upon being prepared to plan the nation's resources for the nation's good, and to get away from this "free-for-all". They are now accepting what obviously ought to have been accepted some considerable time ago, in place of a "free-for-all" society for which they have been arguing. The ports of this country can never become efficient on the basis of a "free-for-all"; there can never be fully efficient handling and a fully efficient labour force.
Having welcomed the Bill and welcomed it, I think, very generously—much more generously than Bills are generally welcomed from this side of the House—I would suggest that many of the points that have been raised to-day are really Committee points, and I do not intend to weary the House by dealing with too many of them. I should like just to follow up what my noble friend Lord Hobson said, namely, that we intend to put down some detailed Amendments to the Bill—constructive as well as detailed—on questions of administration arising from the Bill rather than on the fundamental principles of the Bill.
I want to call attention to just one or two points. The first is the construction of the Council itself, the membership of the Council. I would agree right at the start with what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said when he introduced the Bill this afternoon, that members appointed to the Board ought not to be considered as representative of any particular interest. They should be free, knowledgeable, of course, and able persons; but to accept anybody on the basis of his being a direct representative would be wrong. The Council as it is at present constituted consists, I believe, of seven members. Six of them

1205
are employers and there is one trade unionist. That trade unionist has no association with the docks industry. That is not against him; he still has knowledge of labour relations. If this Bill is to be a success and if the Rochdale recommendations are to be implemented (and everybody who has spoken has agreed that they should be) that can only happen if there is the fullest cooperation and good will on all sides of the dock industry—the harbour authorities, the employers, the labour force and, for that matter, shipping companies as well as the users of the ports.
If the best of good will is to be obtained from the labour force within the dock industry—and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, this afternoon referred to a section which is a little suspicious in regard to certain consortia which are being sit up—if we are to get their full co-operation, free from suspicion, I think it would be wise (I put it no higher) to have some person on the National Ports Council who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the labour conditions arising in the ports of this country. I would emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Hobson. This is going to be a very big task for the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and the members of his Board. I think at least three members of that Board ought to be full-time members in order that they can give the greater part of their time to the work, which will necessarily mean that there has to be a considerable amount of travelling, detailed inspections, negotiations and the rest.
Reference has been made by a number of your Lordships to-day to Clause 3 and to research and training. I am afraid I cannot go with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in his reference to a preference for the Industrial Training Act. We welcome this clause within the Bill. We think it is first class, and reference has already been made to the good work done in the training of the docker by the National Dock Labour Board. Not only the newcomers into the industry, but many of the men who have been in it for a long time are being trained to do their job more efficiently. I think that, if it sets about this job properly, the National Ports Council can make it
1206
possible for those within the industry to fit themselves for managerial and executive posts. It is a change to have this opportunity within the industry, particularly for the manual worker. Let us face it: the manual worker starts with a very considerable disadvantage. There are exceptional men in the industry, and those exceptional men can take advantage of and profit from this provision and secure reasonable appointments arising from it, but they start at a disadvantage.
The fact that the scheme is here is to the credit of the Bill and I hope the National Dock Labour Board will operate it to the full. I hope, too, that the workers in the industry, be they clerical, professional, technical or manual, will take the fullest advantage of it, because they can play the biggest part in making the industry efficient if they themselves are efficient in their own jobs, and this has to be encouraged right the way through.
There has been much discussion on Clause 19, on the control of movement. We have had not only the reference to it from my noble friend Lord Hobson, and that in the opening statement, but other references from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I do not think any of those who have been critical of this clause have made any suggestion at any time that the very utmost should not be done by everyone associated with the ports of this country in order to ensure the safe movement of ships. The greater the degree of safety which we can get, the better. Everyone agrees on that, and I think all those who have criticised this clause will agree that there is a right and a wrong way of doing things and, to put it no higher, the way the Government have tackled this matter seems to be a little ham-fisted.
As perhaps is natural, we on this side of the House get representations, not from the shipping companies or the users of ports, but from those who get their livings in the ports; from pilots, members of the National Union of Seamen, members of the Merchant Navy and members of the Airline Officers' Association. These are the men who operate

1207
in the ports, and who are likely to suffer the penalties, if penalties be imposed, arising from this clause. Yet my information is that in the preparation of the clause and its inclusion within the Bill there was no discussion with them. Some noble Lords have suggested that there should be an Amendment at Committee stage to take out the penal part of the clause. We have had representations, particularly from the Merchant Navy and the Airline Officers' Association, and arising from those representations an Amendment will be tabled at the Committee stage.
With regard to Clause 25 and harbour charges, while reference to this matter has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in his opening statement, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I approach it from a different point of view. I regret very much that in another place, in the closing stages of the discussions there, the non-preferment charges clause was taken out of the Bill. I would ask, quite bluntly, why. Here is a Bill where the Government have been converted to planning, upon which we congratulate them; and yet we are now making it possible for the absolute negation of planning in a cut-price war as between one port and another on charges for the facilities of the port. Here there is to be the modernisation of ports; there is to be the provision of more up-to-date equipment; and, of course, if there is to be modernisation and more up-to-date equipment it must be paid for. It will be quite possible, now that the non-preferment clause has been taken out, to equip one port and make it more efficient and for another port to offer a lower tonnage charge, and for shipping companies, concerned about the immediate effect of 2d. a ton on cargo, to switch from the port that has been modernised to some other port. My Lords, I think that the clauses dealing with the charges as a whole give the user of the port pretty good protection against overcharging. Therefore I think it was all the more foolish to have withdrawn this non-preferment charge clause from the Bill.
Winding up from this side of the House I will close as I opened. We welcome the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Hobson said, we will facilitate
1208
its passage through the House, subject to giving detailed consideration to a number of what we hope are constructive Amendments. We will do all that we can, both inside and outside this House, fully to implement the desire of the Rochdale Committee and of this Bill to make the ports of this country the most efficient in the world. Having said that, I will repeat what I have said in this House on a number of occasions. I have never hidden the fact that I worked for a living as a railwayman, and that, as a transport worker as well as a railwayman, I have always accepted the fact that the various forms of transport—road, rail, air, shipping, aerodromes and the ports—are all part of a transport industry and ought to be worked and planned together.
A little while ago I was congratulating the Government on having accepted planning. Yet there is nothing in the Report—it was not within the terms of reference of the Rochdale Committee—and there has been no statement by the Government, about something which is equally as important as the Rochdale Committee and this Bill; that is, the access by road and rail to the various ports of this country. If you ever get up early in the morning, just go down to the London Docks and see the scramble there, with miles of lorries having arrived at 5 o'clock at night and not being able to discharge or be loaded until next morning. If we are to have really efficient ports, then road and rail access must be dealt with as well. It is no good implementing "Beeching" at the same time as implementing the Rochdale Committee Report. One is dismantling facilities, the other is calling for their provision. You can make the most efficient ports for the handling of goods and you can give provision for what is perhaps the most serious lack in our ports, additional dry dock facilities; but unless you deal with the problem of the approach to the docks by road and rail, then you will not get the fullest effect from the Bill to which we are now giving a Second Reading.
6.44 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should like, before I forget it, to take up the last remark which was made in the very reasoned and reasonable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, about the question of road and rail access.

1209
May I ask him just to look at Clause 1(1)(d). The noble Lord said that it had never been mentioned in any context. But it is written into the Bill. I feel I must make that point, but I am not going to make a lot of it. I want to go on to what has been said by other of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate, which has been, I think, a very constructive one; and I should particularly like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale—I am sure your Lordships would also like me to do so—for the extremely valuable and enlightening contribution he made.
In my turn I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his maiden speech. The former speech more or less answered the latter, particularly in regard to the port of Par, a subject with which my noble friend Lord Merrivale associated himself in his remarks. I can only echo what the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, said: that small ports such as Par have nothing to fear from the provisions of the Bill. I should have thought they may well benefit from the activities of the National Ports Council. I think it would be a disservice to such ports to put them outside the scope of the Bill, where, of course, they are included in Clause 9(2).
My Lords, I particularly appreciate the welcome that has been given to this Bill, and the generosity of noble Lords opposite, in particular, in what they have said about improvement effected by the Bill, has certainly not been lost upon me. I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, only to the extent that it seemed to me, as, indeed, it has proved, that a large number of points that have been raised in this debate are rather more of a Committee character than of a Second Reading debate, unless I misunderstood him: and we are all concerned not so much—in fact really not at all—with the "if", but with the "how" of it. Therefore, as I feel we shall return in some detail to the majority of the points which have come up to-day, I am not going to attempt to tackle them at any length now; but there are, nevertheless, a few that I must mention.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, both doubted whether the real purpose of the
1210
Bill was written into it. I should like to allay any fears they may have that the Bill does not make the preparation of a comprehensive plan absolutely clear. I would point out that it does; I would say that I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was in a rather sinisterly suspicious mood to-day and has seen too much in the drafting of this Bill, because I must tell your Lordships that where it refers, in Clause 1, to "comprehensive plans", it is no more than a drafting device to ensure that all development is not held up until the whole plan has been produced. If it were produced in such a way that there must be a plan, nothing could be started towards implementing the plan until the whole thing was there. That is the reason the clause refers to "plans" in the plural.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, told us they would be putting down Amendments, and they used the words "constructive", "considered" and "forthright" in relation to them; and I am quite sure they were right to do so. Whether your Lordships would wish to apply the adjective "acceptable" we can only wait and find out in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, asked about the dry docks and pointed out that they were not included in the Bill. That is because the dry docks industry is part, in fact, of the ship repair industry. I know that all that goes on within the sphere of harbour authorities, and some dry docks are in fact owned by them, but not, of course, operated; and it would be extremely difficult to try to drag into the Bill an industry within an industry. That is the reason why it is not referred to.
He also, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, raised the question of the composition of the Council, and I must try to deal with this point. I know it has been the view—it was pressed in another place—that there should be full-time members of the Council. In fact, that has been rather the custom in the past; for instance, in the case of the Railways Board. But the analogy of the Railways Board is not very strong. That Board is engaged in active management. This Council is engaged much more in an advisory and planning capacity. What is wanted, and I think

1211
this has commended itself all round the House, is a body of people of proved experience and knowledge to advise the Minister, to adjudicate on charges, to promote research. It does not necessarily require some statutory provision whether they should be full-time or not. In fact there is nothing to prevent the Minister from appointing as many full-time members as he may wish. Neither is there an obligation that all or any must be; and I think in the case of a council of this kind that is the better arrangement.
As to the other members, I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, agreed with my view that it should not be a sectional interest that should be represented; it would almost ruin this body's activity if it were so. It is true that there are members of the shipping industry, but they are not there to represent that industry; they are there to give their experience and contribute their knowledge to the work of the Council. I think that if we drew this thing in too close and there were statutory representatives of any given organisation—whether it be the National Dock Labour Board or any other—one would be unable to resist the argument that there should be a representative of all kinds of other people, or, indeed, of different regions. Therefore, I think the Council is better left as it is, although I would point out that there is nothing to stop the Minister if he so wishes from appointing any person of any organisation who happens to have the expertise which is necessary. Probably from time to time he will so wish, and he will do so.
The next point the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, made and which I think I ought to mention is whether the £50 million or possibly £100 million, mentioned in Clause 13, is adequate for the job. I am sorry he did not hear me say "fifteen or twenty years"; I must have mumbled. He mentioned fifty to eighty years. If he had divided that, he would have got a very astonishing answer. This money is not an actual piece of the national cake which has been earmarked for this purpose and is therefore sitting in some drawer marked "Private, Ports only" or something like that. This sum was decided on rather rough consideration, as best one can tell, of what was likely
1212
to be required; it seemed, on due consideration being given to it, the appropriate sum to put in the Bill at the present time. It was not just picked out of a hat, so to speak; it was on such consideration as could be given. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, went on to a query on Special Parliamentary Procedure. I hope he will forgive me if I do not take up time on that matter now, because it will take time; it is rather detailed. It might be better to go into that at some convenient moment in Committee.
I feel I must deal, though I hope not at length, with the question which I think has exercised the minds of all, and that is Clause 19 and particularly the penal provision. Various noble Lords who have taken part have had to go, which is unfortunate, because I should have liked them to hear my remarks, but I have no doubt they will read them. There is one particular aspect of this matter which I think has been misunderstood. Nothing is actually written into this Bill which, when it becomes law, is going to send any master of a ship to prison.
What I think has been missed is that this is an enabling clause, enabling the authority which is making the scheme to make by-laws whereby offences against their scheme can be dealt with, either summarily, in which case the maximum penalty is £100, or upon indictment, when to preserve anything like equality with the law in other respects the maximum penalty of imprisonment is six months. If there is to be indictment, then that is the proper penalty. It will depend, surely, on the difficulties which are to be encountered in the harbour concerned whether the authority wish to make a by-law calling for indictment or whether they do not. I cannot stand here and say I think many will, or many will not. The other point to remember is that this is a safety arrangement; it is entirely in the interests of safety.
I think that between now and the next stage of the Bill we all ought to consider very carefully what is the alternative. Ships now are becoming very large; cargoes are sometimes explosive—I do not say ships are all full of gunpowder, but their cargoes may be oil, or petrol, or something like that,

1213
in what are getting to be very large quantities. Tankers are getting up to 100,000 tons, and you do not manœuvre an 80,000-ton tanker just as easily as a speedboat. It is in the interests of safety, not only of the ships, not only of their crews, not only of the responsibility of the master; we have to think of the safety of people in adjoining districts, living on land, who may easily be affected, and we have to take precautions against what could be a very major disaster. I think it would be a pity to wait until we had it rammed down our throats by having to suffer a major disaster before we tightened the law to deal with compliance with traffic control schemes. I think that is what we should ask ourselves before we take the matter to a further stage.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with most of what the noble Lord has said one is in perfect agreement. To my mind, at least, the worst feature of this matter is what is claimed to be the lack of consultation with those concerned.
LORD CHESHAM: A good deal has been made of lack of consultation in these matters, but I do not see quite what the noble Lord is complaining about. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, gave us a long list of people who should have been consulted in this matter which, so far as I can make out, did not, with the possible exception of the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association, include the masters. I do not know, but I do not think you usually necessarily have to consult people who are going to suffer a penalty under the law before you fix the penalty. I think that would be an unusual, rather than a usual, procedure. I may be wrong about that, and I should like to think about it a little more. But I rather think that the point that noble Lords have made has been a little overstated. For the moment, I should like to leave the matter there. Undoubtedly we shall be returning to it.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, when the noble Lord returns to it at a later stage, will he pay particular attention to Clause 23, which gives me the impression—I am
1214
not a lawyer—that the man is guilty and has to prove he is innocent?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, we shall look at the whole question, because undoubtedly there will be Amendments which will call for detailed attention at the next stage.
I want now to refer quickly to what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said on the question of an industrial training board. I echo what my noble friend Lord Blakenham said in the debate on the Industrial Training Bill. I see nothing inconsistent between what is in the Bill and the possibility in the future of an industrial training board for the industry. I should have thought that with these provisions and the possibility that the National Ports Council may have been promoting training in the meantime, if, later, an industrial training board came into existence, this would really have done nothing but good. Certainly, there is no intention that there should be any interference by the Minister or the National Ports Council with the activities of such a board if it were set up in due course. I do not think it will do to rely on an ultimate possibility of an industrial training board when we ought to be doing this and getting on with it now. That is my view.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was, I think, in a darkly suspicious mood. Whilst I shall certainly be glad to look at Clause 30 and to think about what he said about it—Lord Merrivale mentioned the same point about its being put into cold storage—I think that what has been said is probably going unnecessarily far. When I opened I made it clear that this power was regarded as a reserve power and probably that is quite sufficient for this clause. However, I will look at what the noble Viscount said again—indeed, I will look at what all your Lordships have said again—with considerable interest before the Committee stage. But now, I hope your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be in Committee (on Recommitment) on report of the Bill from the Select Committee.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: This Bill has been amended by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and the Amendments made have been incorporated in the Bill.
Clause 1:
Alteration of perambulation of New Forest
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act the lands which are designated on the additional plans certified under section 4(4) of the New Forest Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1949") as extended by section 2(3) of this Act as lands to which are attached rights of common of pasture over any part of the added areas shall be treated as lands to which are attached rights of common of pasture within the perambulation of the New Forest as altered by this Act.
LORD CRATHORNE LORD CRATHORNE had given Notice of several Amendments, the first being in subsection (4), after "pasture" where that word first occurs, to insert: "or a privilege of pasture". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment, and other Amendments to Clauses 2 and 16 which are consequential, are designed to give effect to the views of the Select Committee on this Bill as expressed in paragraph 2 of their Special Report. Here I should like to quote the Special Report. In paragraph 2 they say:
"… that the reasonable privileges at present enjoyed by"
people who turn out animals on the adjacent commons
1216
"should continue to be enjoyed by them, even though there may be difficulty in establishing such privileges as legal rights."
To achieve this end these Amendments have all been agreed between the Promoters of the Bill and the petitioning Commoners, and, indeed, the National Trust. The position, therefore, is that in respect of the commons within the added areas which belong to the National Trust and the Wellow Parish Council great difficulty has arisen in the past in determining whether or not common rights did, in fact, attach to particular holdings. This led to much local discord, and in the end it was decided, I think wisely, that irrespective of the existence of common rights, holdings adjoining these commons should be given the privilege of the pasturing of animals. The effect of these Amendments, therefore, is to place holdings—and I emphasise the word "holdings," as opposed to "individuals"—to which a privilege of pasture is attached on the same footing as holdings to which rights of common of pasture are attached. Thus, not only will the existing privileges continue, but they will also be extended within the whole of the altered perambulation. In other words, this brings all these new people in on the same terms as the original commoners in the original New Forest area. This is the object of these Amendments. I hope that they meet with the wishes of the Special Committee on the Bill as explained in paragraph 2 of their Special Report.
At this stage it may be convenient to your Lordships if I deal quite shortly with paragraph 3 of the Special Report, which deals with the question of concessions on marking fees. I should like it on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Promoters stand by the concessions offered in the letter of February 18, 1964. That letter is quoted in paragraph 3 of the Select Committee's Special Report. But it may be mentioned also that it is not only intended to cover commonable animals normally turned out on the commons in the added areas, which have in the past been in the habit of remaining on the commons as at December 1, 1963, but it goes further, and includes other animals which would otherwise fall into this category, save for the fact that their owners normally turn them out at certain other times of the year—for example,

1217
during the summer months. The intention of the Promoters is to try to meet the suggestion and recommendation in paragraph 3 of the Report of the Select Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, Ater ("pasture") insert ("or a privilege of pasture").—Lord Crathorne.)
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to get one thing clear on this Amendment. The noble Lord referred to certain commons only. I think it should be made clear that this will apply to all the outlying commons which are brought within the perambulation and not only West Wellow.
LORD CRATHORNE: I give that assurance right away.
LORD SHACKLETON: I thought that point should be made clear. The second point is this. I should have thought that the common rights over other commons, particular Hyde Common, were a good deal more firmly established than the noble Lord has suggested. Certainly I am told that they have been exercised for a very long time. Indeed, my note suggests that this goes back to the time of Edward I, though, unfortunately, it has been altered in ink, and it might be Edward VII. I am now told that these rights have been exercised for centuries. I think that we should have that on record. I shall have further points to make on the Question, That the clause stand part, but your Lordships might take note of the excellent work which the Select Committee have done, as they did on the previous New Forest Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: There is still a certain amount of dissatisfaction among some of the outlying commoners. I suspect that it is perhaps impossible to satisfy all the commoners, but the situation is made mare difficult in the absence of any general legislation in regard to commons—legislation which, one hopes, some Government will one day find time to enact. There is still scope for some further concessions or further clarification. In introducing a Bill of this kind it is exceedingly difficult to make sure that all the interested
1218
parties have been fully consulted; and whereas I would not in any way criticise the Promoters (I know the great efforts they have made, and particularly the efforts made by Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, the Member of Parliament for the New Forest, with a long family tradition there), the fact remains that there is one group of commoners—I cannot speak for the West Wellow ones—who are still anything but satisfied.
I very much hope that this Bill will pass, and, with the imminence of a General Election, I realise that we are legislating against the timetable, and that if we do not get this Bill through the chance may disappear. On Second Reading I pointed out that it is a hard thing to interfere with people's rights, especially when they feel that such rights are immemorial and are satisfied such rights are genuine, and where there is legal reason to suppose that is the case. Representations have been made by certain people from one common, a group who did not petition against the Bill, for reasons which I do not know, but which may have been connected with a desire not to hold up the Bill, or possibly not to spend money. They had relied on representations from the National Farmers' Union to see that their entitlement was protected and that their rights were confirmed. The Promoters of the Bill have gone a considerable way in clarifying the position, including the action of the noble Lord in his last Amendment in confirming the right of pasture. Furthermore, there are proposals with regard to a concessionary rate of payment towards the verderers. There are suggestions that they should in fact maintain their own agisters. They already maintain part-time voluntary agisters. No doubt they will now come in some degree under the verderers.
On the question of representation, we are confronted with a strange institution, the Court of Verderers—the old Court of Swainmote. I shall have to be careful what I say about this, because I know the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is a great expert in these matters. The fact remains that there could be some further concession made in regard to some special representation on the Court of Verderers, whether it be by a federal institution or some other method. There is a possibility of verderers being

1219
elected for a particular area. I do not favour this very much, but in this transitional stage it is highly desirable that these matters must be settled if the peace of the New Forest is to be maintained.
And peace has not always reigned in the New Forest. Having solved the ancient war between commoners and the King's woodsmen by the 1949 Act—and the Forestry Commission is now greatly beloved in a way it was not in the past—we do not want one set of commoners who are aggrieved. We do not want a feud, for if a grievance grows up it may lead to a disproportionate waste of effort in resolving it. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that certain steps should be taken to ensure that the local interests in these outlying commons are specially taken care of. It is possible that they could have their own committee. Certainly they want to make quite sure that their rights are firmly established. It may well be that their interests are related to tithe or Ordnance Survey numbers, but I would suggest that this particular suggestion should be borne in mind.
I stress that there will be slightly different interests. This is a Private Member's Bill, and there has not been a further committee to investigate the New Forest like the Baker Committee. It may be that in time we shall have to have such an investigation. We want to make sure, so far as possible, that not too many people are left unhappy about it, and some of those who feel they have had these ancient rights for a long time have been concerned about this. I think it is unlikely they will petition, but we must not ignore the fact that there is still a right to petition in another place and that such a petition might gravely endanger the Bill.
I hope, therefore, that the Promoters, and in particular the verderers, however irritated they may be—and when you are embarked on a great enterprise and are well aware of the virtues of what you are seeking to do the temptation to ignore feelings, justified or otherwise as they may be, may be strong—will have proper consultations. There have been accusations that they have not properly consulted. Frankly, I think that if one were to consult everybody
1220
properly one would have to wait a hundred years before one had such a Bill. None the less, I think that further steps should be taken in this matter, and that it is in relation to the passing of this clause that we should note them.
LORD CRATHORNE: I should like at this stage to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for raising this point. It is a new point, and I should like to say at once that I am certain your Lordships will agree with the principles underlying his remarks to your Lordships on the question whether this clause shall stand part. When we come to their detailed application, we have now got this new point which will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Although I cannot give any assurance that the verderers will be able to meet in exact detail the suggestions that he has made, I certainly can give, on behalf of the Promoters of the Bill, the complete assurance that the verderers will take cognisance of the suggestions that have been made and will look into the propositions that they suggest. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will know, many kinds of committee. There is an advisory committee, an official committee, a sub-committee, and all kinds of various methods by which local opinion can be brought into consultation as we see how the Bill works. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will accept it from me on behalf of the Promoters that they will certainly look into the points he has raised, I think that is as far as I can go this evening.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Designation of additional lands entitled to rights of common pasture]:
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, after ("exist") insert ("or over which a privilege of pasture was exercisable on 1st December, 1963").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("and also designating the lands to which a privilege of

1221
pasture over any part of the added areas was attached on 1st December, 1963, specifying in relation to the lands the extent of that privilege").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRATHORNE: This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, at end insert ("and whether any, and if so what, privilege of pasture is attached to any such land").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am not sure whether this is the right point at which to ask one question. I take it, in the light of the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, that we have been dealing only with the question of pasture. I hope I am right. In fact, I wanted to be clear that the other rights—rights of turbary, mast and the rest—which have existed, will continue to be exercised as in the past, and that this clause does not really affect these rights.
LORD CRATHORNE: I can give the noble Lord a complete assurance on that. The Amendments deal only with pasture.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Fencing, etc.]:
7.25 p.m.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) The verderers shall, by adjustment of grazing fees or otherwise, put themselves in a position to fulfil all their financial commitments, particularly as regards the maintenance of a number of agisters adequate in the opinion of the Minister for the welfare of all the animals permitted to graze in the Forest."
The noble Lord said: I am interested in the welfare of the animals grazing in the forest, and in the prevention of accidents on the roads. I am only incidentally interested in the verderers and their affairs; but when the verderers grant permission for animals to graze in the forest they make themselves responsible, not only for the animals' food and water but also for their welfare. The verderers have taken over these responsibilities from the owners, and they are not fulfilling them adequately. They employ four agisters to care for about 6,500
1222
animals, and these four men are not enough. I have here an account of efforts to help a sick and suffering animal after its condition had been noticed by a passer-by. A man out for a walk with a friend found a pony lying down and obviously in great pain. This was at 1.10 p.m. The man immediately telephoned an agister, and they waited for over two hours, but nobody came.
At 3.50 the man came to my informant's house and reported the situation. At 4 p.m. my informant started a round of telephone calls which included an agister's wife; a veterinary surgeon's receptionist; the veterinary surgeon's wife, who was also a qualified veterinary surgeon; the police; and the clerk to the verderers, twice. All were unhelpful except the police, but they said that they could do nothing until they were satisfied that every agister had been telephoned. Finally, at 4.45, the police rang up to say that an agister was on his way to the pony, and at 6 p.m. two agisters arrived and took charge of the situation—about five hours after the first finding of the pony.
Considerable delays also sometimes occur before the arrival of an agister when a pony is lying injured on the road after a car accident. A correspondent living at Ringwood writes as follows:
"The plight of the unfortunate animals, some of which lie injured for hours before an agister can be found to destroy them, is pathetic."
The verderers say that they cannot afford to pay more than four agisters, and this account seems to be true in present circumstances. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that the verderers should, by one means or another, put themselves in a position to meet their just liabilities.
There are two classes of people who are permitted to graze animals in the forest, commoners and non-commoners. The commoners have rights which, if not actually legal, are hallowed by ancient customs. The non-commoners are not in the same position. Some of them do, not live in the forest. One, at least, lives in Australia. If the raising of grazing fees is not a practical suggestion, then other means must be found of enabling the verderers to fulfil their obligations and to pay their way.
I have with me the verderers' accounts for the year 1962, which are the latest I have been able to obtain. The pay, insurance, commissions and expenses of the agisters amount to about £2,880; that is to say, £720 per agister. The excess of expenditure over income for the year was £750, or about 17 per cent. of the income. It seems obvious that some positive action is required. I am told that if any Amendment is made to this Bill at this stage, even if it received the approval of the noble Lord who is introducing it, the Bill would have to be referred again to the Examiners and the delay involved would very probably result in the Bill's being lost altogether owing to the imminence of a General Election.
I do not wish to subject the Bill to any such hazard, and I shall not press my Amendment to a Division. I hope, however, that the Committee will agree with me that the matter warrants some consideration by Her Majesty's Government, and I would ask the noble Lord who represents the Minister concerned to suggest to his right honourable friend that he should initiate discussions with the verderers which may enable them to balance their budget and, at the same time, fulfil their obligations to the animals whose welfare they are representing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Dowding.)
7.32 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: I know the Committee will be pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is not prepared to press his Amendment to a Division, because, as he truly says, there would be a definite danger of losing this Bill. Although it may not do all that the noble Lord would wish, I feel confident—and I am sure that he must also—that if the administration of the Bill goes according to plan it must be of considerable advantage to the animals in the New Forest, and particularly to the ponies. I should also like to tell the noble Lord that he is not the only Member of your Lordships' House who is interested in animals. We all have this matter very much in mind, and very much at heart, and should wish to do anything that can be done, by legislation or otherwise, to minimise danger to
1224
animals and to human beings. That is the intention of the Bill now passing through your Lordships' House.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is aware that the Petition which was originally submitted by the New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals was withdrawn on February 26, because of an open letter to the Petitioners on behalf of the Promoters, two sentences of which I will quote:
"The verderers believe that the effect of the Bill by restricting the area within which the agisters have to operate will be to make the existing agisters more available. Nevertheless, it is the intention of the verderers to increase the number of agisters even if it involves an increase in marking fees in order to make provision for their remuneration."
LORD DOWDING: I am aware of the situation there; but my point has been to get something more than an intention from the verderers to do something or the other. I think I have shown from the accounts that they cannot employ more agisters without going still further into the red. My suggestion was aimed at the noble Lord who represents the Minister to see whether it would not be possible to initiate some direct consultations between Her Majesty's Government and the verderers, rather than rely on a vague promise made in a letter which, so far as I can see, cannot be fulfilled in the existing circumstances.
LORD CRATHORNE: I was just coming to that point, when the noble Lord rose in his place. The point about consultations—and I have the authority of the Minister to say this—is that, in fact, consultations are going on all the time, because on the Court of Verderers there is, first, the official verderer, who is certainly not appointed by the Minister; then there is one verderer appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, himself, in his capacity as Minister. Furthermore, there is a verderer appointed by the Forestry Commission for which the Minister of Agriculture is the official liaison, so far as Parliamentary affairs are concerned.
So there are two direct representatives on the Court of Verderers—one from the Ministry of Agriculture and one from the Forestry Commission—who can keep in the closest possible touch with the Minister and the Forestry Commission

1225
on all the points which the noble Lord has raised. I know that the Committee are entirely sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Dowding. We wish him well in everything he tries to do for the animals; and I believe that this Bill goes a long way to achieve what he desires.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think we can do very much about it to-day, but there is no doubt that the shortage of agisters is a serious problem in relation to the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has raised. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the evidence before the Select Committee, in which Mr. Scott (who is, I believe, the clerk to the verderers) suggested that the agisters had a great deal of their time taken up by attending to injured animals. Quite obviously, we are all in favour of doing something about this matter. The difficulty is that the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is trying to do it by legislative action, and I do not think that can be done. Nevertheless, I do not think that the situation can go on as it is. The marking fees that are paid have gone up 800 per cent. in the last few years, but they are still ridiculously low, and I think it ought to be made clear to the commoners, who may or may not be public-spirited in this regard, that their leaders, including some of the verderers, will not be able to resist public pressure in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said that the size of the perambulation has been reduced, but it has been increased in one respect, and the net effect is that even more animals are going to belong to the Forest by the introduction of the new commons. One of the problems of the New Forest is that animals are turned out not only by people who live in the Forest, but also by people who do not, and there is one particular operator (I think that is the word) whose black steers are a menace on the roads. In last year's cold spell they caused a great deal of anxiety among people in the Forest, because it was felt they were not properly attended to.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Has he not changed to Herefords?
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know what his animals are. I saw one breaking its way through somebody's hedge the other day, for which the individual
1226
was responsible. Those of us who live in the Forest know to whom I am referring. There are a number of these animals and I do not see why the operator should not pay bigger marking fees for the privilege. I certainly support those verderers who are in favour of an increase in fees. And a brave step has been taken by the Member for the district in another place, which may or may not get him Commons votes but will bring him merit, in proposing that there should be an increase in fees for agisters. Something has to be done about it.
LORD DOWDING: I must say that I did not feel satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, because these Government representatives have served on the Court of Verderers for some time and they have not done anything about the finances of the Court. It seems to me it is quite impossible to increase the number of agisters unless there is money to pay them. Therefore I should welcome a word from my noble friend who represents the Minister, if he would say one on this subject.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The only word I can say is that I have listened to the noble Lord and I will pay careful attention to his words and bring them to the attention of my right honourable friend. This is a Private Member's Bill, and so far as the Committee stage is concerned I really have only a listening brief. Naturally I have been interested by what the noble Lord has said, and I will give it even more attention when I have had the opportunity of reading it.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before we leave this matter, may I point out to the noble Lord that the 1949 Act was amended in this House to give a majority to local representation—that is, of elected verderers. The original proposal would have given the Minister, in effect, power to achieve this very thing. None the less, these members are there to represent the public interest. I am glad the noble Lord said that he would take note of this, because they certainly are in a position to bring some influence to bear on the Court.
LORD DOWDING: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his words. As he says, this is a Private

1227
Member's Bill, but, if I may say so, the Forest is a Royal Forest and the Government must have some responsibility in the matter. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.46 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Speed limit for motor vehicles
" .—(1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a road within the perambulation of the New Forest (in this section called 'a restricted road') at a speed exceeding forty miles per hour.
(2) A person convicted of an offence of driving a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding forty miles per hour shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) This section shall not apply to the road from Cadnam to Ringwood (A.31).
(4) This section shall come into force on such date as the Minister of Transport may by order appoint not being later than one year from the date of the passing of this Act.
(5) The power to make an order conferred by the last foregoing subsection on the Minister of Transport shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
The noble Lord said: I suffer from the same disability in regard to moving this Amendment as my noble friend Lord Dowding, because we do not have the time to send this back to the Select Committee, and I think that this is unfortunate. Perhaps I ought to have moved an Instruction at an earlier stage, but a time-table based on the unknown judgment of the Government, as the result of a Gallup Poll or the results of the Greater London Election, handicaps us a bit in dealing with legislation.
One of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it has not gone far enough in its declared intention, contained in the Explanatory Memorandum of the original Bill, to reduce accidents. I fully acknowledge that this Bill, which has many merits, would contribute to that end; but there is only one fundamental solution to the problem of accidents—that is, to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.
I should like to give your Lordships some figures in regard to this problem.
1228
These figures are probably official verderers' figures and may not be absolutely complete, because animals may crawl away and not be found and agisters may not be notified. None the less, what has happened over the last eight years is quite striking. In 1955, there were 170 accidents to animals, but in 1963 that figure had risen to 349, although I should say that it represents a reduction on the 1962 figure, which was 378. Taking the 1962 figure, this includes 198 ponies killed, 92 cattle killed, 9 donkeys killed and 14 pigs killed. I doubt whether any fencing is going to prevent pigs from being killed, though noticeably there were only two pigs killed in 1963.
Of the 349 animals killed or injured in 1963, 175 of the accidents took place on the A.31 and the A.35. It is proposed to take powers in Clause 4 to fence the A.35, which is the lower Southampton—Lyndhurst—Bournemouth road, in addition to the powers already existing under the 1949 Act to fence the A.31, the Southampton—Cadnam—Ringwood road, which is really the fast road to the West and which is in process of being fenced at this moment. There is little doubt that the fencing of this road will reduce the serious number of accidents that have occurred on it. In 1963 there were 80 accidents (that is the number of vehicles involved) on the A.31, and on the A.35 there were a similar number. But if we deduct this number—and it is difficult to harmonise these particular statistics—there is still a large number of accidents on other roads.
If one looks at the map one sees the A.337, which runs from Lyndhurst to Cadnam and which is a fast road, and there are a serious number of accidents there. Although the greatest number of accidents occur on these main roads, there are still a large number of accidents on other roads. I confess that I, myself, was involved in an accident a few years ago, just outside my own village of Burleigh; and I know of a young man from that village who was killed while riding a motor-cycle, due to running into an animal late at night.
In our traditional British way, we have not yet made any mention of human beings. This is a serious hazard. If you drive through the New Forest at speed—and despite the warning signs, many people do, both in conditions of clear

1229
daylight and in appallingly bad conditions—and there is an approaching car, even with its headlights dipped, it is impossible to know whether an animal, possibly followed by another one, is going to leap acrcss the road.
There is a further argument in favour of my Amendment for a speed limit; that is, that I do not want to see any more fencing in the New Forest. Yesterday I drove along the A.31, and the fence that is being put up there is of a most depressing kind. You have these great and beautiful vistas of open moorland, with the open forest, where you can drive along roads or drive off on to the side road at some convenient point, and walk straight across into moorland or forest land that is as wild and beautiful as you will find anywhere. This is going to be spoilt.
Very strong views have been expressed by neighbours and others on this subject, and I have here a number of letters from people some of whom have an interest. In some cases it may be purely the enjoyment of the forest, and in others it is that the writers turn out animals. There is a strong view that the A.35 (and this point relates also to my next Amendment) should not be turned into a permanent speed track, fenced off by ugly fences along one of the most beautiful roads in the world. I would argue that to put a speed limit on every road except the A.31 would not be a serious hardship to anyone. The distances involved are not great. The particular stretch of the A.35 for which it is now proposed there should be powers to fence is only ten miles, and, if it should be a fixed rule that people should not proceed along that stretch at more than 40 miles an hour, they are not going to lose much time. I know that arguments will be produced that this would not be enforceable. In relation to the A.35, I would say that this is quite untrue, because there are police cars moving along that road, regularly patrolling it in the ordinary way. So I see no reason why there should not be a speed limit.
I should like to urge that the whole of the New Forest should be treated as it ought to be—namely, as a great national heritage and a National Park, and there should be a speed limit of a kind that you have in other National Parks, such as, for instance, Windsor
1230
Great Park. Nor would it be necessary, I submit, to have signs all over the New Forest indicating a 40 m.p.h. speed limit. I do not know whether there are signs all over Windsor Great Park, but it surely should be possible, if this were made an enclosed area (and that is why I want to apply it to the whole of the New Forest), to keep people down to reasonable speeds.
I know that it will be disputed whether speed is the cause of these accidents. There are, of course, certain particularly dangerous times. Of the 349 accidents in 1963, 278 took place after dark. It is conceivable that a speed limit, if it were enforceable, should be confined to the night time. But I think it would be difficult to have a night time speed limit only. The evidence, to my mind, is quite clear: if we could reduce speed in the forest, we should reduce the number of accidents, both to animals and to human beings. Since this is now to be a matter that will fall within the competence of the Government—because they have power, as have the Hampshire County Council, to make representations—I think they should take into account the strong local feeling.
If the noble Lord, or any noble Lord, should dispute that, I would draw attention to the evidence given before the Select Committee, where Mr. Scott, again speaking for the verderers, made it clear that the verderers would be in favour of such a speed limit. What he said was this:
"I think I can say the verderers are very much in favour of a speed limit being imposed. This has been suggested in the past, but it has always met with opposition, mainly from the county police, who take the view that such a speed limit cannot be enforced. But the verderers would welcome a speed limit on all unfenced roads."
If this is done, some extra expenditure may be necessary; but there is a great deal at stake. The only argument, as I understand it, is enforceability—and I recognise that this is an important argument. The evidence which the Minister's own representative gave before the Select Committee was that the ruling factor was enforceability. The Chairman of the Committee asked:
"It is the unenforceability rather than the desirability which is the ruling factor?"
and Mr. Glover said:
"Yes, my Lord."
Therefore, we know that the Ministry

1231
already accept the view that such a speed limit is desirable. It is not possible to put this into the Bill, but it would be possible for the Minister or the County Council to take action in the way that has been asked.
I could produce a great deal more evidence in the way of local opinion on this matter, but I will quote only one letter, in which the writer says:
"… why should there be such a speed track now that the New Forest exits are all, or practically all, gridded? And why should it not be treated as a park, like Richmond, with a 40 m.p.h. speed limit enforced on all roads, so that the inhabitants and those who want to drive at a reasonable speed and enjoy the scenery are at liberty to do so? For those who want to pass rapidly through the forest there will still be the A.31, which will be enclosed and can provide the fast travel which those on a long journey want."
Since I shall, at a later stage, have to withdraw my Amendment, I hope that we shall have (although I doubt it at this stage) some encouraging words from the Minister. Meanwhile, I should be interested to know what is the view of the Promoters of the Bill. I am informed that certainly the commoners of the New Forest would be in favour of this limit. I am also informed that the New Forest Pony and Cattle Breeding Society would be in favour of it. I would assure noble Lords that there is a very strong feeling in regard to this matter, and I hope that certainly the Promoters of the Bill, and the verderers, will continue their battle in this direction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Shackleton.)
8.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I will not detain your Lordships for very long, because I know it is getting late. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—I think I agree with everything he has said. I think the enforceability of a speed limit is a difficulty. I would have preferred 45 m.p.h. because the modern car, with its efficient modern braking, perhaps helps to make 45 m.p.h. possible. It is not that I wish in the least to see motorists going faster. I agree with the noble Lord opposite on this subject. When I have not been imprisoned in the Palace of Westminster, or at liberty to some degree in Scotland, I have lived for thirty years in my spare time, weekends and so on,
1232
within a mile of the border of the New Forest, and I know these roads. Indeed, nine days ago I took the time to drive for 50 or 60 miles through these forest roads to educate myself further. Even on the main trunk roads, such as the A.31 which is being fenced, as the noble Lord said it is not deer fencing, and there are many deer. Deer fencing, of course, would cost a vast sum—I admit that. The fast motorist, the speed merchant—I think the Americans call him a "hot-rod"—is in danger of hitting a buck, not only with danger to the buck, of which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, would disapprove, but with danger to himself. His own fault, maybe. One young man who I am told had one of these cars, said that he could already get up to 100 m.p.h. on this road, but with the fencing he would be able to do 110 m.p.h. He might hit one of these animals at any moment. On the minor roads, the unfenced roads, of which the noble Lord is speaking, he is perfectly right. The noble Lord mentioned pigs. I did not know that pigs were so nomadic as to go wandering about from the mud in which they normally keep their noses stuck; but there are certainly the deer, the ponies and the cattle who come leaping out from the undergrowth. If anybody interrupts me to say that cows or cattle do not leap, I must remind them of the cow that jumped over the moon. I include cows, or cattle.
That is really all that I have to say on the subject. I think the bright idea (which I do not suppose has ever been operated anywhere) of having a speed limit automatically enforced, be it 30 or 40 m.p.h., at lighting-up time, is well worthy of consideration, but I do not suppose it is possible under the present conditions. Anybody who knows the forest knows the dangers—I think it is a most frightening place in which to drive a motor car. It is all right on the twistier roads, because then you cannot speed. But in the open places people go whizzing along, and never know when ponies are going to cross a road. It certainly has its dangers, not only to the animals, with whom the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, is so rightly concerned, but also to the drivers or passengers of the motor cars concerned. I have pleasure in supporting the noble Lord opposite.
LORD CONGLETON: There are one or two points on which I must take contest with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, so far as certain local opinion with regard to the speed limit is concerned. I can tell your Lordships that the question of the speed limit throughout the forest was discussed at great length in various unofficial committees and unofficial bodies before the Bill was drafted. There was great difficulty over the difference of opinions and views of what the speed limit should be; of how it should be enforced; whether there should be one at all, and what the effect would be on through traffic, local traffic and the different interests within the forest, such as the local tradesmen, the Chambers of Commerce, and the commoners. All these people had different views, and so it was quite deliberately left out when the Bill was drafted; there was considerable difficulty and very many opinions.
I myself come clown on the side of not having a speed limit, and I will try to explain my reasons. I think it would he a mistake not to take into account the effect when the A.31 gives a dual-carriageway trunk road from which all animals are excluded. It is difficult to assess how much traffic will be automatically transferred on to that road and, therefore, will have no contact with the animals of the forest. It is certainly my hope that so much traffic will be transferred to that road that there will not be the heavy through traffic, the big lorries and the big charabancs, which everybody tries to overtake and so possibly do not pay attention to other things on the road or near to them. If all that traffic can be transferred to one road the reasons for speeding in the forest will be reduced.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble Lord from which road he expects it to be transferred to the A.31? There is a heavy incidence of accidents on the A.337 which runs North and South. If anything, traffic will increase on that road. Where does the noble Lord expect it to come from?
LORD CONGLETON: I think that when the new bridge at Redbridge is built, instead of the traffic turning South-West, it will tend to turn North-West, and so move from the A.35 on to the A.31. I hope that answers the noble
1234
Lord's question. Of course, the roads have to be completed, and that has not been done yet.
May I refer to the noble Lord's comments about pigs in 1963? I think it was a year in which there was very little pannage, because there were not many acorns and not much beech mast, so there were few pigs out in the forest and few pigs to be involved in accidents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that powers exist for imposing this speed limit. The Minister has power, and so has the Hampshire County Council.
I believe that if a speed limit were imposed they would be forced to put repeater posts alongside the road. That, I think, is the technical term for the small indications of the speed limit which have to be put every half mile (I think it is) between the main posts in an area which is not obviously a built-up or restricted area. If I have it right, these posts were introduced under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Also under that Act, in circumstances of country where you would not expect there to be a speed limit, no prosecution can be brought unless these small indicator posts are put in between the main restriction posts. So I would suggest that imposing a speed limit will achieve nothing, because even if the police could stop the people and presumably charge them, they could not be convicted, or there is a defence already written in and therefore it may be possible to get over the charge. But I would suggest that that is one of the reasons why the police have always stood out against the imposition of a speed limit on these roads.
Whether that particular difficulty can be overcome I do not know, but I am sure it would be quite wrong to have repeater posts. I suspect that these would tend to attract animals to the roads. At the moment, on the whole, they stay away from the roads; but here is a small, blinking, shining object, and small animals would find it a convenient rubbing post and something interesting to lick. I think it might well have the opposite effect to that which is desired.
I do not think that the difficulty that comes at night would be met by any speed limit whatsoever. I know of two

1235
cases of persons who were driving, certainly at under 40 miles an hour and, knowing the people, I should think probably at under 30 miles an hour, but who were involved in a collision with animals at night; and I think if there were any statistics, which I do not think there are, they would show that accidents of this sort have been occurring and will continue to occur.
I should be entirely willing to support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on this particular Amendment only if it meant that we should be able to do away altogether with fencing along roads. I cannot myself believe that that, in fact, is so. On the face of it, I would suggest that the speed limit seems a very helpful thing that would assist in getting over the whole of this problem, but I think when one goes into the detail of it one in facts gets nowhere. So, on the whole, I come down against this Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: I think the nature of the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has proposed is such that it brings me into this discussion, not perhaps to your Lordships' surprise, although you have to tolerate my speaking for a fifth time this afternoon. I am not a bit happy about the Amendment. Frankly, I do not like the Amendment, and I will tell your Lordships why. But first I should like to make it perfectly clear that I do not wish to dissociate myself in any way from the objects that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said he had in view—reducing accidents, both human and animal, and reducing risks of all kinds. I am bound to say to him and to your Lordships, however, that I cannot agree that it would be a good thing to do in the circumstances to do what this Amendment proposes, for reasons which I will explain in a moment.
Rather contrary to what the noble Lord has said, I think, that the Amendment is, first of all, unnecessary; secondly, undesirable; and, thirdly, unworkable—and I would put them in that order. It is unnecessary because the Hampshire County Council, as the highway authority, already have powers under Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, to impose a 40 miles an hour speed limit on these roads. The exception,
1236
of course, is the A.31, where the power rests with the Minister. That is the unnecessary part.
Section 11 procedure also provides for the giving of public notice and for consultation with the police, which the noble Lord's Amendment does not do; which is the first element of undesirability that enters in. Further, it would make the position regarding speed limits in the New Forest completely different from that in any other part of the country—which is undesirability Mark II. Neither the Minister nor the County Council consider that a speed limit would be justified on these roads. We hold very strongly to the view that if a speed limit is to do any good it should he one that is respected by the drivers who are using that part of the road. We think very strongly that to earn the respect of the motorist the road on which a speed limit is imposed should have at least some of the criteria of the kind of places people would expect to find a speed limit—there should be building development, traffic, waiting vehicles, schools, whatever it might be, and side turnings. We do not think you can ask people to respect a speed limit on an open road. That is the third stage of undesirability.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble Lord what he means by saying that it is necessary for there to be traffic? I would point out to him that we are talking about traffic.
LORD CHESHAM: I was well aware that we were talking about traffic. I mean traffic going to and fro; a "mixture" of traffic, if the noble Lord prefers that. I do not mind if he wants to pick me up on a point of that kind. But a road going through a forest is not the type of road on which people would expect to find a speed limit in force. If people are on that kind of road they do not, we know well, respect a speed limit unless it is enforced by the police. Whatever the noble Lord tried to destroy in anticipation of the argument being made, I say that the police are not in favour of this, because they say it could not be enforced.
The noble Lord told us that there are police cars going up and down the A.35. What about other roads? Are people going to expect to be "pinched" for doing 60 or 70 miles an hour down

1237
one of the side roads, if that is possible? They know they are not. I do not think that is going to do any good. The noble Lord tells us that the verderers are in favour, and if he says so, then of course, I accept it from him. But I have had the same information as the noble Lord, Lord Congleton: that the local authorities in the Forest, the commoners' associations and amenity societies, particularly when they met together in September, 1962, were not in favour of such a restriction except in the built-up areas, where one would normally expect to find one.
LORD AIREDALE: Could I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Surely the kind of speed limit which people expect to see when they see signs in a built-up area is a 30 miles an hour speed limit. This Amendment seeks to impose a 40 miles an hour speed limit, which has very different, and much more specialised, applications. Surely, almost everybody in England knows something about the New Forest and the difficulties there of the animals, and when they come to the New Forest and see a speed limit of 40 miles an hour they are not going to be put off that because it does not look like a built-up area to which a different speed limit applies.
LORD CHESHAM: A 40 miles an hour limit can mostly be found in built-up areas, which have recognisable characteristics; and if the noble Lord—let us face it—thinks that most people do not respect them there, how much less are they going to respect them on a side road running across open country?
LORD AIREDALE: You should get them enforced in places where they already exist and are not respected. It is a rotten argument that because existing speed limits are not enforced you cannot have any more.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think it is a rotten argument at all; I think it is an argument in my favour.
LORD CONGLETON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble, Lord, but he mentioned the commoners' associations. I cannot remember the date off hand, but approximately a month ago there was a public meeting at which the Commoners' Defence Association and the Pony and Cattle Breeders' Association
1238
were represented, and that meeting expressed the view that a speed limit would help. I think that was contrary to what the noble Lord said. It was certainly contrary to the view of previous meetings.
LORD CHESHAM: It is, apparently, contrary to what I said by virtue of the fact the noble Lord has more up-to-date information than I. My information is exactly what I said: that the commoners' associations and amenity societies had been against a speed limit. If there has subsequently been a meeting about which I have not heard, the noble Lord is probably right. But I think I should mention this question of repeater signs. These would be necessary by law—it is no good hoping they would not—at 325-yard intervals, to be precise; and whether that would be desirable in the forest, I should have doubted. The question whether they are present in Windsor Great Park does not arise, because there is no speed limit there and there is no need to have one; but if there were a speed limit there would have to be these signs. If there is this great increase in accidents, I am sorry to say that the answer lies in fencing, because the noble Lord's speed limit Amendment is not a starter.
8.22 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: I do not want to detain your Lordships for more than a few seconds, but I know the mover of the Amendment would like to know the view of the Promoters of the Bill. The Promoters are in favour of some sort of speed limit, and especially a temporary one, for a trial period, to see how we get on. I think the debate has been extremely interesting and it has shown how quickly opinion changes in this particular area. The noble Lord, Lord Congleton, said that recently quite a different view was taken from that held a year ago. I believe that this situation will go on. All I would say to the Minister (he was not helpful, but it is the kind of reply I expected; and he is bound to give the reply of the Ministry) is that, so far as the New Forest is concerned, we must remember that no precedent can possibly apply, because it is something entirely different from anything else anywhere else in the British Isles. That is a point that must be remembered. I think that it

1239
is wrong to accept advice on precedents on this particular area.
I am certain that to have this debate on record will be useful. The Promoters will look into the point with the local authorities, because it is quite clear that this proposal will not get anywhere until the Hampshire County Council are in agreement, and then they might push the Minister further. In the meantime, the Promoters will keep their eyes very carefully on this problem and take it into consideration in consultation with the interested parties.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry to intervene again, but I must say that if the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, thinks I was talking on precedent he is not right; I was talking about the law of the country, not about precedent. I must remind him again that there already exists this power if the county council want it.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is a handicap that the Minister was briefed only as far as 1960. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Congleton—
LORD CHESHAM: Would the noble Lord say that again?
LORD SHACKLETON: I said that I was sorry the noble Lord was briefed only as far as 1960, so far as opinion is concerned.
LORD CHESHAM: The date I mentioned was 1962.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is not quite so out of date—I apologise. I suppose it is unfair to expect Ministers to know everything; we tend to think they ought to, especially the noble Lord. But the fact is that there is a decisive development in opinion. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, for coming forward with that information. His own argument was rather based on the views held at the time the Bill was being originally thought about and discussed, but I can well understand the Promoters not wishing to get in a tangle on this matter, so running the risk of not getting the general support which they needed. We know that they have had quite a bit of trouble in other directions, and they do not want the county against them. I would stress
1240
this is a matter on which there is very strong feeling. And, after all, it did call into existence the New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals. One may or may not take this Society seriously, but the fact is that many people who are deeply concerned about this problem got together in an effort to find a solution. I do not believe—and the evidence is not there—that fencing the A.31 will solve this problem.
Then there is the problem of the other roads. The noble Lord, I know, lives not far from the New Forest, and has no doubt frequently driven through it. But there is particularly this problem of the A.337. Why are powers not being taken to fence this road?—because accidents will continue to grow more serious. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, gave a number of reasons. He said that it was not necessary, not desirable and unworkable. First of all, it is necessary because of the attitude of the authorities to this matter. Secondly, it is desirable because the whole object of this Bill is to prevent accidents. I agree that there is one undesirable aspect—and this is another reason why I shall not press the Amendment to-day: quite clearly it would have been desirable for this point to be argued out in Committee, and for the local authorities and the police to have had an opportunity to express a different view. What I cannot accept, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne can, is the argument that we cannot do this because it is different. It is precisely because it is different that we want to do it. It is because we do want to get it understood that different conditions apply in an area which we want to preserve. It is already beginning to be known by some people as "gridland" because there are grids all over the place. I shall have more to say about fences at a later stage in this Bill. When we see more fences of the kind being put up now, it is going to be very sad indeed.
I would therefore appeal to the Minister and to the Promoters to consider whether there is not, perhaps, a case for a speed limit. The problem of repeater signs is, I agree, a difficult one. It is perhaps an argument for having dealt with the matter in this Bill, when

1241
we could also put an Amendment in the Road Traffic Act in regard to the requirement for repeaters. I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, that people would be prepared, with training, to expect this. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, takes a dreary, depressed view of motorists when he does not think they are capable of respecting a need of this kind. This seems to me something we cannot accept if we are to preserve areas like the New Forest.
Finally, on enforceability, I would say that if we want to keep the New Forest—and there are other areas—we may have to pay for this, and this may mean more police. As it is, I know what will happen. We shall have the A.35 fenced, which will be a great loss to the scenic beauty. There will inevitably be another bill to fence A.337 and other roads. Before withdrawing the Amendment I would say this. I do not expect the Minister to be able to say more to-day, but there is very strong feeling. There has been this change of attitude. I think he will find if he consults the Ministry of Agriculture, which is also responsible for forestry, that the Forestry Commission might have a view of this matter, and that there is a general change of attitude in favour of a speed limit. If no other noble Lord wishes to speak on this, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Fencing of road from Southampton to Christchurch]:
8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport may also care to consider this matter. In Clause 4 we are giving powers to public authorities to spend a large sum of money—a sum of money which could be estimated at somewhere round £100,000 or £200,000—to put up a fence along the A.35. My observations are really in regard to the type of fence that might be put up. The fence that has already been put up on the A.31 is a good workable fence, but it spoils the area. The Baker Committee recommended that a ha-ha fence should be constructed. The description in the Baker Committee Report of this fence
1242
was not, I believe, strictly of a ha-ha fence at all. As I understand it, a ha-ha fence is a vertical wall with a ditch and then a slope, so that if you are standing on the side above the fence you cannot see that there is any fence at all—you just see that there is a bit of a ditch. This is going to be extremely expensive.
I have consulted some people, including one young man who is actually building a road at this moment and who has also a good deal of experience of preserving the countryside. I would urge that before we put up more of these unsightly fences—perhaps this is a matter on which the Promoters of the Bill will also have views—we should consider the possibility of a sunk fence. This is a fence with a visible bank, but instead of being vertical it slopes at an angle with a small fence vertical to that slope. Such a fence would probably be slightly more expensive—indeed, quite considerably more expensive—but it would still be less expensive than a ha-ha fence.
Strong feeling exists on this matter. The first experiment at Pickett Post in regard to a fence of the Baker Committee type was rather disastrous, because there was a horrible great bank, a sort of parapet almost like the top of a trench, which spoiled the view. My fence would not produce this effect. Some of the soil might have to be disposed of elsewhere, but I am told that if you are building a road there is no particular difficulty in getting rid of soil. If necessary, it would have to be spread. The figures I have had on this proposal would suggest that it would not be much more expensive.
I would say that there are strong feelings—certainly there are some verderers who feel strongly—that if we are trying to preserve the New Forest we should have the sort of fence that will not block the Forest as much as the one that has been put on the A.31. We are giving power for the building of such a fence. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, has any views on this matter. I hope we shall get co-operation between the local authorities and those concerned with preserving the countryside. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would not dissent from me in regard to the object I am seeking in

1243
this matter. I am just asking that, before we finally take a decision and put up the sort of fence that is being put up now, something rather more attractive will be considered.
LORD CONGLETON: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him to answer a further question? I understand that the Ministry of Transport have given an undertaking that the present fence on the A.31 road is agreed to be a temporary provision and not the final answer. He may not be able to answer that, but I understand it to be so. I was told so by one of the senior members of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England who are much involved. It would be helpful to know that. That would be the first stage.
I can only then go on to say how much I support Lord Shackleton in his point. The present fence is appalling, and is the last thing that anybody could possibly wish to see. I hope it will be possible to adapt the ha-ha principle to what is at present required. Lord Shackleton was good enough to show me the design of his new fence. It certainly produces the effect of looking from the road to the forest without obstruction, but when you look from the forest to the road, you can still see all the horrible vehicles. I wonder whether the noble Lord could help over this question of the fence.
LORD CHESHAM: I will let the noble Lord know what is the precise position, because I do not have it in my mind at the moment. All I would say is that I take note of, and agree with, the principle expressed: that one does not want ugly fences stuck about beautiful places. But all it had occurred to me to say, in a personal and not in an official capacity, and merely "thinking aloud" on what the noble Lord said about the sunk type of fence, is this: although it is cheaper, unless it is deeply sunk and is a rather high fence, and therefore extremely expensive, it has a lot against it as a means of keeping animals in. My reason for wishing to "pop up" in a personal capacity, is that I have just such a fence along my garden, and the way the heifers lightheartedly dance over it, whenever they feel inclined is quite remarkable. It is
1244
quite a sizeable obstacle. If the noble Lord is going to press for a particular fence of that type, it must be on a fairly large scale or it will not have the effect that everybody wants—namely, to keep the animals off the road.
LORD SHACKLETON: Is the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, going to express a view? It would be interesting to know what the Promoters think about it, because it is they who are insisting on taking the power in this Bill.
LORD CRATHORNE: All I can say at this point is that, so far as the Promoters are concerned, they have not got that far yet. But there is no doubt that discussions will go on with the parties concerned to see which is the right kind of fence, and great attention will be paid to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am astonished to hear it suggested that the Promoters have not yet got on to this. I think the noble Lord does not do justice to his colleagues in this matter. I am sorry to hear about Lord Chesham's sunk fence. I will show him the diagram that I have. There will be some animals against which no fence is proof. I am worried about some of the black steers in the New Forest. Then there is the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, mentioned, of the deer. There were 60 deer killed on the road. This slaughter will continue.
I think we have extracted all we can on this point. I hope that the amenities will be borne in mind. I am quite sure that the verderers will strongly support some satisfactory solution.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Saving for National Trust]:
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, after ("exist") insert ("or over which a privilege of pasture was exercisable on 1st December 1963").—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRATHORNE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, leave out from first ("lands") to ("without") in line 42.—(Lord Crathorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendments.
ELIM CHURCH MOOR LANE BOLTON BURIAL GROUND BILL
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

CITY OF LONDON (COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.