HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 06 July 1965 vol 267 cc1172-249

3.12 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Establishment of Highlands and Islands Development Board]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I should like to raise a question on subsection (2) of Clause 1. In another place there was considerable debate on the subject of the area within which, or in relation to which, the functions of the Board shall be exercised. By far and away the easiest solution, of course, would be to confine it to the crofting counties. On the other hand, there are areas which seem to conform to the noble Lord's own description; that is to say, where there is a great similarity in problems of remoteness, of land use, of land quality, of social history and conditions, and the ever-present problem of depopulation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 267 (No. 93), col. 732, June 29, 1965.] Some of these areas would not create any difficulty of definition. One, in particular, which I think we all have in mind, is an island. One reason for restricting the definition—and we appreciate this very much—is that if the Government were once to give way on a particular area, there would be clamour and demand for other areas to be included. But, of course, the nearer one gets to the enactment of the Bill, the less danger there is of that. So I should like to ask just two questions. First of all, would the noble Lord be prepared to consider an Amendment at the Report stage, to include any of the areas which have this close similarity of conditions? Secondly, if he is not prepared to do that, will he at least say that there will be no undue delay in defining such areas and bringing them within the scope of the Board?

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

I find it difficult to give an assurance to either one or the other, because I think that at this stage that might precipitate quite a bit of pressure for the extension of the Board's area, before the Board had even got down to considering the problems. In this matter the advice of the Board itself as to the extent to which its area will be extended will be of very great importance. It would have been easy for us to name one or two areas which are almost so identical with the crofting counties as to justify their inclusion, but as soon as we departed from the crofting counties we should have opened a door which would admit a variety of areas with problems not completely identical with those of the crofting counties. More detailed consideration is needed than would have been possible from looking at the matter only from a general point of view. I think, therefore, that it will be to the advantage of all concerned if, the Bill is left as it is, with the assurance, which I can most readily give, that if there were representations from the Board, once it was in existence, that its area ought properly to include certain other counties, or parts of counties, the Secretary of State would consider and give a decision on such representations without any delay.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and I accept his assurance most willingly. I think that what he has said is probably the right way to tackle this problem.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Duties of the Board

3.—(1) In pursuance of their general function described in section 1(1) of this Act the Board shall have the following duties— (b) after consultation with such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest, from time to time to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals, whether general or specific in character, for the economic and social development of the Highlands and Islands or any part thereof; (e) as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year to make to the Secretary of State a report as respects that year on the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act; such report shall set out any directions given to the Board under section 2(1) of this Act, a summary of any proposals submitted to the Secretary of State under paragraph (b) of this subsection, and, where he has refused to approve any such proposals, a summary of his reasons for so refusing, but shall not disclose any such information as is referred to in section 12(1) of this Act without the consent referred to in that subsection.

(2) The Secretary of State may approve in whole or in part, any proposals submitted to him under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, or may refuse to approve them.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "from time to time". The noble Duke said: This is a very small Amendment. As subsection (1)(b) of Clause 3 reads at the moment the Board have from time to time to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals". It seems to me that the words "from time to time" are unnecessary. I am sure that no reasonable Secretary of State would expect the Board—or, indeed, would be grateful if the Board did so—to produce proposals continuously for him to consider. I am also quite convinced that the Board would be incapable of doing so. If the words "from time to time" are left out, presumably the Board would submit proposals as and when they thought fit, which is what I should have thought was intended by this paragraph. I should have thought that, in order to save a little space, we could quite well do without the words "from time to time". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, leave out ("from time to time").—(The Duke of Atholl)

LORD HUGHES

I am afraid that the noble Duke has looked at these words in completely the wrong way. They were not put in because the Secretary of State expected the Board to be continuously in session putting proposals before him. Having looked at it from that point of view, the noble Duke has completely overlooked the other aspect. If the words "from time to time" are not in, the most likely interpretation of the clause would be that the Board would have a once-and-for-all opportunity of submitting proposals; and having submitted one set of proposals, if these words are omitted, they would never again be able to put anything further forward. That would completely stultify the operation of the Board; and, as I know that that is not the noble Duke's intention, I have not the slightest hesitation in asking him to withdraw his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Of course, in view of what the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State has said, I shall be delighted to withdraw this Amendment. He is quite right: I had overlooked that particular angle of the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.21 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out: and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval".

The noble Duke said: With the permission of the Committee, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6, which stand or fall together.

LORD HUGHES

May I suggest that the noble Duke should also include Amendment No. 14?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I quite agree. I shall be delighted to include Amendment No. 14, too. On the Second Reading of this Bill, I ventured to suggest that, in my opinion, the Board would be rather hamstrung by the fact that time and time again, under the Bill as drawn, it had to go and seek the approval or permission of the Secretary of State before it could do something. I fully realise that in some cases it is probably very necessary, as for example under Clause 8, by which they have the power to give grants and loans. I am sure that in that case, or at any rate in any major case, it is right that they should go to the Secretary of State, but I cannot see why they should have to submit their proposals to the Secretary of State for his approval. I would have thought that it would have been much more interesting if they published their proposals, and if we then had the reaction of the Secretary of State.

Presumably, even if the Board did not submit their proposals to the Secretary of State he would be allowed to see them and read them after they had been published, and he could say what the official Government view was towards them, just as other people could express their view. I feel this would be much more satisfactory, and would give the Board far more power than they would otherwise have. I therefore move that, in line 29 on page 2, we should leave out the words and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval"; and I propose to move that in line 44 we should leave out the words from "a summary" to the end of the paragraph, which is purely consequential to the above Amendment, and then that we should leave out subsection (2) of this particular clause. I feel that the calibre of the Board is going to be much improved if they do not continually have to go to the Secretary of State for approval of their schemes and proposals, and that they should only have to go in those cases in which they are going to spend, comparatively speaking, large sums of money. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, leave out ("and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word on this Amendment at this stage. Of course, I am sure we would all agree—indeed, the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State has himself said—that the Board would be expected to run its own day-to-day affairs once it had had the approval of the Secretary of State to its proposals in general. I wonder whether it would be in order, and in line with the Committee's wishes, if I were to carry this debate on the proposals a little wider, because this seems to be rather fundamental to the whole status of the Board and to the general control exercised over the Board.

I would suggest to my noble friend that what is really at stake here is whether the Board should go to the Secretary of State and be in pretty well continuous consultation with the Secretary of State, as many Boards are, and which may well give the best results. In any case, since the Secretary of State is bound to act to a large extent as the banker of the Board, it is only reasonable, when you are expecting to spend a good deal of money which somebody else has to find, that you should go and consult the person (your banker, if it is he) who is expected to put up the money, and should explain your proposals to him. I should not have thought that that was unreasonable.

My noble friend draws a distinction between small proposals and big proposals. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State, in carrying out the undertaking he gave because he was not able to deal with all the points raised in the debate, has written to me dealing with some of the points that I made. In particular, I asked what the Board would do; in other words, for what sort of proposals the Board would seek permission. Perhaps I may be allowed to read an extract from his letter. The letter says: The Board will give grants and loans. In short the Board will exercise all the functions (and in this context functions include powers and duties) conferred on them by the Bill. The Board's powers would enable them to build hotels, or motels, set up restaurants, reclaim land and create new farms, build small factories for light industry or erect a processing plant, construct a new ski run with all the attendant facilities, or set up tourist information centres". The noble Lord goes on: I do not say that they will in fact need to do all these things themselves. They will of course seek to assist and stimulate private and public enterprise in a variety of fields. But they will have extensive reserve powers and we intend them to be a resourceful and energetic body". The particular paragraph that we are dealing with here begins: after consultation with such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest, from time to time to prepare…"; and the next one talks about concerting and promoting. I think that my noble friend is on a very good point in seeking to draw a distinction between small and medium-sized proposals and proposals of considerable scope. I find myself in some disagreement with him about this, because it seems to me that, where the proposals are of considerable scope, there may be a case not only for the Board to consult the Secretary of State but for the Secretary of State to lay the proposals before Parliament. In many of these cases the acquisition of a considerable amount of land may be involved.

I think the closest parallel—and I am glad that my noble friend the Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board is present to-day—is the Hydro-Electric Develop- ment Act. I will, if I may, remind the Committee of what that Act lays down in regard to constructional schemes, because I think it is very germane if you are going to have any big or extensive scheme involving widespread interference with private interests. First of all, the Board submits the scheme to the Secretary of State and publishes it in such newspapers as the Secretary of State may require. Secondly, and at the same time, the Board sends copies to the owners and occupiers—and it may be very important that, at the time when the proposals are sent to the Secretary of State, the owners should know about them in so far as they are affected by them. Thirdly, they have to keep copies available for inspection and sale at offices of the Board and at one or more convenient places. Fourthly, they have to specify a period of 40 days for objections. Then, after the 40 days are up, the Secretary of State has to consider objections and may hold an inquiry—and he must hold an inquiry at the request of any objector unless the objection is frivolous. Then, after that—and then only—the Secretary of State may make an order confirming the scheme with or without amendments, and the Secretary of State must lay a confirming order of the scheme before Parliament. Either House may pray against an order within 40 days, excluding any days when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or adjourned for more than four days.

Lastly, the Board must deposit copies of the schemes that are confirmed and give notice where copies are available for inspection and sale. I think the Committee should be grateful to the noble Duke for raising this particular point, because it enables us to probe and to see whether the Secretary of State proposes that some of these schemes should be widespread. I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that schemes mentioned in the letter that the noble Lord sent to me are of a minor character. On the other hand, of course, the Board can concert and promote and that will involve carrying various bodies with them: local authorities, statutory bodies and the like.

I should like to ask the noble Lord at this stage this question arising out of subsection (1)(b). The Development Board will be required to consult with local authorities to the extent that the Board thinks they have an interest. Will the Board be able to put up proposals which the local authorities and the statutory bodies do not like, or from which they dissent? The next paragraph says, "concert"; so perhaps until the whole thing is concerted and agreement has been attained all round they will not be able to do so. This is not yet clear in the Bill and it is important that the Committee should know whether the Board is going to have power to make recommendations that are not agreed to by the bodies with which they have to work.

In the course of the Second Reading debate the noble Lord referred to this problem in these words: I would emphasise that once the proposals have been approved by the Secretary of State, the various authorities concerned will all play their part."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 267 (No. 93), col. 733, June 29, 1965.] Does this mean that any compulsion will be brought upon the local authorities and the statutory bodies to play their part? Or does it mean that unless there is agreement all round no such proposals can go forward? I think it is important in considering this that we should be clear in these subjects. I should like in particular to know whether the Government do not envisage the possibility, at any rate, of schemes of such size that ought to be submitted for Parliamentary approval.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Before the noble Lord replies, I should like just to add a few words. These Amendments in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl have my sympathy. The Committee may remember that during the Second Reading debate I expressed a view that this Board was going to have rather too little power, in that it would too frequently have to run to the Secretary of State or the Treasury, or both. Except in the case of Clause 11, I thought that the Board had too little power and the Secretary of State too much.

It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has raised the possibility of an interesting compromise here. The noble Duke has referred to the possibility of giving the Board freedom, except in so far as it is likely to spend large sums of money, I do not wish to misquote the noble Duke, but that is what I understood him to say. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, quite properly, said that if you are spending money you may need to go to your bank for an overdraft, and he felt that the question of accountability was very important.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he replies, may be able to help us on this matter. I hope that we may be able to consider it further on Report stage, and consider inserting in the Bill a specified sum up to which the Board may go without need for consultation. This seems to me a possible course, and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to consider it. In so far as the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is concerned, I support him on this. It seems to me that this Bill, which at the moment seems to be a small one, may become an important Bill. If it does, there may be matters which should not be decided by the Secretary of State on his own and which should come before Parliament. In this respect, I would support my noble friend's proposal.

LORD BROWN

Before the noble Marquess sits down, I wonder if I might make this request. It would be of immense help if either the noble Marquess or his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn could indicate, however vaguely, what is intended by "large expense"; because there seems to me to be vagueness on this issue.

LORD HUGHES

With respect to my noble friend, I should like to intervene at this point, because, for reasons which I hope the Committee will accept, it would be quite impossible to put in a figure, as has been suggested by the noble Marquess. In the first instance, so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was saying on this was so acceptable to me that I almost looked around to the Officials' Box to find out whether by any chance, they had provided him with the same brief on this matter as I have. In order that I might not forget any of the important points which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised, I will deal with them before coming to the Amendment itself.

The noble Lord put two questions to which the Committee are entitled to a complete unequivocal answer. First, will the Board be able to put forward policies which are not agreed by all the bodies? I think it would be an unnecessary restriction on the functions and powers of this Board if I were to say that it would not be allowed to do so. The Board must be allowed to submit to the Secretary of State anything which, in its discretion, is a proper carrying-out of its functions. In so far as it is putting forward proposals the implementation of which is not entirely in its own hands, it is in danger of frustrating its own schemes if it cannot persuade the other partners of the desirability of carrying them out. So there is a strong urge on the Board to obtain agreement on proposals of which it is only part-implementor.

The noble Lord's second question was, if one of the Board's schemes could not be carried out in its entirety, because one of the local authorities or another of the bodies concerned was not co-operative, would the Secretary of State have to apply compulsion? The answer must be, No. There is no power under this Bill, as I understand it, or under any legislation, to compel a local authority to do anything unless the Secretary of State already has power under existing legislation to make it mandatory on these bodies to carry out their functions. As the Committee know, the general position in relation to local authorities is that so many of their powers are permissive rather than mandatory. So we would not, by this Bill, turn the permissive power of the local authorities into a mandatory one. I would not however expect a local authority (and in this context, the term "local authority" covers any other bodies which might be affected: and the Crofters' Commission, the Forestry Commission are two cases that spring to mind) to be reluctant to play its part in a proposal. If it were it would have to be strongly convinced that it was right, because it would have to stand up to the force of public opinion in the Highlands if its refusal to undertake its part were to prevent a very much larger scheme from being carried out. I think, therefore, that we shall find that a reasonable attitude is adopted by all the people concerned.

Having, I hope, answered these two points fully I will now come to the reasons why I would advise the Committee not to accept the series of Amendments which have been coupled together by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. The reason why we cannot put in an amount is that one of the main functions of the Board is to co-ordinate proposals for Highland development. During the Second Reading debate I emphasised that it was not to be part of the functions of the Board to take over the functions of local authorities. It may be that what an individual local authority could do on its own in trying to solve a particular problem would be comparatively meaningless, but that if this were added to what other authorities would do, and what the Board might do in supplementation of these activities, a comprehensive, sensible scheme might result. So one of the first duties of the Board will be to carry out the business of co-ordinating proposals.

It would be nonsensical to give a Board of this kind power to proceed with such proposals without reference to the Secretary of State. The example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, relating to the Hydro-Electric Board—we know the extent to which that Board has in the past been involved in public inquiries into its activities—shows what a tremendous power would be conferred on the Board were we to do what the noble Duke suggests. After all, as I said during the Second Reading debate, the area of the Board as constituted, without anything being added to it, is one-sixth of the total land area of the United Kingdom. To allow it to pursue a course, however well-intentioned, without reference to national considerations would be quite out of the question. The Secretary of State has responsibility for national planning. It would be his duty, in relation to Scotland, to ensure that anything proposed by the Board fitted in with national policy. Because proposals would be of a comprehensive nature, involving a number of authorities, the approval of the Secretary of State would be necessary to ensure that the various bodies carried out, and, where necessary, were enabled to carry out, their part of the proposals.

In this connection I remember that before the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wrote asking for information about grants given to local authorities, and during the debate he quoted some of the figures. In one of the counties concerned there might, for instance, be an approved road proposal, and the extent of the grant received from the Exchequer by direct grant, Exchequer Equalisation Grant and so on, might amount to 93 per cent. of the cost of the proposal; so that the ratepayers would pay only 7 per cent. There could be a situation which, looking at the matter only from the point of view of what the Board was doing, might cause people to say, "This is a very small proposal, which involves the Highlands and Islands Development Board in an expenditure of only £50,000." But, in approving the comprehensive proposal, the Secretary of State might be accepting responsibility for finding half-a-million pounds in terms of grants to local authorities for their part in the proposal.

For that reason it is quite impossible to put into this clause any figure relating solely to the cost of the part played by the Board. Its major contribution might not be by way of finance but by obtaining co-ordinated development, and the Secretary of State would then have the responsibility, if he had approved the proposal, of making the resulting money available to the other authorities to enable them to carry out their part. One of the things which always proves a stumbling block to Highland local authorities is lack of finance.

3.45 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his reply. Before seeking to withdraw this Amendment, I should like to clear up two points. When my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn suggested that there might be some limitation by cost, with which I agree, I am sure that he meant the total cost of the project and not just the cost to the Board. It seemed to me that this would be possible, but we need not go into the matter in discussing this Amendment. We can discuss it in more detail later. After reading subsection 1(e), I think I am right in saying that the Secretary of State will have to give reasons in the Annual Report of the Board for turning down, or partially turning down, any project. If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would confirm that, I should be very grateful.

LORD HUGHES

Yes, that is the position. Of course, there is nothing to pre- vent the Board, if it has submitted a proposal to the Secretary of State which he is unable to approve, from making known in the area that the proposal has been put forward. We are not seeking to bind the Board to secrecy on matters which have not been approved. It is possible that the Board might put up something at a given time which, in the existing circumstances, the Secretary of State would not be able to approve. The Board, if public opinion in the area was behind it, might feel encouraged to bring the matter forward at some more propitious time, six months, a year, or two years later. So the answer to the question from the noble Duke is, "Yes".

LORD DRUMALBYN

Will the noble Lord go a little further? One can easily envisage a situation in which it would not be desirable for the Board to publish its proposals at the time it made them to the Secretary of State, but, as I have indicated, the constructional proposals of the Hydro-Electric Board are published at the same time as they are sent to the Secretary of State. Unless there was a strong reason against publishing them, it would be much more desirable to publish them and get the play of public opinion on them at the earliest possible moment. I do not think it matters whether or not they are accepted then or later, or rejected altogether. What does matter is the play of public opinion on them.

LORD HUGHES

What the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said in his opening remarks about almost continuous conversations between the Board and the Secretary of State would, I think, resolve these matters. It would be a waste of time for the Board to publish a proposal, even in the preliminary stages, when it was persuaded that there was no chance at all of its being acceptable. As soon as the Board became aware from its discussions that a proposal was the sort of thing to which sympathetic consideration would be given, there would be no objection, and a great deal to be gained, by giving publicity to its proposals as early as possible.

I am not at all certain that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would wish to have thrust on the Highlands Development Board the very complicated, cumbersome and time-wasting procedure which the hydro-electric legislation compels that authority to adopt. In some cases it is completely justified, as where a scheme is of major importance, but it has been found recently that in respect of a comparatively minor scheme, where there was no objector, the same procedure was enforced on the authority. It is perhaps partly the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government that the Board has not yet received approval in that case.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.50 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

A report from the consultative council is attached to the report of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and it would seem to be a useful practice. Since it seems to have proved itself, I see no reason why it should not be put into the Bill and made mandatory on the Board. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and such report shall include a report from the Council".).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

The proposal in Amendment No. 4, which I think must be coupled with Amendment No. 46 to Schedule 2, appears so eminently reasonable that when I was first faced with the word "Resist" in my brief, I thought that I was being asked to do something quite unjustified. I ought to have known better, because I have had experience of these matters in the past.

I think it is very likely that the Council would wish to make a report of this kind, but the Government think that it would be a mistake to make it mandatory. A successful relationship between the Council and the Board will the more likely arise, the more informal is its nature. There will be a number of items on which the Board will wish to have the guidance of the Council. I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the functions of an Advisory Council in relation to the Highlands Development Board are much wider than those of a Council in relation to an Electricity Board, which is concerned principally with charges and with the creation of conditions which have an effect upon the consumers. The functions of this Advisory Council go much beyond this, and if they are to be carried out the Council must feel free at all times to give advice which is in the best possible interests of their area. From time to time, they might not wish the exact nature of their advice to be known publicly. For instance, when a board are making appointments they sometimes ask applicants, instead of submitting references, to submit the names of referees; and sometimes it happens that if an applicant is a bit "dodgy", instead of writing, a referee will ring up and say some things about the applicant which he would not wish to put on paper but which he thinks the Board should know. This is the sort of thing which may well happen in relation to the functions of the Council.

A Council wishing to be helpful and to give advice in the best interests of the area might not give information in quite the same form, or perhaps any advice at all, if it knew that that advice was to be published, either in its own report of in the report of the Board. On many occasions it may be that the advice given by the Council to the Board will be published. Certainly the Board would wish to do this in cases where the advice strengthens their hand, but I think it would be published only with the consent of the Council which had tendered the advice. I would expect it to be the normal procedure that from time to time the Board would wish to report its activities and these reports might well include the annual report of the Council. The Council has the power to publish such a report if it wishes to do so, but it might well be published by the Board as part of its report.

It could also be the case that the Board might prefer from time to time to make public the advice of the Council when matters were fresh in the minds of those concerned, rather than at the end of the year, when they were no longer of topical interest. As we visualise it, there will be no restrictions on the publicity which the Council may seek for themselves—of course, within certain limits. For instance, they could not, without reference to the appropriate authorities, who would include the Secretary of State, take the front page of the Scotsman, assuming that the Scotsman departed from its present policy to enable them to take the front page. We assume that the Council would proceed in the same way as other advisory bodies of the kind.

It is the intention of the Government that the Council should be free to publish what they wish, as much as they wish or as little as they wish. We think that the interests of a policy of concord between the Council and the Board would be best served by leaving things as they are, with the greatest degree of informality between them. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the full and well-reasoned reply he has given, and I am sure that noble Lords on both sides will have listened to it with great attention. If I may say so, he has been able to say a good deal of what he has said because he has taken the two Amendments together. It would be perfectly possible for the Board to publish an annual report without actually giving the exact information my noble friends and I ask for in Amendment No. 46. It would be possible to make it mandatory on the Board to publish the Council's report in this way. The mere fact that an annual report has to be published does not preclude the Council, if they so wish, from making their views known from time to time. All it does is to enable the Council to give a review annually of their own activities. I should not have thought there was any great objection to that. I do not think it would in any way destroy flexibility or have any adverse effect on the relationship between the two bodies. In the circumstances, it may be advisable not to move No. 46, when we come to it, but we should like to consider what the noble Lord has said and perhaps he will also consider what I have said on this matter, to see whether it may not be desirable to accept this Amendment at the next stage, while putting in a slightly different obligation on the Council in Schedule 2. I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, so that we may have an opportunity of considering it further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.0 p.m.

LORD DULVERTON moved to add to subsection (1): and shall have regard to the importance, in the national interest, of the preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the Highland scene and countryside".

The noble Lord said: As a Sassenach, once again having the temerity to speak on a subject relating to Scotland, I owe some explanation to the Committee of my interest in the Highlands, where for a good many years I have studied and tried to apply on a patch of ground in the West Highlands some of the principles of development and land use which this Bill seeks to foster. Moreover—and perhaps this is the best excuse for intervening—I must own to a great love of the Highlands.

I welcome the general intent that lies behind this Bill; and this Amendment is not moved from any unrealistic motives. We are dealing, as was well recognised on both sides of the House last week, with a particular countryside which is a national heritage of great value. Moreover, the needs of development and the interests of amenity are not, and need not be, always incompatible, certainly not when care is taken. They can even on occasions bring about improvement of the scene. In this connection, I feel that a bouquet is earned by the Fort William Pulp Mill. I lived part of my life within a few miles of the mill and the promoters and its architect have certainly taken care over it for which they deserve our gratitude.

But without care and consciousness of beauty and the destructibility of beauty, Clydeside, as a noble Lord said last week, could easily be reproduced over vast areas. This is recognised in the guardianship which has already been entrusted to the local planning authorities and a good many other statutory and non-statutory bodies. It is a consideration which does not figure among those mentioned in the Highlands Development Bill. Perhaps it is assumed that this is a sine qua non. But the Highlands Development Board will be composed, we hope, of able and diligent men. They, as individuals, are very likely to be aware of the value of the Highlands scene, but because they are diligent, they will, I suppose, try to carry out their terms of reference in the Bill. The Bill does not mention any duty on their part to have any regard whatever for the beauty of the Highlands, which has been enjoyed, and will be enjoyed by an ever-increasing multitude of people.

Could it not be that this lack of reference to the subject I am talking about might lead the Board to suppose that this aspect of things is one which they should disregard in the pursuit of material objectives? I think it could, and that for this, future generations could have cause for recrimination against us.

What has happened to our sense of values if we allow this to occur? I should like to quote from the noble Lord, Lord Cobham, in a speech made in completely different circumstances, during his term of Governor-Generalship of New Zealand. He said: Posterity will measure our achievement, not in the number of megawatts we produce, but by what use we have made of the light. Is this to be taken literally or metaphorically in connection with the country and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? May I say that I mean it metaphorically, in the widest sense? Let us have the megawatts, metaphorical and literal ones, by all means. But what use will future generations judge that we have made of the light if, through any neglect of care, we unnecessarily damage or destroy the most beautiful countryside in the world? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Dulverton.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Dulverton on this Amendment, and perhaps I might remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—although I think he needs no reminder—of the relevant section in the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943. It is Section 9, and it says: In the exercise of their functions, the Board shall have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery and any object of architectural or historic interest.… This seems to me to have been an oversight, and it is eminently reasonable that the words in the Amendment should be included in the Bill. Therefore, I earnestly beg the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to accept this Amendment.

LORD HENLEY

I feel a little uneasy about this Amendment. On the face of it, I think it is entirely unexceptionable, but I wonder whether it is really necessary. It seems to me that it is not on a parallel with the Hydro-Electric Bill, which was dealing with the building of a specific large object. In this case I should hope, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, said, that it would be covered in the Bill, possibly under Clause 3(1)(a), "social well-being". I agree that this is rather wide, but I should hope that this sort of thing could be considered as social well-being. If that is not so, then I think it should be covered again under town and country planning legislation. Therefore, although, as I say, I entirely support the sentiment behind the Amendment, I am doubtful whether it is necessary, because I think it is already covered; and also I am a little afraid that by being put specifically into the Bill it might be used to stultify some of the purposes which we feel the Bill is there for. I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has to say about this, because, as I say, I am a little uneasy about it.

LORD BURTON

I believe that this Board can by-pass the local planning authorities, and consequently I feel that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Dulverton is desirable. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

LORD SOMERS

Before the noble Lord replies, may I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the Board's idea and the residents' idea of what constitutes social well-being may differ widely. For instance, when I was in a small village in Wiltshire the county council decided to put street lighting in all the small villages round about. It was completely useless and unsightly and nobody wanted it. But the county council insisted on doing it, because they considered that it constituted social wellbeing, which we certainly did not. Therefore, I think that my noble friend Lord Dulverton's Amendment is very necessary.

LORD HUGHES

If I may deal first with the last point, I think the possibility of this happening with Highland local authorities is remote in the extreme. Their sense of the value of money would stop them from doing anything which they were firmly convinced would only have the effect of losing them votes at the end of the day. The general thing is that one spends money to get votes and not to throw votes away. I would agree that the purpose of the Amendment is one to which exception could not possibly be taken, and repeatedly in another place, and in your Lordships' House on Second Reading, this point was emphasised from the Benches opposite, as it was by my noble friend Lord Greenhill during his contribution. It is therefore accepted by everyone that this must be a duty which the Board would keep in mind.

It might be held that what the Amendment does is only spelling out what everybody tacitly accepts. I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to the actual wording of the clause, and you will see that Clause 3(1) lists five broad duties placed upon the Board. In every one of these categories, from (a) to (e), it is a broad general range of duties which they are given to undertake. In not one of these is there a specific item, and the advice which I have been given on legal grounds is that when you give a body broad general duties, and then you place at the end of the list of their duties one specific item, you immediately cast doubt on how wide the generality is.

It has been held in the past that, where a particular thing has been specified, a body was thereby precluded from doing something else which was not so specified. I am not absolutely certain that in that case this would be the position. I am a little influenced in that by what the noble Marquess has quoted in relation to the powers of the Hydro-Electric Board, and the duty placed upon them of preserving amenity. I would remind your Lordships, however, that that was at a time when there was no experience of activity of this kind in the Highlands, and the general fear, perhaps, of Parliament, and of many people outside, was that hydro-electric schemes to be started in the Highlands would have the unavoidable and inevitable effect of destroying natural beauty. I think even the strongest opponents of the Hydro-Electric Board will always admit that the Board have gone out of their way to preserve amenity, sometimes at considerable cost, with a resultant increase in the cost of producing electricity at the end of the day. They have never niggled only on grounds of expenditure.

The pattern which the Hydro-Electric Board have so well established in more than twenty years of operation in the Highlands is one which any other body would have great difficulty in escaping from. So the pattern is there. This is one of the reasons why there is advantage from time to time in requiring the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must look at things in their whole context. It is undoubtedly part of the duty of the Board—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has directed our attention—to look to the social well-being of their area.

One of the existing important developments in the area is tourism. It could not be regarded as furthering the interests of the area in that direction if we encouraged them to go out of their way to destroy part of their assets in that connection by doing things which would interfere unnecessarily with the amenity of the area. There might even be cases where the choice was between utility and amenity, where the overriding value would be to preserve amenity and abandon utility.

For that reason, I wish to invite your Lordships not to accept this Amendment. But I would give the undertaking that I wish to look again at the reference which the noble Marquess has made to the Hydro-Electric Board's responsibility in this matter, and see the context in which it appears. If it could be inserted in this clause without in any way risking the impairment of the Board's general powers, then I shall be quite happy to see something done at the next stage. If, on the other hand, the advice which I receive on legal grounds is that it would so impair the general powers, then I should be obliged to resist it at the next stage. But what I would do would be to have this matter looked at speedily, and I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, so that he may have the earliest opportunity of considering the matter himself and of having such consultation with his friends as he might wish, to decide whether or not to press the matter at another stage.

LORD BOOTHBY

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whose reputation in this House rises not only every day but every hour, has once again made an eminently reasonable reply and a thoroughly sensible one. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will withdraw it and leave it to the noble Lord, because I feel that in doing so he will leave it in extremely competent hands.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, the noble Lord has told us that he does not want a separate paragraph (f) added to Clause 3 as it might have a bad effect on the sense of the other paragraphs. Would it not be possible to add part of this Amendment to paragraph (a) relating to the economic and social well-being and development of the Highlands and Islands— and also the preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the Highland scene "? Could it not be added to that paragraph on the same terms, as it were, of the social well-being?

LORD HUGHES

Might I deal with that point first? That is a possibility which could be considered, but I should like to point out to your Lordships that what was suggested was not a new paragraph (f) but a continuation of the opening remarks. One has to read the Amendment as starting off with the words: In pursuance of their general function described in Section 1(1) of this Act the Board shall have the following duties. Then it goes from paragraph (a) to (e) and then, as the Amendment is worded, the words proposed would be the conclusion of that opening paragraph. But I should be happy to look at this matter in the general context, in the way in which the noble Baroness has suggested.

THE EARL OF CROMARTIE

I am not going in any way counter to what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I am merely asking for information as to what extent the Board, when it decides on certain things, will be subject to the Town and Country Planning Act in the county councils.

LORD HUGHES

The position is that when the Board submit proposals for the approval of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State approves these proposals, approval will carry with it a town and country planning consent in so far as that is necessary. The Secretary of State, before giving his approval, will consult the local planning authority so that he may have their observations before him in arriving at a final decsion. While the authority will not be directly conferring or refusing a planning consent, their views will be known and will be one of the factors which the Secretary of State will take into consideration in arriving at his decision.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I sincerely hope that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will not withdraw it. After all, what the Amendment asks is that when the Board are carrying out these duties they shall have regard to the importance in the national interest of the preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the Highland scene and countryside. It does not prevent the Board from carrying out their duties. It only asks that, when they do so, they will bear in mind the importance of the natural beauty of the Western Highlands.

The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, has said, and he is not making an overstatement, that this is one of the most beautiful countrysides in the whole world. Wester Ross, the Western Highlands, the islands and all the crofting counties covered by this Board form a special case, and special cases surely demand special words in a Bill. If it is not customary to put such words into a Bill of this description I think they should be put into this particular Bill because we are dealing with a special case. I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord and I hope he will not withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and other noble Lords who have spoken, I am sure that we all have great sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. On the other hand as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, there may be difficulties in putting it in the place suggested. For example, I was wondering—and again this would be something for the noble Lord to consider—whether it might do as well in Clause 5 when we come to the question of the erection of buildings. It is surely when buildings are erected that this danger arises. We might possibly put it in that place rather than in Clause 3. I should be ready to leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to look at it again, now that he has given us the assurance, and if we do not get satisfaction to consider it at Report stage.

LORD HUGHES

I should like to reiterate that I have stated that I would write to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, in ample time for him to consider whether what I have said is satisfactory, and to give him time to consult with his friends on the action which should be taken. I will not give him the letter when it is too late to act in the matter.

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I make three brief points on this matter? I respectfully agree with what my noble friend Lord Boothby has said as to the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has dealt with this subject. Secondly, I think we are bound to take his technical advice on the effect of the drafting, at the moment at any rate, to give him further time to examine the situation. Thirdly, the Hydro-Electric Board is advised by an amenities committee, and he might like to bear that in mind in considering the attitude he takes towards this Amendment. It may even be desirable to have the same amenities committee advising the Development Board.

LORD DULVERTON

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he said a few moments ago. I accept what he said with as much alacrity as did the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the general sense of this Amendment and I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.24 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I just say a word now, because there was one point which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did not deal with when he dealt extensively with my previous remarks in relation to the Amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl? I did not mention a figure in regard to this, because I realised what the difficulties were, but it is the question of the possibility of dividing in some way or another the kind of proposals which ought to be referred to Parliament and those which need to be referred only to the Secretary of State. I would ask the noble Lord to give consideration to this point, because, as he himself indicated, some of the proposals may cover a wide number of authorities, involving the acquisition of a great deal of land, and in any case probably any compulsory purchase orders involved will be called in and all considered at one inquiry. All that would be needed in addition would be Parliamentary approval as a further safeguard.

I do not think it could possibly be said that this is in any way undesirable. I think it would improve the Bill and it would reinforce the confidence in, and the acceptance of some of the more startling powers in the Bill which perhaps the public in general has not been so much aware of, in regard to the general benefit that the Highland Development Board could confer. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will look at this possibility again. I think it is a suggestion that is worth considering, but I should not like to press it any further at the present time.

LORD HUGHES

It would be indeed churlish of me if I were to say that I would not look further at this suggestion. I would just enter one caveat. One of the difficulties in a matter of this kind is to get sufficient money to undertake all the projects which the Highlands themselves might consider necessary, and I should be reluctant to put in what might prove to be another financial hurdle for the Board to get over. Having said that, however, I readily say that I will look at this aspect to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has directed my attention, provided it does not unduly strengthen the hands of those who are seeking to stop us from spending money. While I do not specify any particular organisation, I would say that the primary objective of both sides of the Committee is to see this thing work with the maximum success to all concerned, and in that spirit I will look at the proposal that the noble Lord has made.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Acquisition and disposal of land

4.—(1) For the purpose of any of their functions under this Act the Board may—

1. (a) with the approval of the Secretary of State, by agreement acquire land, whether by way of purchase, feu, lease or excambion;
1197
2. (b) acquire land compulsorily, if so authorised by the Secretary of State;
3. (c) hold and manage land acquired under this subsection and with the approval of the Secretary of State, and subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, dispose of or otherwise deal with such land.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "with the approval of the Secretary of State,". The noble Duke said: This Amendment is purely exploratory, as I wish to know when the Board have submitted some proposals to the Secretary of State and they have been approved, and it is obviously necessary for those proposals that the Board should acquire some land, whether once again they will have to go back to the Secretary of State when they actually have the agreement to acquire the land drawn up, or whether the Secretary of State and the Treasury in the first place will give them sufficient money to go ahead with those proposals without further reference to the Secretary of State. I feel that the latter would be a more efficient way, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to console me to this extent. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 15, leave out ("with the approval of the Secretary of State").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

I thought probably the noble Duke was exploring when he put down this Amendment, and I hope he will be satisfied when he finds the territory into which he has landed. In general, proposals involving the acquisition of land will be submitted by the Board to the Secretary of State under the procedure provided in Clause 3, and, in that event, his approval under Clause 4(1)(a) would be signified at the same time. Minor transactions involving the acquisition of small portions of land for a particular purpose—for instance, tourist information kiosks, to mention a trifling thing which springs to mind—could be dealt with under the "category" approval provisions of Clause 14(1). But it is possible that the Board may wish to consider acquisition of land other than that arising from proposals under Clause 3, and it would clearly be wrong for such acquisitions, possibly of a substantial nature, to be carried through without the approval of the Secretary of State.

Moreover it is possible that acquisition of land might form part of a proposal submitted to the Secretary of State and not approved by him, and if this Amendment were accepted the Board would be able to go ahead with such an acquisition and then subsequently be unable to put the acquisition to the use for which they had acquired it. For these reasons, I hope I have been able to satisfy the noble Duke that the Board will not be required to go chasing twice for approvals to each individual acquisition, but that major proposals of land acquisition, and of course similarly of disposal, which is the subject of his next Amendment, would require a specific approval from the Secretary of State. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw Amendments No. 7 and No. 8. because it will save the time of the Committee if I say that the arguments in favour of Amendment No. 7 apply with equal force to No. 8.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, very much for his explanation of why he does not feel able to accept Amendment No. 7 and I am happy to withdraw it. I should like to say something further on No. 8. I hope very much that when the Board acquire land and when they come to sell such land they will first offer it back to the person, concern, organisation or body from which they acquired it, even if they have not acquired it compulsorily. In many cases people might sell land unwillingly rather than put the Board to the trouble of going through the compulsory process, but would still like first refusal to buy it back if the Board had no further use for it. This situation might arise where the Board wished to see a ski-lift built. They might acquire land for building the pylons and then, when the thing is finished, might wish to sell the land back and just have a wayleave for the pylons concerned. I hope that in those cases the Board would offer the land back to the person from whom they bought it in the first place. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.32 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I have already spoken on it.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 21, leave out ("and with the approval of the Secretary of State,").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I should like to support my noble friend, because we have had such instances. There was one quoted only the other day, where Her Majesty's Government had compulsorily acquired some land—I think it was for a post office—at a very low price. Then they sold it to a third party at an enormous profit. I think that if the Development Board are to be allowed to acquire land compulsorily they should first offer it back to the original owner, if they intend to dispose of it; and in offering it back they should bear in mind the price they paid for it. My experience is that the Government, somewhat naturally, usually try to buy land as cheaply as possible—and of course under this Bill the owner can be forced to sell cheaply on their own terms. I hope the Government can give my noble friend some satisfaction on this point.

LORD HUGHES

In relation to the disposal of land which has been acquired by compulsion, I would remind noble Lords of the principles under which Government Departments have operated since the Crichel Down case; and in the case of any compulsory acquisition by the Highland Development Board, there would be no departure from the principles now generally accepted. Noble Lords will remember that if ground has been acquired by a Government Department (and sometimes it is necessary to acquire a complete parcel since, although the acquiring body may not need the whole area the owner will not wish to be left with only the remnants which the acquiring body did not want), it may be in the public interest that those unwanted areas should be disposed of to other Government Departments that may have a use for it. But subject to that sort of restriction—and I think that is the only one—if land has been acquired by compulsion, and is subsequently not used, the general procedure is that the opportunity is given first to the original owner to acquire it.

It may be that even in the case of ground acquired voluntarily the same principles would apply. If the Board did acquire more land than it needed, and subsequently wished to dispose of some of it, if the original owners had an interest in getting it back, I am quite sure that the Board would deal with them as sympathetically as it would, by mandate, be required to do in the case of compulsory acquisition. But in the case of voluntary acquisition it is much more likely that the Board have had to acquire more land than they wished because this is the basis on which they have got it by agreement, that they take the whole parcel, so that in many cases the owner would not be interested in taking part of the land back.

There is another aspect to which perhaps I should refer, the question of minor transactions. I should like to give the same assurance to the noble Duke—he did not specifically raise it, but that may be my fault in dragooning him into taking Amendments No. 7 and 8 together. I think he would be interested in some direction to the Board in minor disposal as in minor acquisition. We should not expect the Board to require specific approval for each individual minor sale any more than for each individual minor acquisition. The same principles would apply in both directions.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I should have liked the noble Lord to go slightly further on this question of people who sell voluntarily—if "voluntarily" is the right word, when there is the threat of compulsion behind the transaction. I feel that it would encourage people not to force the Board to acquire land compulsorily if it could be laid down in the Bill that, in the event of the Board's acquiring any land, whether by compulsion or not, it would offer it back to the person who sold it.

As T understand it, if I want to make sure of getting land back after the ski-lift has been built, I must force the Board to acquire the land compulsorily, and then, following the Crichel Down case, they will be obliged, when they come to sell it, to offer it back to me. Once the ski-lift is built I should have thought they could not possibly want the land. If I sell it voluntarily, so far as I can make out, we have to depend on the good will of the Board to offer this land back. If the noble Lord could think of a form of words that could be written into the Bill to instruct the Board that it should offer the land back to the people from whom it was acquired, this would be a great help and would make the Board's job much easier, because people would not be so ready to insist on having the land acquired compulsorily.

LORD HUGHES

That is an interesting suggestion, but it could not possibly be incorporated into the Bill. It would have to be a matter of general policy, to be operated by the Government generally in relation to acquisitions voluntarily for any purpose. If it were the wish of Parliament that it should be done, it should be done in a completely separate measure, relating to conditions under which land is acquired and disposed of. It would be quite wrong for the Government, in the context of this particular Bill, to undertake something which could have such tremendously wide repercussions.

All I can say—and I think it is helpful—is that we should expect the Board, unless there were good reasons to the contrary, to give the same sort of opportunity for reacquisition by the original owner in the case of voluntary acquisitions as would apply if the acquisition had been by compulsion. But I must stress the fact that I am attaching strings to that, because it might well be that what the Board had done in the interval had so completely changed the character of the land that it would be wrong altogether even to offer it to the original owner. But, other things being equal, I would say that the original owner had, perhaps, a better claim than other people. After all, the Board is not only going to work in the area but, by and large, is going to live in the area, and it is pretty good common sense not to be falling out with all your neighbours at one time.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

On the strength of what the noble Lord has said, I feel that I must withdraw this Amendment. But I warn him that I may try to think of a form of words that would cover the point I am thinking of, and put clown an Amendment on Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.42 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (1), to insert: () The powers conferred under paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection shall relate to

1. (a) any land in any of the counties specified in section 1(2) of this Act or in any area designated under that subsection.
2. (b) any land in proximity to any county or area mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph which the Board require in connection with any measure under section 3(1) of this Act."

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be fairly familiar with the purposes of this particular Amendment, which has to do with compulsory purchase. Clause 4 covers purchase both by agreement and compulsorily, and, as I understand it, extends to any part of Scotland. My noble friends and I felt that it would be desirable, if possible, to restrict the compulsory purchase to the crofter counties and any areas in proximity to them which would be required for carrying out the particular function which the Development Board had in view. It is easy to understand that it might frustrate a scheme altogether, or at any rate severely hamper it, if it were not possible to purchase land perhaps just over the border of the crofter counties—such a thing, for example, as an access road or something to do with land drainage: anything of that sort. We certainly do not want to stop that.

In another place there was some argument as to what the word "adjacent" meant, although it had a perfectly reasonable parentage in Section 4 of the New Towns Act, 1946. But so as to remove that objection, we have used the word which the Government themselves have put into this Bill in subsection (2) of Clause 1, namely, the word "proximity", which certainly cannot only be contiguous. Curiously enough, anyone who looks up the word "adjacent" in the dictionary will find that it is defined as "near or contiguous", but if you look up "contiguous" it is not defined as "adjacent". So to avoid any possible doubt we have used the word "proximity".

I think it is generally agreed that it is highly desirable not to extend compulsory powers further than they are absolutely needed. The noble Lord himself said, in winding up on Second Reading, that it is not expected that the Board would ever need to acquire land outside its own area except in the contiguous area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 267 (No. 93), col. 826, June 29, 1965]. We have gone a little further here, so far as compulsory acquisition is concerned, and made it "in proximity to" in order that no scheme related to the functions of the Development Board need be frustrated. We feel that in all other cases it should be possible to acquire land by agreement. For example, if one wanted a tourist office, in Edinburgh or something of that kind, somewhere fairly remote, it should be possible to acquire land by agreement. The actual piece of land that has to be acquired is not so essential that it needs to be acquired compulsorily; some other piece of land could just as well be acquired. It is only the contiguous or adjacent areas, and those in proximity, where the particular piece of land is so important that it must be acquired compulsorily if necessary. That is why we have put down this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to support my noble friends in this Amendment. I think it is up to the Government to show why they should require compulsory power which would fall neither under Clause 1(2) nor under Clause 3(1). If they really want additional powers I think they should show what the purpose is. This is not holding up the main object of the Bill at all, but I think the clause shows a wider sweep of the pen than is absolutely necessary.

LORD HUGHES

I should like to say right away that there is no ulterior motive in the broadness of the drawing of this particular power; it is simply because of the difficulty in confining it. In another place this matter received a lot of consideration and, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has indicated, many variations were considered. "Adjacent areas", "contiguous areas", "areas in proximity"—all these have been considered, and rejected by Her Majesty's Government as being too imprecise.

I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in having picked out the word "proximity" from the Government's own clause. But I would suggest to him that it is a little easier to use so vague a word as "proximity" when the body which is first of all inserting it into the legislation is the body which is going to take the decision ultimately, because it is Parliament that says under the preceding clause that we take into the Board's areas other areas which are in proximity to the seven crofting counties; so that Parliament is interpreting what it means when it subsequently agrees or refuses to agree to take in other areas. But if we use "proximity" in this clause, it is not Parliament which is going to interpret it; it is perhaps the Court of Session which will have to do so.

As I understand it, there is nothing in existing Case Law—at least, nothing that I have been able to find—which would give any backing as to what is meant by "proximity". Of course, matters could change. I was going to mention a particular area which might be taken in, but, on second thoughts, it might not be advisable because it might raise needless hopes. But, let us say, if area "A" is brought into the Bill a particular town might well be obviously in proximity to that area; whereas if the area is not in, that would cease to have any validity in relation to proximity.

Frankly, I cannot see the occasions when it would ever be necessary to apply compulsory powers outside the areas envisaged in this Amendment. If it were only a case of finding words which would give effect to what is done, I should have no hesitation at all in accepting them. I think that on Second Reading I mentioned the possibility that we may wish to acquire a publicity centre say in Edinburgh or Glasgow—as a matter of fact, I think I said London, but that was a slip of the tongue, because of course we have no power to acquire anything outside Scotland. I can see a much greater need to have a publicity centre for the benefit of the benighted industrialist down here, in Birmingham or London, rather than in Edinburgh or Glasgow. If the Board wanted to have such a centre, because they have no compulsory powers outside Scotland they would have to proceed in the ordinary way by acquiring premises which they wanted. I can see no reason why the same procedure should not be adopted in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I very much doubt whether there is any likelihood of seeking to apply compulsion in these areas. I could be wrong, but I do not think I am. We wish to protect the rights of the Board in acquiring land compulsorily which is necessary for the purposes of their area, even though it may be outwith their area.

The advice I have been given—and in saying this I do not wish to be thought to be insulting the legal profession—is that one cannot apply what appears to the laymen to be common sense; one must apply what is legally workable. Although the wording which has been brought forward is an admirable effort to accomplish all that would be necessary in relation to the Bill, it would, I am advised, possibly frustrate the Board in some of their operations. A water scheme in which they were interested might have its connections thirty miles outside their area; a drainage scheme might have its effects twenty miles outside their area. It might well be that in one court twenty miles would impress one judge as being not "in the proximity", whereas a judge in another court might consider thirty miles to be "in the proximity". Therefore the Amendment introduces an element of doubt. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn for the simple reason that, well-intentioned as it is, it could frustrate the operations of the Board in regard to their essential functions.

Some of your Lordships may say, "It is all very well to take a power and promise not to use it". I suppose Ministers have been doing this since Ministers first started giving undertakings, but, in fact, the Scottish Electricity Boards have the power to acquire by compulsion land outside their own areas without any restriction whatsoever, and, to the best of my knowledge, in all the time that the Electricity Boards have been in existence this power has never been exercised. It was not given then with the purpose of acquiring land outside their area, but for the purpose of acquiring land inside, or in the proximity of, their area, but the wide power was necessary in order legally to accomplish the narrower intention. I suggest to your Lordships, having regard to the way in which existing authorities have not abused the principle, that it is reasonable to confer the same power on a new publicly-accountable authority.

LORD DRUMALBYN

We are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the Government's attitude on this mat ter. Part of our difficulty arises from the very width of the functions involved. As the noble Lord said, one wants to have this power in reserve just in case it is necessary somewhere, but he thinks that it will never be used, and in fact can practically guarantee that it will not be used. But one is alarmed when one sees the opening words of the clause which include the word "any", that is to say: For the purpose of any of their functions…". One is alarmed because the Government do not, of course, know what the functions may be. They are able to define certain functions which obviously would tie down the use of the powers in any case which is related to land, water and so forth, but with regard to their industrial functions, for example, it is possible that they might want to acquire compulsorily in some part of the country.

We should like to see some limitation here if a sensible way can be found to do it, but, in view of what the noble Lord has said, we are bound to accept his advice that the word "proximity" might give rise to difficulties of interpretation. We do not want to hamper the Board in the exercise of any of its functions for the Highlands, and therefore at this stage we are bound to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—although we still feel that the compulsory powers under subsection 4 (b) should be limited. We do not mind what they acquire by agreement, whether it be in Scotland or outside. In fact, if the noble Lord could make it possible for the Board to acquire an office in London, we should not object to its doing so, so long as it is done by agreement. We do not agree, however, that they should do so compulsorily. I should have thought that it was possible for the legal brains to put this into words which would be watertight. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this again, and I hope he will be able to do something. However, I do not want to hold up proceedings now, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Carrying on of business]:

On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD DRUMALBYN

There is an Amendment a little later which is related to Clause 6 and I think that what I have to say will be more conveniently said at that point, although to some extent it involves a debate on Clause 6. I think that it will be easier to debate this matter then.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Advisory and other services

7. The Board shall have power— (a) to provide or assist in the provision of advisory, training, management, technical, accountancy and other services to persons engaged in or proposing to engage in business in the Highlands and Islands;

4.58 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to paragraph (a): for which the Board will make charges on the scale laid down by the professional body concerned.

The noble Duke said: This is a simple Amendment, the object of which is to give a small measure of protection to solicitors, accountants and people of that kind who are at the moment in practice in the Highlands. Under this Bill the Board will have power to provide or assist in the provision of advisory, training, management, technical, accountancy and other services to persons engaged in… et cetera. All this Amendment will do will make it compulsory for the Board to charge the recognised fees for services, such as accountancy services, which they give. There otherwise might be a danger (I do not think that it is likely to happen, but there could be a danger) that the Board would undercut the accountants and solicitors practising in the smaller towns in the Highlands, and might even drive them out of business. If the Government find the basis of my Amendment acceptable, I would add that I gather that I should have used the word "shall" rather than "will". My Amendment ought to read: for which the Board shall make charges on the scale laid down by the professional body concerned.

Amendment moved— Pa2e 4, line 41, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

I am very much surprised at this Amendment, which indi cates that the noble Duke had tired of reading the debates in another place before he got to the end of them. In fact, it is quite embarrassing to me that he should have moved this Amendment, because if it were carried it would in fact be restoring the Bill virtually to the condition in which it was presented to Parliament in the first instance. Although the wording would be a little different, the effect would be the same.

The Bill as it now stands is in this form because the official Opposition Amendment was eventually accepted by my honourable friend the Minister of State. In fact, I do not think I am going beyond the bounds which I am allowed when I say that the Amendment giving effect to the present situation was moved by Mr. Wylie—I am not going to quote what he said—and was strongly supported by the former Secretary of State, Mr. Noble. It was one of a series of Amendments designed to remove some of the restrictions placed upon the Board. The argument advanced then, which was accepted by the Government in another place, was that while normally it would be the position that professional services provided would be charged for at the ordinary professional rate, there could be circumstances, as Opposition Members indicated, when the contrary was not only desirable but essential if the clause was to fulfil its proper function; and after debate the Minister of State agreed to accept the Amendment.

I would therefore point out that the position is that under normal circumstances professional services, which were rendered, say, in competition with existing professional services, would be charged at the appropriate professional rate. But the main reason for this provision being inserted is not to give competition to the people who are there, but because in so many parts of the Board's area there is in fact no available professional service, or because the people to whom the need for service applies could not possibly avail themselves of it at professional rates.

The Opposition persuaded Her Majesty's Government that it was wise to give the maximum amount of discretion to the Board in this matter; and if the noble Duke pressed his Amendment, and if it were accepted by the Committee, it would be removing this discretion from the Board. That, of course, is contrary to the general tenor of his intentions in other directions. I doubt very much, therefore, whether the Amendment would commend itself to many of the Members of another place, nor would I expect that it would commend itself to many of the Members of your Lordships' House.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, I would point out that I am not a member of the official Opposition, and that my Amendments in no way follow theirs. But after what the noble Lord has said I shall, of course, withdraw this Amendment, although I am slightly worried that the position could create difficulties for a small accountant operating in a town on the West Coast of Scotland. But with the noble Lord's undertaking that the Board will not operate in such a manner, I shall be only too pleased to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Grants and loans]:

5.4 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2) to insert: ( ) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in section 2 of the Local Employment Act, 1963 shall prevent the Board from making a grant towards the cost of providing a building or an extension of a building in addition to any grant made under that section by the Board of Trade in respect of that building or extension.

The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is quite simple. Under the Local Employment Acts, the only building grant the Board of Trade can give, on the advice of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, is a grant of 25 per cent. In the course of the Second Reading, we had some discussion as to whether the Development Board should take over entirely the functions of the Board of Trade in giving assistance to industry in the Highlands. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said he did not think that it should; that the existing procedure should continue to operate, and that the kind of grant given by the Development Board would be subject to the condition laid down under the Local Employment Acts: that the assistance given should enable the firm assisted eventually to stand on its own feet and be viable.

That is not the case with which I am dealing here. The case with which I am dealing here is that in which BOTAC thinks that the firm will become viable but is still restricted, not in the amount of grant or loan that it may give apart from the building grant, but in the amount of the building grant that it may give. It is fairly well known that in the Highlands building costs may run up to 50 per cent. higher than building costs in other parts of the country, and so it seems, on the face of it, that the building grant that is available from BOTAC is not enough. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to make it clear that, if BOTAC decides to recommend the giving of the building grant, that will not necessarily be the whole of the amount that can be made available from Exchequer funds to the firm concerned; that they may get, say, 25 per cent. building grant from BOTAC, and another 25 per cent., or 15 per cent. or whatever is thought necessary, from the development fund.

In conclusion, I would just remind your Lordships of the history of the building grant. It started off with what was, in effect, a kind of deficiency grant, to cover the difference between the actual cost of the building put up and the price at which it could be sold when completed in a development district, which was its market value. It was a variable figure and the Highlands stood to gain most from this, because the market value would be less and the grant would be greater. Now that we come to a fixed grant, the Highlands have lost that advantage altogether, and it may be that the building grant, by itself, is not sufficient to give the encouragement that is desirable. That is why this Amendment seeks to make it quite clear that the Highland fund will be able to give a building grant, in addition to the building grant received from the Board of Trade. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

I find it impossible to disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. I wish to confirm that when I spoke on Second Reading of the possibility of the Development Board giving a grant where the Board of Trade considered that they could not risk a grant, I was not intending to convey that their field of intervention would be confined. I confirm that it will be possible for the Development Board, having regard to the circumstances, to give grants additional to those being provided by the Board of Trade. Of course the scheme may not work in that way. I may say that at the present moment, in anticipation that the Bill will soon be law, discussions are taking place at official level between the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade as to how this particular aspect would work. One of the possibilities might well be that applications, say, of a given value would be channelled through the Development Board rather than go direct to the Board of Trade.

Of course, these are matters upon which no final decision can be taken until the Board is in existence, because we must be guided to some extent by the way in which the Development Board wishes its powers to be exercised. Even in a matter of this kind we would not seek to lay down a pattern before the Board comes into existence. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord should in fact be moving this Amendment, in view of his previous connection with the Board of Trade, because he is doing less than justice to his own legislation. There is nothing in either the Local Employment Act, 1963, or the original Act of 1960—and, after all, the 1963 Act is merely an amendment of the 1960 Act—to prevent another statutory body from making a grant additional to that made by the Board of Trade under Section 2 of the 1963 Act or Section 3 of the Local Employment Act, 1960, which Section 2 of the 1963 Act amends and which contains the basic power to make grants. Therefore, in the way in which the Board of Trade framed their legislation in 1960 and 1963 they were even more competent than they were aware, because they covered the powers of the Highland Development Authority in advance. We are perfectly happy to rest on that; and, simply because of the fact that it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that these powers exist, the Amendment is unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be content to rest on his 1960 and 1963 laurels.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not quite sure that I entirely agree with his interpretation of the Act—

LORD HUGHES

It is not mine.

LORD DRUMALBYN

—when he suggests by implication that two Exchequer building grants (because this is, in effect, an Exchequer building grant) could be obtained for the same building. I am not certain that that is so; but, in view of the assurance that he has given, that it will be possible for this indirect grant to be given through the Development Board, I think the purpose of my Amendment has been amply served, and I am very willing to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Ancillary powers of the Board]:

5.12 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD DRUMALBYN

There is a point that I should like to raise on this question, because I am not certain that it has been discussed to any extent. Subsection (2) says: For the purpose of the exercise of any of their functions the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, borrow money". I think it would be desirable to know what that is intended to imply. Does it mean that it is intended that they should be able to borrow money simply for current expenses, or will they be able to borrow money as an alternative to getting advances from the bank? If so, will they have access to the Public Works Loan Board? Perhaps the noble Lord can give us a little more indication as to what this is intended to imply.

LORD HUGHES

It is not the intention that the Board should be allowed to float loans and involve themselves in the money market. This provision prevents the Board from doing this except when the Secretary of State and the Treasury approve. The intention is that such approval should be given only in exceptional circumstances or for temporary borrowing by bank overdraft to meet day-to-day requirements, because, apart from any income (or gifts) which they may receive, the Board will normally be financed out of monies provided by Parliament, and the necessary provision to this end is contained in Clause 17. I hope that fully answers the noble Lord's question.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation he has been able to give.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Powers of entry

10.—(1) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State or the Board may, at any reasonable time, enter upon land in order to survey it—

1. (a) for the purpose of determining whether, and, if so in what manner, any of the functions of the Board or of the Secretary of State under this Act should be exercised in relation to the land;
2. (b) in connection with any proposals for submission by the Board to the Secretary of State under section 3(1)(b) of this Act or with such proposals so submitted;
3. (c) where the Board have under consideration the purchase of the land or the carrying out on the land of any of the operations described in section 5(1)(a) or (b) of this Act;
4. (d) for any other purpose in connection with the exercise or performance of their functions under this Act.

(2) A person authorised under this section to enter upon any land, shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering, and shall not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless forty-eight hours notice, or in the case of land occupied for residential purposes seven days notice, of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the Secretary of State or". The noble Duke said: This Amendment is on a slightly different point from that involved in some of the other Amendments I have put down. Under the Bill as it at present stands anyone duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State or the Board may at any reasonable time enter upon land in order to survey it. I thought the object of this Bill was to set up and give powers to the Highland Development Board. This clause, it seems to me, gives powers not only to the Highland Development Board, but to the Secretary of State, to authorise anybody he cares to appoint to enter upon land for the purpose of surveying it. I feel that that is wrong. The Bill is not for that purpose.

Furthermore, there is the danger that both the Board and the Secretary of State, unbeknown to each other, might give two different people power to enter upon land for exactly the same purpose, which would be an unnecessary waste of time for one of the two parties concerned. I would therefore suggest that it would be much better if this power were removed from the Secretary of State, so that, if the Secretary of State wished to obtain information in this way, he would have to do it through the Board. I cannot see that this would cause him any great trouble, and it might avoid the odd duplication of effort. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 29, leave out ("the Secretary of State or").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

I must ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment. I doubt very much whether there would be many occasions on which there would be a duplication of effort, but it is clearly possible—in fact, it is clearly likely—that there might be occasions on which proposals to, say, acquire land on an extensive scale would require the Secretary of State to have an independent assessment of the requirements, and when he might wish to have one of his own consultants or advisers in these matters express a view from a position quite independent of the one taken up by the Board. If the noble Duke's Amendment were withdrawn, the Secretary of State would be denied that opportunity and would therefore have to rely on the information which the Board had obtained for this particular purpose.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

The noble Lord said, if my Amendment were withdrawn. I imagine he means if it were carried.

LORD HUGHES

I am sorry; if the noble Duke's Amendment were not withdrawn. In most cases it would perhaps be possible for the examination which is being made for the purposes of the Board to be equally acceptable for the purposes of the Secretary of State, but it is in the cases of very large acquisitions that the maximum of trouble might well arise, and it is in those very circumstances that there is an especial obligation on the Secretary of State to assure himself that all the relevant factors have been taken into account. That obligation might well be best carried out by having the matter investigated by an independent valuer or surveyor, rather than by relying on the information which the Board had acquired for their own purposes. It is therefore in the public interest that the Secretary of State should be given this power.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Do I understand from the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will normally inform the Board when he is giving people this power? If so—and I can see the noble Lord's argument only too well—would it not be possible for the Board to authorise these people at the request of the Secretary of State?

LORD HUGHES

I think that is rather putting the thing the wrong way round. What I should expect is that, if it were a major proposal, there would in fact be consultation. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, envisaged in the early stages of our debate, there will no doubt be much coming and going between the Board and the Secretary of State, and it is quite probable that the report of the person whom the Secretary of State had asked to get the information for him might well be acceptable to the Board also. But, in so far as the job might be done by somebody who was outwith the Board's employment, and as they will in fact have somebody on their own staff, one of their own employees, competent to do the job, then, unless this authority were given specifically to the Secretary of State it might raise the question, "Why do the Government employ somebody else to do the job when they have already got somebody sitting in Inverness who is being paid a salary for doing this?" The whole purpose of getting an independent person to do it could be lost sight of in these circumstances. I assure the Committee that it is essential that the Secretary of State should have this power.

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I ask one question? The answer is not entirely apparent. Anybody reading this for the first time would suppose that the power to enter would be limited to the crofter counties; but, of course, it is limited only by relation to the functions of the Board. I wonder what is intended here. Is it the intention that anyone should be able to go on any land connected with the function in any part of Scotland? If that is so, is it the intention in any circumstances that the Board shall be entitled to authorise a person to go on land outside the area of their own jurisdiction?

LORD HUGHES

Only in so far as it is governed by the wording in the clause: in relation to the exercise of their functions.

LORD DRUMALBYN

This, of course, is a question, to some extent, of public presentation. I wonder if the noble Lord could consider this matter a little further. We have considered the general aspect of acquisitions outside the crofter counties; but it may be that it would create a bad impression if the Board were to give authorisation to people to go on land outside the area of their own jurisdiction, whether or not it is extended under Clause 1(2). I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider this. It may be a good deal better in practice if such authorisations were to come from the Secretary of State rather than from the Board.

LORD HUGHES

I think I should direct the noble Lord's attention to the actual wording of the clause: Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State or the Board may, at any reasonable time, enter upon land in order to survey it— (a) for the purpose of determining whether, and if so in what manner, any of the functions of the Board or of the Secretary of State under this Act should be exercised in relation to the land; and so on. It is in relation to the functions of the Board. The functions of the Board are applicable—and I think we are all generally agreed on this—to land in the area; or, if we could define it, to land in the proximity of the area. I do not think I can go further than that. I doubt very much whether it is possible to be more precise without restricting the operations of the Board. They are not seeking a roving commission. They have enough to do in one area without concerning themselves with other parts of Scotland. That is the principal protection: their job is in relation to their functions and their functions are in relation to a particular area.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.25 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "if so required". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, as the noble Lord will appreciate, stands on its own. Its purpose is to remove the words "if so required", so that a person authorised under this section to enter upon land would have to produce evidence of his authority before so entering. This seems a matter of normal courtesy, and I should have thought that it would normally be done. I do not think that there is very much more to say on this point. I think that any person who wants to enter upon land must produce evidence of his authority to do so; but I would ask, in this connection, whether this comes under Clause 15, which refers to the notice which has to be served in writing. I ask for this reason: if the notice has to be served in writing, it will be very difficult, in the very short period of time allowed, for anyone who has received the notice to serve a counter-notice saying that the person must produce evidence of authority before going on to the land. I do not see how this could be done within the period of 48 hours.

That again raises the question of when the 48 hours' period starts. Is it upon receipt of the notice? If it is not, it is quite impossible for anybody to require a person to produce evidence before going on the land. The person will just come and go on the land; the counter-notice telling him to produce his credentials before he does so will perhaps arrive two days after he has been on the land. I hope that I have made myself quite clear. First, as a matter of courtesy this should be done. Second, in the Highlands, where the postal services have to cope with considerable distances, it may be quite impracticable to require the person to produce the evidence of his authority before going on the land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 2, leave out ("if so required").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

I assured myself before coming as to what was meant by the period which is to operate; the 48 hours or seven days, whichever it may be. It does not start from the time the notice is despatched. The point is covered, I understand, by the ordinary interpretation procedure. The period starts at the time at which the information would normally be expected to have reached the applicant; in other words, if it normally takes two days from the time of posting in "A" to the arrival at "B", the 48 hours would be timed from that arrival. It may be said that things do not always work normally, and that the post might arrive a day or so late, or that it might not arrive at all. In these circumstances the matter would be dealt with according to actuality. This is what is laid down in the procedure. It will cover the great variety of circumstances.

Frankly, we cannot see any useful purpose being served by removing the words "if so required". The words are included so that when someone comes along and says that he wants to read the gas meter it is ordinary procedure that the occupant may want to be sure that he is from the Gas Board and not some enterprising man who wants to remove the contents of the meter for his own purposes. He may have to give evidence of the fact that he is authorised. The same thing applies here. Nothing could work more against the sort of reasonable attitude that we wish to prevail than if somebody came along and flourished a document and said "I am from the Highlands Development Board; this is my authority. I am here in pursuance of so-and-so. May I come in?" That might create the appearance of officiousness, which is the last thing we want. This does give protection to the occupant of the land or premises, if someone comes along and says, "We wrote to you about this; I am from the Highlands Development Board"; and the occupant says: "What evidence can show that you are from the Highlands Development Board?" The caller then says: "Here is my authority". This, I think, is perfectly satisfactory.

Quite honestly, it would possibly be an impairment of the good relations we hope for if we made the first meeting between the man from the Board and his intended co-operator—or his victim, however you may care to look at it—a flourishing of an authority. I do not think that that is the right way to proceed. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.

LORD AIREDALE

There is a difference. When the gas man cometh, he cometh in uniform, and 99 times out of a 100 he is recognised by the uniform in which he comes. Presumably, these people will not come in uniform, and the chances are that no one will know who they are, unless they explain.

LORD HUGHES

For "gas" substitute "electricity", and withdraw the uniform.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

That does not happen in practice. I have been "inspected" by various Departments of the Scottish Office for various reasons, all of them perfectly genuine, but never yet, during the ten or fifteen years in which these inspections have taken place, has anyone come to the house and said, "I want to inspect so-and-so. Do you mind? When will it be convenient to do so?" I am now about to say something which I seldom mention and I think that even to-day it is a bad thing to say it, because there is no one present to refute what I say. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction created, not by all of them, but by certain inspectors who deal with these matters, because of the very high-handed manner they adopt. I should have thought that making it obligatory for them to announce their presence would be a good thing, and so I should like to support the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I must point out that this does not relate only to the employees of the Board. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in the course of their business or contacts with the Board other people may be authorised to go on to the land. I remember vividly that in respect of one of the more important enterprises in Scotland terrible trouble resulted from the start because someone went on to land without first calling on the owner. In that case it may well be that the owner had not required the visitor to call, but if these words are not in the Bill, an owner would not have to require a visitor to call; a call would be made in the ordinary way.

I agree that to suggest that someone should flourish the evidence is not the best way to describe the process. It may be better to alter the drafting, but, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Stone-haven, it should be the normal practice to call without anyone having to require that a call should be made. The visitor should say, "Here I am. I am now going on the land." I do not care what documents he may have which he could produce because, if asked to produce the documents, he would do so. We ask that the person shall report and be prepared to produce the evidence.

LORD HUGHES

That will be done. May I remind noble Lords that the appearance of the individual is not the first intimation? There would have been proposals in writing, and an intimation that an officer, or a representative of the Board or its contractors, would be calling. Not less than 48 hours' notice would have been given. It is not a case of someone descending on the landowner out of the blue. He comes and he says, "I am from the Highlands Development Board", or, "I am from such-and-such contractors, about whose visit the Board has written to you." The visitor will identify himself by relating himself to a notice which has already been served. Only when the person on whom he is calling still has any doubts about the matter and says, "What evidence do you have that you are the person whom I was expecting to see?" will the visitor produce his written authority. There is ample protection for the landowner. The principal protection is not the notice of authority which is produced, but the notice which was served by the Board in the first instance, 48 hours or seven days beforehand.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was the officer in question, I am certain that no offence would be taken because throughout our discussions the noble Lord has shown himself to be a very understanding person. In the first instance, a letter is received. I accept that this is the first intimation received by the proprietor or whoever may be involved. What happens after that? Perhaps an official is found wandering about in the perfectly lawful exercise of his duties. Only if he is required to do so must he say why he is there, who he is, or what he is up to. My noble friends and I were hoping that the official concerned would have the common courtesy to call on the proprietor and say, "Here I am. I have arrived today and I propose to carry out certain investigations in accordance with the notification you have received." I think that would be a much more civilised way to carry out this duty, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will give the matter further consideration.

LORD HUGHES

In most cases undoubtedly that would happen, but we must remember that in some cases the area involved would be very great. The point where the inspection was to take place might be far removed from the home of the owner. Having been given notice that entry was proposed on such a date, the owner has an opportunity to be present if he wishes. If he is, obviously the officer will present himself to the owner; but it would be ridiculous to require an officer, who was proposing to inspect something on the owner's estate twenty miles away from the home of the owner (and following a notice given 48 hours earlier), to call on the owner at his home and say, "I now propose to go back twenty miles to do the job about which you were notified 48 hours or seven days ago." I know what would happen. There would be letters in the Press about the wicked waste of public money involved in writing a letter and giving 48 hours' notice and then, 48 hours later, saying, "I now propose to do the thing about which I wrote to you two days ago."

What would be reasonable in relation to a small area of land becomes completely unreasonable in respect of the vast areas which could be involved. It would be quite wrong for somebody to call at a house where there was only an acre of land attached and wander all over the ground without reference to the proprietor. I am quite certain that the Board would very quickly rap the knuckles of any official who behaved in that fashion, but we cannot adopt the procedure suggested in cases where the area involved might be 2,000 acres or even 20,000 acres.

I will look at the matter to find out whether we can do anything to accomplish what is intended—because I accept that no one wants to have someone wandering about his premises without any apparent reason for being there—and whether it is possible, without wasting money or causing needless inconvenience, to notify the owner, or the tenant or the person concerned, and for the visitor to say, "Here I am, in pursuance of my duty. Is it all right to go ahead? "It is the obtaining of permission, or the acknowledgement of the actual presence there, which I think the Amendment seeks to cover, rather than the flourishing of authority.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

As the clause refers to "occupier" and the noble Lord has referred to the "owner" almost throughout, am I to gather that he proposes to accept Amendment No. 22? If that is so, I am delighted to hear it.

I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that notices have been known to go astray, particularly in the case of occupiers. We had a case where the main road between Perth and Inverness was to be drained. We were given notice and an agreement was drawn up and notices were sent to the tenants. We had two tenants with the same name, and the notice happened to be sent to the wrong tenant. He was slightly surprised, because he lived a good mile from the main road, and wondered why it should be taken through his land. But he felt that, if we had agreed, it was probably all right and his rent would be adjusted. The person whose land it was in fact going through was surprised one bright morning to find the bulldozers already beginning to move on to his land. This seems to me a reasonable Amendment, particularly in the case of occupiers, as opposed to owners. This story is a perfectly true example of how notices can go astray. I hope that the noble Lord can do something about it, or that my noble friends will put down the Amendment again at the next stage.

LORD HUGHES

I do not see what this incident has to do with the Amendment. Simply because the notice had gone astray, perhaps it was inevitable that it happened in that way. Taking out the words "if so required" would not have helped that situation. With reference to my perhaps mistaken use of the word "owner", all I would say is that as we are not discussing the Amendment in question, let joy be unconfined at the moment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

In view of the undertaking the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.43 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), after "required" to insert: by any person interested in the land or any person employed by a person interested in the land".

The noble Lord said: May I suggest that Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 24 should be taken together? Perhaps I could draw your Lordships' attention, first of all, to subsection (6) to which No. 24 refers. This subsection deals with persons wilfully obstructing any person in the exercise of his powers and provides that, in the case of a first offence, he may be subject to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of the second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £50.

What kind of people are likely to do the obstructing? I should have thought that they were any persons interested in the land or any persons employed by a person interested in the land. These people may not have had notice. As my noble friend has said, notices may go astray. The person may be a shepherd or gamekeeper working a long way away; or it may be that the occupier does not live on the premises. It may well be that the staff of an occupier have not been warned of the coming of the person authorised under the clause. I think that their natural reaction would be to ask him, "What are you doing here?" They may tell the person to go away, and that may be taken at law to be obstruction. What we are suggesting here is that the words "before so entering" should be removed, because it is while he is on the property that the person concerned may be asked to show why he is there by somebody interested in the land. Incidentally, I think that this would cover the point of owner as well as occupier. If these Amendments were agreed, the subsection would read: A person authorised under this section to enter upon any land, shall, if so required by any person interested in the land or any person employed by a person interested in the land, produce evidence of his authority before so entering … Obviously, it would be a defence under subsection (6) that the person in question had failed to produce the evidence of his authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 2, after "required" insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

I am not in a position to accept these Amendments, because we are not persuaded that they are necessary. If an officer of the Board is required to show his written authority, it will be only to some authorised or interested person. The Amendment makes it possible for every tenant or employee on the land successively to ask for the authority, as well as any domestic servant of the occupier or owner; but it excludes a number of persons who, while neither employed nor persons having an interest, might have a mandate, express or implied, to deal with unauthorised intruders and to require production of the authority under the clause as it stands—for example, a member of the family of the owner of an estate or, where the estate is owned by a limited company, a shareholder or a contractor employed on a project on the land in question. In fact, the Amendment would give protection to a whole host of people whose interest would arise successively only if they were obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty, but would not give any protection to someone who might legitimately be asking for this information.

I do not envisage that this would arise in a small area; it would occur only in a large area of ground, where someone is found wandering about. If the inspection was being done in a proper fashion, one would expect the officer to say, when asked, that he was from the Development Board following a notice served on the occupier that he was coming there that day; and if the question were raised in a bona fide fashion, that would be the end of it. It is possible that the officer's operations would take the greater part of the day. If two or three people legitimately asked the same question, I am certain that they would be given the same information. But if a policy of obstruction was being carried out, and the officer had to answer successively a number of people, he would be in danger of spending his whole time producing his authority rather than getting on with the job. This Amendment gives a licence to that very sort of thing. It may be said that this is most unlikely to happen. I would say that it is most unlikely to happen anywhere outside the Highlands.

If I may speak on Amendment No. 46, presumably it is intended that the wilful obstruction of an officer of the Board who had not, on being required, produced evidence of authority to enter, or had not given due notice of entry, should not be made an offence. If that is the intention of the Amendment, it is unnecessary, as the penalty provisions of subsection (6) apply only to persons wilfully obstructing any person acting in the exercise of his powers under Clause 10. A man cannot be said to be exercising his powers under Clause 10 unless he has complied with the statutory provisions governing the exercise of these powers—that is, that he has produced evidence of authority to enter when required to do so, and has previously given due notice of his intention of entering upon the land. If he was obstructed when he had done neither of these things, or when he had complied only with one or the other, then there would be no offence created, and therefore there would be no penalty to be applied.

If one takes any one of these in isolation, it looks reasonable; but one has to take the three together to get the effect, and it is when one gets to Amendment No. 24 that it becomes apparent that the Amendments are seeking to give protection against an offence which will not arise, because if the circumstances are as narrated there will be no offence, and therefore no additional protection could be given. In the circumstances, I am afraid I cannot accept any of these Amendments.

LORD BURTON

I am sorry to hear the noble Lord give this reply, because he seems to take it for granted that all officials are sweet reasonableness. He has already told us that the distances may be very great. If we are only to have 48 hours' notice, it is difficult for us to get word to the parties that an official may be coming. I hope that later on he will alter this period. But this is the case at the moment. If stalkers or managers or anybody else in a remote area are not allowed to ask an official for his credentials, or he is not bound to produce them, then it seems most unreasonable.

LORD HUGHES

But he is allowed to ask the official for his credentials. The words are, "if so required". Anyone who has a reasonable vestige of authority to ask will do so, and he will see the credentials. This is not by any means sprung upon your Lordships as unprecedented legislation; there is plenty of precedent for it. In the very area with which we are dealing, the almost identical wording (there is a difference of wording, I admit, but it has exactly the same effect) is in the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955; it is in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and in the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. I quoted the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, first because I thought it might perhaps commend itself more to noble Lords on the opposite Benches if I quoted something for which they had responsibility under the last Administration. But I can quote the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956—that is the same thing—and the Local Employment (Scotland) Act, 1960. So it is a well precedented form of authority.

The only difference between what we are doing in this Bill and what was done in the others is that, whereas in the others the time limit is 24 hours, this Bill started off in that way, but it was amended in another place to increase the period of notice to 48 hours. The 48 hours cannot be taken as relating merely to the Highlands as against other areas, because the period of notice in the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, is only 24 hours.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask the noble Lord what is the significance of the words "before so entering"? I should have thought that this would have happened after entering. Are you excluded from producing your evidence after you have entered? If not, what is the point of the words "before so entering"?

LORD HUGHES

I should have thought that this was a protection for the occupier of the land: that he was entitled, if he had so inquired, to be at his boundary, and even before the man put a foot on the land could say: "I am entitled to ask you to produce your authority." It does not mean that the official is not under any obligation to produce it after he is on the land. After all, he is merely inviting the possibility that he will be thrown off if he does not produce evidence of his authority, so that, in self-defence, he would normally produce that authority if he was asked for it after he had entered on the land.

What one envisages will be done in the case of a major operation is, not that somebody in the Board will write a letter saying: "In 48 hours someone proposes to arrive on your land for this, that or the other purpose". This will be a formal procedure, which would possibly arise after a fair amount of discussion. What will take place is that the occupier of the land—and it may include the owner—will be there for the purpose of being with the officer of the Board or his representative when the visit is being made, so that he can answer questions, or so that he can ask questions, and be fully aware of what is taking place. It is not a question of seeking authority from the occupier, the occupier then disappearing, and the officer of the Board doing the job. I should expect in most cases that it would be a joint operation. If it were not, it would be because the occupier of the land had no desire to accompany the officer of the Board during his operations. It would be for him to decide whether he was to be there or not.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I have no doubt that, by and large, these arrangements work tolerably well, but one has to take into account the odd case and the time where it does not work so well. If the debates on these two sets of Amendments have brought out one thing, it is that there are two different sets of circumstances. The first is what you do before you enter at all; whether you come along and say: "Here I am. I am now going on to the land", if you are required to do so. The second is, once you have gone on to the land, whether you get challenged in any way, and whether that challenge would constitute an obstruction. I do not think we should carry on with legislation which appears to be rather slipshod, even if it is precedented. I hope the noble Lord will look at this matter again. We do not want to press him too far on it, but I suggest that my noble friend Lord Selkirk has put his finger on the point by saying that "before so entering" has no relevance at all to the case of a person who is, as we say in Scotland "stravaiging about the land". I think this is a matter, from the case I quoted from my experience, that can cause a disproportionate amount of dislocation on a whole lot of plans, if it goes wrong. Therefore, the great thing is to have arrangements which are as foolproof as possible, and I hope the noble Lord will try to achieve that.

LORD HUGHES

I shall be happy to look at Amendment No. 17 to find out whether the position would be improved, or whether it would be worsened, by leaving out the words "before so entering". I readily give that assurance. I can give no assurance in relation to Amendment No. 16, because it is our considered opinion, and that of our advisers, that this Amendment would be a licence to obstruct.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask the noble Lord a question? We have here the words "if so required". This means that not only the people under Amendment No. 16 can certainly inquire, but anybody can inquire. Therefore, as the Bill is drafted, the number of people who can inquire of anyone coming on to land is far greater than it would be under Amendment No. 16. I only want to know what is in the noble Lord's mind, because it seems to me that anybody, whether he has any interest in the land or not, can ask: "What are you doing here?", and be answered: "I am representing the Highland Board". The other chap may say: "So am I". They may not know each other. Anybody can ask that. I do not see at the moment that Amendment No. 16 is anything but a restriction on the Bill as at present drafted.

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I at this stage withdraw the Amendment? I think the noble Lord has gone as far as we could expect him to go at this stage. I regret it if the Amendment which I have put down is inexpertly drafted, but it might be possible to cover the people who should be entitled to ask for authority and not leave it as wide open as my noble friend suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BURTON

With one or two notable exceptions, the Government seem to object to any extra words being added into the Bill, particularly surplus ones. But I am legally informed that any land which is not tenanted is, in legal terminology, occupied by the owner. Consequently, I am moving the Amendment to delete the unnecessary words.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 4, leave out ("which is occupied").—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES

Amendments Nos. 18 and 22 probably go together, and if I say anything on Amendment No. 18 which applies more properly to Amendment No. 22, it is not intended in any way to take away the rights of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, when we come to Amendment No. 22. I would point out to your Lordships that this is not a matter which is being raised for the first time. It was very carefully considered in another place, and it was argued there that entry on to land impinged on the rights of the owners. The Amendments were negatived, and were not pressed to a Division, which is one way of indicating that those who proposed the Amendments were largely persuaded by the arguments but not, perhaps, completely convinced. When one thinks one is right in an Amendment, at some stage or another in another place it goes to a vote, rather than be negatived.

The effect of the first Amendment—and I will try to confine myself to the first Amendment—would be to deprive the Board of the ability to obtain statutory right of entry to any unoccupied land, since the clause as amended would require them to give notice to an occupier who was not there, the land not being occupied. I am told that there is land in the Highlands which comes quite definitely into the category of being unoccupied in the sense that there is no occupier of the land, and there is no known occupier of the land. The Department for which I have responsibility have more than once come into contact with arrangements where the physical owner of a piece of apparently worthless land is a trust which has gone out of existence; the last trustees have died, and no one has been appointed. There is, therefore, no owner of the land in existence. If these words were not put in, when the Board came to a piece of land of this kind they would be placed in the ridiculous position of having to take the course of tracing the descendants of the last known trustees, and perhaps seeking to enforce upon them something which they had no desire to undertake. It is because these circumstances are known to exist that there has to be separate reference to unoccupied land.

Having said that, one must admit that what the Board must do is to satisfy itself that land is in that position, and if anyone claims or purports to be the occupier (which, in the event of what is physically unoccupied land, would be virtually claiming ownership and occupation by virtue of being the owner) the Board would in fact serve the notice on anybody who was so claiming. That would not confer any rights of ownership which the claimant did not otherwise have, but it would protect the Board from any consequences of failing to serve notices if in fact it ultimately proved that he was the owner of the land. So the normal procedure would be that the Board would seek to establish who was the occupier of the land and give the necessary notice, and only where in the course of their normal inquiries they failed to find any such occupier would they then proceed on the basis that the land was unoccupied. That seems to me a reasonable basis on which to proceed, and in another place they accepted, at least to some extent, by allowing the Amendment to be negatived, that it was a reasonable basis for procedure.

LORD BURTON

In view of the eminently reasonable reply the noble Lord has given, I would with leave withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN

This Amendment is moved for two purposes, the first of which has already been served. It was to establish from when the notice dates. We understand that it dates from the time at which the notice would be expected to arrive if it was posted when the sender thought it had been posted. The first purpose has been satisfied. The second purpose is to establish that when we say 48 hours we mean at least 48 hours, otherwise, of course, it would be nonsense if exactly 48 hours' notice had to be given. Those are the only two purposes, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 4, after ("unless") insert ("at least")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

In my discussions this morning on this Amendment it seemed to me that putting in the words "at least" was a safeguard for the officer of the Board, because if 48 hours meant 48 hours exactly, then if a person, whom one visualises may exist, wished to be obstructive he could say, "I am sorry you have not turned up until 10 o'clock. The 48 hours expired at half past nine and, therefore, you have no business to be here." If by leaving out the words "at least" we envisage that situation, then obviously it would be better to have the words "at least" in. I am assured by the legal officers in the office that it has been well established in legal practice that when a period is stated as 48 hours, it by implication means at least 48 hours, and stating 48 hours accomplishes exactly the same object as if we were to put in the additional two words.

On that basis, therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment, because there is ample precedent that this is how the law interprets a specified period—as if in fact the words "at least" were there. It will be so interpreted whether they are in or not.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

May I ask the noble Lord whether there is any objection to having the words added?

LORD HUGHES

Yes, there is one very reasonable objection. I would be disgusted if I accepted this unnecessarily, and then found that this was the only Amendment which took the Bill back to another place.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

Now we know.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord has let the cat out of the bag, but I think we can reasonably expect that, when he has had the opportunity of considering some of the previous Amendments at the next stage, and is able to make some alterations in the Bill, he will also accept this Amendment. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "forty-eight hours" and insert "twenty-one days". The noble Marquess said: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was unable to help us over Amendment No. 16, but I suggest that perhaps he might be able to help us on this Amendment. What the noble Duke and my noble friends were envisaging was the possibility that it might be extremely difficult to let people know in sufficient time. I know that the noble Lord wants to be reasonable over this matter. He stressed in his admirable speech on Second Reading that what he wanted to achieve was an attitude of cooperation between the owners, occupiers and other interested people, and the officers of the Board. If the noble Lord wishes to achieve an attitude of co-operation, he should go as far as he can to engender a spirit of co-operation.

We now know what "48 hours" means. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment has elicited the reply we want—"at least 48 hours" and it means from the time the intimation would normally be expected to have reached the recipient. But this still seems to me to be a very short time. I put it to the noble Lord that three weeks is not excessive, particularly when we are dealing with large areas, some of which are in the same ownership. The letter would be written to the laird, and he would have to transmit its contents to the people concerned—to the gillie, or the shepherd or the forester—and let them know what was going to happen, so that when the representative of the Board arrived all would be ready for him. I cannot believe that the Board will have such urgent work to carry out that three weeks' notice will be impossible. I hope the noble Lord will be able to help us on this point, even if he cannot help us on Amendment 16.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I support this Amendment, because I also feel that a period of 48 hours could lead to many difficulties. For instance, at lambing time it might be most inconvenient for the minions of the Board to go pussyfooting over one's hill at the same time as the ewes are lambing. I cannot believe that the Board's purposes would really be thwarted if they had to give three weeks' notice, or come to some agreement with the occupier about the amount of notice they should give in advance of their coming. It might also be inconvenient if one had arranged a large grouse-shoot on that day. A shoot takes a lot of organisation, and it is difficult to alter the day at a moment's notice, just because some members of the Board wish to come and look at one's land and see if one has a gold deposit under it—although personally I should be delighted if they would come and look at mine for that purpose.

I am personally not wedded to the idea of a period of 21 days. I would be prepared to consider any length of time, and I think that our Amendment may be defective in that we have not put in some such words as, "unless shorter notice is agreed to between the occupier and the Board". Obviously, nine times out of ten no reasonable person would mind any member of the Board coming at much shorter notice, and if they did agree that a shorter notice would be adequate, I imagine (although I may be wrong, because I am not a lawyer) that that would be all right, even if our Amendment were incorporated in the Bill. There is another reason why 21 days would be better. In many cases, the owner or occupier of the land may have the information which the Board is seeking, and by giving him sufficient time to produce this information the Board may save itself a lot of trouble. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will give us some little comfort over this Amendment.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I must point out that there are, believe it or not, quite a number of telephones in the Highlands. They actually have a directory of their own. Usually when one wants to ring up somebody he is in the wrong directory—but that is another matter. However, I think it is normal practice for people to use the telephone, and the Forestry Commission are excellent on this. They usually want to inspect plantings once a year, sometimes more, and they always ring up or write and ask which day will be convenient. Having arrived at a decision their officer comes over; we have a most interesting walk around my woods, seeing what I should have done, what I have done and what I have not done, and then we have luncheon together and we are all jolly good friends. Why in the world can we not run this Bill on that basis? The noble Lord says that he wants co-operation, and that is the way in which to get it. When all is said and done if you write a letter to the Scottish Office you will not get a reply in three weeks.

LORD BURTON

There is one other small reason why the period of 48 hours is too short. There may not be time to get the reply back to the Board, and it is most important, particularly in the initial stages, that the owner or occupier, or one of his representatives, should meet the person going round. Once a junior official gets something on his books, though he may have got the wrong idea, it is exceedingly difficult to overturn that decision. On the other hand, if one can talk to him, so that he gets the right idea in the first place, that saves a tremendous amount of trouble.

LORD HUGHES

Not for the first time I have cause to be grateful for the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who always seems to manage to bring a degree of common sense to these things when we are discussing the matter on a basis of formality which we know will not be there during the event. It has not escaped the notice of those who have written my brief that there are telephones in the Highlands, and this business of giving notice is something which is laid down in the Bill for the protection of the occupier of the land. However, that would not normally be the end of it. One would not merely serve a formal notice. There would almost certainly be either some informal correspondence or, much more likely, a telephone message; and it is quite certain that the normal way of proceeding would be as the noble Viscount has indicated is followed by the Forestry Commission.

On the other hand, there could be great inconvenience and a waste of public money if a much longer period were laid down. I indicated to your Lordships earlier that in many other Acts, including the Crofters Act, the period of Statutory notice is 24 hours. This Bill originally had 24 hours' notice for this purpose, and an Amendment from the Opposition in another place to increase it to 48 hours was accepted. If a much longer period were given as the notice, the effect would be that the officer would not be safe in proceeding before that period of notice had expired. In many of the areas the Board will be having this done by an officer when he is in a particular area. The officer might receive a message from Inverness, "When you are there, will you go ahead with such-and-such a project". Visualise, for instance, a man in Shetland. He would not normally expect to be there for a period of 21 days or more, and obviously if he could do all these things during the one visit he would; but if the business to be undertaken required the presence of the occupier of the land no useful purpose would be served by proceeding after an interval of 48 hours if he did not have the owner there to co-operate with him. In those circumstances, what would obviously be done is exactly what the noble Viscount has indicated.

There is no reason to suppose that something which is put in as a legal safeguard for the protection of the occupier of the land will be regarded by the officers of the Board as being the way in which they must proceed. It would be the minimum which they would legally be required to do, but quite obviously the sort of thing that would happen is that they would get into touch with the owner and say, "We are sending you a notice. What would be a convenient date for us to do this? Shall we come along next week? "Or they might say," Our officer is to be in your area at a certain time, and it would be helpful if he could come on that day."

If we were to require this 21 days, for which there is no precedent anywhere, we should be making it most difficult for the Board to carry out its operations, because it would be legally prevented from acting before the 21 days had expired; whereas with a 48 hours notice, if common sense and reason required them to wait a week or so to do the thing by agreement, they would not legally be prevented from taking the longer period that common sense would prescribe. If we have this very long period we shall be preventing the Board and the occupiers of the land from doing the job in a reasonable way. My colleagues in another place showed willing to the extent of accepting an Amendment to double the period, but I think that there is no justification for going beyond that, except in the case of dwelling-houses, where the period is seven days.

LORD FORBES

The noble Lord seems to have based the whole of his argument on the fact that the Board is going to do something which is extremely reasonable but which is not in the Bill, but is not going to do something which is in the Bill and is unreasonable. I cannot accept that argument at all.

LORD AUCKLAND

I have listened with great interest to most of this afternoon's proceedings, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is trying to be reasonable on this and other Amendments. It certainly seems to me that on a matter of this kind, where one has geographical considerations, weather considerations and others, it is difficult to fix a definite statutory period of time. Could not there be written into the Bill some such words as "agreed between the parties concerned", because one can assume that in most cases the parties concerned will be reasonable people? If this could be done, it would to some extent obviate the difficulties of having a statutory time limit which it may not always be possible to keep. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could consider that suggestion.

LORD HUGHES

I do not know if it is possible, but I should like to look at it. If it is possible to put it into words, it will be putting in the Bill what will be done. I do not think I made it quite clear that the serving of a notice is not necessary to carry it out. The serving of formal notice would be carried out only where the procedure had not been agreed. The normal thing would be to try to make arrangements when it would be convenient to come. The serving of statutory notice is intended to cover the situation where the occupier of the land is not being helpful at all and will not fix any time. There must be a point at which the Board can say, "We are very sorry; but we have spent the last fortnight, or a month, trying to fix a time when we can come, and we now hereby serve notice that we are coming in 48 hours".

If I had created the impression that the first intimation that would be received would be a formal notice saying, "We are coming along in 48 hours", I should have been misleading your Lordships. The informal procedure will be followed: the formal procedure is only the last resort. I do not know whether there is a possibility of incorporating that whole procedure in the wording of the clause. If it is possible to do so, I shall be quite happy to put it in. But it may not be possible. I would remind your Lordships that when bodies are publicly constituted, and firm undertakings have been given in Parliament about the way in which they are expected to operate, they override those undertakings, even if they are not legally binding, at their peril.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Could not the noble Lord consider the suggestion of the noble Duke and say three weeks or "such shorter time as may be agreed". I understand that he expects and hopes to get agreement.

LORD HUGHES

I do not think so, because I have drawn your Lordships' attention to the fact that the serving of the formal notice arises only after there has been failure to get agreement. Therefore to put in "or such shorter period as may be agreed", when the formal notice has become necessary only when it is impossible to get agreement, would not assist.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Could you not start off by saying "In the event of failing to get agreement 48 hours' notice shall be given"?

LORD AIREDALE

The clause says that the representative of the Board shall not demand admission as of right unless 48 hours' notice is given. It does not say anything about what may happen by agreement or consent. It is clearly referring to the last resort, as the Minister said, when the demand has been made. That is where the 48 hours comes in.

LORD BURTON

I do not think there is anything which specifies that the Board must try to make prior arrangement before serving notice. The noble Lord has said it is the intention, but I do not think there is anything in the Bill.

LORD AIREDALE

The Board would get into bad odour if it did not try to get agreement.

LORD BURTON

There are certain bodies which already do so.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I do not know whether I have the authority of the noble Duke to withdraw the Amendment, but I think I have. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would like to look into this to see whether it is possible to put into words what he says will happen. With that assurance, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

This is a much smaller point and not of very vast importance. I am absolutely fascinated to know why "land occupied for residential purposes" cannot be described as "dwelling-houses", which would seem a far more simple term and would mean far more to the average person who has the misfortune to have to read this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 5, leave out ("land occupied for residential purposes") and insert ("dwelling-houses").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

The answer to this is very simple. "Land occupied for residential purposes" includes dwelling-houses, but "dwelling-houses" does not include the garden or the garage or outbuildings. So if we put in "dwelling-houses", all it would relate to would be the actual building. "Land occupied for residential purposes" is the dwelling-house and its appurtenances.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I cannot see why the garden should be treated in a different way from a farm. Really, one is only an extension of another. Also, am I to understand that this expression includes farm buildings and therefore my cowshed would be safe for seven days? It seems to me that the house demands special dispensation with regard to notice, but I cannot see why the garden or even outhouse should demand special dispensation.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Would the word "policies" cover what is meant?

LORD HUGHES

I am afraid the word "policies" in Scotland has a rather grander purpose than land occupied for residential purposes. It might inflate the ego of quite a number of owners of small bungalows or semi-detached villas if their twenty poles were described as "policies", and I do not think it would commend itself to the common sense of Scotland. When the noble Duke said that he could see no difference between the piece of garden attached to a small dwelling-house and the land of a farm, the thought passed through my mind, perhaps quite unjustly, "There speaks the resident of a large mansion house and, quite obviously, not the occupant of a bungalow on twenty poles; and what may happen some twenty yards from the living room window of a bungalow carries quite a different connotation from what may happen half a mile or even 200 yards away from a farmhouse window".

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I can assure the noble Lord that in this commercial age I am only too delighted to see enormous numbers of people wandering around within twenty yards of my living room.

LORD HUGHES

But those are the people who pay the noble Duke half-a-crown a head.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

On the strength of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.31 p.m.

LORD BURTON

I have real hopes that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I think he almost accepted it before when on a previous Amendment he referred to "owners" rather than "occupiers"; and, in view of what has been said about the desirability of the officials meeting people on the site and doing away with formality, I hope that he will be able to accept this Amendment, which I now move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 7, at beginning insert ("owner and the").—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES

I am sorry if I have given the noble Lord a quite erroneous impression. This is perhaps because I read only the first half of my brief which covers both of these Amendments. In fact it is quite impossible to accept this Amendment, for the reasons which I referred to in relation to unoccupied land. There are many cases where it would be virtually impossible to contact the owner. In some cases it would be impossible to contact an owner because there is no known owner in existence, and we should have to prove that. I referred to that case in the example of the lapsed trust. I would assure your Lordships that that is not an isolated case; it crops up with alarming frequency.

The second case was where the owner may in fact be at the other end of the earth. The purpose of giving this notice is to minimise inconvenience, to make certain that even in those cases where people have not been co-operating you try to cut down the inconvenience to them by specifying that you will do such-and-such a thing at a given time. If the owner is not in fact the occupier, there can be no possible inconvenience to him if the notice is not given to him, because it would be immaterial to him whether the inspection or examination or discussion with the occupier took place on one day or another; he would not be there in any event.

If there is anything to be done by the Board which involves negotiation with the owner of the property, that is a quite different matter. Obviously, things which affect the owner will be discussed with the owner. But that is not covered by Clause 10, and to add "the owner" would in fact add enormously to the Board's difficulties in many cases, without there being any corresponding advantage in others. For that reason, I am doubly sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, first because I have reached the stage where I should like to be able to say "I accept this Amendment", and, secondly, because I appear to have raised the hopes of the noble Lord. But I did say something about unconfined joy.

LORD BURTON

This is particularly disappointing, because I have a case in mind where a considerable land drainage survey was undertaken and was overseen by the chief engineer of the Department of Agriculture. He said that a scheme was not feasible. Then the Crofters Commission was set up and, unbeknown to me as owner, the tenant went to it and the whole survey was done again. The tenant was encouraged to think that the scheme was going to take place. Eventually I got to hear of this. I referred those concerned to St. Andrew's House, and they were able to produce the original survey. There was a considerable waste of money simply because they did not come to me. I wonder whether the noble Lord might accept the phrase, "owners, where they are known to exist".

LORD HUGHES

No, I am afraid I cannot. To do it in this way would be quite unworkable. The noble Lord has given a personal experience, and one which I am quite certain will arouse in the Board the desire to be most careful when dealing with his property.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I wonder whether, when a letter is sent to the tenant, a carbon copy might be sent to the owner, where known, as that would not be a matter of great expense or difficulty.

LORD HUGHES

I should like to have an opportunity of talking to my advisers on this matter. It is quite possible that this is the sort of thing which would normally be done, that an owner would be acquainted even though there is no legal obligation for it. It may be that the objection to making it a legal obligation is the difficulties of finding an owner in so many cases. If it could be part of the administrative arrangement that where the owner was quite well-known within an area the information given to the occupier was given also to the owner, I personally can see no great difficulty in that, so long as it is not imposing a legal obligation on the Board to go and look for an owner who might not exist.

LORD BURTON

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for doing his best to try to meet this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (4), after "therein" to insert: "except in dwelling-houses.". The noble Duke said: As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that he is getting to the time when he would very much like to accept an Amendment, I hope that this will be the lucky one. I put it down because I woke up from a terrible night- mare, that perhaps someone might be able to bore for oil in my noble friend Lord Burton's cellar. This seemed to me an acute disaster and to be entirely unnecessary. I should like to know whether, under subsection (4) of this clause, the power to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals therein can be done in or under someone's dwelling-house (and here I mean "dwelling-house" as opposed to "garden"), because I feel that this would be an unnecessary power. Surely one could bore to one side or the other of the house. There are few houses in the Highlands which are so large that the subsoil radically changes underneath them. I feel that if the Board have this power it is undesirable, and that we ought to put in some proviso such as I have suggested. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 17, at end insert ("except in dwelling-houses".)—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

I have not reached the stage where I can accept this Amendment, but I am satisfied that I can reassure the noble Duke and persuade him that his Amendment is quite unnecessary. In the first instance, in the Interpretation Act, 1889, there is a definition of "land" which lays down that "land" includes buildings, but it goes on: unless the contrary intention appears". In the context of Clause 10(5) I am informed that it is clear that "land" would not extend to cover a building, and even less a dwelling-house. I can go even further than that. The Board would be likely to be interested in probing for minerals only if it had reasonable cause for believing that they were present in such quantities as to make their exploration worth while. If the minerals were suspected to exist only under the area of a man's dwelling-house, the quantity which would be available would obviously be so small as to make it quite worthless for the exploration to be pursued. The compensation which would have to be paid for damage to, or destruction of, the dwellings would obviously exceed any return from the operation. So that both the Interpretation Act and the fact that we do not intend to scour the lunatic asylums for members of the Board are all the safeguards that are necessary.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

In view of what the noble Lord has said, I see why he has not been able to accept this Amendment. None the less, I hope that we shall have better luck in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Power to obtain information

11.—(1) The Board may by notice served on the owner or occupier of any land in the Highlands and Islands or on any person carrying on a business or undertaking therein require him to furnish them with such information as may be specified in the notice with regard to the land, business or undertaking and with regard to such other matters relating thereto, as the Board may reasonably require for the execution of any of their functions under this Act in relation to the land, business or undertaking.

(2) Any owner, occupier or other person on whom a notice has been served under the last foregoing subsection may within one month of the service of the notice appeal to the sheriff on the ground that the information or any part thereof specified in the notice is not reasonably required by the Board for the execution of any of their functions under this Act in relation to the land, business or undertaking, and the sheriff may make such order either confirming or quashing or varying the notice as he thinks fit.

LORD BURTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "any" and insert "such". The noble Lord said: I gather that this Amendment has caused some confusion, but it might help if I take with it Amendment No. 27, for the one does not really make sense without the other. The intention here is that, now there is a right of appeal to the sheriff, it is only reasonable that the person who appeals should know what he is appealing about. At the moment nothing has to be specified in the notice to say for what reason the notice has been served. For instance, if the authority wish to take the premises over for a hotel they are not required to say that that is the purpose for which it is required. All they have to say is that they want to take over the premises, or to search them. Consequently, I feel that it is only reasonable that the few words in my Amendment should be added. Therefore, I hope that they can be accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 3, leave out ("any") and insert ("such").—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES

It is not quite acceptable, but it is the nearest approach yet. The brief I was originally given started off with the word "Resist", but after a long discussion with my colleagues this morning I was able to persuade them to allow me to say that I was prepared to consider the matter. I wanted to hear exactly what the noble Lord proposed. There is a possibility that this could be done in the particular way he suggests, and therefore I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance that I am prepared to consider the Amendment.

LORD BURTON

I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord that we have got this far. Consequently, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.44 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" to insert: "other than under section 6 thereof". The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 6 deals with the power of the Board to acquire by agreement and carry on or set up and carry on, directly or through an agent, or themselves carry on as agent, any business or undertaking which in the opinion of the Board will contribute to the economic or social development of the Highlands and Islands … ". In the course of the debate on the Second Reading on June 29, the noble Lord said in his opening remarks [column 737]: … the Board could not seek information from a firm"— presumably, he meant demand it com-pulsorily— to enable the Board to set up a business in opposition to that firm. If they cannot seek it to enable them to set up in opposition, still less I should have thought would they be able to seek it in order to acquire a firm by agreement. Therefore, it would seem that the words here merely reflect what is the law. In order to make certain that they reflect what is the law, or what will be the law under this Bill, I beg to move this Amendment, so that the power to obtain information compulsorily will not apply to activities under Clause 6.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 4, after "Act" insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to say one word in support of my noble friend. I think that it is intolerable that this Board should be entitled, by compulsory powers, to obtain information which they want for some conceivable development in the Highlands from those who are at present engaged in business in the Highlands. The important thing is that the existence of such a power would act as a material deterrent for anybody to set up business there, because he would know that power could conceivably be used. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would agree with that—in fact, I think he said it in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will recognise that this Amendment is a perfectly reasonable proposal which does no more than fulfil, not only the undertakings which he has given, but a number of undertakings which have been given in another place, so that these powers will not be used for examining and cross-examining existing firms in the Highlands.

LORD HUGHES

I start off by saying that I entirely agree that the situation which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, described would be intolerable. But the situation which he described is not the situation which will exist under Clause 11. I go further than I went on Second Reading, but no further than my right honourable friend and my honourable friends have gone in another place. It would not be possible under this clause to acquire by compulsion information which would be used to the detriment of the firm or company from which it was being acquired. On Second Reading I used the words "… to set up a business in opposition." If I had used the expression "to the detriment of a business" that would go still further. It is conceivable that information could be acquired and used detrimentally against a firm without setting up somebody else in opposition to them. If the Board sought to obtain information of this kind from a firm and appealed to the sheriff, it is inconceivable that the sheriff would agree to the information's being given.

On this matter I am in danger of talking about the appeal procedure on which there is a separate Amendment, so I will say no more about that point at this stage. If the Amendment were accepted, the advice I am given is that it would unduly and unwisely hamper and restrict the Board's operations. The right to obtain information by compulsion is very much circumscribed in the form in which this Bill has now reached your Lordships. The overlying qualifications throughout are that it can only be information which the Board reasonably require for the exercise of their functions in relation to the business or undertaking from which the information is required. In my brief, the words in relation to the business or undertaking from whom the information is required are underlined. A number of things could be involved. For instance, the Board might be asking for information in regard to tourist facilities. In discussions, the hotel proprietors might say, "There are ample hotel facilities in this area. We can accommodate the people who come along to us; in fact, we can take even more people. But regularly we have complaints from people that this, that or the next thing is not being done. There are inadequate parking facilities. More needs to be done in connection with ski-ing facilities and so on."

To enable the Board to decide whether something was in fact reasonable, they might require to get information, even by compulsion, to enable them to arrive at a decision on the matter which would be in relation to the activities of the undertaking. Such information could come only from the people concerned, and if the Board were not given it willingly it might have to come by compulsion because the Board might be persuaded that if they could get the information they would really want to do something. Having got the information, and having decided to go ahead and extend the facilities and provide the car park or provide the service, whatever it may be, it could not possibly be argued that the doing of this was something which was detrimental to the interests of the people from whom the information was received. But unless the Board were in a position to get the information, they might be deprived of the opportunity of going ahead.

I should like to refer to a suggestion which has been discussed from time to time and which has come from the Shetlands County Council. It is that it would be a desirable thing to set up a spinning mill in the Shetlands, to spin the wool which is produced there. In order to find out what were the possibilities, the Board might seek to get information from the producers of wool about their production and about existing outlets of wool in the islands. It might be that from half of the people concerned they would get the information quite freely, but that this did not give enough information to enable them to decide whether or not it was worth going ahead; and in order to arrive at a decision they would need information from a larger number of people.

It would be quite wrong if a potentially viable project had to be abandoned because the Board had no way of getting the rest of the information to enable them to make a proper decision. In these circumstances it would be perfectly proper to compel the other producers of wool to give the information which the Board needed, because the resultant use of the information, even if the wool mill was set up, could not possibly be regarded as something which was detrimental to their interests, as they would not be under any obligation to sell their wool to the mill if they could find a better market for it elsewhere.

What the Board would want to have in mind is whether there was very much certainty of a mill being able to get from the producers the wool it would need to make its operations viable. If the receiving of this information persuaded the Board that they would only be wasting their time by setting up such a mill there, because most of the producers would follow the arrangements they already had, which might mean exporting the wool to Aberdeen or to other areas, then, obviously, the Board would not go ahead with the project. It is very difficult to think of a great variety of examples, but there are two—the first one, the one about the facilities helpful to hotel owners being wholly hypothetical; the second one not being hypothetical at all, but something which has actually arisen and which, without the presence of these powers, could be completely frustrated. For that reason, I have no hesitation at all in asking the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that it would be intolerable for the power to be used as stated here, but I find that the example he gave us about wool is as thin as anything could possibly be. There is never the slightest difficulty in finding out what is the production of wool. Indeed, unless they had some special reason for wanting to deceive, the producers would be delighted to tell you. I think the noble Lord has not made out a case. I do not propose to press this matter unduly, but I find it very hard to believe that this power is necessary for the purpose for which it is intended.

LORD HUGHES

The noble Earl says that I have made out a very thin case in connection with wool. If the case is as thin as he would imply, one wonders why the spinning mill is not there at the present time.

LORD DRUMALBYN

There may be many reasons for that. One can well imagine many answers to that question; among others, that the whole supply of wool is taken up at the present time and that it is very profitably used as things are. As my noble friend has said, I do not think we ought to press this Amendment at the present time. I share with him the feeling that the two examples which the noble Lord gave do not really support the case for rejecting this Amendment. But, together with my noble friend, I should like to examine the examples between now and the Report stage, as this is rather a complicated matter, and if necessary we will refer to it again then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEPHERD

I wonder whether I may suggest an alteration in our business this evening. Obviously, we should like to see the Committee stage of this Bill completed, but one recognises that some noble Lords, particularly the Minister, have borne a very heavy burden. If I may say so, I think that my noble friend Lord Hughes has done extraordinarily well. Since some noble Lords who wish to take part in the next debate are present, I wonder whether I could suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that after the next Amendment we should take the debate which he has on the Order Paper. After that break we can then come back to complete the Committee stage. That is what I should like to propose.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should be very happy to fall in with that arrangement. Indeed, I am filled with admiration for the stamina of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in this business. I am only too willing to co-operate.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I think that the next Amendment may take a little longer than some others, and it might be more convenient to adjourn at once to take the next business. I am sure we have all had enough.

LORD SHEPHERD

I think that is right.

LORD HUGHES

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume. (Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.