HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 15 July 1965 vol 268 cc310-73

Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

Clause 3:

Duties of the Board

3.—(1) In pursuance of their general function described in section (1) of this Act the Board shall have the following duties— (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.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (1)(e) ; and such report shall include a report from the Council".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may start the proceedings on a slightly discordant note, it is perhaps a little unfortunate that we are starting such a Bill at this rather late hour, with a number of Amendments on the Order Paper, because, while one may disagree as to whether or not it is an important Bill, it is a Bill which certainly breaks new ground.

On the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said: 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 267 (No. 97), col. 1185, July 6, 1965.] He based his argument for the rejection of the Amendment I moved at that time not so much on that particular Amendment as on an Amendment which he joined with it, rather than I did, and which was an Amendment calling for details. He said that the Council might not want to disclose the advice it gave. The Amendments I am moving on this occasion—and perhaps it would be convenient if we take Amendment No. 33 together with this one—do not require the Council to report everything that happens, but merely to report on their proceedings in the previous year. What they put in their report is left to them, but that there should be a report I really do not think can be doubted.

It is not only that the expenses of the Consultative Council will be paid by the taxpayers, and that the taxpayers will want to know what they are getting for their money; but that the Council will be a public body, with responsibility to the public. If people accept these public appointments, they must be prepared publicly to justify what they do and say, collectively and individually. By that, I do not mean that everything that everybody said would be in the report—obviously not—but they must be prepared to stand by what they are doing. I think it is desirable that they should report—I do not think that can be denied; I think it would be unbusinesslike if they did not report—and the report should be published. I do not think we should leave it to a kind of hole-in-the-corner arrangement between the Board and the Council as to whether they report or not. I would say that, if there is to be the successful relationship which the noble Lord wants, and which we all want, between the Council and the Board, then each must know where it stands. The Council must know that it has to submit a report, but that it does not have to record in it anything which it considers confidential or not in the public interest to disclose.

I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be a mistake at this stage to arouse suspicions from the start by not providing for the report. If this Amendment is refused, it is inevitable, I think, that some suspicion of concealment and suppression would be conveyed; and I do urge the noble Lord to accept this Amendment, even if he would like to see Amendment No. 33, which I cannot move at the moment, of course, in slightly different terms. It is this Amendment we are discussing, and I beg to move.

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

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, when we were considering this Bill at the last stage I gave quite a number of undertakings to look at various aspects which had been brought forward in Amendments from your Lordships, and, as will be clear as we go along, I have accepted or propose to accept quite a number of these Amendments. This, however, is not one which I can recommend to your Lordships, and the reasons are much the same as I advanced at the Committee stage.

First of all, we believe that a most valuable feature of the Council's work must be the creation of the right kind of atmosphere in which the Board can act. This may well involve general talk on principles, or about possible courses of action, the recording of which in an annual report would be extremely difficult and could be embarrassing. I appreciate that, in speaking to his Amendment, the noble Lord has emphasised the fact that he is not saying in any way what should or should not go into the report, but a requirement in the Bill for the Council to record their proceedings, or any part of their proceedings, in an annual report would really make it more difficult for them to avoid including specific advice which they had tendered to the Board on their own initiative or at the request of the Board; and I think the noble Lord recognised that the publication of such advice, some of which might be confidential, could, in the light of subsequent events, be embarrassing to the Council.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I was very careful to say that although these two Amendments are associated, and although it is quite proper to discuss them together, it does not follow that, because he accepts the first he is thereby obliged to accept the second. All we are discussing at the moment is whether there should be a report from the Council.

LORD HUGHES

Yes, I appreciate that; but what I am trying to convey to your Lordships is that as soon as we make it a formal requirement that a report should be made annually we import into it an element of formality which could in fact defeat the main purpose of the informal consultation, which will be the most valuable part of the work which the Council can do. I think I made it perfectly clear at the Committee stage—but if, by any chance, I did not, I will, at the risk of infringing the Egremont principle of repetition, say it once again—that the Council will be perfectly free to submit a report, either annually or more frequently, on specific matters if they wish to do so, and the Board will be equally free to incorporate the whole of that report or special report, or parts of it, in their own proceedings. The fact that it is not made mandatory does not in any way prevent them from doing that—that is, if we leave it as it is in the Bill, that it is a matter entirely for the Council. It means that when they make a special report on some subject, or if they make a report which does not include the whole of their proceedings, they are not in the position that they can be accused of choosing to publish certain items and choosing to suppress others.

The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that this should not be part of a hole-in-the-corner arrangement between the Board and the Council. He also said that if certain things were not to be published there would be the suspicion that things were going to be suppressed, with the inference, at least, that there was something to hide. If the Council, in the completely free exercise of their own judgment, decide what they are going to publish and what they are not going to publish, and do so in the way in which the Government contemplate they will, there can be no suspicion that either the Board or the Government seek the suppression of anything; because the decision will be taken by the Council at their own hand.

There is nothing we can write into the Bill which would add to that complete freedom which the Council will possess; there is nothing which will add to the complete freedom which the Board will possess. Making it mandatory by writing it into the Bill is more likely to result in the publication of less information than of more; and it is also likely to defeat the object which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has in mind and with which I am in complete agreement. We want the public, both in the Highlands and elsewhere, to be fully aware of all that the Council and the Board are doing. We think this can best be accomplished by leaving it to their own discretion.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seems to be contradicting himself steadily. First of all, he says that there will be nothing to conceal; then he goes on to say that the mere fact that the Board is not compelled to reveal all their proceedings will mean that there will not be any secrecy. As a considerable proportion of public opinion in Scotland is apprehensive about the far-reaching powers that the Board possess, I should have thought it would be only wise that a report on the lines indicated should be submitted. After all, the Forestry Commission, which spends a great deal of public money, produces an annual Report.

LORD HUGHES

But in this Amendment we are not talking about a report from the Board. We are talking about a report from the Advisory Council.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I am well aware of that. It is the Advisory Council who wish to have this report made. But, just as the Forestry Commission has to produce a Report annually, which can be, and very often is, discussed in this House, so I should have thought it very much more in the public interest and in the interests of the Board and the Council that a similar report should have to be submitted annually.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, there is to be a Report from the Board which will be discussed by Parliament in the same way as is the similar Report from the Forestry Commission. But the Forestry Commission are not obliged to incorporate in their Report any advice they may get from the committees and advisory bodies that they have.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend; that the noble Lord has contradicted himself in this matter, because he said it is a matter entirely for the Council whether they make a report or not. What we are talking about is whether or not the Board should suppress that report if one is made. The noble Lord shakes his head; but this is what we are talking about.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, I pointed out at the last stage that the Council will be perfectly free not only to make a report but to publish the report. There can be no question of its being suppressed by the Board if the Council themselves are free to publish. The only people who can suppress the report are the Council, if they do not wish to put in the information. The very fact that the noble Lord is prepared to delete the references to the compulsory inclusion of the report would enable the Council to suppress anything they wish to suppress in the same way as if they exercised their freedom not to make a report at all.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I think the Committee will have been considerably reassured by what the noble Lord has said. I believe one has to judge this matter more by the spirit in which it was said than perhaps by the actual words used. I think it is plain from what the noble Lord said that the idea—I will not say the intention—is that the Council shall publish as much as possible. Nobody wants them to publish everything. I agree that it is not necessary that the Board should publish the report or that the Council's report should be incorporated in the Board's report since they might publish it themselves. For that reason I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.36 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2), to insert: () Where any proposal or related proposals which involve either the expenditure of £250,000 or the acquisition by way of purchase from one or more owners (whether by the Board or by any other authority or authorities authorised by or under any enactment contained in a public general Act to purchase land compulsorily, or partly by the Board and partly by such other authority or authorities) the rateable value of which in aggregate exceeds £100,000, the Board shall submit the proposal or related proposals to the Secretary of State in the form of a scheme. The Secretary of State may make an order approving any such scheme, with or without modifications, and shall lay the order together with a copy of the scheme before Parliament; and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which the order is laid before Parliament so resolves the order shall be annulled and the Board shall not implement the scheme.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this I regard as a very important Amendment. It provides that any sizeable scheme which the Board propose should be laid before Parliament in the form of an Order subject to annulment by the Negative Resolution procedure. There are two tests of what is sizeable. One is the total expenditure involved by the scheme, the other is the amount of land to be acquired, expressed in terms of rateable value, because that is the easiest way of establishing the value of the land to be acquired.

The point is that the powers of the Board are, admittedly, very wide. As I have said before, we are breaking new ground in this Bill. It is for that reason that we recognise that the powers are bound to be wide. Nobody yet knows the scope of the schemes the Board may approve. On the one hand, nobody wants to hamper or restrict them in the good work they may do or propose for the Highlands; but, on the other hand, if they are going to concert and promote big schemes—and this is not yet certain; the noble Lord had rather indicated to me that the schemes he had in mind would be comparatively small—it is hardly enough that such schemes should be approved simply by the Secretary of State.

After all, it is the Government which is the custodian of the rights of the individual and the community. It is not the prerogative of a Council nominated by the Secretary of State; it is that of Parliament. If there are to be big schemes it is my belief that they should be referred to Parliament. The provisions in this Amendment seem to me to be the barest minimum that one could ask. So far as I can see there is no provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry on the proposals as such. The nearest approach to that is a public inquiry on the Council's acquisition of land under Clause 4; and that is only where particular objection to the Council's acquisition of land arises. I mentioned the hydro-electric scheme at an earlier stage, and the noble Lord said he thought my noble friend Lord Strathclyde would agree that the procedure under the hydro-electric scheme was unduly cumbersome and would not altogether be welcomed.

But in the proposals that are being put forward now, unlike the hydro-electric scheme, there is no provision for a public inquiry before the scheme is presented. The reason for that is that any such scheme of concerting and promoting might involve the whole of the Crofter Counties area; whereas the hydro-electric scheme involved only a particular area or particular areas. The idea of this Amendment is that it safeguards the rights of Parliament and it safeguards the rights of the Members elected to represent the particular areas affected to challenge a scheme. It seems to me that it is no good saying that Parliament can question or challenge the Secretary of State about the proposals; because then it has no means of preventing those proposals from taking place, unless, of course, there was a vote of censure on the Minister. I cannot see any other means by which that could be done.

The order procedure gives an easy way to debate and probe a scheme and, if necessary, annul it. I should have thought that where a big scheme was concerned, involving, perhaps, more than one local authority and a very wide range of interests, such as setting up a national park or something of that kind, it would be desirable to allow Parliament to consider the scheme. I do not think that that would be asking too much. It would probably make the Bill a little less fearsome in appearance in the eyes of some people in so far as the extensive powers of the Board are checked only by the Secretary of State.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

6.42 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, as on the last Amendment, there is a certain amount of concern about the vast powers given to the Board. If this Amendment were accepted, it would go some way to dispel at least some of the fears. If some such provision is not inserted in the Bill, the Board would appear to be in a position to carry through very large arrangements which would change the aspect, socially and economically, of various parts of the Highlands, but which at the same time, unless carefully watched, might do considerable harm to the interests of many of the inhabitants there and, indeed, might impinge and infringe on the rights of the local authorities.

I can see no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. It does not bind or restrict the Board in any way, but its acceptance would mean that Scotland as a whole would be able to know just what the Board was doing, and what was proposed before some large-scale operation was put into effect which might not be advantageous from the point of view of certain of the communities concerned; and which, therefore, would be worthy of consideration from outside before it became finally and irrevocably the law.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, when this matter was discussed during the Committee stage, contrary to the attitude which I adopted regarding some of the other Amendments, I did not give much of a welcome to the proposal. Neither the consideration which I have given to this in the week or more which has ensued nor anything which I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has made me feel that this Amendment would improve the Bill. Frankly, I cannot understand the argument which has been advanced when it is taken with the arguments put forward on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, that already there was far too much supervision of the Board by the Secretary of State and by the Treasury with the need to seek approval for this and the next thing. By means of this Amendment, it is proposed to place an even greater obstacle in the way of the Board.

The job of securing the proper development of the Highlands and Islands is a matter of urgency. The Government are anxious to provide machinery to do this stripped, so far as possible, of unnecessary formalities. They wish to see the quick preparation, approval and implementation of proposals and projects for the economic and social development of the area. It is vital, therefore, that the procedure in Clause 3 should be as informal and streamlined as possible, consistent, of course, with the need for consultation with local authorities and other bodies likely to be concerned with particular proposals and projects. The Government are convinced that the adoption of what might prove a lengthy procedure, involving Parliament and the submission and approval of major proposals, will serve only to delay much-needed action and give rise to doubts about the validity of the declared intention of the Government to rehabilitate the Highlands and Islands. That is my general objection to the Amendment.

I would remind your Lordships that, contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, it is not expected that the Board will merely do small things. The noble Lord said that I had given him that impression. That may be so, if he is thinking of the specific references which I gave in answer to specific points. If the Board is to be effective, the schemes to be undertaken in the crofting areas will undoubtedly include measures of substantial importance. There may well be a whole variety of projects where the figures mentioned in the Amendment would be quite relevant; but what is not so certain is that when the Board is consorting and promoting a scheme the expenditure on which would exceed, for example, £250,000, anything like that amount of money would come from the funds of the Board. If the scheme involved three or four local authorities, the contribution from the Board might be £50,000, with £200,000 coming out of the ordinary operations of existing authorities.

If we accepted this procedure we should be creating a piece of machinery by which powers, which the local authorities can at the present time put into operation—subject only to the necessary financial approval from the Secretary of State—would be taken from them and subjected to the procedure of Parliamentary approval; because what was proposed formed part of a wider scheme consorted by the development authority. We should, therefore, be placing restrictions on the operations not only of the Board but of local authorities, such as are not placed upon them at present.

Either noble Lords wish the Board to have freedom to go ahead and cut down restrictions to the minimum, and they mean what they said when, during the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, they criticised the interven- tions which have to be made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury, or they do not. If they do mean what they said, there is no justification for imposing this cumbersome procedure on the Board, because cumbersome procedure it is. Admittedly, the noble Lord has profited from what I said during the Committee stage by making it not so onerous as other actions which have to be taken by the Hydro-Electric Board, but it is not a necessary piece of machinery and can only have the effect of slowing up the operations of the Board.

By the very nature of things, the threads of development, which may range one way and another over many aspects of the economic and social life of the Highlands and Islands involving Departments and other statutory bodies—and, of course, local authorities—must be drawn together and brought into relationship with Government policies for the economic planning of Scotland as a whole. The proper and appropriate person to do all these things is the Secretary of State, but this does not mean that Parliament will be by-passed, for the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament. Moreover, the Annual Report of the Board will provide an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the proposals of the Board and its operations. In the Annual Report there will be frequent references to things which the Board proposes to do as well as a record of what it has undertaken, so that Parliament will have a full opportunity without accepting this—in the view of the Government—needlessly tight restriction on its activities. I must advise your Lordships as strongly as I can not to accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I am a little disappointed that the noble Lord thinks £250,000 is unlikely to be provided by the Board. It leaves me with the impression that the amounts they are likely to give are small. The noble Lord has talked about informal consultations and streamlined development, but what about the people in the area knowing about any scheme? If they did not know what was happening, there would be a good deal of suspicion about what the Board was up to. Is there going to be any proposal about how the Board are to let people know what is happening? The noble Lord suggests that it would be in the Annual Report, but a lot of things happen during the year, if they get on with the job. I think it will help if there can be some assurance that proper publicity will be given to any proposals when they are made.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am amazed. This is the second time in half an hour that the word "suspicion" has been imported into our debate. I have never been connected with a Bill in which there has been greater emphasis on the need of advising all people concerned. If anything, the emphasis is far too much on consultation. But because this is something which impinges on the responsibilities of existing authorities, which will continue in the Highlands, we have emphasised the importance of carrying all these bodies with us.

Can it be suggested by anyone that the Highlands Development Board could undertake a scheme in a place like the Highlands, where, if a man went out with one brown shoe and one black shoe it would be known fifty miles away within a day by people who did not even have a telephone—a scheme of the order of magnitude mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of £250,000, on which perhaps three or four county councils would have been consulted, and they would have discussed it in their committees and public meetings, and perhaps the Crofters Commission and the Forestry Commission would also have discussed it, without everybody concerned in the Highlands knowing everything about it? If there is suspicion in these circumstances, I suggest to your Lordships that there is nothing we can possibly add to the Bill which would prevent suspicion arising in the minds of the sort of folk who would be suspicious, because they must be so deranged mentally that anything in an Act of Parliament would not help the situation at all.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I agree that a scheme of this magnitude in the Highlands would be talked about, but I would ask the noble Lord what local people can do about it if they dislike the scheme. We down here may think that it is a good thing to introduce a new population in parts of Western Ross, but the people in Western Ross may not think it is a good thing. I think we have to consider them and give them some means by which they can make their opinions known. Is there some means by which they can make their opinions known, other than through their local county councils, which in some instances may not reflect their views at all?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, there are many ways in which they can make their opinions known, just as they do at the present time. Not everybody likes what is done by the local authorities. I would give your Lordships an example. A number of years ago, when the stretch of eleven miles of road from Loch Ailort to Glenfinan was proceeding on its leisurely way to completion, I went on a holiday in that direction. I mentioned to someone what a tremendous improvement this would be, and I was told that an old lady in Mallaig had said, "I am not sure it is the right thing. No, it will bring all sorts of people into Mallaig. "She would have much preferred the road to be made as difficult as possible for tourist travel. There will always be people who object.

They will have the same opportunity of representation against any of the Boards proposals as they have against road schemes. In that case, they do not need to vote for the candidates who supported them, but there is more in relation to the Board. There is the Advisory Council, which is not only to be representative of the local authorities; it will be much more widely representative of the area than that. The whole purpose of the advisory machinery is that that sort of opinion can be brought to the knowledge of the Board. There is the opportunity of representation not only through a variety of existing agencies, but also through the new advisory body or by going directly to the Board. I suggest to the noble Duke that there is full opportunity for objection. If a scheme is objectionable to large sections of the community, then I venture to suggest it will not get off the ground in the first instance. If we are going to proceed in the Highlands only with things to which nobody will object, then we shall be setting the clock back considerably, because nothing at all will be done.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am bound to say that I am very disappointed with the reply of the noble Lord. He has talked about cumbersome procedure, but this is amply precedented in other spheres, like the hydro-electric schemes, and I cannot see why it should not be repeated here. He says that it is placing a restriction on the operations of the Board. It is doing no such thing. The only restriction it places is on the right of the Secretary of State to give approval without the consent of Parliament. There is no restriction whatever on the Board, except that maybe it will make the Board a little more careful in working out their figures before coming to the Secretary of State. because they would have to be embodied in the scheme and put before Parliament. That is the only possible additional restriction it places on the Board.

The noble Lord talked about the need for speed in developing the Highlands. We agree with that, of course, but what is asked here? A delay of 40 days for reflection, during which Parliament can examine the proposals and during which those who are affected may have an opportunity of bringing considerations to Parliament. I should not have thought that that was in any way derogatory to the Board. But it is rather derogatory to Parliament that it should be by-passed in this way. All that the noble Lord can say is that the proposals will be put in the Annual Report—but that is a long delay. The Crofters Commission's Annual Report appears five or six months after the end of the year. That is a substantial delay before public opinion can fully bear on the proposals, unless, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk says, the noble Lord can provide other ways in which full publicity can be given to the proposals and public opinion brought to bear upon them before the Secretary of State gives his decision. That is the point. It is not enough to have the advice of 25 men and women nominated by the Secretary of State.

I believe that this is a point of real substance. I am sorry the noble Lord has taken the attitude he has. He is entirely wrong, if I may say so, in saying that this will cause delay; and he is wrong in saying that I argued at any time against the need for supervision of the Board. I did exactly the opposite, if he will recall, on Second Reading. We believe that this is necessary because money is involved, and it may be a considerable amount of money, and because it is undoubtedly for the Secretary of State to examine the proposals of a Board which has such wide powers. All we are asking is that where there is a really big theme of concerting and promoting—because this is what it amounts to—or possibly a scheme which the Board will undertake on a large scale, the matter should be referred to Parliament. I do not propose to divide on this Amendment, but I am certainly not going to withdraw it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

7.1 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved, after subsection (3) to insert: () In the exercise of their functions under this Act the Board shall have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery in the Highlands and Islands ".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, put forward an Amendment which would have the effect of making it part of the responsibilities of the Board that they should have regard to the preservation of the beauty of the Highlands and Islands in their operations, and I undertook to look at it, because I was satisfied of two things: first, that it was the general desire of the Committee that this should be done; and secondly, that it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government that the Board should operate in this way. The Amendment which I have now tabled, I think, gives complete effect to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. The only differences are a slight difference in wording and in the place in which it appears in the Bill—namely, in Clause 3 instead of in Clause 1. I think it is true to say that the differences as between what the noble Lord proposed and what I am now moving are merely drafting alterations, and not alterations of substance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dulverton has asked me to express on his behalf his keen appreciation of the noble Lord's putting down this Amendment. He has asked me to explain that he made a special journey from Scotland in order to say this himself, but, unfortunately, because of the late hour, he is already on his way back to Scotland.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, perhaps his regret at missing it should be conveyed to the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.

Clause 4:

Acquisition and disposal of land

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

• (b) acquire land compulsorily, if so authorised by the Secretary of State;
• (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.

7.5 p.m.

VISCOUNT M ASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (b): but not for agricultural or sporting purposes, unless in the interests of the crofting community or for scientific and technical research;".

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my chief object in putting down this Amendment is to prevent the Government from acquiring large areas of land to set up as farmers at the taxpayers' expense. Under the Amendment, the Government have power compulsorily to take over land for forestry purposes, to help crofting communities, for hotels, industry or any such purpose.

I should like to refer again, as I did on Second Reading, to the estate of Glen Forsa, which was taken over by the Government, not compulsorily, after the end of the war. All the local people were informed, and it was understood that the estate had been taken over for the purpose of research. The Government have had that estate now certainly for twelve years, but we have had no report from the technical point of view, and nothing has come out of it for the benefit of West Highland farmers. I should have hoped that a Government agronomist (I think that is the right word for an agricultural economist) could have published information obtained in the Department's Quarterly Agricultural Review. But they have not done so.

In this Amendment I seek to prevent the Government from taking over agricultural land simply to farm as private farmers do. What on earth is the object? I should like to know what is in the Government's mind. Do they wish to start collective farming? If so, then I think they are behind the times. To put it rather crudely, what I am trying to prevent is "jobs for the boys"—that is probably not quite the right way to express it. Compulsory powers are always odious, and I think it is permissible to use them only in the interests of the poorer sections of the community, or for research if it is to benefit the whole community.

I should now like to refer to that part of the Amendment dealing with sporting purposes. Why do the Government wish to take over sporting estates? They have acquired the Island of Rum under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy for research; and that is quite in order. But can the Minister tell me for what purpose the Government desire to take over grouse moors, deer forests, or salmon fishing? I can only presume that it is based on the statement in the Report, Land Use in the Highlands and Islands, which, at page 58, dealing with deer sport, says: The limitation of the enjoyment of deer sport to a small number of people having access to private estates has led to insufficient recreational use being made of these areas of land. We feel that on all grounds—economic and social—it is desirable that such facilities should be available to a wider public … That seems to be a contradiction in terms. If we take deer sport, as the Report calls it, the essence of deer sport is that it has to be limited to a few people, just the same as a game of tennis has to be limited either to two or four people. If you have a great number of people partaking in the sport, then you do not have any deer sport; it vanishes. The Report also says that these areas should be made available to the public, but under the Access to Mountains Act the public have completely free range over all these areas.

I cannot understand what the Government mean here. Are they proposing to take over shootings and fishings at the taxpayers' expense, and allow people cheap sport? If they are intending to do that, I should like them to say so. I am not personally objecting to that, but I should like the Minister to explain what the object is. If that is the Government's intention, it certainly will not be economically viable. The Report on the Highlands and Islands makes the point that if the State takes over sporting estates it will make them more economically viable; but, of course, it will not, because the very big rents from Americans and other rich men will go by the board.

I have spoken rather a long time, but the other reason that has made me put this Amendment forward is that I have had practical experience of the Government's taking over large areas of land; and my experience has been that they have treated the natural fauna extremely badly. Perhaps I may again refer to this estate of Glen Forsa, the ordnance acreage of which is 15,000 acres. The Government took over this estate and rented the sporting rights to a contractor. He came up with tracked vehicles and a gang, armed with rifles, who had no experience of deer, so far as we could ascertain. They then proceeded with the most appalling and fiendish butchery. They shot deer of all ages or sexes—anything on four legs. They shot about 500 deer before they were stopped. All the tourists were in an uproar. These trailers used to come down to the pier in the morning with about 30 or 40 carcases on them, all bleeding, a most horrible sight; and, of course, people objected. If the Government are going to take over these areas, as they say, for sporting purposes, they must have them properly managed. I cannot see that the Government have any excuse to take over land for sporting purposes, apart from research. I hope the Minister can give some assurance that the terrible débêcle that we saw at Glen Forsa is not going to happen in other areas of Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 19, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, a few years ago I spent a holiday at Glen Forsa House. I doubt very much whether I would have entered on to the Island of Mull if I had thought for one moment that I was venturing into an area which was disguised as a battlefield. On second thoughts, no one with a gun in his hand could have looked at my head and mistaken it for the head of a deer, because nothing projects beyond my skin at all! Seriously, the noble Viscount expressed fears which are quite unjustified, and in fact his Amendment, in one direction at any rate, would not accomplish the purpose to which he has spoken. He has spoken against the Government's acquiring sporting estates. But his Amendment would not permit that. His Amendment would stop the acquiring of an estate for a sporting purpose, but it would not stop the Government from acquiring a sporting estate for another purpose altogether.

I can assure the noble Viscount that it is not the desire of the Government to take over large estates in the Highlands merely for the purpose of continuing to operate them in exactly the same way as they have been run before, or only to enable a sign to be put up on an occasional tree, "Now Under New Management". That would serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The purpose of acquiring land is to enable the whole of it, or part of it, to be put to a more beneficial use, just as the Forestry Commission sometimes has to acquire more land than it can actually plant as part of the price of acquiring it by agreement, and then subsequently disposes, by sale on the free market, of that part of the land which it does not propose to plant but which may be continued as a farming transaction. I authorised such a sale in the Border areas only the other day.

This is the reason why the Board may be taking over land which could include land of agricultural value or of sporting value. If the Amendment were accepted, it would not accomplish part of that for which the noble Lord has spoken, but it would have the very serious effect of restricting the Board in its operations. I think it is agreed that the main natural asset of the Highlands is the land, and if the Board is to accomplish its object it must be able to secure that the land is put to the best use. It may frequently, or occasionally (I do not know which in practice will prove to be the right word), be that the Board, in order to accomplish its objects, has to acquire more land than it proposes to change the use of. I can assure the noble Viscount that the Board will not be acquiring agricultural land solely for the purpose of carrying on farming, either as individual farmers or as a variety practised in other parts of the world but not so far attempted here. It is not the Board's purpose to take over deer forests so that the rents can be paid by Americans to the Secretary of State instead of to the present owners. That would not accomplish the object of the Bill at all, which is to provide the best use of the land.

I would also assure the noble Viscount that neither the father nor the mother of this Bill was the Highland Panel. The Land Use Report, contrary to his repeatedly expressed convictions, has nothing at all to do with this Bill. If, in fact, certain opinions are expressed by the Highland Panel which have also been expressed by Members of Her Majesty's Government, or by Members of Her Majesty's Opposition, as well as by many people in the Highlands, that merely emphasises the fact that the Highland Panel, like everybody else, cannot be wrong all the time. If so many people say this thing, then it adds to the presumption that there is certain merit in doing it. But I would assure the noble Viscount that we did not start to work out what we were going to have in an Highlands and Islands Development Bill after the Highland Panel produced its Land Use Report.

The final thing I wish to say is that all the known and proved acceptable safeguards in compulsory acquisition are in this Bill, and of course the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount refers only to land acquired by compulsion. The acceptance of all these safeguards against abuse of procedure should, I think, finally persuade the noble Viscount that we are not seeking to acquire land merely for the purpose of changing ownership. There must be a great deal more to it than that. The important thing is the use to which the land would be put, and merely changing the name of the owner would serve no useful purpose at all in the context of this Bill. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, I referred to the Glen Forsa estate. The Government took that over, and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said that it was not the Government's intention to take over land except to increase the productivity of it or to improve it in some way. So far as I am aware, they are just carrying on ordinary sheep farming, the same as anybody else would be doing on that land. The noble Lord's remarks were quite cheering, although the trouble is that we hear all this, but if it is not contained in a Bill it is rather "airy-fairy." In view of what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, though I am still rather unhappy at the great breadth of these powers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.22 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (c): ; but in the event of sale the Board shall give the previous owner, if still resident in the United Kingdom at the time of sale, first refusal at a fair and equitable price".

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can accept this Amendment, because it is an exceedingly mild one. If an owner has had his land compulsorily acquired, why can he not have the first refusal, at a fair and equitable price, if the Government ever want to sell that land? I have inserted the words "if still resident in the United Kingdom" for obvious reasons.

When I say "a fair and equitable price" it should be borne in mind that as the land was acquired in the first place compulsorily it was probably acquired much more cheaply than it would have been in the open market. In deciding on the price to the original; owner, presumably the district valuer would be called in, and of course he would be bound to take into account the price the Government paid for the land. Every day we read in the Press instances of where the Government or a county council have acquired land compulsorily. On a previous occasion I quoted the case of some land that was acquired for a post office and then sold at a great profit. I read in the paper last Sunday that in 1951 Bristol Corporation purchased a piece of land compulsorily from a Mr. Bertram Jutson for housing development at a price of £1,400. Half an acre of land was left over after the remainder of it was developed. The Council has now sold that half-acre of land at a price of £50,000. That was just half an acre, whereas they had bought several acres for £1,400. I understand that the half-acre has been sold as a site for a petrol station. Admittedly the period from 1951 to 1965 is fairly long, but it is a very large profit, nevertheless. I think that if the Government, or a local authority, are to use compulsory powers in order to purchase land, the owner should have the first refusal of buying that land back at a fair and equitable price. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of my noble friend's Amendment. I do not think it would be just to compare the situation in Bristol which he has quoted with what would happen under this Bill, because the provisions for compulsory purchase compensation in 1951 were governed by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, and were totally different from those of to-day, and I hope the full market value will continue to apply. I also do not think my noble friend would be right in supposing that on any compulsory acquisition less than market value would be obtained by the owner. If this occurs it is certainly not the law, and something would have had to go very seriously wrong for that to occur.

If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, cannot accept this Amendment, can he at any rate tell the House whether it is the practice of the departments at St. Andrew's House, if they have acquired land from a private person and find in due course that it is surplus to their requirements, to offer it back to the person who first owned it; or does this happen on only rare occasions? If it is the practice of the Department to do this, then I have no doubt that even if this Amendment is not put in the Bill the effect desired by my noble friend will be achieved in the end.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords. I, too, should like to support my noble friend, but from a different point of view, because so far as I can see this would apply to all land acquired, whether compulsorily or not, as this appears at the end of paragraph (c) and not at the end of paragraph (b). As I tried to show on Committee stage, this would make it easier for the Board to acquire land which they wanted because no longer would the people have the fear of not getting their land back. If this Amendment could be written into the Bill, I think it would in a few cases make the Board's work easier and quicker, which is what we, as well as the Government, want.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, in the first place I will confirm the first two points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that the position remains as it is and that it has not reverted to pre-market-value conditions. I would also confirm that it remains the position that land acquired compulsorily will be acquired at its market value and not necessarily its existing use value. I also confirm what the noble Duke has said, that this Amendment goes further than the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, intended, because his remarks were devoted entirely to land acquired compulsorily, whereas, as the noble Duke has said, it applies to land acquired by negotiation or compulsion.

It would be quite wrong to accept the Amendment, for a variety of reasons; but I will first deal with land acquired by agreement. Before I do so, I should say that I referred a few minutes ago to having authorised the sale of a farm which the Forestry Commission did not need for planting purposes. When I put this recommendation up to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, he asked me whether the land was acquired by agreement or by compulsion. The reason he asked that was because of the next question, which was that if it had been acquired by compulsion, had it been offered to the original owner? In this case it was not acquired by compulsion; it was acquired by agreement, and there was no obligation to offer it back to the original owner. I cannot agree with the noble Duke that there is any reason why the Government should put into this Bill an obligation to offer the land back to somebody from whom they have acquired it freely by negotiation in the first instance. If this were done it would be placing the Board in a position which was not nearly so satisfactory as that of a private individual acquiring land.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, the difference is that the Board have a power of compulsion behind them and the private individual has not. Therefore, it is free agreement with the individual. With the Board the agreement may be freely negotiated—I am quite convinced it is much better if it is—but it is much more likely to be freely negotiated if the individual knows that if the Board are going to dispose of the land he will have the opportunity to buy it back.

LORD HUGHES

I think the noble Duke is wrong in assuming that all land which may be acquired by negotiation is disposed of to a Board or a Government Department only because the owner fears that if he does not do so by negotiation it will be acquired by compulsion. Sometimes when public bodies have wished to get land and have found difficulty in acquiring it freely, they have wished that the acquisition of land by compulsion was as easy as the noble Duke appears to envisage. In fact to get land by compulsion, as I think all noble Lords, with the possible exception of the noble Duke, are aware, is very difficult indeed. So that the threat, the ultimate sanction, of compulsion is not something which is available in every case, but is available in the case where an owner is being very unreasonable. I must not give way to the noble Duke, because I must remind him we are at Report stage and we are only supposed to speak once.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has rather misrepresented me. I know some compulsory purchase is difficult, but the threat is there. And I have never said that I thought the Board would never have a willing negotiator. I am sure that in 95 per cent. of cases the negotiators will be perfectly willing.

LORD HUGHES

It may be I am misrepresenting the noble Duke, but I can assure him it is not by intention, and I have twice sat without seeking leave to speak a second time.

A NOBLE LORD

An intervention does not count.

LORD HUGHES

I must remember that as an invitation to intervene. This Amendment in fact seeks to write into the Bill something which is not applicable only in the Highlands of Scotland. If we accepted that it was a reasonable thing to do, it would be reasonable in regard to the acquisition of land by any public body or any Government agency, whether by compulsion or by agreement. It is accepted that there is a practice in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land which is followed up to the present time, and I have reassured the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on that point. If there were any desire to go beyond that, then this is not the Bill in which it should be done: it must be part of the land policy of the Government as a whole, to be applied equally in Bristol or Coventry as in the crofting counties of Scotland. So I could not possibly accept a new principle in relation to Government policy on land in this rather narrow context.

So far as the acquisition of land by compulsion is concerned—and I would remind noble Lords that we expect that the acquisition of land by compulsion will be very much the odd case rather than the general pattern—the Board will rely very largely on having as good an atmosphere as possible in which to conduct their operations, and to a certain extent that would be defeated if they were having recourse frequently to powers of compulsion. That is the best safeguard: that the Board want to be cooperative with people and will seek to compel only as a last resort. But where compulsion is used, then those principles to which I have referred in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will prevail, here as elsewhere. In those circumstances, therefore, I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment for all those reasons, but particularly because of the fact that it goes very much further than the noble Viscount's expressed intention when he moved it.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord has said is rather disturbing. Surely it would be against the interest of any landowner to sell any sizeable piece of ground voluntarily. He does not get a chance to buy it back if he sells it voluntarily therefore it is better to hold out for compulsory acquisition.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, if I intervene before the noble Lord sits down I shall be in order. He has as good a chance as anybody else of getting it back. If he has sold it freely and it is to be freely disposed of, he can buy it as well as anybody else. What we are seeking is that he should not be in a preferential position to get it back at less than market value.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, if you have compulsory powers, even if you do not use them, they are always in the background. If you are dealing with somebody who has compulsory powers you know in the end you have got to sell. I do not think the noble Lord's arguments are really very valid. I sold land to the Forestry Commission. It is true I had only a verbal agreement regarding the farm on this land, but I was told that if they sold the farm I should be offered it. I was not; it was sold over my head to somebody else. Presumably I shall have to withdraw the Amendment, but I do it most reluctantly, because, as I have said, compulsory power is completely odious and can only be excused in very rare circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 [Ancillary powers of the Board]:

7.39 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c) to insert: () to pay to any person who, whether in pursuance of a notice under section 11 of this Act or not, furnishes estimates, returns and information to the Commission for the purposes of any of their functions under this Act.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a fairly simple Amendment. Subsection (1) of Clause 9 empowers the Board in paragraph (b) to do all such things as are incidental to, or conducive to the attainment of the purposes of, any of their functions. Paragraphs (a) to (c) specify some of those things. What I am asking the noble Lord to do is to specify another of them. I ask the noble Lord whether there is any reason why this power should not be expressed in terms. I should like to thank the noble Lord for having written to me on this subject and he will not mind if I read out what he said. He said: I have discussed with my ministerial colleagues your Amendment No. 24, and we are satisfied that it will adequately meet the situation if, in the administrative guidance that can properly be given to the Board when it is constituted to advise them, that the Secretary of State would regard it as a proper exercise of the powers under Clause 9(1)(d) that the Board should pay for the excess cost of obtaining information. I have had a little difficulty in construing that sentence, but I should like to get from the noble Lord whether it is definitely the intention that administrative guidance along those lines will be given.

I may say that my Amendment has quite respectable ancestry because it is taken out of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act which was passed by the Party opposite, in 1947 or 1948. I would add that paragraph (c) specifies that the Board shall have power to carry out or commisison the carrying out of such inquiries, investigations or researches as the Board may deem necessary or expedient for the purposes of their functions. What one wants to reassure people about is that it is not going to carry out these "inquiries, investigations and researches" at the expense of other people. If we agree to this Amendment it will make it clear that the Board will not have to do that. So I think it will help the Board to obtain co-operation if this power is made clear in the Bill. It seems to me that it is just as important as the first three powers. It may be a little less important to the Board, but its importance lies in the interests of others in this case. Here I think it is not unfair to expect the Bill to have regard to the interests of others as well as to those of the Board. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

7.43 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I wish to suggest that your Lordships do not accept this Amendment, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be unduly disappointed at that because, with my approval, he has quoted from the letter which I wrote to him. I might mention, in return, that when he wrote to me on July 9 saying that this Amendment was being tabled, that was in order to give me an opportunity of giving him an assurance that information, if costly to obtain, can be paid for by the Board under Clause 9(1)(d). I am sorry that he found my reply difficult to contrue. I thought that I had some abilities, but I did not think that they included the ability in my letters to conceal information rather than to give it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

It was not grammatical.

LORD HUGHES

But I am tempted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the meticulousness with which he goes through these things led one of my colleagues to say, "If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had not been a Minister, he would have made a perfect civil servant." However, the powers to which he has referred in Clause 9(1)(d), and to which I have not referred hitherto, either in discussion here or in my letter, are, I think, amply covered by Clause 9(1)(c). I think that paragraph amply covers the situation. It empowers the Board to carry out or commission the carrying out of inquiries, investigations or researches. I think we must accept it that when words are used they are used in their ordinary context, and to use the phrase "commission the carrying out of inquiries" in ordinary commercial practice, at any rate, connotes that you pay the person to whom you are giving the commission. If you do not, you are not commissioning him to do something; you are ordering him to do something if you tell him to do it.

So I would emphasise the fact that when we use the word "commission", we use it in its ordinary sense, and that if someone was being commissioned by the Board to do something he would be paid for it. Similarly, I would confirm that it is the intention of the Secretary of State, in the administrative guidance which he may properly give to the Board, to include a reference to the fact that information which might be excessively costly to obtain can be paid for by the Board. But I think it would be quite wrong to put this in the Bill because, if the Amendment were accepted, it could be held that there was a legal obligation on the part of the Board to reimburse anybody for any expenditure which he incurred in giving information. It could be held, in fact, that when someone sent along an answer to a query he could enclose a bill for a penny for stationery and fourpence for the stamp necessary to send it back. If the worst came to the worst, he would at least have been put to that expense.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? If he is really seriously saying that, then under paragraph (a), by which the Board shall have power to make such charges for any of their services as they think fit", they have no power to supply any services free. It follows.

LORD HUGHES

No, it does not follow, because we know perfectly well that the Secretary of State can guarantee to appoint reasonable people to the Board. The Secretary of State would not guarantee that the Highlands are 100 per cent. inhabited by reasonable people. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, with his wide experience, would care to contradict that statement. So what is done by a reasonable person, and what is done by an unreasonable person, or a power given to a reasonable person and a power given to an unreasonable person, must, of necessity, be quite different.

I think I have given the noble Lord the complete assurance for which he would wish, that there is no intention that the Board should be required to put anyone to unreasonable expense in furnishing it with information. If it is necessary for the purposes of the Board that information which is costly to get out must be obtained it would, for instance, be a reasonable alternative in certain circumstances that an estimate easily got out would be acceptable, instead of actual figures which were difficult to work out. The Board might well accept that. If, however, for their purposes it was necessary to go to the expense of getting out exact information, and that could be done only at what a reasonable person would regard as being an excessive cost, then the guidance which the Board will receive will undoubtedly be along the lines that they should pay for that information. But, as I said on the Committee stage, it is not to become a secondary income-earning asset for people in the Highlands that they are to sell information to the Board.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, could I ask one question in order to be perfectly clear about this matter? Of course it is reasonable to pay for information, but not necessarily if you are compelled under criminal sanction to supply it. I think that this was the point that my noble friend was making. Under Clause 11 you are required to furnish, and you are liable to punishment if you do not. Why on earth should the Board pay for information in regard to the obtaining of which they have a criminal sanction? I do not know whether the noble Lord could give an undertaking in regard to that? It is no good talking about "reasonable people". That phrase has been almost exhausted in the course of different Committee stages. Is the noble Lord really saying that in a normal case any expensive information, or any information which costs money, will, under Clause 11, be paid for?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, once again this matter is being approached as if the Board were to proceed from the beginning with the steps which are the ultimate. I do not expect the compulsory penal powers to be applied, except very rarely. I hope that they will never be necessary and that the Board will find that the information will be given by people quite willingly. In the circumstances, I think it is reasonable that the Board should pay for information which it is costly to obtain. If the circumstances were such that they had to apply the penal sections, quite frankly if a man was fined £50 for refusing to comply with the Order I do not know whether the Board should then give him £50 to pay his fine. I do not think I can go beyond the length I have already gone in reply to Lord Drumalbyn in saying that, where information can only be got by someone at excessive cost, the Board will be encouraged to pay for the cost of that information.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and an quite satisfied with the assurance he has given, which was the assurance I wanted. I did not expect him to accept my Amendment, although I still think it is perfectly reasonable, especially as it has already appeared in legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 [Powers of Entry]:

7.52 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), after "required", to insert "by the occupier or anyone acting on his behalf". The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I moved an Amendment which would have made the subsection 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 … The noble Lord pointed out that this Was both too wide and too narrow—too wide in the sense that it might allow obstruction; too narrow in the sense that it does not cover the sons and daughters, and so on, who would be excluded by that particular definition. It seems to me to be sensible for the subsection to include the words "by the occupier or anyone acting on his behalf". As the words now appear in the Bill, it would appear that there is no limit to the persons who could require the information. The subsection says only "if so required". I think the noble Lord could readily accept this Amendment. It limits the people who could require the information, and I should have thought is exactly what is required. I beg to move.

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

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, in withdrawing the previous Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he thought it was a perfectly reasonable one. All Amendments are reasonable in the eyes of the tabler, and I am quite certain that nobody puts forward an Amendment which he thinks is unreasonable. In this case, however, we are both agreed that the Amendment is reasonable, and I have great pleasure in accepting it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, as I pointed out in Committee, if trouble is to be avoided, it is not only before entering but while on the land that a person should respond to a requirement to produce his credentials. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 3, leave out ("before so entering").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this was a point that on Committee stage I promised to look into. I have done so, and am satisfied that it is a reasonable Amendment. I have pleasure in accepting it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, we shall have to keep up this good progress! This Amendment provides for at least 48 hours' notice to be given. The next Amendment is to the same effect, and says that in the case of land occupied for residential purposes at least seven days' notice of the intended entry should be given to the occupier. The noble Lord was kindly disposed to this Amendment on the last occasion, and I think the only reason why he did not accept it straight away was that he did not want it to be the only Amendment to be accepted. As it will not be so lonesome on this occasion, I hope that he will now be able to accept it.

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

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Lord does not quote me exactly. I did not say that I did not wish this to be the only Amendment to be accepted. What I said was that as it was not legally necessary to have these words in because the legal definition of the stated period included the words "at least", I should be sorry if the Bill went back to another place with something that was strictly unnecessary. I did not add those last words, but that was the reason. I did not expect that I should get away as lightly as that. I agree that when other Amendments are being made to the Bill it is reasonable to include this one. I can see nothing wrong with this from a common-sense point of view. Therefore I am happy to accept Amendments 9 and 10. Before I sit down I would say to the noble Lord that, as he knows from the discussions and the correspondence which have ensued, there are still some "goodies" to come.

LORD DRUMALBYNI beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 5, after ("purposes") insert ("at least").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

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.

(3) If any person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) of this section—

1. (a) fails without reasonable cause or neglects to furnish to the Board within three months after the service of the notice, or in the case where an appeal has been made under the last foregoing subsection, within three months after a decision on that appeal confirming or varying the notice, or of the abandonment of the appeal, the information specified in the notice or required by the decision of the sheriff to be given; or

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment I would ask leave to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 16, each Amendment being dependent on the others. The noble Lord was kind enough to indicate in Committee that he might be able to accept these Amendments. They seek to ensure that if any appeal to the sheriff is necessary it is reasonable that the appellant should know what he is appealing about. This Amendment is to ensure that the appellant will have the required information. I beg to move.

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

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said, when we considered his Amendment along these lines on Committee stage I promised to look at it. Having looked at it, I am satisfied that it is reasonable, from the point of view of the occupier of property, that he should have this degree of definition, and that it can be done without being in any way detrimental to the legitimate interests of the Board. I am therefore prepared to accept Amendments 11, 12, 15 and 16.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I beg to move No. 12.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 5, at end insert ("as may be specified in the notice").—(Lord Burton.)

7.58 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (1): and that person shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, the information specified in the notice within such time as may be therein specified.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall need to take a little longer on this series of Amendments. May I take Amendments 13, 19, 20 and 21 together? These Amendments result from a further study of the Bill and are a serious attempt to improve the Bill from the point of view of its administration. As the clause is drafted, unless all those who are required to give information do so, where the information is being sought from a number of people at the same time the Board will have to wait, not merely three months, but for such further period as is needed for the legal proceedings to enforce the notice, and then, after that, for a further three months. Anybody who wanted to be obstructive would probably spin out the time until the last possible moment and could then pop in the information just before the three months was up. We have known that to happen.

There is no provision to empower the Board to say by what date they want the information. I suggest to the noble Lord that although in some cases the information will be readily available, in others it will not, and it will take time to collect or to work out, so the three months' period within which to give the information before you are "hauled before the beak" is not adequate in some cases, and in other cases it will be far too much. There is another set of cases. Information may sometimes be sought not about a fact that already exists, but about an incident that is to occur in the future. For example, information might be sought from the owner or occupier to record and report the number of people paying for fishing rights over the next six months, or the river levels over a period, or the number of people staying overnight at an hotel in the coming season, and so forth. This information could be collected on request, in other words, and need not just be information that is already available.

The three months provision would plainly not accord with such a requirement, unless the Board had power to specify the date by which the information was to be provided, and even then the procedure would be cumbersome. So it seems to me more practical and more efficient to provide, as is done in other cases—I have in mind, particularly, cases as regards agriculture—that the Board may specify the date by which the information is required; and, secondly, that the person on whom the notice is served shall furnish the information by that date. There are considerable advantages in this, because unless that is done the tendency is to pigeon-hole the matter, then to forget about it, and then one is late. One has experience of that, especially in farming circles.

The next point is that the person called upon for the information will no doubt receive a reminder—as I put it to the noble Lord, of the "Dear Sir, Unless" type—if he has not furnished it by the specified date, and if he does not comply the case can then, of course, be taken to the sheriff. As the clause stands, the Board would have to wait another three months after the sheriff's decision in their favour, before they would be bound to get the information. So it seems more sensible to allow the sheriff to order the person to supply the information within a definite time, which might, if the information was immediately available, be only a few days and not three months. From the general point of view of promoting efficiency, this might be a better way of going about it. I put the Amendment down in the hope that it might be helpful to the noble Lord, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I appreciate very much the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, put down this Amendment and the way in which he has spoken to it. I do not think there is any doubt that in many cases the Board could make very good use of this Amendment, if it were to be incorporated in the Bill. But I would remind your Lordships that the three months' period really only applies when the Board have reached the stage referred to by the noble Lord as the "Dear Sir, Unless" stage, and we believe that in most cases the information will be received in the ordinary way without these powers having to be invoked at all. The Government believe that in fixing a period of three months they have fixed a time which ought to be ample to cover almost every conceivable set of circumstances.

It is remotely possible that they might be asking for information which could not possibly be obtained within three months. Obviously, the Board could not he expected to compel somebody to do something within three months if he could satisfy the sheriff that it was not possible to do it in three months.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, there would be a defence in that he would have "reasonable cause". It would not be possible.

LORD HUGHES

Exactly. If it is impossible to do something, then the sheriff would be bound to agree with him. We are therefore confined to the cases where it is obviously possible to furnish the information within three months. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that in the vast majority of cases the information will be readily available in a period of much less than three months. But simply because this is a power to acquire information by compulsion, the Government felt, and still feel, that it is desirable that it should be clear beyond a shadow of doubt that the Board will have no opportunity of using these powers in a harsh or oppressive manner.

If we put in "such a period as the Board may determine", they might say in a particular notice, "Within three days", "Within seven days", "Within four weeks" or any period less than three months or more than three months. But I think we agree that more than three months would not matter, because of the point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has directed attention. It could be that in specifying a shorter period the Board were in fact getting themselves into needless difficulties, because the shorter period might really be quite impossible because of circumstances of which the Board had no knowledge. About something which could be done by just sitting down and spending five minutes writing a letter, it might be quite reasonable for the Board to say, "Within three days"—though allowing for postal difficulties in the Highlands it might be more reasonable to say, "Within seven days"—but the man might be ill and incapable of writing a letter and might not have recovered by the end of three days.

By stating a period of three months, we do not believe that there will be many cases where the Board will be hampered in their operations because individuals will deliberately sit down and wait for three months before furnishing the information. But as presently advised the Government would rather take the risk that this should happen in a number of cases than that, by giving a discretion to the Board to specify any period, no matter how short it might be, of less than three months, there should be a danger that they were operating in a harsh or oppressive way in even a single case. So, while I agree completely that this would be helpful to the Board, I wish to advise the House not to accept the Amendment because this is a case where I think the Government are justified in preferring justice to the individual, rather than convenience to the Board.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this is a matter which is obviously very much within the competence of the Government, but I am not quite certain that the Board will thank them for this particular decision. As to the question of justice to the individual, the noble Lord will have noticed that in Amendment 17 I covered this case, because one of the defences is that the information could not be obtained within the time specified in the notice". The noble Lord has made it plain that he agrees with me that this would be administratively the more effective and efficient way, but he feels that on broader grounds of policy he would rather try the other way first. Well, we hope it works. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.10 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "of the notice" and insert: apply to the Sheriff for an order calling on the Board to show that the information or any part thereof specified in the notice is reasonably required by the Board for the execution of any of their functions mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, and the Board shall within twenty-one days of the issue of the order comply with the order; and unless, after hearing the parties or their representatives, the Sheriff is satisfied that all the information specified in the order is reasonably required as aforesaid he shall make an order discharging the applicant from complying with the notice to the extent specified in that order and may make such award as regards expenses as he may think fit.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same Amendment as was proposed in Committee, and your Lordships will remember that, unfortunately, because of an error of mine, it did not get the kind of consideration from the noble Lord and his advisers that it would otherwise have had. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord said of the Amendment: … as the Amendment was originally drawn, the opinion of my advisers was that it was a charter for obstruction; that it would enable actions to be taken which the objectors had no intention of following through, but which were calculated to put the Board to the maximum of expense and inconvenience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 267 (No. 97) col. 1277, July 6, 1965.] I think he did recognise, from the way I moved it and from the intention behind it, that that certainly was not the object. Unwittingly, I conveyed an entirely wrong impression of my intentions, and I am sorry about that.

I readily agree that the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 ensures that the person who receives the notice will know for what purpose and for which of their functions the Board require the information, but the person is still in no position to prove that it is not "reasonably required" for the execution of that function. At column 1278, the noble Lord said: The appellant states the reason why he does not think that the information should be given …", and he went on: … and the Board state the reasons why they think they are entitled to get the information. I know that the noble Lord was not using those words in any very strict sense, but, all the same, they rather conveyed the wrong impression, for a person's private reasons for not giving the information are neither here nor there. In any legal proceedings, the onus of proof must lie one way or the other, and, as the Bill is drawn, the Board are entitled to get the information unless it can be shown that it is not needed for the purpose for which the Board say it is needed. As the Bill stands, the onus of showing that it is not needed is laid on the individual. My noble friends and I do not think that that is a burden which he can discharge.

I am told that this is a procedure that is analogous to a commission for the recovery of documents. I know that the noble Lord does not like too much law to be imported into this discussion, but we are here dealing with law, and I am told that in Scotland the onus of proving the need for the recovery of documents is on the person making the motion, and that diligence must be specific enough to enable the court to draw the inference that the documents are reasonably required. So in that case the onus is clearly on the person seeking the information, whereas here the onus is placed on the person expected to give the information.

As was pointed out before, there is no difference between us as to who should initiate the proceedings. The difference between the Amendment I moved last time, which is this same Amendment, and the Amendments moved in another place is that the latter would have made it necessary for the Board to initiate the proceedings, whereas here, in both cases, it will be the person who is required to provide the information, and not the Board, who will initiate the proceedings—and in each case the person will stand to lose the legal costs of his application to the sheriff. The only difference lies in the onus of convincing the sheriff that the Board really need the information required.

We think it is right to put some obstacles in the way of the Board's demanding a lot of information which they do not really need, or could readily obtain for themselves; for there is—and one must face this—a clear temptation for the Board to ask for information without carefully thinking out whether they really need it. One knows this from one's personal experience, when one has been in a position to collect information of this kind as a staff officer during the war. I have—

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Lord—

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I just finish the sentence? I have a very vivid recollection of being reminded by the General Officer Commanding of the importance of making quite certain that you really needed the information before you asked for it.

LORD HUGHES

I just wanted to say that the noble Lord must speak only for himself in these matters, and must not assume that other people are prepared to do that.

LORD DRUMALBYN

But I was also at the receiving end, and I was well aware that a good deal of the information was not really required and could well have been dispensed with. I think anybody who served in the Forces during the war is very well aware of that.

These powers to obtain information compulsorily range over such a very wide field, and it is a fact that, as a whole, they are unprecedented. We do not want to prevent the Board from obtaining all the information they need, or make it difficult to do so. But we do want to ensure that the public are not put to a lot of unnecessary trouble and expense, or called on to divulge private information that is not really required by the Board for the execution of their function. We believe that the right course, therefore, is to place the onus on the Board if they are challenged—we hope that they will not often have to be, but if they are challenged—of convincing the sheriff that they genuinely need the information for which they ask. That is the simple purpose of what I think is a fairly clear Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 8, leave out from ("notice") to end of line 14 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. This subsection was inserted in the other place, of course, and I am sure it was intended to mean something; but, if you take the words as they now appear in the Bill, the proof is that the information sought is not reasonably required by the Board for the execution of any of their functions … This may have changed—I am not quite certain which Amendment the noble Lord was referring to—but, as it reads, that is how it is. Now, the words any of their functions under this Act in relation to the land … cover, as your Lordships will see from Clause 1(1), the economic and social development of the Highlands. My Lords, with a mandate as wide as that there is no information which could ever be shown to be not reasonably required. I think, therefore, that if the Government want this subsection to mean anything, they must make the Board show a positive proof rather than compel the defendant or the appellant to show a negative one. This is the only way in which I can see this clause has a real effect.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, if I might deal with the noble Earl's point first, I would remind him that, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out, the Amendments which we have accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Burton, considerably narrow the subsection, because it now relates it to a specific function and does not cover the whole field referred to. This is the original wording. It does not matter, perhaps, all that much, because, if it had been accepted, then presumably it would have been amended to agree with the Amendments already accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Burton.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Then the noble Lord agrees that, without the Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, this clause would have been practically valueless?

LORD HUGHES

No, I do not agree; and, while I am shaken by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, telling me that I had written a letter which it was difficult to construe, I should be shaken still more if I thought that it was reasonable to draw that inference from what I have just said—and I do not believe for one minute that that is a reasonable thing to do. But when this identical Amendment was before your Lordships at Committee stage, I could not categorically advise the Committee to reject the Amendment, for the simple reason that, as spoken to, it was not in identical terms to those in which it had been tabled. My consideration had been given to the Amendment which was tabled, and there was an alteration in the Amendment which I think effectively limited the delay element to seven weeks instead of an indefinite period which would have been in existence under the original Amendment. I did not wish to speak to the brief which I had discussed and agreed with my colleagues as being reasons for rejecting the original Amendment, without having a further opportunity to consider the effect that the time limit would have. The Committee will however recollect that the main reason for rejecting the Amendment as first worded was that it was considered it would be a charter for obstruction. The advice I have (and the correctness of which I accept; I am persuaded to believe it is correct) is that the charter for obstruction element would still remain if this Amendment were accepted. This is a point which was also considered at a very great length in another place. I agree that that is no reason why it should not be considered again in your Lordships' House. But, unless we can elicit reasons for accepting the Amendment which were not apparent in another place, it will be very difficult to persuade Members in another place to change their minds just because the same arguments have been used in this House as were used there.

A NOBLE LORD

It is not the same Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

I know that the Amendment is not in identical words; but the objections to the Amendment are identical: it would be a charter for obstruction. I know that the noble Lord has gone a long way to try to remove these difficulties; but my advisers do not feel that he has succeeded in removing these objections, because it is impossible to remove the objections if you put in an Amendment of this kind. He has cut down the period from an indefinite one to one of seven weeks and he has brought in a provision about the cost that could arise to the person initiating the appeal. But it does not remove the possibility that the Board could be put to considerable expense, trouble and delay for what might prove to be no reason at all—because someone lodged an appeal which he had no intention of following through and might be prepared even to face up to the comparatively small expense that would have been involved in adopting such a course of action. This would be an expense which might be very much less than the Board would be put to in seeking to get the information necessary to fight an action which, in fact, was not going to be followed up.

It may be that, in speaking to this in layman's language in the Committee stage, I over-simplified what might happen in the sheriff court. I do not think I departed from what would in fact at the end of the day be the situation. I do not like making a purely legal point because that is not always the sort of thing which commends itself to one at first glance. But as the matter has been raised on legal grounds, I must refer to what is, on legal grounds, the normal onus. I must use the sentence which appears in front of me: "In general the Board can be expected to behave reasonably and within their powers ". I must say that because the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in speaking to his Amendment was seeking to safeguard the individual against the possibility that the Board was going to be infested with staff officers who were going to ask for information for no known purpose, for which they had no use; simply because they had the power they would say: "Let us exercise these powers. Whom can we pester with a request for information?"

I do not believe that the Board are going to ask for information from someone which they have already in their possession or which they can more easily obtain for themselves. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, expects that; but he does suppose it to be a possibility. He also put forward the possibility that they might ask for information for which they have no need. I can agree that that is a possibility; but I do not think it is going to happen. Why should the Board ask somebody for information that they already have? Why should the Board ask for information that they do not need? There is enough for the Board to do in the Highlands which is really worth while without occupying their time in getting useless information or seeking to get confirmation of the information which they already have. So I think this statement is one I can put forward validly: In general, the Board can be expected to behave reasonably and within their powers. That is a Civil Service statement. Personally I would have left out the first two words "In general". I should have thought it enough to say that "the Board can be expected to behave reasonably", and so on. But my advisers make provision for the fact that there may be particular cases. They chose their words carefully, and they say: "In general …". So I give the noble Lord that slight part of his case. The statement I have here then goes on: The normal onus of proof in appeal is for the person claiming that they have not done so to show this. There seems no reason to depart from this in this instance. I would remind noble Lords, in conclusion of my remarks on this point, that these powers are only going to be exercised in relation to the people who have not been co-operative and who have compelled the Board to proceed by way of this Section. So we are, in fact, dealing in this particular part with the people who are most likely to seek to make use of a charter for obstruction. That is the reason why I am still unable to accept the Amendment—which is not necessary for the protection of the individual but could be quite unduly frustrating to the Board in the proper exercise of their functions.

8.27 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I am very interested and I have followed with great attention what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said. But I am not sure that I have really succeeded in picking up the real reason why he does not like this Amendment. I wonder whether I could try to follow it through. In the first place, I assume the noble Lord is satisfied that there is a case for having subsection (2) in the Bill as it stands at present. If that is so, he must be prepared to allow somebody to have a conscientious objection to supplying information which the Board thinks it wants; and he must be satisfied that such a person, whether for good or bad motives—and let us assume that sometimes the motives are good—would like to appeal to the sheriff court. The noble Lord's Bill contains this; so I cannot see that there is any difference between us so far.

So far as the Amendment is concerned, as I understand it, the noble Lord does not consider that there is any undue element of obstruction in either the time limit or in the cost requirement of the Amendment, in that if the appeal turns out to be a totally unreasonable one the appellant would have to pay the costs. So far I cannot see anything that would cause the noble Lord to suggest that this is a charter for obstruction. I hope I have his agreement to this point. What is it, then, that the noble Lord is objecting to? As I understand it. he says that if the onus of proof is on the Board to show that it does reasonably need the information it has sought, it might have to prepare a case which, in the event, would never be used because the appellant would not turn up and the whole thing would be wasted. On the other hand, under the Bill, am I not correct in saying that the Board will have to prepare a case to oppose a person who comes along to the sheriff court with his appeal? It would have to meet the arguments that it supposes the appellant is going to present to show that the information is not reasonably required. Therefore, whichever way round the burden of proof is going to be, the Board are going to have to prepare a case. It does not make a ha'porth of difference which way the onus lies from that point of view.

If that be so, the thing that really troubles me is that if there is no other difference, the Amendment lays the onus on the only people who can properly undertake it, whereas the Bill lays the onus on people who simply cannot undertake it because there is no means—even given the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Burton—for the appellant to find out through the intricacies of the Board's activities in all fields whether or not this information is reasonably required.

I appreciate that the sheriff will listen to both sides, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, must take into account the question of the onus of proof, because in courts it really matters who has to prove what, particularly in the case of an appeal. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made out a case for resisting this Amendment. If we take his argument to pieces, he is left with absolutely nothing with which to object.

8.31 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, may I have the permission of the House to reply, because I think that it would be quite unfair to attempt to do so by way of an interjection? To the various points to which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, spoke in the beginning I nodded my head and this happened four or five times, but eventually I reached the point where I was shaking my head. That, of course, cannot be recorded in Hansard and so I must go a little further than that.

I frankly admit that I am out of my depth in regard to the legal procedure in the sheriff court. So far, it has not been my lot to find myself inside a court and, praise God, may I continue in that happy position! But as I recollect the discussion which took place, the procedure involves the lawyers on either side making certain submissions and lodging answers; so that it is only in the event at present of the position being carried through to a point where it is necessary for the Board to go beyond the lodging of answers coming from its agents that it would be involved in going to expense. If the Amendment is accepted, the Board would have to go a very great deal further than that right from the beginning, so that the expenditure and time in which the Board could be involved, were the Amendment accepted, would be very much greater in the initial stages than would be the case under the provisions in the Bill. There is quite a difference from that point of view between the terms of the Amendment and the provisions in the Bill. It would be easier for a possible obstructor to carry out such a course of obstruction if the Amendment were accepted than under the procedure in the Bill.

I have gone as far as I possibly could in conceding those points on which I am in agreement with noble Lords opposite. I think I have been very fair in narrowing down the effect of this to a very small part of the population in the Highlands. I have stated, not once but many times, my belief that the people with whom the Board will be operating, whether they agree with what the Board wishes or not, will behave reasonably and will furnish the required information. Only in a small minority of cases—if any—will the Board be required to apply these powers, but it is within that minority that we are likely to find those who would seek to use this as a charter for obstruction. From that point of view, the Government believe it is reasonable that there should be recourse to the courts, or a threat of recourse to the courts, only in the case of a person who believes in the justice of his cause and is determined to carry the thing through, and not use this merely for the purpose of causing the Board the maximum amount of inconvenience.

If it were just a case of one purpose rather than the other to serve the functions of the Board, the reasons persuading me to adopt three months rather than accepting something more convenient to the Board would—as I admitted when we discussed the previous Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—have justified my acceptance of this Amendment, but I do not believe that factor exists in this case. I believe it will be possible for a person who has a legitimate reason for appealing to the sheriff, and carries his appeal under the procedure, to receive justice. If he has a proper reason for not complying with the requirements of the Board, it is possible, under the procedure laid down in the Bill, for him to receive satisfaction from the sheriff.

I do not believe it is necessary to accept the difficulties which come with the alternative course in order to be satisfied that justice will be available to the appellant. For this reason I must adhere to the decision not to accept the Amendment, although I do so with a certain amount of regret because I know that noble Lords opposite have no desire to be obstructive in this matter. I know that they sincerely believe that their proposal represents a better way.

I can assure noble Lords opposite that we have spent a good deal of time on this matter because at first glance I was disposed to accept the Amendment. I think that at some stage, either during the Second Reading debate or during the Committee stage, I said that it was better that we should lean over in the interests of the individual against a public body rather than the other way round. Where that is the general practice, I and the Government have endeavoured to put it into operation. Where the only person who can reasonably benefit is one who is seeking to obstruct the Board in its operations, and when every person who feels conscientiously that he has a case can pursue his case through the courts according to the procedure laid down and get justice, I see no reason for departing from what is laid down in the Bill.

I must accept the advice which I have received from those who have advised me about the legal effects of one procedure compared with the other. That information has come from the solicitors—perhaps I had better not say "solicitors"; it has come from the legal department (I think that is the name of the department) and it is not something which has come from non-legal civil servants or draftsmen. It has come from those who are legally qualified to express an opinion and therefore I regret that I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

We are bound to accept what the noble Lord says, up to a point. He speaks about the legal effect. We should have been bound to accept it had he made the legal effect really clear, but I have to say that he failed to make it really clear, and for that reason we do not feel so willing to accept what he said as otherwise we should have been. Obviously, we cannot pursue this matter further. In the circumstances we can register our dissent from what the noble Lord has said only by allowing the Amendment to be negatived.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for accept- ing the previous two Amendments from me. As this is a consequential Amendment, I beg to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 11, leave out ("any") and insert ("such").—(Lord Burton.)

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 12, after ("undertaking") insert ("as may be specified in the notice").—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES moved to add to subsection (2): In determining whether information is so reasonably required by the Board, the sheriff may take into account the probable cost or inconvenience to the person who has been required to furnish the information.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment achieves much the same thing as Amendment No. 17 would have done. The noble Lord wrote to me, in his letter of July 9, that I had said in Committee that excessive cost might be a ground of objection to giving the information. I cannot find any such ground in the Bill. The word "reasonably" in page 8, line 10, could not conceivably be stretched to cover it, for it qualifies the phrase "required by the Board for the execution of any of their functions". The Government have regarded it as implicit in the clause that cost to the person on whom the notice had been served of furnishing the information required by the Board could be a legitimate factor in any appeal to the sheriff under subsection (2). I am repeating this because I think that your Lordships would consider it an advantage that this statement should be in the record. As there is doubt, however, in the noble Lord's mind whether the wording of subsection (2) would enable the sheriff to have regard to "the cost to the applicant" factor, and as similar doubts may arise in the future, it is suggested that in the interests of clarity the intention of the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment be accepted. The purpose of the Amendment which I now move is to give effect to that acceptance.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting into legal words the purpose of my Amendment. The mysteries of drafting remain mysteries to me. It seems to me that the probable cost or inconvenience has little to do with the information—it is either required of it is not required. But if the noble Lord tells me that his Amendment effects what I am seeking, I accept it with gratitude.

Clause 13 [Accounts of the Board, etc.]:

8.45 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that in respect of any business or undertaking carried on by the Board, whether directly, through an agent or as agent, or of any group of such related businesses or undertakings the Board shall prepare a balance sheet and trading and profit and loss account; and for the purposes of this section the expression "statement of account" shall include any such balance sheet and profit and loss account.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. In Committee stage, the noble Lord said [Vol. 267, col. 1297]: … undertakings which are financed out of monies advanced by Parliament must be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it is not possible to exempt any part of the monies which are used by the Development Board from the audit of that august officer and his Department. My Amendment on Committee stage proposed that all undertakings or businesses taken over under Clause 6 should be audited by a qualified chartered accountant or by a member of one of the bodies listed in the Amendment. I have looked up the accounts in the days when the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I were members of the Public Accounts Committee and I find that all these accounts were published in the form of simple trading and profit and loss accounts for each enterprise or group of enterprises run by the Government. I hope, therefore, that there will be no difficulty in accepting this Amendment.

I hope that I shall not be told that this is the kind of information the Public Accounts Committee would be likely to ask for, because it would be quite a time before they had an opportunity of asking for it, and it would be some time after that before it could be provided. It seems to me to be a good thing that this in- formation should be provided, because it is the least that could possibly be required. Perhaps I should add that separate balance sheets were not provided in all cases, but they were provided in some cases. Inasmuch as we want the undertakings acquired or carried on under the powers of Clause 6 as closely as possible in line with the undertakings with which they may be competing and with business practice, it does not seem unreasonable, as my noble friend Lord Polwarth suggested earlier, that balance sheets and trading and profit and loss accounts should be provided in this way. I am not asking that they should be provided for each separate undertaking. Clearly, if there is good reason for them to be grouped, that could be done at the discretion of the Board, and this would be entirely acceptable to the Public Accounts Committee and to Parliament.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 5, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Lord's Amendment to-day is appreciably different from the one which he last tabled. It has been amended to take into account some of the objections which were put forward to the previous Amendment, but it is still an Amendment which I cannot accept and I suggest to your Lordships that it is undesirable. The Amendment's reference to individual undertakings or groups of related undertakings is designed to give a certain amount of discretion to the Board about the way in which information would be given in the statement of account, but the fact remains that it would have to be provided one way or another in respect of each one of this type of undertaking. It may prove necessary and desirable that such information should form part of the accounts of the Board, but I must suggest to your Lordships that that is a matter for determination, in the first instance, by the Board and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament for the information which is conveyed in the accounts. Therefore, he must satisfy himself that the accounts give the information that is necessary and desirable.

Subsection (1) of the clause gives the Secretary of State and the Treasury ample power to determine the form of the accounts. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will certainly have regard to the need for lucidity and informativeness (if there is such a word) in the statement of account, and if it is felt that he is not achieving this, there is the normal Parliamentary remedy. In saying this, I do not expect that this is what would apply, because it would mean that the Secretary of State has completely misinterpreted the wishes of Parliament, and I suggest to your Lordships that that is the last position in which the Secretary of State would wish to find himself. I am quite certain that he would prefer to err on the side of giving Parliament more information than it might ask for, rather than take the risk of its working the other way round. Secondly, the Amendment could result in the compulsory publication of accounts of a much broader detail than was necessary. Thirdly, the Amendment is based on the assumption that the Board's direct involvement in business operation will generally be on a profit-making basis, but it is much more likely to be of a pioneering, development or rescue nature.

I have indicated, I think more than once, that one would not normally expect that the operations of the Board in running any particular business would be a permanent feature of their operations, because we have specifically taken power to dispose of such undertakings. That, in fact, would be the normal pattern. The funds made available by the Treasury for this purpose could be much better used on a rotating basis than by tying them all permanently in the operation of a particular business which could be equally satisfactorily run by disposing of it to private enterprise, and then making the initial funds available for another operation at the same time. That would normally be the pattern involved. So one might well say that the position would be that, as soon as the undertaking had clearly become viable, at that point, when the accounts (shall I say?) would be in the most acceptable form, it would then have been turned over and would no longer figure in the accounts.

Therefore, one might well have the position that there would be a succession of operations in this initial stage which would convey a completely wrong picture of the operations of the Board. But, even so, it may well be that the information which the Secretary of State would wish to have in the accounts would give that detail in respect of these businesses. I believe that the formal statement of account which the Secretary of State determines may well in practice include much of the information which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would seek to make a statutory requirement. I think the best that I can do. at the risk, if the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, should do me the favour of reading this speech, of infringing his admonitions against repetition, is to repeat that the Secretary of State will certainly have regard to the need for the accounts to be lucid and convey information, rather than that they should be vague and conceal information. On that basis, I would ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, so that we may keep within the Rules of Order, may I ask whether it would be possible, under the type of machinery that the noble Lord is envisaging, and the requirement that the Secretary of State would have in mind, for one to put down a Question for Written Answer as to the individual accounts of one of the undertakings that would be carried on by the Board, so that one could get the details of the accounts in that way? Is that the sort of way the noble Lord suggests that Parliament will be able to keep a check on this?

LORD HUGHES

No, that is not what I have in mind. As I said on a previous occasion, any Member of the House can put down a Question. That I can guarantee. What I cannot guarantee is the sort of Answer that he may get. I think the form of words that I used on the previous occasion was that the Answer that would be given would be that this was a matter for the Board. What I had in mind was that when Parliament was considering the form of accounts, and thinking particularly of the first time when this could be possible, it might well be said, for this or that reason, that it did not give the sort of information about the activities of the Board. I am assuming that there may be a debate in both Houses on the Reports of the Board, and if Members felt that the information in the accounts was not sufficient, they could indicate the sort of information which they thought should be in the accounts. If the House agreed that any particular type of information ought to be in the accounts, or that they should be more explanatory or more fully stated, that could be done. It might well be that the same thing could be accomplished by an individual Question, but I think that that would be likely to achieve much less than could be achieved in a debate on the accounts.

LORD REITH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether accounts should not just conform to the best commercial practice? That is a pretty comprehensive expression, and it is good enough for several other corporations, as it is for private enterprise. Arising out of that, I would point out that there is no arrangement in this Bill for audit except by the Government Auditor. Would not the corporation be immensely benefited (I should have expected the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to raise this point) by an instruction to employ a firm of accountants as auditors?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

We did raise it on the Committee stage.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Reith, would allow me to explain, this was the subject of our Amendment on the Committee stage, and at an earlier stage still in another place it was moved that the whole of the accounts of the Development Board should be audited. That proposal was rejected. Then we got to the next stage. when I suggested that the accounts of undertakings and businesses carried on under the powers of Clause 6 should be audited by a chartered accountant. That suggestion also was rejected. Now we have come down to this stage, where we have been trying to provide that the undertakings and businesses should be treated separately or in groups under the trading accounts system, so far as their trading and profit and loss accounts that appear in the annual trading accounts are concerned, and should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has gone a long way to satisfy us as to the intentions in this respect. I am bound to say that when he says that any accounts which are published and sanctioned by the accounting officer at the Scottish Office would convey an entirely wrong impression, he is perhaps going a little further than he should have done. I cannot believe that any accounts audited and sanctioned by the accounting officer could possibly convey a completely wrong impression. I do not think that was a very good argument on the part of the noble Lord for not publishing the accounts, and for not including in the Bill, as we were suggesting, a provision for the publication of the accounts. However, as I say, he has gone a long way to meet the points that we have in mind, and we shall just have to see how this works out.

I do not think that the noble Lord need be unduly frightened of publishing accounts that show adverse trade results in the early stages. That is what one would expect, and I think what we rather hope will be the case with this process of "pump-priming" in the early stages. What we are anxious to do is to ensure that people know how the Board are getting along in their undertakings, and that the Board do not take on commitments and undertakings which are bound to be a dead loss for a long period of time; nor engage in undertakings in competition with private businesses—which can proceed only by showing profits, of course—and go on doing that at a loss. I think Parliament would be entitled to know about that. That is what we have had in mind all along. I think the noble Lord is conscious of this and, if I may say so, there is not much—I was going to say there has never been much—evidence before the Public Accounts Committee of any attempt to conceal adverse results. As I say, in these cases results may not be adverse; they may be only preliminary. I do not think the noble Lord need be unduly fearful of that. All I would urge him to do is to give as much information as he possibly can, with the greatest lucidity. On that understanding I am glad to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I ask that Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 29 be taken together? These are drafting Amendments, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 6, leave out ("accounts of") and insert ("statement of account prepared by").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, drew attention to the fact that the same form of wording was a contradictory use of "accounts" and "statement of accounts", and this we have had to admit. I liked the expression which one of my advisers used, which was that these Amendments had been tabled to correct an infelicity of style which the noble Lord had pointed out in Committee. I will not say what the colloquial interpretation of that was, because I am not certain that I should get away with it, but it was a little more direct. We are grateful to the noble Lord for pointing this out. All these Amendments bring the Bill into uniformity, and I am happy to accept them.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 11, leave out ("accounts") and insert ("statement of account").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 14, leave out ("accounts of the Board") and insert ("statement of account").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 15, leave out ("accounts") and insert ("statement of account").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

9.4 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "require". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment applies to subsection (5) of Clause 13. The first part of the clause says that the Board will provide the Secretary of State with all information which he requires. The second half of the clause says that the Secretary of State may send someone to check whether this information is in fact correct. If the noble Lord refuses my Amendment, as I anticipate he will, he will find himself in this position. The Board are indistinguishable from Scottish administration. Indeed, I am fortified in that view by the reply which he gave to Amendment No. 22, in which he proposed to carry on businesses and undertakings and never show a balance sheet. Nobody else could do that except a deparment of the Government.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I did not say any such thing. I did not say that we would not provide balance sheets or statements of account. I have in fact given an undertaking that that might well figure in the accounts. I have only objected to making it mandatory on the Board to do so. I hope, and expect, that the information will in fact be available.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I am delighted, but the noble Lord is not undertaking to provide a balance sheet. I say that no undertaking would be carried on which did not provide a balance sheet unless it were run as a Government Department. That means that we are going back to Government by public boards. I must remind the noble Lord what Sir David Milne, who wrote an admirable book on the Scottish Office, said. He said: Thirty-five years ago, government by board was regarded as an anachronism; and it was regarded as an anachronism for two reasons—one, that it fluffed the responsibility, and secondly, because it raised considerable staffing difficulties. I think it is fair that we should ask the noble Lord to say something about both these points, the more so, frankly, because a good deal of the time the noble Lord has tended to say, "The powers we are taking are not exceptional". My Lords, they are exceptional. Indeed, the noble Lord's colleagues in another place left absolutely no doubt about that. I should like to read what Mr. Willis said on one point: We are creating a new precedent by setting up the Board. No other Board has been set up by the Government with the powers and purposes of this Board. It is quite unique. That is one of the reasons why we have had to use the word "reasonable" so very often, because, frankly, it was the only possible way of getting round it. I should be happier if the noble Lord had said bluntly, The Highlands are exceptional, and we are using exceptional powers." I want to make this point, because there will be the strongest objection to spreading the sort of thing we are doing here to other places. Suppose the first clause read like this: "The economic and social development of the people of London" and then there were added the powers we have in this Bill, I think one would see very easily how wide they are.

The second point which the noble Lord made in his winding up speech on the Second Reading was that the Secretary of State would leave the Board certain responsibilities. In this Bill there is no sphere in which the Board are free from the Secretary of State's control We learned a new word to-day: we learned about "administrative guidance." We knew that there would be statutory general instructions. But these are to be general lines of guidance which are to go out. In those circumstances I think it is quite wrong to regard this as a Board in the sense in which other public Boards are regarded. This is an integral part of Scottish administration, and, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, he was asked again about Parliamentary Questions and he gave an answer which I do not think will hold water for one minute. He said, "You ask a question and the Government will decide whether it is proper to answer". We all admire the skill with which the noble Lord carries on his work in this House, and no doubt he personally will get away with a great deal, but that is not an answer which the Government can give. If anyone wants to get an answer I can see no part of the Board's activities which they cannot question. Therefore, it is important that we should recognise this.

Secondly, I ask the noble Lord to say something about the staffing. I am afraid that a man will be put into this Board and he will not be able to be transferred. I should prefer free transference of senior or other civil servants from the Board to other points in the Department so that they would not feel this was a blind alley to which they were going but that it was part of the service of the Scottish Office, and from there they could perfectly well go on to become an Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was good enough to send me a telephone message that he intended to ask these questions, although quite frankly I can see no relationship between the questions and the Amendment which he has tabled. He has not in fact uttered a single word to justify leaving out the words which he proposes to leave out.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I said to the noble Lord that I presumed he would not accept my Amendment and in order to cut it short, in line with the great principles of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, I then led to the conclusions which arose and asked him to meet those conclusions.

LORD HUGHES

With respect to the noble Lord the questions which he then proceeded to put, on the assumption that I would reject the Amendment—an assumption, incidentally, which was perfectly correct—were on items which have nothing at all to do with the clause or the Amendment. Having regard to the fact that the noble Earl has, I think, to a certain extent been quite unfair, both to the Government and to myself, in some of the things that he has said, I should not wish to give him the opportunity of being unfair any further, by seeking not to reply to his questions on the perfectly legitimate ground that they had been raised in the wrong place. Therefore, I will proceed on the basis that it is reasonable to answer them.

In the first instance, I shall be very much surprised if, on reading what I have said, I find that I could have given anyone the impression that I did not consider that these were exceptional and wide powers. On the contrary, I started my remarks by emphasising the great importance which I attach to this Bill because of the wide-ranging powers it contains. If it is necessary to re-emphasise that, I will state that I believe the powers which have been given to this Board are wider than have ever been given to a body of this kind operating in this country. I use the words "in this country" advisedly because of correspondence which I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who has directed my attention to very wide powers in connection with the Colonial Development Corporation, for example. Therefore, the width of the powers is perhaps unprecedented in this country, but not in legislation.

The noble Earl asks for some information on the responsibilities of the Board. In Clause 1(1), as he stated, the Board is given the general function of preparing, concerting, promoting, assisting and undertaking measures for the economic and social development of the Highlands and Islands". In Clause 3(1)(a) the Board will have the duty to keep under review all matters relating to the economic and social wellbeing and development of the Highlands and Islands"; and, under Clause 3(1)(b), to prepare and submit proposals for approval using, where necessary, their executive powers. In short, the Board will exercise all the functions and in this context functions includes powers and duties conferred on them by the Bill.

As I have said in correspondence with certain noble Lords, the Board will give grants and loans to industrial, commercial or other undertakings which will contribute to the proper development of their area. They could build hotels or motels, set up restaurants, construct small factories for light industry or erect a processing plant; they could engage in agricultural land improvement, including reclamation, the creation of better agricultural units, the development of recreational and sporting facilities, for example new ski runs, in the interest of the tourist industry. It does not follow that the Board will do all these things themselves, for 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 because the Government intend the Board to be a resourceful, energetic and constructive body.

At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that the Board was but a facade. I have referred to correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and with his permission I should like to quote from the letter which I sent to him to-day and which I hope he received before the debate started. I wish I could be quite certain he had it.

LORD REITH

I had it when I was sitting here.

LORD HUGHES

I must say, in fairness to myself and my Department, that I felt under an obligation to write first of all to those noble Lords, rather many, to whom I had given an undertaking to write, and because the noble Lord, Lord Reith raised the point in correspondence after the debate he of necessity found himself at the end of the queue, and it was signed to-day. In that letter to the noble Lord I said this: The Board have been given extensive powers to match their wide remit—to secure the economic and social development of an area one-sixth the size of Great Britain. The initiative in the use of those powers will rest with the Board and not with the Secretary of State. Moreover no power of specific direction to the Board is proposed for the Secretary of State in the Bill. (As you know such power is accorded to responsible Ministers in the case of some other statutory authorities.) Some of the Board's powers such as those for the acquisition of land and the carrying on of a business or undertaking must inevitably be subject to the Secretary of State's approval, constitutionally and having regard to considerations of public policy and also to the considerable expenditure of public funds which the use of these powers might involve. But other powers such as those enabling the Board to erect buildings, carry out works and other operations, provide equipment and services, make available advisory management accountancy and other services, publicise their area, carry out or commission enquiries, investigations or research, may be employed by the Board at their discretion and without the need for the prior approval of the Secretary of State; and the Board would have full authority to give financial assistance by way of grant and loan in individual cases within the terms of arrangements to be agreed in advance between them and the Secretary of State and the Treasury. I doubt very much whether the noble Earl could say that those are not wide powers and that this does not give the necessary authority to operate those wide powers.

So far as the reference to government by Board is concerned, I think the remarks from Sir David Milne's statement were completely beside the point. It may well be that government by Board was given up thirty years ago. But this is not government. We are not setting up this body to govern the Highlands. The Highlands will remain under the government of Parliament, and in respect of certain functions they will remain under the local authorities. The Board are given certain powers to do a job. This is not an instrument of government but an executive body to do a certain job, just as a new town corporation is a body to do a particular job in their area, just as the Hydro-Electric Board is a body to do a particular job. But no-one would suggest that a new town corporation or a hydro-electric board is an instrument of government.

To go on to the question of staffing, I doubt very much whether the point of view expressed by the noble Earl would commend itself to everyone—that the Board should be largely staffed by civil servants. I think I am correct in saying the fear was expressed in this House that the Board would be staffed by civil servants. I would direct the noble Earl's attention to Schedule 1 at the bottom of page 13, item 14(1), which reads: The Board?

1. (a) may employ such officers and servants, and pay to them such remuneration and allowances as the Board may, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, determine".

I have said more than once that when we use language we intend it to be read in its ordinary meaning. There is no abstruse, secret, or ulterior motive to be implied into the use of any particular word, and when we say that the Board may employ such officers and servants we mean exactly that. It connotes that the Board will appoint its servants. If in a particular direction the Board feels that its interests would be best served by appointing someone who had been, or was until the time he entered its employment, a civil servant, there would be nothing to prevent it from employing him.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the Board is not to be staffed by people who will be seconded to them from Government Departments. It is for the Board to decide who it employs and, if it thinks that in a particular direction it could be a civil servant, then the Board is perfectly free to employ him. There is perhaps one possible exception, as the noble Earl knows, because I mentioned this in conversation with him when he intimated to me the lines of his thinking. The accounting officer may well be a person who is familiar with procedure in this respect, and he is probably more likely to be either an existing or a former civil servant than anybody else. But there will be no restriction in any way on the Board's choice of its employees. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that I do not agree at all with the noble Lord when he says that the right thing would be to staff the Board largely with civil servants.

In relation to the Amendment, if the words were deleted as proposed by the noble Earl, the Secretary of State would have no power even to conduct an internal audit. The purpose of these words is to enable the Secretary of State to do just what is stated there. From time to time it will be desirable to seek further elucidation of particular proposals which may readily come from an examination of the books. Sometimes it will be necessary in connection with the audit to require examination of Minutes giving authority to do a particular thing. This is a perfectly normal practice in bodies of this kind. It goes no further, and it does not fall short of what is being required in this direction; so I can see no reason at all for accepting the Amendment.

LORD REITH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that, from the clause which he read, the Corporation will be unable to appoint a typist without the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, with the permission of the House I will answer that question. The answer is quite definitely, "No". The Board will have full permission to appoint the individuals it wants. All that will be necessary will be the usual procedure, that there will be approval of establishments in relation to the number of people who will occupy particular grades of posts. The Board may be entitled, for instance, to employ a dozen typists. Whether it employs three, five, six, eight, ten or the dozen at any particular time will be a matter for the Board. Who will occupy the positions will be a matter for the Board. The same will apply to any other grades of employees. The accounting officer is the sole exception. Therefore, there will not be control; there will be no dictation, either from the Treasury or from the Secretary of State, as to who will occupy the positions, provided that this can be done within the monies proposed to be expended. It will be entirely a matter for the Board.

LORD REITH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord another question? Why should the Treasury have to approve an establishment? Cannot the Board be trusted to settle its own establishment?

LORD HUGHES

There must be some measure of Parliamentary control over moneys voted by Parliament for a particular purpose.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I am grateful for some of the things the noble Lord has said. He has enlarged on a number of points, and it has not been without value. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 38, leave out ("accounts") and insert ("statement of account").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 39, leave out ("accounts of the Board") and insert ("statement of account prepared by the Board under subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

Schedule 1: