Lords Sitting of 2 March 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham

PRESERVATION OF BUILDING WORKS DISCOVERIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take powers to designate any find of major historical, archaeological or cultural importance made during building operations in the United Kingdom an object of national importance, and to ensure that its discovery is immediately reported to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and to make provision for a reward to the finder and compensation to the developer for loss resulting from delay or alteration of plans necessitated by the preservation or removal of the object concerned.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has power to schedule structural finds as ancient monuments. Although there is no legal obligation to report such finds, the honorary county correspondents of the Ministry of Public Building and Works try to keep in touch with building schemes likely to yield discoveries; so, too, do the local archaeological societies throughout the country.
The procedure to be followed in respect of human remains and "treasure trove" is also governed by existing law. Human remains may not be removed from a place of burial without the Home Secretary's licence or, in certain circumstances, a faculty issued by
1022
a Bishop. If any treasure is found the circumstances must be reported to the coroner, who has the duty to make inquiry as to whether it constitutes "treasure trove". Other finds are the property of the landowner concerned, and in general experience shows that owners are willing to preserve them and to give or lend them to appropriate museums. In these circumstances it seems unlikely that further legislation would achieve as good results as voluntary co-operation, particularly as its interpretation and implementation would give rise to considerable difficulties.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that his Answer discloses the fact that practice in these matters here in the United Kingdom lags far behind the practice in Continental countries, on both sides of the Iron Curtain? Is it not necessary now to ensure that the preservation of finds of this sort does not depend simply upon the fortuitous existence of enthusiastic amateurs in the locality, but instead is taken on as a national responsibility, for which there should be national supervision and some form of national financial assistance?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am sorry to find that the noble Lord is so critical of voluntary efforts in this matter. They have, on the whole, been very successful. The noble Lord is well aware, I think, of the success that has attended operations of the Colchester Excavation Committee, of which he is the President. The arrangements made—I think in or near Colchester—for the removal of three Roman mosaic pavements that were discovered on the site of a proposed car park were the result of voluntary effort. If it were left to legislation, it would be extremely hard to find what ought to be done in terms that are really workable. How is a man digging in the ground to know about the archaeological or cultural importance, let us say, of a copper coin which he turns up? If it is gold or silver, it is "treasure trove": but copper coins may, on the one hand, be entirely without any significance for these purposes, or, on the other, may produce most interesting information. It depends not only on what they are, but on where they are found. Noble Lords will remember that the tracks of Roman merchants far beyond the boundaries of

1023
the Roman Empire were traced largely by small objects of that sort. But in practice a man cannot know, without expert advice, what is of this kind of value.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his tribute to the Colchester Excavation Committee, which on this occasion has done, I think, very good work, thanks to the efficiency of its professional advisers and also to the forbearance of the construction company concerned. But the Colchester Excavation Committee was formed only about twelve months ago. May I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that this was merely proving the point I was making: that if there had not been local initiative this find would not have been preserved? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to take a closer and more serious interest in this kind of activity which is of cultural importance?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government have to use the best methods for the common purpose, and this kind of efficiency is not confined to Colchester. The Ministry have found it all over the country. It is a pity to legislate in terms which it is difficult to define, and would be difficult to enforce, when there is no real need for it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been imagining myself standing at his Dispatch Box and answering the same Question, and our Answers would not have differed a great deal? Do his findings in fact support what I should myself suppose: that if obligations were imposed there would be a temptation for a contractor to give instructions that no notice should be taken of a possible find of an importance which he, as the Minister has said, would not be expected to measure and might be inclined to bulldoze over, rather than inflict upon himself a statutory hold-up of operations? Would the noble Lord say that on this point, at least, for the first time we find ourselves in harmony?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The wisdom of the Labour Party in these matters is occasionally shared by noble Lords opposite.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, in view of the disappointing nature of the noble Lord's reply, may I give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter again, by Unstarred Question, at the earliest opportunity?

REVIEW OF TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGES
2.43 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in making their arrangements for the review of the internal government of the teacher training colleges, they will see to it that the universities are effectively represented upon the reviewing body.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BOWDEN): My Lords, the local authorities are already engaged in friendly conversations with representatives of the staffs of the colleges of education about the government of the colleges. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has offered the local authority associations, the Association of Teachers in Training Colleges and Departments of Education, and the voluntary college authorities the help of his Department in convening a small study group to review the matter. If this suggestion proves acceptable, he has no doubt that the study group will wish to invite the universities to play a part in these discussions. I gladly reaffirm the Government's desire to see closer academic links between the colleges of education and the universities, including the grant of degrees in suitable cases.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, am I to understand that the study group is to be appointed by the local authorities or by the Secretary of State?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, the study group will in fact consist of those people who are most directly concerned with the government of the colleges—namely, the local authorities and all the other bodies which control and operate them, on the one hand, and of the staff associations,

1025
on the other. These two bodies must take the initiative in the first place, and my right honourable friend has, as I have said, offered the services of his Department in order to facilitate the formation and the early work of this study group. It is obvious that many bodies will be concerned in these negotiations sooner or later, including particularly, and very early on, the universities. But we feel that it would be better for the group to consist, in the first instance, of those people who are directly and personally concerned in the matters at issue.
LORD CHORLEY: Does the noble Lord not realise that his answer will give great disappointment in univesity quarters? Time after time university representatives are left off the study groups. Does the noble Lord not know that the representatives of the teacher training colleges are unanimously of opinion that the university representatives ought to be brought into this review at an operative level, and that if this is not done the cause of higher education will be in great danger of suffering a serious set-back?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, this particular question was very much in our minds when we discussed this point. The point is that it is not really for the Secretary of State to impose on the local education authorities and the staff associations, who are obviously the people most concerned, any additional members of a group, in the first instance at least. But he expects to use his good offices with them, and he expects that they themselves will wish to make certain that the universities are involved in these discussions from the very beginning.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, is it not a little unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has apparently so little confidence in the local education authorities in this country?
LORD CHORLEY: I shall have to put this observation in the form of a supplementary question to the Minister. Is it not quite clear that the Robbins Report proposals on this matter cannot be effectively carried out unless the universities are brought in very closely and intimately from the beginning; and that this reply, which shows that they
1026
will not be brought in closely and intimately, will obviously be a very serious set-back to the whole problem of higher education as it is evidenced in the teacher training colleges?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, I must, I am afraid, repeat again the assurance that I gave to the House before. There are many problems at issue in the governments of these colleges, with some of which the universities are concerned, and with some of which they have nothing to do. The association between the training colleges and the universities is of great importance, and the Government wish to further it by all possible means. But it seemed that the legal position was such that the best way to start these negotiations was by offering our help to the two bodies most concerned, who are anxious to get our advice and help, and that as soon as the study group had been convened to suggest to them that the other parties concerned should be brought in urgently and quickly.

BRITISH ARMY OF THE RHINE
2.48 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention, as reported in the Guardian on 25th February, to withdraw a brigade from the British Army of the Rhine this year.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): No, my Lords. We have currently No 1ntention of withdrawing a brigade as suggested in the newspaper article to which the noble Earl referred.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and I am very glad to hear it. Can he assure us that, if any reduction is proposed in the future, Parliament will be informed well in advance of the Press; and can he also assure us that if any such step were contemplated that Her Majesty's Government would scrupulously respect our treaty obligations to our Allies?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not quite know what the noble Earl

1027
means in his reference to the Press, because the Press certainly has not been told anything on this subject, although it may have misled the noble Earl. Any question of a change of policy of this kind must be a subject for agreement with our Allies. The Government have made it clear that they accept their responsibilities under the Brussels Treaty, as modified, and they have no proposals, other than those provided for in an emergency or such-like, for abandoning that obligation. The question of an announcement to Parliament, I think, is too hypothetical for me to answer. Clearly, if any change were made, it would be a matter for proper discussion with our Allies, and then for an announcement.

CIVIL DEFENCE (EMERGENCY FEEDING) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1965
2.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Draft Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) (Amendment) Regulations, a copy of which was laid before this House on February 10 be approved. I will try to explain briefly why these amending Regulations are needed and what they do. They will be found, I think, quite straightforward. Their object is to correct an anomaly which has arisen from the effect of the London Government Act, 1963 and which I will shortly describe to your Lordships.
The regulations to be amended are the Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) Regulations, 1951, which placed responsibility for emergency feeding arrangements on county councils and county boroughs. These local authorities are thereby required to appoint emergency meals officers, to prepare and carry out plans for feeding the homeless after an attack; and also to provide training in emergency feeding methods. It is this last function with which we are now concerned. Under Section 49 of the London Government Act, the new London boroughs and the City of London will become responsible for emergency feeding arrangements in their areas from April 1 next. They will
1028
therefore have a duty to give training to any of their own staff who would man the emergency feeding services. I should perhaps make it clear, at this point, that enrolment for these emergency services is purely voluntary.
Normally the staff of the School Meals Service take a large part in this work, and so they need to be trained for it. Under the present Regulations, however, the new boroughs in inner London would have no powers to train them. That is because education in inner London will, as a result of the 1963 Act, be the responsibility of the Inner London Education Authority, and so the school meals staff will come under that authority. Therefore, in order to empower local authorities in the inner London area to train school meals staff after 1st April, the 1951 Regulations have to be amended. The amending Regulations will put the matter right by giving the requisite power to train these staff to the local authorities who will be responsible for the emergency feeding arrangements in inner London. This is in line with the arrangements that operate elsewhere. The local authority associations have been consulted about these Regulations. I hope that I have made the position clear, and that your Lordships will agree to these amending Regulations which we regard as a necessary and useful step in clearing the way for the continuation of a service that would be vital, if the need for it should ever arise.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) (Amendment) Regulations, 1965, laid before the House on 10th February, be approved.—(Lord Champion.)
2.53 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord was quite right to expand the subject a little and set these immediate Regulations into their proper context in what is an extremely important aspect of Civil Defence. I enter for a moment only, certainly not to quarrel or dispute with the noble Lord. I enter because the Ministry of Agriculture, in which I worked until recently, played and still plays, I know, a most effective part in this aspect of Civil Defence. I was fortunate while Parliamentary Secretary to be living in a region with a Regional Controller who gave

1029
great importance to this subject, and I have heard from others whose work involves them in Civil Defence how much they appreciate the part played by the Ministry of Agriculture.
I should like to mention, and I think the noble Lord opposite would like me to mention, the part played in this regard by the W.V.S. I see the noble Baroness the founder of the W.V.S. is in the House. They play a magnificent and voluntary part. I know that everybody who knows anything about Civil Defence appreciates that greatly. As a carryover from the past when I was working in the Ministry of Agriculture, I am happy to say, and I believe the noble Lord opposite would be happy to hear, that at my own home in Yorkshire we are to have in the coming summer the largest rally of W.V.S. food flying squads which has ever been held. If the noble Lord can find time to attend it, I shall be happy to be his host, whether or not he is holding his present post.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, is that invitation extended to all members of the Government Front Bench or just the noble Lord?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Certainly to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who knows how welcome he has always been at my home in Yorkshire. I think the noble Lord would also like me to refer back—it was quite properly not part of his Government speech—to the fact that even in peace time the W.V.S. play a very important part. An instance that we remember very well was on Boxing Day, 1962, when there was a tragic railway accident near Manchester. The W.V.S. food flying squad there turned out on Boxing Night and at a moment's notice supplied food to the injured and the unhappy from this accident, who would otherwise not have been able to receive this support. This means that the W.V.S. are not only on their toes in preparation for the tragedy of war but of great use and great confidence to people in peace.
I would ask the noble Lord two questions, neither I think very taxing ones. One he may have answered and I may not have completely understood it. I should like to know who is responsible for distributing the equipment under these
1030
Regulations, and whether those taking part are purely voluntary workers. He said, as I understood him, that they are at present voluntary. This may mean that they are volunteers up to now, but that in an emergency one cannot foresee what means may be required in calling upon others. Or it may also mean that the Government have in mind some new Regulation to make their services obligatory before such an emergency. I should like the noble Lord to clear up that point. Otherwise, of course, I commend the Regulations.
2.58 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I would regretfully disclaim the belief that the food flying squad is a W.V.S. food flying squad. The W.V.S. is very proud to serve in it, but the food flying squad belongs in the make-up of Civil Defence to the "Ministry of Fish and Food," as we call it, and all instructions must come from that Ministry and all caps must obviously be touched to the Commander in Chief and the owner.
The point with regard to training is, to my mind, the most important of all. As recently as February 10 there was a very interesting call-out in Westmorland where the police had to be fed at a moment's notice; 230 policemen were given breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner by the Civil Defence Corps authorities' welfare section, in which I am proud to feel the W.V.S. play a very large part. We heard that the police had been very impressed with the efficiency, speed and cheerfulness with which the operation was carried out. The only reason I want to detain your Lordships is that I feel it is important to remember that planned emergency measures are of infinite value on these occasions. It was the first try-out in the County of Westmorland of a planned call-out, which many of us had thought would be good but which proved so effective, although it was the first experiment, that we hope in future to be able to transpose it to other counties.
3.0 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful for the way that these Regulations have been received. Had I been discussing the 1951 Regulations and the operation of them, and everything that has taken place in connection with training, of course I should have paid tribute to the magnificent work done by the

1031
W.V.S. I am delighted that the noble Lord opposite has introduced that aspect, although we are discussing here only a quite narrow transfer of function between authorities within the Greater London Area. In any case, I would not dare pass over what he has said without supporting him, because my wife happens to be a member of the W.V.S. and might read my words. I would thank him, too, for the invitation which he has extended to me. I shall certainly consider this, and will let the noble Lord know my answer. So far as the work in future is concerned, it will continue on exactly the same basis—namely, that of a voluntary body. There will be no compulsion in this at all. But voluntary people in this connection have to be trained, and provision has to be made for their training. I was delighted to hear from the noble Baroness of what has taken place in Westmorland. The experiences they have had there are obviously of great importance in training for what I hope will never occur. I was delighted to hear also that the noble Lady has impressed the police with the work of the W.V.S. I am sure that this is welcome to her, as it is to us. I hope that now we shall give approval to these Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

MINISTERIAL SALARIES AND MEMBERS' PENSIONS BILL
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Longford, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Bill. This Bill arises out of the Report by the Lawrence Committee which was set up in 1963 to recommend what changes were desirable in the remuneration of Ministers of the Crown and also the allowances for Members of this House. I regard it as a
1032
privilege to be asked to move the Second Reading of this Bill as I was one of the Advisory Panel appointed by the then Prime Minister to assist the Lawrence Committee in its deliberations. That Panel was composed of seven Members, two from this House and five from another place. Incidentally, three of the five who were Members from the other House have now joined us here, in the persons of the noble Lords, Lord Oakshott, Lord Rhodes and Lord Wade—a high proportion of that Panel's membership. I do not know whether there is any significance in this, but it might be a tip for anyone seeking elevation to get himself appointed to a similar panel in the future.
It is not for me to praise the work of the Panel, for as to one-seventh of the praise I might be charged with praising myself, but I have No 1nhibitions about mentioning the excellent work of the Panel's Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who prepared memoranda and generally devoted himself unstintingly to the task he had undertaken. I am sure that 'this House is, as the Panel was, grateful to him. It would, of course, be quite wrong for me to divulge what took place between the Panel and the Lawrence Committee, for it was agreed at the outset that our exchanges should be of a confidential nature, but I think I can say that the Committee carefully considered our every suggestion and were at pains to consult the Panel on every aspect wherein our experience as Parliamentarians might prove helpful. Should the occasion ever arise for another such independent examination to take place, I can only hope that it will be conducted by people of the calibre of Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Mr. Kirkaldy and Professor Mackenzie.
Your Lordships will recall that the Committee's recommendations affecting the salaries and allowances of Members of both Houses, as distinct from Ministers, were accepted by the Government without modification and have been implemented by a Resolution which was considered by this House on December 16 and was moved and passed in another place on December 18. As my noble friend the Leader of the House informed your Lordships on November 17, the Government did not consider that it would be appropriate in present economic circumstances to raise ministerial salaries

1033
to the level recommended by the Committee. They decided that only half the amount of the increases proposed by the Committee should be applied throughout the range of ministerial appointments. The Bill gives effect to this decision. All the salary changes for which provision is made will take effect from April 1, 1965.
The case for substantial increases in ministerial salaries is set out in considerable detail in the Report of the Lawrence Committee. All I need do now is to emphasise that senior ministers have been paid a salary of £5,000 a year for more than 130 years. I understand that the salary of a senior Minister, fixed at £5,000 in 1831, would to-day need a figure of over £31,000 to give the same value, to say nothing of the increased work demanded of Ministers since that time. Reading the Greville Memoirs recently, I came across this passage, which relates to Palmerston handing over the Foreign Secretaryship to Granville in 1851:
"Yesterday Granville was with Palmerston for three hours. Palmerston received him with the greatest cordiality and good humour. 'Ah, how are you Granville? Well, you have got an interesting office, but you will find it very laborious; seven or eight hours work every day will be necessary for the current business, besides the extraordinary and Parliamentary, and with less than that you will fall into arrears'."
I imagine, my Lords, that any Foreign Secretary or senior Minister of to-day would be delighted to get away with seven or eight hours' work every day. Be that as it may, I do not think that any noble Lord will have cause to doubt the merits of the case for increasing ministerial salaries which has been made by the Committee, and accepted by the Government.
The main ministerial salaries structure was laid down by the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. This Act dealt comprehensively with the various categories of ministerial offices in the Government as it was then constituted. With the exception of the Office of the Prime Minister, the main Ministerial Offices were grouped into salary bands. This pattern of broad banding ministerial salaries prescribed by the 1937 Act is substantially preserved by the provisions which are made in Part I of the Bill. A salary of £8,500 is provided for senior Ministers, who are in general in charge of major Departments and who in any
1034
case have wide-ranging responsibilities. Below this level the differentials in salaries do no more than reflect the variations in ministerial responsibility following the pattern established by the 1937 Act. It is intended that Ministers of State in general will receive a new salary of £5,625, and Parliamentary Secretaries will receive £3,750.
There is, however, provision for Ministers of State who have heavier responsibilities to be given salaries which reflect this situation. The Ministers of the Crown Act, 1964, introduced for the first time an upper limit of £5,000 to the salaries of Ministers of State. Before the passing of that Act there was no statutory limit at all, and, in theory, the Prime Minister could have awarded any salary to a Minister of State. In practice, the highest salaries determined were equivalent to those of a senior Minister, at £5,000. This Bill does no more than to extend the upper limit of £5,000 to £8,500 and therefore allows for certain Ministers of State to be paid salaries in excess of the usual salary of £5,625, but not in excess of the new upper limit of £8,500. The actual salaries to be paid under these arrangements will be in line with the precedents established by the previous Government. Provision is also made on similar lines for the determination of the salary appropriate to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Chief Secretary's salary is at the moment individually determined under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1964, in terms which provide for treatment identical with that applying to Ministers of State. The Bill now before your Lordships continues this principle.
The Bill introduces a revised procedure for determining the salaries of the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Paymaster General. In future, instead of receiving a rate of salary at a fixed level lower than that of a senior Minister, they will be treated as Ministers of State and given a salary which reflects the actual responsibilities they may have assumed. When they are members of the Cabinet they will, of course, receive the salary of a senior Minister.
The Bill provides a statutory authority for the first time for the revised salaries of the Law Officers. Hitherto the Law

1035
Officers' remuneration has been prescribed by Treasury Minutes, but the Government think it appropriate to include them in future measures dealing with ministerial salaries generally. The proposed new salaries for the Law Officers—which are £13,000 for the Attorney General, £9,000 for the Solicitor General, £8,000 for the Lord Advocate and £6,625 for the Solicitor General for Scotland—again reflect the principle of applying one half of the increase in salary recommended by the Lawrence Committee, and also the need to determine salaries which take account of the problems of recruitment as well as the question of status.
Part I of the Bill also provides for the payment of an increased salary to the Leader of the Opposition in another place. But your Lordships may well be more interested to see that, for the first time, provision is made for payment of a salary to the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House. In addition, provision is made, again for the first time, for payment of salaries to the Opposition Chief Whips in both Houses. Whilst the Lawrence Committee expressed no view on the question of the remuneration of these three posts, they referred in their Report to the case which had been made for remunerating them in the evidence which had been given before the Committee. The supporting arguments rested on the contention that the Opposition Chief Whips fulfilled an onerous duty giving services which were a necessary part of the machinery of the Business of both Houses. Without the competent performance of the duties placed upon them, the work of both Houses would suffer in quality and in expedition. The Government have accepted these arguments as justifying a salary of £3,750 for the Opposition Chief Whip in another place, and a salary of £1,500 for the Opposition Chief Whip who has similar, but less onerous, duties in your Lordships' House.
Similar arguments can be advanced for the payment of salary to the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House. In addition there is, of course, the precedent set by the salary which has been paid for many years to the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons. Part I of the Bill accordingly provides for an annual
1036
salary of £2,000 for the Leader of the Opposition in this House. All these salaries will be paid from the Consolidated Fund. I understand that the reason for paying them from this Fund is that this would protect them from any attempts to reduce their salaries in order to censure their conduct. I am sure the Opposition Chief Whip would never embark on anything which would cause anybody to wish to censure him. But even if he were to do so we could not use a Motion to reduce his salary as a means of censuring him. I am sure he will be delighted to hear that.
Part II of the Bill is concerned with the establishment of a pension scheme for Members of the House of Commons. Before outlining the provisions of the scheme, I should like to make two general points. The pension scheme was recommended in the Lawrence Report, and, as the Report itself makes clear, forms an integral part of a set of proposals which stand or fall as a whole. The Government's policy has been to accept in full the recommendations, both on pay and pensions, in the Report as they apply to Members generally. There has of course been an adjustment in the matter of ministerial salaries, where only half the recommended increases have been accepted. But so far as concerns Members of another place generally, the Committee was set up to relieve those Members of the embarrassment of deciding their own remuneration, and its recommendations are to be regarded as in some sense analogous to an arbitration award.
Secondly, in making provision for a pension scheme for Members in another place, Parliament will not be putting itself in a specially favourable position. Not only are pension schemes general thoroughout the public services, but they are also to be found in most other walks of life. What is being done here is to put Members of Parliament broadly in the same position as those who are able to follow other carreers and have not had to give them up or interrupt them in order to render Parliamentary service. The scheme itself is contributory, involving total contributions of £300 a year in respect of each Member—half to be paid by the Member himself out of his Parliamentary salary, and half by the Exchequer. The contributions will be invested and accumulated in a fund under the control

1037
of Trustees out of which the benefits will be paid as they fall due. The main benefit is, of course, the Members own pension. This will be payable when the Member has both attained the age of 65 and ceased to be a Member of the House of Commons, in whichever order these two events take place.
The amount of the pension has been largely determined by consideration of the average length of service, which has been found to be in practice about fifteen years. Accordingly the scheme provides that the amount of annual pension should be £60 for each year of reckonable service not exceeding fifteen years, which will produce a pension of £900 a year on attainment of pensionable age with fifteen years of reckonable service to the Member's credit. For years of service after fifteen, pension continues to accrue but at a lower rate of £24 a year for reckonable service. Membership in another place is inevitably interrupted at intervals of five years or less, and may be interrupted for longer periods. The pension scheme takes account of this, by providing that all periods of service may be aggregated and that, provided the contributions are left in the fund, pension may be paid at age 65 however many years may have elapsed since the Member last ceased to serve as such. Moreover, in order to provide the greatest possible measure of flexibility, a Member who leaves the House of Commons and does not expect to return may have the value of his pension benefits transferred to another approved superannuation fund, whether in the private or public sector; and if this is not possible he may, after a suitable period, draw out his own contributions in cash.
Besides these flexible benefits for Members themselves, the scheme makes provision for widows and children and for the rare case of the incapacitated dependant widower of a woman Member. The widow's pension is calculated as one half of what her husband's pension was, or would have been, and appropriate additions are made for the children, with special provision for the case of doubly-orphaned children. The scheme is, therefore, a comprehensive and well-balanced one. The Government have commended it to Parliament because it has an important part to play in the integrated framework of the Lawrence Committee's recommendations in ensuring that those
1038
who are best able to serve Parliament and the nation in another place are free to do so.
Part III of the Bill provides for changes in the pension payable to a Prime Minister whose ceases to hold office after April 1, 1965. Again, the proposal for an annual pension of £4,000 reflects the principle of applying only one half of the increases recommended by the Lawrence Committee. The widow of such a Prime Minister will receive a pension of £1,333. Provision is also made for the pensions of existing ex-Prime Ministers to be increased under the Pensions (Increase) Acts.
I trust that your Lordships will regard this Bill as implementing faithfully, in so far as the economic circumstances permit, the Report of an independent Committee of high standing. We have sought to introduce as few changes as possible in the detailed recommendations of this Committee, in order to preserve, so far as possible, a situation in which Ministers of the Crown and Members of both Houses do not themselves take undesirable initiatives in the matter of their own remuneration. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Champion.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to express in very few words my gratitude to the other members of the Panel, and the gratitude of the Panel to Sir Geoffrey Lawrence and his colleagues, for the great care and consideration with which they listened to the advice which we had to tender. Although, like the noble Lord who preceded me, I shall not, of course, divulge anything that was said between us at the time, there were certain points which arose in inquiring into this subject, which I think may be of interest to the House as a whole.
I do not think anybody could have been in two minds about the need for radical change in this matter—because it is not a very popular subject with Governments, and is discussed only very rarely—and a change that was sufficiently radical to ensure that the benefits of the change might last for some long time to come. Adjustments in the pay of Members of Parliament, for instance, have been made only six times in the last 54 years, and, although the pay of

1039
Members of Parliament and the allowances to Members of your Lordships' House are dealt with by a separate Instrument, I intend with your Lordships' permission, just to mention them in passing.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned that Ministers' salaries had not been raised since 1831. They were not raised to the 1831 level; the Committee which sat in 1831 reduced them to that level. There was a very strong feeling in those days that far too many people had their hand in the public purse. This Committee met and debated for a very long time. Everybody, with the exception of the Postmaster General, received a savage cut; the Ranger for the Parks lost his job, and the Master of the Mint lost his shortly afterwards. But, lest your Lordships should think that this is an all-time record for wage restraint, let me assure you that it is not, because the remuneration for the office of the noble Duke, the Earl Marshal, was fixed at £20 a year in the year 1483.
My Lords, when we studied this subject it became perfectly plain that there was no other profession or calling in the world which could compare with that of a Parliamentarian. We dealt with history, we informed ourselves and we investigated the doings of other countries which have adopted the Westminster model of Parliament. We found a lot that was interesting and relevant, and extremely valuable, in the Parliament of Australia, for instance. It is not quite true to say that in the old days before 1911 Members of another House were never paid. In the very old days some Members of Parliament were paid by the boroughs they represented. They also had a very valuable perquisite in the free franking of letters in the days when it cost a great deal of money to send a letter, all of which was swept away in 1840 by the coming of the Penny Post.
In going into the question of the need for a rise in the salaries of Members of Parliament, there was not just the diminishing purchasing power of money to take into account; nor the fact that Members of another place do more work-now than in the old days. There was the fact of the change in the nature of the work. The problem really falls under three headings, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, touched on all three. The
1040
first is the machinery of Parliament; the second is the Ministry, and the third is the membership. The machinery of Parliament must be adequate to the nation's needs, and I was absolutely delighted when, although it was omitted from the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee, the Government proposed to pay the Leader of the Opposition in this House and the Opposition Chief Whips in both Houses, because they are an integral part of the machine, and unless they can do their job properly the machine cannot function.
On the matter of Ministers, the people for whom I think we were all most sorry, who have languished in extreme penury for a very long time, were the Junior Ministers. The 1831 Committee saw Junior Ministers as people on the threshold of abundant promotion and people for whom one need not be particularly sorry. Their Report cast a very long shadow ahead of it. They reported as follows:
"The Appointments of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries-of-State frequently lead to Advancement in the higher Offices of the Government, whilst to the permanent Under Secretaries those Appointments are, generally speaking, the Commencement of a laborious Course of Profession of great Trust and of close Application."
When Dr. Beeching was invited to the Ministry of Transport to assist them he received what the public thought was a really large emolument. It has always been understood that in the private sector of the doings of the country one has to pay for brains. In the public sector one's reward comes in two ways; partly in pounds, shillings and pence, and partly in the pride of patriotic public duty. But when Dr. Beeching was hired and his salary far eclipsed those of the Minister and his Under-Secretaries and the Permanent Under-Secretary, from whom he was going to receive his instructions, all added together, I think the country as a whole thought that there was some disequilibrium. But the disequilibrium did not lie in the size of Dr. Beeching's salary.
Last of all, there are the Members of both Houses. It is a question of steering a course, because it would be perfectly possible to make the emoluments too high so that undesirable people would enter Parliament purely for money. But what every one of us would wish to see,

1041
not only in Parliament but in this country, is that emoluments are high enough to give those who aspire to Parliament that independence, in the fullest sense, without which they cannot possibly do their duty.
Finally, my Lords, in your Lordships' House there is what we might call an inner machine. There are those who attend the House very regularly and carry out the business of the House; and that goes further than merely the Members who are entitled to sit on both Front Benches. There are those who are here for the great majority of the Sitting Days of the year. Then there are those who occasionally bring their experience and their expert knowledge—experience which they could not have, and expert knowledge which they could not keep up, if they spent their whole time in this House. For the latter group, an allowance such as we have is absolutely appropriate. For the former group, I do not believe we shall get anything which represents a really fair deal.
I personally, expressing an absolutely individual view, should like to see those who attend daily, or more than a certain number of Sittings in a year, have their daily rate of allowances escalate so that they would get on to what would amount to a very considerable improvement on the present rate. I say this because if one lives outside London and has to acquire a place to live in inside London one will eventually be committed to some form of accommodation, such as a flat, for which one must pay whether or not it is being used, and that takes one into a totally different bracket of expenditure. Lastly, my Lords, I give a warm welcome to this Bill, because I think it will help to enhance the dignity and efficiency of Parliament. I wish it well.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I want very briefly to make only one point in which I have been interested for a number of years. It comes in particular under Clause 2, in Part I of this present Bill. It seems to me somewhat illogical, and I hope it will not go too far in the course of time. After a dissolution of Parliament the country is asked to decide which of one, two or more Parties it wishes to take over the government of the country. Then, having turned down, for example, at the last General Election, the Party to which I happen to belong, it then has
1042
to pay out of the taxation levied in the country a salary to the people to whom it has refused office. I am referring, of course, to the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whip; and having been a Chief Whip myself, I am not saying this because I dislike Chief Whips.
3.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I entirely support this Bill although I think it does not really go far enough. When the salaries of Cabinet Ministers were reduced, as my noble friend said, in 1831 to £5,000 a year, money was worth six times as much as it is now. If salaries were now to be of an equivalent value we should have to pay Cabinet Ministers a little more than £30,000 a year. In the 19th century most Cabinet Ministers in all Parties probably had some considerable private means of their own. Some had very large private means, and at that time they were very lightly taxed. Perhaps many of them in the 19th century could have managed to get on without any ministerial salary at all.
Now, in 1965, most Cabinet Ministers do not have very large private means, and, if they do, then those means are taxed up to 90 per cent. Therefore it is surely much more in the public interest now than it was 100 years ago that Cabinet Ministers should be remunerated upon a scale which is comparable to those in other occupations of comparable importance. I do not think they will be remunerated on that scale, even under this Bill, and I must say I do not think that the almost masochistic inhibition of Parliament for so many generations against paying politicians properly reflects any real credit either on Parliament or on Ministers.
In 1951 I happened not to be a Member of either House, so perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but it has always seemed to me that when the Conservative Government came into office in October, 1951, their action in voluntarily cutting down salaries by 20 per cent. did no good at all. I do not think anybody outside Parliament regarded it as an act of patriotic self-sacrifice. I think most people regarded it, probably unfairly, as an act of misguided and inequitable exhibitionism which had no real relevance to the economic needs of the country.

1043
We can only guess—we cannot know—how much political talent is diverted by the financial sacrifices of political life into other occupations, and of course we cannot know either to what extent those other occupations may be more or less valuable to the country than the political service which has been lost; but on balance it cannot be in the interests of this country that Cabinet Ministers should be as much underpaid as they have been.
I regret, my Lords, that the Government have not accepted the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee. They have accepted only half the recommended increase. I know that when one takes taxation into account the difference between £12,000 and £8,500 may not be a great deal; but then, if it is not a great deal, it will not cost the Treasury a great deal, and if the Minister in question happens to be someone who has no other income and has large family responsibilities, so that he gets the benefit of both the dependants' allowances and of the new scales of surtax on earned income, then the difference between £8,500 and £12,000 might be very considerable.
In any case, I think it is utterly wrong in principle that a Cabinet Minister in charge of a Government Department should receive a salary which is not substantially higher than the salary of his principal civil servants. I believe that will still be the case under this Bill. Therefore I am sorry that the full recommendation of the Lawrence Committee has not been accepted.
My Lords, the Bill also dealt with proposals for pensions to Members of another place. That is mainly a question for Members of another place. As I have been a Member of both Houses, perhaps I may be allowed to say that all the considerations I have mentioned about Cabinet Ministers apply equally, and perhaps more strongly, to Back Bench Members of the House of Commons. In view of the financial sacrifices which are often involved by long service in another place, I think it is a remarkable thing that the standards of ability and integrity in that House have remained as high as they have.
We are also for the first time giving some remuneration to the Leader of the
1044
Opposition and Chief Whip in your Lordships' House. My Lords, the principle of giving a salary to the Leader of the Opposition was accepted in the other place in the 1930s, and I am sure all your Lordships who attend this House regularly must have felt, during the last two Parliaments, when they saw the assiduous diligence with which the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough attended this House, that it was very unfair that this should apply only in another place.
My Lords, the only other thing I have to say is that I regret that the Lord Chancellor is left out of this Bill. I see from the Report of the Second Reading debate on the Bill in another place that the Minister in charge explained that
"Any increase in the salary of the Lord Chancellor will be dealt with in the time-honoured way through a future Judicial Salaries Bill". [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 704 (No. 37), col. 734, December 18, 1964.]
My Lords, that may be in accordance with constitutional propriety, but the office of Lord Chancellor is certainly far more ancient, and in some ways not less onerous, than the office of Prime Minister, and the burdens which that office has to bear are certainly as great as the burdens of any other office except that of the Prime Minister. If it is really essential that the question of the salary and the pension of the Lord Chancellor—there is no provision about his pension, either—should be tied up with a Judicial Salaries Bill (as I dare say it may have to be), then I would ask the Government to see that this Judicial Salaries Bill is introduced in the present Session at an early date, in order that the Lord Chancellor may not continue to lag behind his colleagues in this respect.
3.42 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that the Government, at any rate, must be delighted with the reception this Bill has received. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for his welcome of the Bill, and for the interesting facts which he presented to the House. I had, fortunately, read them in a memorandum which he prepared for the Committee some time ago, and therefore was aware of them, and I recognise the force and the truth of them. On the point of an allowance for regular attenders at this House—the people who actually keep it going for

1045
others who come into it at odd moments—this, of course, was a matter which was discussed to some extent when we had the Resolution before us; and of course the allowance does not figure at all in this Bill. I should think that any measure of that sort would have to follow a considerable reform of this House as a whole, and therein, I think, lies some of the difficulty. It would need a partially salaried House, which would alter the constitution, the membership and the general set-up of this place. But I agree with the noble Lord in what he said. As an old regular attender at this House—one of the people who just did keep it going in the last Parliament—I have tremendous sympathy for those who are in a like situation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, was to some extent answered by his noble friend Lord Dundee. I am bound to say that it seems to me, too, to be a little illogical that a Party is defeated and then gets some salaried Members. But this was decided by the 1937 Ministers of the Crown Act, it has been generally accepted since, and I personally should not like to see it altered.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, generally welcomed the Bill and reminded us that not only has the work increased, and not only has the value of money fallen since 1831, but the incidence of tax has become very much higher. Indeed, in 1831 income tax stood at nought in the pound. I believe this was the case between 1814 and 1851, when it then came back in again at, I believe, 6d. in the pound.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It was 1841.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Earl. It was 1841 when it was reimposed at, I believe, 6d. in the pound.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Seven-pence.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I could just about manage 7d. The noble Earl regretted that the Government did not feel courageous enough to accept in full the Lawrence Committee's recommendations so far as they applied to Ministers. So do I, in my individual capacity. In my corporate capacity, as a member of the Government, however, I must defend the decision of the Gov
1046
ernment that this was arrived at in the light of the general economic circumstances prevailing. But, as the last Prime Minister said, the time is never right, and these things have to be faced courageously. Strangely enough, as regards the salaries of Members of the other place, what was the subject of Press comment and so on for a fortnight has now been pretty well forgotten. I am sure the decision to raise salaries was the right one to take.
So far as the Lord Chancellor is concerned, it is, of course, the Government's intention to accept the recommendation of the Lawrence Committee, but the same principle of accepting half the increase will apply also to the Lord Chancellor, who I understand is likely to get, as a result of the Bill dealing with the salaries of the higher Judiciary which will be introduced in the not too distant future—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Session?
LORD CHAMPION: I cannot promise that. I rather hope that will be the case, but I cannot go beyond that. He will receive a salary of £14,500 and a pension of £6,250. My Lords, I hope I have answered all the questions that have been asked, and that your Lordships will now be prepared to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The British Airports Authority
1.—(1) There shall be a body corporate to be called the British Airports Authority (in this Act referred to as "the Authority") to

1047
which shall be transferred the Minister's aerodromes at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick and which shall manage those aerodromes and any other aerodrome provided or acquired by it under the following provisions of this Act.
(5) The Minister in appointing the members of the Authority shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that there is at least one member of the Authority who is familiar with the requirements and circumstances of Scotland.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "British Airports Authority (in this Act referred to as 'the Authority')", and to insert "Airport Management Corporation". The noble Earl said: In the course of the Second Reading debate I tried to elicit two points from the Government in regard to their intentions in this Bill. The first was whether this Authority was to have any general duties in what might be described as airport policy. Probably very wisely, the Government did not give me any information on that point. I dare say they were perfectly correct not to do so. The second point I tried to elicit was whether they intended that this Authority should be an independent body capable of fulfilling what I believe most of us regard as the task of a public corporation—that is to say, that it would exercise sound commercial judgment, efficiently carrying out its duties independently and subject only to general instructions from the Government in regard to policy; and that is included, I think I am right in saying, in Clause 2 (4).
In the course of the Second Reading debate, however, there was a considerable difference of opinion as to whether this Authority would have that degree of independence which would enable it to carry out its duties with proper commercial efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be aware that he said he wanted it to; but this view was, if I may say so, strongly opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who speaks with at least considerable authority on this subject. I have read the Bill through again, and I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Reith, expressed. If your Lordships go through the Bill, you will see mentioned the need for the con-
1048
sent or the authority of the Minister almost as many times as there are clauses in the Bill, and I wonder whether we are in fact setting up an organisation which will have that degree of independence which will enable it to carry out its duties efficiently, or whether in due course we shall in fact have to pay a very large subsidy. This is the point of most of the Amendments which I have put down, and I am therefore introducing them in this way.
May I turn to the first Amendment, which is dealing simply with the name? Whilst, of course, it is true that a rose by any name may smell as sweet, I none the less think that the present title is misleading. The words are, as your Lordships will see in the first subsection, "British Airports Authority". I think that anyone reading this for the first time might well think that this was an authority on British airports. That is not the case; it is certainly not an authority on British airports. Indeed, I question whether it is an authority on anything at all. Its task has nothing to do with the numbers of aeroplanes. It is, shall I say, the proprietor of real estate; it leases property to airway companies, Customs officials and immigration authorities. It is responsible for motor cars and, as I suggested, particularly for the parking of motor cars. But it has nothing to do with the operating of aircraft. It is really a management company. That is why I have suggested a name which quite accurately describes what it does: it manages the real estate of airports.
Anyone can tell easily how the name in the Bill arose. It was taken (and quite wisely I think; I am not objecting to the principle of the Bill) as a parallel to the Port of London Authority, and it was thought that there should be an "Airport of London Authority". That was probably quite a good idea and I see no objection to it, except that the new body will not have authority in the same way that the Port of London Authority has in its own waters. Then was added Prestwick Airport. So, instead of "London Airport Authority," the title became British Airports Authority. It is a rather grandiose name; and I think there should be justification why it should be as grandiose as it is. I asked the Government whether they intended that airports shall be taken over. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said: "No, for the time

1049
being; but one does not preclude the possibility in the future." Are the Government not sure? For a very small percentage of the public airports in the country (I think, four out of the 30 to 35), is this not an unnecessarily grand name and slightly misleading?
I am aware that this matter has been discussed in another place. My chief impression from those discussions was that nobody very much liked the name in the Bill. I do not think anyone cared for it; I think that a good many people would have preferred a name more descriptive of what we are trying to do. I have thrown out the name in my Amendment because it accurately describes what this authority does. I am particularly concerned about this: why call it the British Airports Authority unless it has wider purposes of policy? If it has, will the Government say what that policy is? I think we should know just what the intention is. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 8 and insert ("Airport Management Corporation").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is quite right. As this Bill has progressed through the other place—and indeed, also when we discussed it on Second Reading in this House—many criticisms were made of the proposed title of the new body to be established. I confess that I shared a good many of the doubts and criticisms put forward. I agree that "British Airports Authority" may be thought a little pretentious. I was not very happy about that. I am even less happy about the inevitable contraction, B.A.A. or "Baah" as some people may call it, though possibly B.A.A. may sound a little better. But of the arguments put forward none has been so compelling, to me at any rate, in favour of this title as the alternative names put forward. I must say that in each case when I have considered or read of the alternative name suggested my doubts about "British Airports Authority" have begun to melt; and I think, with all respect to the noble Earl (and I sympathise a good deal with what he says), that the final, conclusive argument in favour of keeping "British Airports Authority" is the Amendment which has now been put before us.
It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, criticised this name and,
1050
during the Second Reading debate, showed that he has a real feeling for words; but I fancy that if he were here and were asked his opinion about "Airport Management Corporation", or its contraction A.M.C., he would acknowledge that this was an awkward and ugly alternative. If it had the merit of precision—and I agree with the noble Earl that it would be desirable to have a title which would describe precisely what it was that this body was going to do, what its functions were going to be—if we could have a name which had quality and precision, we could overlook the unpleasing appearance; but this present amendment to "Airport Management Corporation" does not state accurately the functions of this body. Clause 1 does not simply transfer the responsibility of airport management; it tranfers the airports themselves; it vests the ownership of the airports in this new Authority If the Minister were just putting in a manager and reserving to himself the responsibility for future development or the rate of development there might be something to be said for this Amendment. But under this Bill the Authority is empowered to provide additional aerodromes—acquire additional ones—if in its own judgment it thinks the course desirable and if it can make out a suitable case to the Minister. These powers are not consistent with the rôle of a mere manager.
When the noble Earl went on to list those items which he said would be the responsibility of this new body—real estate, leasing of properties, as well as the handling processes of some 9 million passengers a year, the number which went through last year—I must say that he himself was making a considerable case for giving the new body a title like "Authority". As I said during the Second Reading debate, to the best of my knowledge there were 20,000 people working on this one piece of real estate in London. I gather since then that I was underestimating the number; there are between 35,000 and 40,000 people working on Heathrow itself. The property would be the responsibility of this Authority. It will have to decide all the problems of traffic on the ground; it will have to decide how best these expanding numbers of people are to be handled—and this is only at Heathrow. There will also be consideration of the problem of

1051
a third airport for London, and the possibility of a central helicopter station as well. I do not think, with respect to the noble Earl, that the title he suggests is a better one. But the really strong argument, which I hope he will accept, against his proposed new title is the fact that both he and other noble Lords, and we on these Benches, want to give this new Authority a sense of responsibility and a sense of independence; we want them to acquire character themselves. And we do not think this kind of title, this belittling of their status, this dubbing them as "managers", is likely to give them the extra confidence we want them to have.
Of course the noble Earl is quite right in that there are limitations and restrictions attaching to the powers which the Authority will have as a result of this Bill. But I do not think that we should overrate those restrictions or exaggerate them. After all, private companies have restrictions and limitations placed upon them, and local authorities have restrictions placed upon them in this day and age. It is necessary to have certain restrictions on all large organisations.
Let us consider, for a moment, just what these restrictions are. First, there will be a limitation on matters of a general character affecting the national interest. This limitation is placed upon all Corporations, not simply the Airports Authority. All the Corporations have a form of words which relates to direction of a general character on matters affecting the national interest. There are limitations in respect of navigation services. I understand that the noble Earl and other noble Lords accept that the navigation services are best supplied by the Ministry over the whole country. There are very good technical reasons why this service should be restricted to the Ministry.
Then there is the question of noise. Here I think that the wishes of Parliament are being met when we reserve responsibility for the control of noise to the Minister, who, after all, is sensitive on this matter, because he is susceptible to pressures and representations from Members of Parliament looking after the interests of their constituents, if they are affected. I do not believe that taking the responsibility for noise away from the Authority and placing it with the Ministry
1052
is going to belittle the authority of the new body.
Then there are certain powers in relation to specific activities, mainly financial. Certainly the phrase "with the approval of the Treasury" runs through this Bill, but if we look at it carefully I do not think that we should really expect a public authority of this kind to engage in large capital development unless it fits into the national plan and unless the money is borrowed in accordance with the national economic interests.
It is true that there are these four limitations placed on the responsibility of the Authority but, by and large, we want this new body to act as a commercially-minded organisation. We want them to have independence. We want them to feel that they will have the responsibility for developing not only London Heathrow but the other airport which will come under their authority. And it is because I know that the noble Earl agrees with this objective that I hope he will agree that the cause of independence, commercial-mindedness, the ability to make decisions and accept responsibilities, is not forwarded by this new form of words, and that he will see his way to withdrawing the Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: My noble friend has raised the question of title in its aspect of status, which is a big question. I do not know whether he is going to be satisfied with the explanation of the Government, but I would ask the Government, in a rather minor key, to beware of this particular use of initials. We live so much on initials that in setting up new bodies we should be careful that we do not give them ridiculous initials. For example, if we call this BAA, one can imagine seeing the headline one day, "BAA bleats again" and that sort of thing. Can we not supply more virile initials for this body? I have not had time to think of any, but it might be something like Airports of Great Britain—anything but BAA.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the answer he has given. I appreciate the point he has made about not belittling this Authority. Certainly it is not my intention to do that. On the other hand, we ought to be careful not

1053
to over-exaggerate what it is supposed to do and what it is not supposed to do. I suspect that the "Overlord" is putting tasks on this Authority which is really above its strength—the buying of additional airports, the rate of development and things of that character. With great respect, how is that going to happen, unless it is with the Ministry's subsidy? On the evidence I have here, I doubt whether the Authority can have any real independence unless the Minister positively supports it and decides the policy on which it is going to act.
I think that my noble friend Lord Hawke has made a perfectly good point. We could call it the National Airports Authority, which would be a rather less pretentious title. It is a form widely used by corporations, like the National Coal Board. British European Airways is all right, because it goes abroad, but for a purely national organisation I think that this other title would be rather more suitable. I do not wish to press this point and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved, in subsection (5), to leave out the words after "shall" down to and including "with", and insert:
"ensure that there is at least one member of the Authority who has special knowledge and experience of".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put forward in the belief that it meets the point which several noble Lords raised on Second Reading. The noble Lords, Lord Selkirk and Lord Polwarth, in particular, I remember, criticised the original words. I agree with what was said on Second Reading, that it is absurd even to give the impression that if we have one individual on the board of this new Authority who is familiar with Scotland we could leave Scotland in its place up in the North and the rest need not even know about it. Of course, that was not intended. What I understood the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, wanted was one member of the Authority to have special knowledge of the needs of Scotland. This Amendment eliminates the jargon about having "regard to the desirability of ensuring …" and replaces it with a straightforward duty. I hope that the Amendment, which is a genuine effort to improve the Bill along the lines sug
1054
gested by the noble Lord opposite, will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("shall") to second ("the") in line 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Polwarth to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, and I also would thank the noble Lord. This is a great improvement on what we had before and I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has done.
EARL JELLICOE: Having also pressed that there should be a similar Amendment, I would add my thanks to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
The Authority's functions
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to provide at its aerodromes such services and facilities as are in its opinion necessary or desirable for their operation, but the Authority shall not provide any navigation services except with the consent in writing of the Minister.
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "their" and insert:
"proper management; this will not include services in connection with the navigation or movement of aircraft unless authorised by statutory instrument."
The noble Earl said: We had an interesting answer from the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, a minute ago, in which he emphasised the need for the Authority to be independent. If it is to be independent, it must know where it stands. It must know the extent of its responsibilities clearly. If it does not, it cannot possibly have any degree of independence or exercise sound commercial judgment on the matters for which it is responsible.
Having made those general remarks, may I ask your Lordships to turn to subsection (1)? In many ways, this is the most important part of this Bill. It gives in essence the responsibilities of the Authority, except that I do not think it is at all clear what it is and what it is not responsible for. I should like to

1055
ask your Lordships to look more closely at this clause to see what is intended here. With great respect, I do not believe that this is the way that draftsmen with clear instructions would have drafted this Bill. Either somebody changed his mind halfway through, or alternatively—which is hardly believable—people wished to leave it vague. I do not know whether that is true or not. but I can find no other explanation for how this is drafted. It says:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to provide at its aerodromes such services and facilities as are in its opinion necessary or desirable for their operation, but the Authority shall not provide any navigation services except with the consent in writing of the Minister."
Let us look and see what navigation services are. If your Lordships would turn to Clause 22, the Interpretation Clause, you will see navigation services dealt with there. It says:
"'navigation services' includes information, directions and other facilities furnished, issued or provided for the purposes of or in connection with the navigation or movement of aircraft … "
I should like to give an abbreviation of this definition:
"'Navigation services' includes facilities provided for the purpose of the movement of aircraft."
Would that include a runway or not? I should like to ask the noble Lord the specific question: Is this authority responsible for runways? If it is, then it is absolutely essential that it should be clearly stated in the Bill. To leave the matter in uncertainty—and, frankly, as I read it, that is what it does (the noble Lord may say that I am quite foolish in reading Acts of Parliament)—is wrong. Is it the intention that the responsibility for runways should lie with the Ministry of Aviation? I guess that it is not the intention. But if it is not, then I think this clause should be more clearly worded.
There are other matters in connection with this provision which strike me as being misleading. The word "operation" does not, I think, properly apply to an airport authority unless it operates aircraft. The Authority has nothing to do with aircraft except when they are stationary on the tarmac and are being serviced or cleaned. The moment an aeroplane moves it comes under the
1056
authority of the Ministry of Aviation. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary in the following subsection to speak of "safety of operation". This is misleading because no aircraft is in any way under the responsibility of the Authority when it is being operated.
I feel—and this is the point I am making—that we should be absolutely clear just what it is that the Authority is reponsible for. To my mind, the Bill as drafted is far from clear on this point, and as this is a matter involving public safety it is a matter of some concern. I am not going to pretend that what I have drafted is anything more than an effort to make explicit (I am certain that the noble Lord, with all the wisdom he has behind him in the matter of drafting, could do it much better), what the Authority is supposed to do. If that is not clear, then nobody can be expected to exercise efficient management. However many people pass through the airport, that is simply managing the airport: it is processing, giving accommodation to airlines, organising the circulation of motor cars, if you like but it is not the operation of an airport. I think it is of great importance that the dividing line between where the Authority stops and the Ministry of Aviation starts should be clearly laid down.
There is nothing that I dislike more than the last two lines of subsection (1), where it says:
"except with the consent in writing of the minister."
As I read that, it means that the Minister can write a letter any day to the Authority and say: "You will take over this, and do that"; and the next day, or a month later, he can write and take away that duty again. This depends on nothing more than the consent in writing of the Minister. I do not think a statutory division should be on such fragile grounds as this. This is loose drafting, and it is in the interests of public safety that it should be laid down who is or is not responsible for any matters dealing with aviation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("their") to end of line 24 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD SOMERS: I am a little confused about this. I wonder if the noble Lord, when he replies, will make it clear whether it is intended under this Bill that the Authority or the Ministry of Aviation shall be responsible for such services as providing radar beams for aircraft about to land, radio communication with pilots and so on.
LORD WALERAN: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk in all that he has said. I think it is most important that it should be most strictly laid down where the division lies between the Authority (or, as one hopes it will be, a body called by a new name) and the Ministry of Aviation for the operation of aircraft when they are flying, taking off, approaching to land or moving on the runway.
4.16 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: First of all, I will answer the direct question put by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about who is responsible for what he called radar beams and the control of aircraft in the air. The answer to this is quite simple. It will be the responsibility of the Ministry, who are, in turn, responsible for the air traffic control services. There is no difficulty there. But I agree that as the aircraft comes into the airport, and as it starts taxi-ing along, there is a point of time at which it passes out of the responsibility of the air traffic controllers and comes within the responsibility of the Airport Authority.
As I understand the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who made an impressive case, what he wants to know is precisely the point at which the aircraft on its taxi way leaves the one sphere of responsibility and comes into the other. It would be very nice if we could get these technical points laid down in an Act of Parliament, but I do not think it is possible; and I do not even think it is desirable. It certainly is not necessary. The noble Earl, I believe, quite accepts the fact that in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham we have in this country three very efficient and safe airports. There at the present time there is a division of responsibilities. The respective municipalities are the owners, the operators, of the airport. At the same time the responsibilities for air traffic control remain with the Ministry. At
1058
those three airports none of the difficulties envisaged by the noble Earl is actually encountered. The movements of aircraft are safe, and they are efficiently conducted.
This safety and efficiency is ensured because there is a proper agreement as between the airport owner and the air traffic controller. But so variable is this field of operation, and so flexible has the agreement to be, that it would be quite impossible to have the line of demarcation, or have the understanding and the agreement written into statutory instruments. Certainly in some cases there are statutory instruments. The movement of aircraft on the runway, the control of aircraft to the runway and the movement of vehicles immediately before the runway are controlled by statutory instruments. There is a Rule of the Air which governs the movement of aircraft on runways and the approach to runways; and that Rule of the Air also, strangely enough, covers the movement of vehicles. But when we come nearer to the airport apron, then we are coming into a much less definite and clear situation. As I say, it is one in which it has been found by experience that agreement can best be reached in a less formal way. That is why it was set out here that, while navigation services in the main are the responsibility of the Ministry, it is conceivable that there shall be a variation at one airport but that that variation must be consented to by the Minister in writing.
The question I was asked about the movement of aircraft, I think I have answered. In the air it is clear; on the runway it is clear; and in the movement from the runway to the apron the aircraft is still under the control of the air traffic controllers. When it gets on to the apron, all the arrangements there are the responsibility of the Airport Authority. There are certain other minor cases—for example, the provision of teleprinters—which may be thought to be services in connection with navigation equipment. In most cases the siting, and probably also the maintenance, of the teleprinter services will be the responsibility of the Airport Authority—at London for example. This will be clearly understood as between the Airport Authority and the Ministry. So in short, although I can well see that it would be

1059
desirable to have this clean-cut line of demarcation as between air traffic controllers and the Airport Authority, whilst it may be desirable on the grounds of tidiness, it is, from a technical point of view, quite impossible. Moreover, as has been shown by our experience at these other airports, it is unnecessary, and I think that in this case the noble Earl might well decide to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, I think the noble Lord is asking a very great deal of the Committee. I am all for being pragmatic in these things, but to say that such arrangements will be made as seem appropriate (which is really what the noble Lord is asking), and then to ask us to accept this in an Act of Parliament is going beyond the bounds of the most considerate House of Lords one could have. I think the noble Lord must go a little further than this—what at least is the principle on which we are operating? What is the division of this? I ask the specific question. As I interpret facilities for navigation, as I did earlier to-day, under Clause 22, dealing with interpretation, it looks to me as if the runways are to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation. I do not know. Are they? It is most important that we should know that.
LORD BESWICK: The provision of runways is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation: it is obviously the responsibility of the Authority. But the responsibility for the movement of aircraft on these runways is the responsibility of the air traffic controllers.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I cannot agree with the word "obviously". If I may go back to the Interpretation clause the noble Lord will see that it says:
"' Navigation services ' includes information, directions and other facilities … used for the movement of aircraft."
If that does not describe a runway, what does? The noble Lord has said that the provision of runways is the responsibility of the Authority. I think we should say so specifically. Did the noble Lord not say that runways were the responsibility of the Authority?
LORD BESWICK: The provision of them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Whose responsibility is their maintenance?
LORD BESWICK: The Airport Authority's.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think it is most important we should know this.
LORD BESWICK: The Airport Authority is the answer.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does the noble Lord not think we should put it in the Bill to make clear who has responsibility for this matter? I think this is a matter of public safety, and it is asking a lot to ask the Committee to accept a hazy division in a matter of public safety. I really do not think it is good enough. We want to know exactly who is to be responsible. I do not think the noble Lord will get a good man to be chairman of the Authority unless he knows precisely what the responsibility is. Nor can he be expected to run the airport with understanding and imagination unless he knows where his responsibility lies. I have mentioned only one, but there are a whole host of other things: navigation lights, taxi tracks, the whole organising of the movement of aircraft, and the signalling of aircraft on the tarmac. I should like to have some principle on which this operates. Let us have it before the Committee in a specific sense. I cannot accept that it is impossible, undesirable and unnecessary to have a matter which affects the public safety clearly defined. I must ask the noble Lord to think again.
EARL JELLICOE: I must confess that I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend. Before I listened to this discussion, I had assumed that the airport would be responsible for the provision and maintenance of the runways; and I understand that this is the intention of the Government. But having listened to my noble friend, and having looked more closely at the Interpretation clause of the Bill, it seems to me that there is at least considerable ambiguity on this point, so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. I hope that the Government—I do not know my noble friend's intention—will be able to assure us that, at the very least, they will look at this matter of definition between now and the Report stage.
LORD HAWKE: May I add one point to what my noble friend has said? The noble Lord and myself have been discussing who provides the bunkering on these airports. Quite clearly it must be the Authority. It looks to us as if the Authority must get a letter from the Ministry before it is allowed to order a petrol tanker on to an airport.
4.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I appreciate the force of the noble Earl's argument, but I must say that I think he and other noble Lords are making extraordinarily heavy weather of a very small point. My noble friend explained quite clearly that there is inevitably a certain borderline in technical matters which it is not suitable to put into legislation. It is intended to make the responsibility of the Airport Authority abundantly clear. As my noble friend has said, this is the system which already works in a number of municipal airports, where no difficulty exists. The purpose of the noble Earl's Amendment is to provide that this should be done by Statutory Instrument. We simply cannot administer public authorities, and large and important activities of this kind, by Statutory Instrument.
I ask the noble Earl to accept that, even if he may be slightly confused, I do not think anybody else, certainly at Manchester or Birmingham, is confused. They are not confused at New York, where exactly the same situation exists, and where the navigation services are provided by the Federal Aviation Agency and other facilities and ownership belong to the New York Port Authority. I would ask the noble Earl to recall his own experience in this matter. This derives from the practical consideration as to who controls aircraft safety.
It is arguable that the navigation services could be confined to navigation services in the air, to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred, but, as he knows perfectly well, the control of the aircraft must continue on the ground also. This means control of movement over the runways, control of movement on the taxi-ing areas. It is only when the aircraft, so to speak, crosses a notional yellow line that it requires the exercise of direct executive authority by the air traffic control, and it is only because of this one activity that it has to remain with the Ministry of Aviation who are
1062
responsible for the air traffic control services.
If we attempt to draw the line either by Statute—and I think the noble Lord was moving a little in that direction—or by Statutory Instrument, we produce a very inflexible system. It would not be possible then for the Ministry to vary their instructions without first obtaining a Statutory Instrument. Admittedly this presumably would not be subject to Parliamentary control—at least I do not think the noble Lord was suggesting ft should be subject to Parliamentary negative or affirmative procedure; if so I should be even more horrified. Nevertheless, it seems to me perfectly proper that these instructions should be given in writing. I ask your Lordships to accept that in this matter the Ministry of Aviation have as large a stake in the success of the Authority for which they are the sponsoring Ministry as anybody else; they are as concerned as anyone else in getting clarity in instructions. We must assume that they will discharge their responsibility as sensibly in this case as they have in others.
The noble Lord put his finger on one possible weakness, and that was the use of the word "facilities" in the definition. I would say that clearly the word "facilities" is not intended to cover the runway itself, and I am sure he will accept the assurance I gave that the Authority controls the building of the runways and owns the runways. It is the movement on the runways with which air traffic control will be concerned. It is just conceivable that the word "facilities", which is permissive, could be interpreted too widely. It is, of course, very difficult to find a narrowing phrase. What is important is to establish the right powers in this matter. I fully accept that in certain respects a definition, in order to be all-embracing and cover all eventualities, may cover more than will be done in practice; but it is assumed that this will be a matter of common sense and of agreement. I agree it is for the Committee to satisfy itself that the intentions and the legislation are satisfactory, but in the last resort if the setting up of this Authority and the general arrangements by which the Ministry of Aviation discharge certain functions, air traffic control and so on,

1063
are accepted, I think it must be assumed that the job will be carried out sensibly.
I strongly object to the proposal of a Statutory Instrument, which seems to me to be totally destructive of flexibility. If it were necessary to make radical changes it might be convenient for air traffic control to hand over certain services which my noble friend mentioned, such as teleprinting and so on, to the Airport Authority. If they want to do so and if the Airport Authority are prepared to accept them, surely a statutory instrument is not needed to do this. I hope your Lordship will not press this Amendment. We take the point, and I will give an undertaking that we will look at the word "facilities", which seems to me the only possible weak point and may have given rise to some of the concern of noble Lords. But I assure the noble Earl that "facilities" was not in this case intended to refer to such matters as runways, and if he reads the whole of this definition it is quite clear what the purport was. I hope noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
LORD FORBES: If the Authority is going to be responsible for runways, cannot that be stated in the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: There are so many things that we could state in the Bill. I think we should assume that in most cases, if an authority owned the aerodrome it would own the runways, which seem an integral part of the aerodrome.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord asked us to accept common sense. We are passing an Act of Parliament. We all have common sense to some degree. He talks about administering a public Authority. Is it the intention that this Authority should be administered by the Ministry of Aviation, or is it intended to be independent? I want to see it independent, and I thought the noble Lord did, but he now talks about administering a public Authority. I do not know if it was a slip of the tongue.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not recall using the words "administering a public Authority". I think I said the Ministry were concerned for the success of it, and I may have used the word "sponsoring". Many public authorities have Ministries
1064
who are particularly concerned in their field. The respect in which the Ministry do not concern themselves with the Authority is very clearly laid down.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I accept what the noble Lord has said. But I have made this point from the beginning: I want this body to be independent. The noble Lord says, first of all, it works well with the municipalities; but, of course, the municipalities did not have a Statute. With a municipality, whether it be of Birmingham or Liverpool or anywhere else, the Minister goes to the municipality and negotiates a settlement. You cannot negotiate with a public corporation of this sort. We are setting it up by Statute.
The noble Lord goes on to say, "Well, it is only a borderline case". It is not a borderline case at all. Under the Clause 1 am looking at, the Minister may in writing hand over all navigation services to the Authority. There is nothing in the world to stop his doing so. It is not a borderline case. I ask noble Lords to believe that I am not in any way striking at the principle of this Bill. I accept the proposition that navigation services in the very wide connotation which is given in this Bill should be the responsibility of the Minister. What I am saying is that this must be clearly defined, and I can see no reason why it should not be clearly defined in this Bill.
Let me take the noble Lord one step further. He is no doubt aware of the trading accounts and balance sheet. If he looks at them, he will see this, under "Airports ": he will see the figures for the year 1963–64, and he will notice that all operations on the four airports here mentioned had a cost of £11½ million and an income of about £13 million. But a number of things are taken out. There are air traffic control, nearly £2 million; meteorological services, £200,000; aeronautical information services, £100,000. These amount to rather over £2 million—I have not been through this in detail. How are these to be paid for? These are taken right out of the authority of the Authority, which draws the money from passengers, from aeroplanes, and from motor cars; and presumably they fall directly on the Ministry of Aviation. Is this to be a

1065
general charge on the taxpayer, or, on the other hand, is this to be in some way charged up to the Authority? I really must ask the noble Lord to take this clause back and see whether he cannot get it drafted clearly for the public interest. I feel that to say that this is something of a minor character is misconceiving the importance of a clear responsibility.
I should like him to take it back and see whether he cannot state just what the responsibilities are. I agree that there is a border line. I will not argue about the border line. But let us have the principles put in. Let us say, if you like, "The precise border line shall be the yellow line on the tarmac" Let that be by letter. The only reason I put in a reference to a Statutory Instrument is that the Minister cannot vary Statutory Instruments every day, but a letter he can. I do not think it is fair on the Authority to have an important sphere of its responsibility varied every day. Will the Minister not say, "We will look at this again "? As drafted at present, I do not think it is fair on the Corporation or on anybody else who is asked to work so vague and fuzzy a proposal.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether I could once again reinforce the plea of my noble friend. It seems to me that there is a certain fuzziness of definition here. Whether it lies in the main clause, Clause 2 of the Bill, or whether it lies in the definition, where I am inclined to think it mainly centres, I would not wish to argue at this stage. But I did note that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he was prepared to look at one part of the definition, the word "facilities". I personally think that the whole definition needs looking at more closely. I hope that he can assure us that he will have a look at the whole definition.
LORD SHACKLETON: Let me assure your Lordships that the Government are in a quite accommodating mood. I hope that we shall be able to continue to be accommodating, and that noble Lords will not press us too hard to dot every "i". I still think that the noble Earl is making unnecessarily heavy weather of this. I am certainly prepared to agree that we shall look at this one again. I have already given such an undertaking in relation to "facilities". However, I give this warning to the noble Earl. I do not know
1066
how much experience he has of different types of business activity, but if I were to have to conduct a business between companies, including associated companies, on subjects such as inter-company rents and so on, by Statutory Instrument, I should give up entirely. In effect, this is what the noble Earl is asking us to do.
On the point of the definition, I have already mentioned that it goes wider and is to that extent an enabling clause or definition. We will look to see whether it is possible to make it more precise. Apart from the term "facilities", I will give an unconditional promise to look at the whole of the definition, but I cannot make any promise as to what the outcome will be.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Obviously the phrase "Statutory Instrument" has got under his skin, and I apologise for bringing that about. In commerce one never uses a Statutory Instrument; it applies only in governmental spheres. So the noble Lord could not have the opportunity of using one in his private dealings in commerce. However, I am grateful to him. I hope he will think again as to this being a trivial matter. I personally do not think it is. I had quite a lot to do with many public corporations fifteen or sixteen years ago. This is not a matter to be wiped away in that sort of fashion. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"() The Authority shall have power to provide garage accommodation and parking areas, with or without parking meters.")
The noble Earl said: The intention of this Amendment is to give to the Authority power to ensure that it can provide properly for garages, parking and things of that kind at the airport, for motor cars and vehicles used generally on the roads. Of course, the noble Lord can answer quite well that this Amendment is absolutely unnecessary. There is a remarkable subSection 1n Clause 2, namely, subsection (3), which states that
"The Authority shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its duty under this Act."
I do not know whether that power has appeared in a public Statute before. That is a remarkable statement.
Some of my noble friends and I feel that the provision of motor car facilities at aerodromes is a most important matter. The provision of facilities for motor cars is something in which we have fallen down in almost every aspect of our life in this country. Aerodromes are not only places where such facilities are necessary; all kinds of facilities for motor cars can be provided there comparatively easily. I should like something, not necessarily these words, to be inserted as an injunction to the Authority really to see what they can do. I see no reason on earth why Parliament should not put this suggestion to the Authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD WALERAN: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk again in this Amendment. In fact, I would rather have seen an Amendment to the effect that it shall be the duty of the Authority to make such provision. It is not just the private motorist who is going to the aerodrome of whom I am thinking. London Airport, for instance, is a "town" with a lot of factories on it. There are all the maintenance works. A great number of the workers go there in their own cars. Aeroplanes do not have to be serviced merely at any set time of the day or on any particular day of the week, and a great mass of the people who work in maintenance on aircraft go there by their own private cars because that is the only way they can get there to do their work.
As regards the ordinary passenger, he does not necessarily live in a town near the aerodrome, but may come from North, South, East or West of it. It is infinitely more convenient for him to go to the aerodrome by motor car and leave his car there for two or three days, if he is going on business to the Continent or elsewhere, than to go into the City centre and go to the aerodrome by airline bus. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to support this Amendment, even if it is not so strongly worded as I should like it to be.
LORD SOMERS: I too, should like to support this Amendment. As my noble friend Lord Waleran has said, there is no doubt that the only way that many people can reach an aerodrome is by car. The railway stations may not provide any connection with the part of the country from which they come. I should also like to urge that it be a duty on the Authority to provide cover, garages where a motorist who is going abroad for, say, a week or so may leave his car, and at not too exhorbitant a charge, because that is something which affects the motorist really severely in these days.
LORD FORBES: I should like to support this Amendment. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. At Aberdeen Airport when the bus comes to the terminal it cannot at present turn round there but actually has to go out on to the tarmac to do so. There is a good case for seeing that in future vehicles at any airport are properly controlled by an Authority, or whatever we are going to have.
EARL JELLICOE: May I join the queue in support of my noble friend? It may seem odd to single out one particular duty in this way, and, normally speaking, I should not be in favour of it; but it seems to me that the provision of adequate car parking at our airports is really such that there is a good case for singling it out, more especially when we know how difficult our airports have always been in this respect in the past. If we insert wording of this sort—I am not myself particularly wedded to any particular phraseology—I am sure we shall be helping the Authority to give this particular matter the importance which is its due.
4.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: Let me say at once that there is absolutely nothing between us on this point, so far as the provision of adequate parking facilities is concerned. Of course, we are all agreed that on airports there must be proper provision for cars: there is no argument about that at all. The question is whether, if one puts such words as these into the Bill, one is going to get the Authority to perform its obligations more satisfactorily than if the words are left out. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that it would be a little odd if one were to

1069
say that this Authority should provide car parks. Why should we not say that the Authority should provide passenger catering facilities, for they also are important? Why should we not put that into the Bill? The fact of the matter is that the Authority is required to carry out—
EARL JELLICOE: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but he is praying me in aid in rejecting this Amendment, which I think he is about to do, but I think he could not have listened to my argument. I said that, normally speaking, I would not wish to single out any particular facility, but I went on to give my reasons why I thought it was sensible to single out this particular facility.
LORD BESWICK: It is true that the noble Earl did say that. He also said that it may seem a little odd, and I was going out of my way to agree that it did seem a little odd that we should put this one requirement in the Bill. In fact subsection (3) of Clause 2 says that
"The Authority shall have power to do anything calculated which is to facilitate the discharge of its duty under this Act."
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is right in thinking that under that subsection the Authority will be able to provide all the car parks it wants to provide, subject to the physical limitations. It is thought—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that that overriding power will be adequate. The only criticism made of that wording by the noble Earl was that it appeared to be too comprehensive, too sweeping. He seemed to think that we are arming this Authority—which we want to be independent, which we want to have armed with sufficient powers—with too many powers. In fact, the words are taken from the Air Corporations Act, 1949, Section 3 (2). So there is a precedent, in that Parliament has agreed to it before. It gives the Authority power to provide car parks, and I hope that it will provide all the car parking that is required. With that undertaking, that subsection (3) does not confer some exceptional power but that it is adequate for this particular purpose, I hope the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I may ask one question, I put in the words
1070
"parking meters". There used to be a strong difference of opinion about parking meters. I was notably defeated in this House when I first introduced the matter. Does the word "anything" include parking meters, the introduction of which usually requires statutory authority?
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry; I should have dealt with that point. It is true that if the British Airports Authority wishes to provide parking meters, there is no reason why it should not do so. The reason why there have been no parking meters at the airport so far is not that there are inadequate powers, but simply that they are not thought to be necessary. The policy has been not to have cars parked on the roadway, but to provide proper car parks. That may well be the policy of the new Airports Authority, but if the Authority, in its own judgment, wants to provide parking meters there is no reason why it should not do so.
LORD WALERAN: If, with the leave of the Committee, I may speak again, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that no one in industry, certainly in the United states, would put up a factory without laying out car parks for workers. When I spoke earlier I said that one of the great points is that provision must be made for maintenance men coming to work in their cars. In this country we always do things too little and too late. Remember the time it took to get just reasonable facilities at London Airport for all the workers there, and for passengers—and even now it is not all that good; the motoring organisations have battled with this problem for years. I fear that, unless we put something in the Bill, nothing will happen.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think the noble Lord is on the right Amendment. I think he wants to make it compulsory. This is purely an enabling one, and I think my noble friend has answered it. Incidentally, the noble Lord does not have to have the leave of the House to speak twice in Committee.
LORD WALERAN: It is a matter of courtesy.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not going to press this Amendment. I think that we have emphasised clearly the im-

1071
portance that we attach to it. I can say on behalf of a number of noble Lords that if the Authority fails in this task, the matter will be one of sharp criticism in this House in the future.
LORD SHACKLETON: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hope the Authority will take note of these words, and see that it makes a real effort to do something better than has yet been done in this country. With these thoughts in mind, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Borrowing powers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.56 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to refer to a matter which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and myself during Second Reading—namely, whether the proposed Authority's initial working capital is adequate. I raise this point because there is some danger of our asking the Authority to work within too tight a financial margin. The position, as I understand it, is that under Clause 5 the Authority is given total borrowing powers (apart from short-term borrowing powers) of £70 million. But the initial capital debt, if that is the right expression, which the Authority will inherit may be as much as £56 million, or perhaps even more (I will come back to that point in a moment), so that the margin for new capital expenditure open to the Authority in relation to its borrowing powers may be as low as £14 million, or perhaps even less.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, argued on Second Reading that we need not worry unduly about this; that at least for the initial five-year period, up to 1970, the Authority would have adequate borrowing powers. He said that this had been carefully looked into, and he gave us some interesting figures, which were new to me. Then he went on to say that if the Authority needed more money and wished to extend its borrowing powers it could come back
1072
to Parliament in the normal way, and that this in itself was a safeguard of Parliamentary control. I do not wish to dispute for a second the need for Parliamentary control, but I hope that the noble Lord can assure us that the Government are not proposing to put too tight a financial straitjacket on this fledgling Authority, clipping its wings before take-off, so to speak. I am reinforced in what I feel about this by what Lord Beswick has said about the need to give this new Authority confidence to build up its independence and to give it a real measure of responsibility over its own affairs.
There are a number of points on the financial side on which I should like to have more explanation. First, there is the £56 million, the commencing capital debt. I note from paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the amount of the initial debt is estimated to be "of the order of £50 million". Is it to be £50 million, or is it to be £56 million? If it is to be £50 million, why provide the figure of £56 million? This margin of £6 million is no light matter. After all, whether we are saddling this new Authority with £6 million more or less of initial debt is quite a considerable point.
I asked on Second Reading—and I hope it is in order to refer back to Clause 4—whether the authority given to the Minister in subsection (3) of Clause 4 could override subsection (2); whether under subsection (3) the initial capital debt could be raised to more than £56 million. I do not myself know the answer to that, not being a lawyer. I do not think I had an answer on Second Reading, and I am not quarrelling about that, but I should like to know what the experts think on that particular point.
Then there are the Authority's likely capital expenditures and the resources available to it. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, explained on Second Reading that until 1970 the total capital expenditure which the Authority was likely to incur was estimated at £34 million. We had his assurance—and I always value an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—that this figure of £34 million was carefully arrived at. I should like to inquire a little as to the basis of this estimate of

1073
£34 million. Does it, for example, provide for any possible expenditure within this period on a third London airport, which might be very heavy indeed; and what guarantee have we that these estimates will not escalate? We all have a certain amount of experience, not least in the Ministry of Defence which the noble Lord is now in, of escalating expenditure.
Finally, we were told by the noble Lord that of this, to me, rather mysterious £34 million, some £23 million would be found by the Authority from its own resources. At the present time, to judge by that part of the Explanatory Memorandum which was given to another place but which your Lordships were not judged adult enough to see, the expenditure and receipts on these four aerodromes are at the present time roughly in balance. Over the five-year period up to 1970 there is apparently going to be a favourable balance of some £23 million. That is how I read the noble Lord's explanation. Is it really reasonable to budget for a surplus of this sort when we are dealing with a medium of air traffic, and when there are a vast number of variables? I should like to have a further explanation on this point.
Incidentally, I should like to know how this ties in with the taxation position of the Authority. I note from subsection (7) of Clause 1 that the Authority is liable to tax. Will this £23 million be liable to tax, and, if so, are we really certain that the Authority will have this full £23 million available to it? I hope that I have made it clear that I am not in any way challenging the principle of ultimate Parliamentary control over the expenditure of this Authority, and I have certainly no desire to see the Government establish a spendthrift Authority. Yet there is one thing of which we are absolutely certain, and that is the vast growth which we are likely to see in the air traffic through the airports for which this Authority will be responsible.
We know only too well how at present the facilities are greatly overstretched. We know that the future needs in this respect have been constantly underestimated in the past, and I think we can be quite certain that the Authority will need to incur very sub-
1074
stantial capital expenditure in the future. I think we are all agreed on the need to establish this new Authority on a sound financial basis and to give it a real measure of independence. I have some doubts, and I have attempted to express them in this intervention, whether we are establishing the Authority on a really sound financial basis if we impose this ceiling of £70 million. I should be grateful for any further explanation which the noble Lord can give us.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I add one further point to what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said? I think it is desirable that we should have a picture of what the future finance is likely to be. I should like to ask, particularly, how this saving of £23 million in, I believe, seven years is to be made, in order to be available for capital expenditure on behalf of the Authority. I have the trading accounts and balance-sheet for 1964, and I notice that these four airports made what is called an operating surplus of £1½ million. Even if they had the whole of that amount, I do not see how in a reasonably short time they could have available from their own resources capital of £23 million. I do not understand this, unless an enormous expansion of traffic is expected.
I should like to repeat a question which I have already asked. What about these services of a navigational character which have been undertaken by the Ministry of Aviation? Are they going to be paid for by the Authority or are they going to be paid for by general taxation? In other words, should they be deducted from the operating surplus stated in the accounts of these four aerodromes or must they still be included? If they are deducted, then I am bound to say that there really seems to be quite a reasonable opportunity for the aerodromes to have a fair surplus. There is one other question on these accounts about which I should like to ask. I have No 1dea what allowance there is for depreciation. There may be a full allowance or there may not be, but I think it is very important for the future financial position of this Authority that we should know how it stands.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was good enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this fairly technical matter, and I should like to answer one point straight away, though I should have liked time to check it. So far as my reading of the Bill is concerned, the £56 million limit is an absolute one. The powers of the Minister to vary the amount of—dare I say?—the commencing capital debt, or the initial, starting or beginning capital debt, are in relation to the debt which is determined on vesting date, but it seems to me that subsection (2) provides an absolute limit as to the amount. The noble Earl has questioned whether the present limit of £70 million on the Authority's borrowing powers is adequate to give the Authority power to do what is necessary, and I gave a general assurance on Second Reading that it was considered that this was so. I should like now to go into a little more detail, and even to answer some of the points of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
The maximum figure contains two elements—and I may say, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, that on this particular point he consulted Sir Ernest Gowers, who advised him not to tangle with Parliamentary draftsmen—the commencing capital debt and further borrowings. These figures have been arrived at in this way. The commencing capital debt which is set in Clause 4 (2) has a maximum figure, as we know, of £56 million. This has been assessed by taking the present written-down book value of the assets of the four aerodromes—and this may be of interest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—as certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General and published in the official trading accounts and balance sheets for 1963-64. We further adjusted this figure to take account of the additional capital investment and the incidence of depreciation and obsolescence between March 31, 1964, and the vesting date of the British Airports Authority.
Deductions from these figures have been made to take account of the value of assets which form part of the navigation services which will be retained by the Minister and additions have been made to provide for working capital, that is, stock plus cash, which is not shown in the trading accounts. The maximum figure of £56 million used in the Bill
1076
had to allow for a possible slip in the proposed vesting date. The later the date the higher the figure for the commencing debt. This might be caused by delays in the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House, or other reasons. If vesting date is on October 1, 1965, which is the earliest possible date, the commencing capital debt will be £53 million. If it is on April 1, 1966, the figure will be £54 million. Our advice, as I have already said, is that the adjusting power in Clause 4 (3) cannot override the maximum of £56 million, so if the noble Earl wishes to give the Authority the maximum leeway in these matters we must clearly hurry this Bill through the House as quickly as possible.
The total operating limit of £70 million has been arrived at by estimating the revenue, the operating costs (and I think that in these remarks I can pick up most of the noble Earl's points), the interest charges, taxation, reserves and capital requirements of the British Airports Authority for the first five years. The Authority's capital requirements during this period have been estimated to amount to about £34 million. This includes, for instance, at Heathrow the provision of a new passenger building and the development of a freight area. Of this amount the Authority can be expected to finance £23 million from its own resources; and perhaps I should say this is not simply the trading profit, but it will do it out of what in the commercial world is known in short as the cash flow of the undertaking, and this takes into account depreciation.
The limit of £70 million will not affect the British Airports Authority for the first five years or so, but it is perfectly true that the limit will not—and this is intentional—allow the financing of a major development such as the third London airport or the central London heliport. This Treasury policy, and I think I might also say Parliamentary policy, is in accordance with the policy for other nationalised industries in that every five to seven years—and, if necessary, at shorter intervals, if there is some important new project which will involve a great deal of national resources, such as a new airport—the practice is for the authority, in this case the Airports Authority, to be obliged to make a fresh

1077
approach to Parliament. This enables Parliament to have a special look at the specific progress as well as the general progress and performance of the authority. Your Lordships will recall that this has occurred on a number of occasions. We have had such Bills introduced by the previous Government with regard to the airlines, and at that time people queried—I may have done it myself—whether the amount of money laid down was enough. But the purpose is quite clear: the Authority should not go beyond a limit without Parliamentary consent.
According to the best estimates which have been made (and we can do no more than make these estimates) the figure of £70 million is not too low and it should not restrict the proper capital development. Indeed it provides quite a substantial margin for the estimated expenditure of £34 million over the next five years. This may be necessary for all sorts of reasons, including, as the noble Earl said, escalation. I apologise for again giving a business analogy, but this is in a sense the equivalent of setting the authorised capital of the company. To increase the authorised capital it is necessary to proceed by means of an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders. These analogies are always dangerous because they are never quite perfect, but £70 million is considered to be the best figure.
It is difficult for the Opposition, or indeed for the members of the Government, to examine it in too much detail, but we have inquired into this, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation is satisfied that this is right in accordance with our established Parliamentary practice; and certainly another place, which is particularly concerned with expenditure, was satisfied with it. I appreciate that this is a very proper matter for the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to raise. If there is more information I can give, either to him or to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on particular questions which I have not covered, I shall be happy to do so, either in writing or at a later stage. Possibly, if it is not a suitable matter to raise in an Amendment on Report stage we might take the opportunity of a Third Reading debate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is one question which I have already asked
1078
twice, and I should like to have it answered. Who is going to pay for the navigation services? They are covered now by the receipts from the airport, but since the Authority will be separated from the airport, and the services will be undertaken by the Ministry of Aviation, the charge for them will no longer fall on the airport and should increase the Authority's overall surplus. Are the Authority going to be charged with this figure or will it fall on the general taxpayer? I see that last year the Ministry had a surplus of £½ million. How can the noble Lord say that in five years they will have a reserve of £23 million? It does not seem to me to add up.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think now is the time to embark on a lecture on financing arrangements, but I used the expression "cash flow" which is an established commercial phrase covering such subjects as depreciation. I think we should not take up the time of the Committee by going into minutiæ, but I am very willing to explain it to the noble Earl in more detail on a suitable occasion or, as I have already suggested, on the Third Reading. On the subject of navigation services, these, of course, will ultimately be paid, except if there is some element of subsidy by the Government, by the airlines. The net position of the airports should remain the same in this respect. There should be an offset equivalent to what they lose. I hope that answers the noble Earl's point.
EARL JELLICOE: I thank the noble Lord for his very careful exposition of the position. We certainly have a great deal more information now than we had at Second Reading or, indeed, than was given to another place. The noble Lord referred to another place and its overriding responsibilities in these matters, but, so far as I can recall, the question of the adequacy of the Authority's borrowing powers was barely touched on in the other place.
I have one minor question to pose. The noble Lord talked of the £23 million being derived from the cash flow. Am I right in assuming that that will not be subject to the provisions of Clause 1 (7), the taxation provisions? I assume this is so but perhaps we could go into that at a later stage. The noble Lord ended his remarks by saying the Minister was satisfied that the £70 million borrowing

1079
powers were adequate. The Minister may be satisfied, but what is important is whether the Authority when it is set up will be satisfied, because we all wish the Authority to have a large measure of autonomy and independence in these matters. On that, I should like to read very carefully what the noble Lord has said, but I should like to reserve the right. as it were, to come back to this if necessary at the Report stage—or perhaps we can have a further discussion on Third Reading, as the noble Lord has himself suggested.
LORD SHACKLETON: First of all, the £23 million is, as I understand it, the net figure, and it therefore takes account of the taxation point—and, of course, the Authority is liable to tax. The second point is that it is of course very difficult to ask whether the Authority is satisfied when it does not exist. We must just do our best for the unborn child, but we are endowing it in a fashion which we think is suitable for the station it will occupy in life. We have given it a bit of a margin to take care of escalation in the course of its life, but, if it is not satisfied, it can always come back again and ask for more, although it will have to ask Parliament.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exchequer Loans]:
5.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "with the approval of the Treasury". The noble Earl said: We have had some discussion about the nature of the control which the Ministry of Aviation will exercise over the Authority, and in point of fact it appears that the Ministry of Aviation is not trusted, either, because there is placed over it the Treasury. In fact, it appears that the Treasury do not trust the Ministry of Aviation one little bit. I always imagined that we were governed by what is called collective Cabinet responsibility and that it was not necessary to regulate by Statute the relative responsibilities of different members of the Cabinet. I really think that this sort of thing in a Bill is quite unnecessary. May I read subsection (2) of Clause 6:
"Any loans which the Minister makes under this section shall be repaid to him at such times and by such methods and interest
1080
thereon shall be paid to him at such rates and at such times, as he may with the approval of the Treasury from time to time direct".
Is it really necessary for the Treasury to interfere there? Can we not rely on the Minister of Aviation to have a private talk or to send a Minute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or would it be to the First Secretary? If I may say so, these words in a Statute seem to me utterly redundant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD BESWICK: The short answer to the noble Earl is that the Treasury are the Government Department with responsibility for the overall control and co-ordination of public investment and interest rates, and therefore it clearly seems their responsibility to be concerned with the methods and the times of repayment of large sums of money advanced to a public authority. Treasury approval of these repayment arrangements is similarly essential; and, although I understand the noble Earl's feelings when he comes across this phrase from time to time in the Bill, I should have thought that he would agree, on reflection, that it was necessary.
In fact, of course, this provision is to be found in the Statutes dealing with the other nationalised industries—coal, the transport industry, the electricity and the gas industries and the Air Corporations. All those Acts include this provision; and, so far, Parliament has agreed that it is necessary. It sounds a little weighty as we read it, but I think it is a question of how relations between the respective Government Departments are conducted. But if it is accepted that the Treasury are the body to which we look for, as I say, overall control of our national economy, I should have thought it was eminently reasonable to say that that is the body to whom the Authority should have to go for approval when it is seeking to borrow money, when it is deciding or discussing how the money shall be repaid and at what rate of interest. I have a good deal of sympathy with the general feeling of the noble Earl, but I hope that, on reflection, he will be able to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I have every sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Earl sitting beside me, but, though supporting him, I rise merely in the interests of brevity. After several years in office, I must confess to him, though I do not wish to depress or distress him unduly, that I am afraid that, whether the words "with the approval of the Treasury" are in or out of the Bill, the answer will be the same.
LORD SHACKLETON: IS the noble Earl going to test the feeling of the Committee on this Amendment?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think we can perfectly well negative this one.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I suggest that he is really forcing the Committee to take a decision on something which, for the reasons indicated by the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, is not possible? Frankly, he is now trying to liberate the Ministry, not the Airports Authority. Perhaps the noble Earl has painful memories, from his days as First Lord of the Admiralty and in other ministerial positions, as other noble Lords may have, of the moment when the Permanent Under-Secretary says, "This will have to go to the Treasury". But the fact is, as the noble Viscount has made clear, that it will have to go to the Treasury; it is the Treasury's job. If I may say so in defence of the Treasury, whether or not one supports the general type of control they operate, they operate it with great efficiency—and this goes right through our system. It may be that on another occasion the noble Earl will wish to raise some wider questions, and if he wants, on this occasion, to have this Amendment negatived, he may do so, of course; but he has been so accommodating up to now, and I can assure him that from now on the Government are going to be even more accommodating.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Lord objects to the Amendment's being negatived, I am perfectly willing to withdraw it. Personally, I think this is a bad practice which has grown up in legislation, and I am really only drawing attention to it. Of course the Treasury are in control, but why put it in the Bill? In the circumstances, however, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Accounts and audit]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment raises a very simple point. It is a clear-cut question of how much authority the Authority is going to have. I am bound to say that I should have thought the minimum authority it should have is the appointment of its own auditors. We discussed this on Second Reading, and I do not want to discuss it again. I think it would be a sign of a certain confidence in the Authority if it were allowed to appoint its own auditors. If that is not done, it appears to me that the auditors can—not always will, but can—come into something of the position of spies, on behalf of the Minister, studying the affairs of the Authority. That would be a pity. I believe it is important that the Authority should have at least the right to appoint its own auditors, subject to the approval of the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("approved").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
EARL JELLICOE: I should like, very briefly, to support my noble friend on this Amendment. I do not wish to go over his arguments again, as I think he has put the case far better than I could possibly reiterate it. I would only hope that this is one of the points on which the noble Lord opposite will be able to go at least some way to meet my noble friend. He foreshadowed just now that he might be in an even more forthcoming mood. I hope that the umbrella of his forthcomingness will extend over this particular Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know that we have been given any arguments in favour of this Amendment. I say that I am accommodating; but at least I should have liked to have some arguments for it. We have been given an argument against the existing practice: namely, that the auditors will be spies for the Minister. This seems to me to be rather an emotional way of describing the basic rôle of an auditor, which is to look closely into matters and audit the books, investigate them and find out

1083
if everything is as it should be. I defended previously the principle, which I think is sound, that the auditors are watchdogs in this matter: in the case of a company, for the shareholders and the investors and general public at large; and in this case, for the public and Government in relation to public money by which the Authority is financed. Therefore it seems logical that the appointment should be made on the initiative of the Minister and not of the Authority. The classic nationalisation Acts for coal, iron and steel, gas, electricity and transport all provide for the Minister to appoint the auditors. Curiously enough, the Covent Garden Market Authority Act, a notable example of the previous Government's legislation, is an exception to this general rule. I wonder whether the noble Lord, who was a Minister in that Government, could tell me what prompted them to that end. That Act provides for the auditors to be appointed by the Authority with the approval of the Ministers. I do not know why this exception occurred. It occurred also in relation to the Television Act. I should frankly be very interested to have views of noble Lords on the propriety of this matter. I would not strongly resist the noble Earl's Amendment, although I must do so on technical grounds; it is not suitable as it stands. But the principle that the appointment should be made by the Authority with the approval of the Government, which is what he is asking for, could be a compromise. Frankly, I find it difficult to say whether it is, in principle, right. I am still inclined to think that, in principle, the auditor should be appointed by the Government.
Again, it is arguable in the case of a company that the board of the company virtually choose the auditor and the general meeting of the shareholders confirms it; but the shareholders retain that power and, formally, the appointment is made on that occasion. In this matter, while saying that I think the Amendment is not acceptable as it stands, I should be interested to hear from any other noble Lord with experience of this matter. Frankly, the Government are prepared to consult your Lordships on this point.
EARL JELLICOE: I cannot claim any great expertise on this subject. Surely,
1084
the noble Lord was asking what was the principle behind the Amendment, and he took my noble friend to task for not explaining it. I thought he explained it briefly but adequately. We are trying to put real flesh and blood on the concept which the noble Lord's noble friend has been enunciating: to give the new Authority as much independence and sense of responsibility as possible. If we mean to pay more than lip service to that, then surely we can allow them to choose their own auditors. It seems to me that the analogy of what happens in a company, that the board of directors propose the auditors to the annual general meeting, who can then disagree with it, is close, because this is precisely what will happen if my noble friend's Amendment is agreed to. If the Minister does not approve the choice he will be able to veto it. It seems to me that given this principle, given our desire to give this new Authority as much leeway as possible, given the fact that a number of recent precedents exist for what my noble friend is asking, the Government could very well concede this relatively minor, but not altogether unimportant, point.
LORD BROWN: The principle embodied in the Bill is, I believe, the correct one and is the practice in this country and in most other countries. It is to leave the Authority to conduct the enterprise, to provide it with resources of an adequate sort, and to rely on them to use those resources with integrity. The single check is that those who provide the resources have what is no more than a spy to investigate and make certain that these resources are used with integrity. If you put the auditor in the position of being responsible to those who are responsible for the use of the resources, you are making him non-useful in the sense that he cannot report to an independent party as to whether the resources have or have not been used with integrity. This is the principle which lies behind the Companies Act and which lies behind most of the Government's Acts with regard to the auditor's appointment. I believe the Bill as it stands in respect to this principle is entirely correct.
LORD HURCOMB: When I was Chairman of the British Transport Commission, so far as I remember our

1085
auditors were appointed by the Minister. That practice never gave rise to any inconvenience; still less did it lead to any form of espionage. On the other hand, I suspect, although I cannot remember, that we probably suggested to the Minister the auditors whom he might appoint. If the Amendment were carried I should not have thought there was any risk of abuse; because if any authority proposed unsuitable auditors the Minister would reject them and refuse to approve them. He could go on refusing to approve auditors until one had worked through the whole register of chartered or incorporated accountants in the country. I should think that there is a good deal to be said for the argument that the Authority concerned should have the initial privilege of suggesting suitable auditors and that the Minister should have the right to approve them or disapprove them. I do not think that in practice there will be any very material difference. In theory, as long as the Minister's approval is required, the ultimate sanction of The taxpayers, who are the equivalent of the shareholders in the case of a company, would still be preserved. If, as I gather, the Government have an open mind, they would perhaps consider in what appropriate form a little latitude could be allowed here.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to noble Lords. I still think that in some respects this Amendment is misconceived. Auditors are not spies; indeed, I believe the description is that the auditor is not a sleuth but a watchdog. In private industry the appointment is made, in effect, by the shareholders; in practice it is made by the shareholders. The board, 99 times out of 100, may be responsible for choosing; although they may not move the actual motion of the appointment. This is frequently moved by the shareholders. They may be picked out to do the job. I have seen this happen. I think the Government's attitude is genuinely open-minded on this. What worries me is that the Amendment might conceivably blur the principle behind the appointment of auditors, so that in some way they become the Authority's auditors. But, of course, they are professional
1086
men, and by their qualifications they have to act professionally.
I would say to the noble Earl that the Amendment as it stands is not satisfactory; it will be necessary to have a number of consequential Amendments. But if he would like to withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake to consider the point very carefully. In the light of the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I hope that we shall be able to accept the principle. I am sure the noble Earl would agree that from the technical point of view it would be a mistake to press the Amendment. I undertake to give him full opportunity to know what the decision of the Government is in this matter, so that, if he wishes, he can put down an Amendment on Report. I do not think I can go further than that in meeting his wishes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful for the way the noble Lord looked at this question. I am sorry that I did not argue at greater length; but I made the point that I think that, quite differently from the case of a joint stock company, it is important that the independence of these corporations should be clear. No one doubts the joint stock company's independence, but there is doubt in many people's minds how independent these authorities are. This is not a decisive issue but it is one issue. Firms vary a great deal in how they use auditors and accountants, but I should have thought that the best way was for the manager or chairman to work closely with them. They are not simply watchdogs. They should be of great assistance to efficient management. I assume that the Chairman of the Authority, far from wanting to hide anything from the Minister, would be anxious to present to the Minister all information about how the organisation works, to show that his organisation is working properly. If he works closely with the auditors, without in any way undermining their independence, then I believe that he can make his organisation more efficient. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, suggested, I think it is better for the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to initiate any Amendment which may be required. After what the noble Lord said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I wonder whether I may ask a question purely for information? I am afraid that I am ignorant of the subject, though I ought to be better informed. Why is it put in, at the bottom of subsection (2), that a Scottish firm may be so appointed? Having used no differentiation between England, Scotland and Ireland all the way through, why are Scottish accountants to be different from any other body of accountants? I was brought up to believe that Scotland has the best accountants in the world and it seems to me that here they are regarded as lesser bodies.
LORD BESWICK: I understand that it is because there may well be a suitable Scottish firm, but they are not members of the bodies set out in the Bill, and in the case of Scotland an exception can be made. I will check this point.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: But each of the partners has to be a member of one of these bodies.
LORD SHACKLETON: I thought that this question might be asked and I had the answer, but I have forgotten it. But it is for entirely respectable reasons.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Byelaws]:
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move the next Amendment. It is a drafting Amendment, which I hope the Committee will accept. Its intention is to ensure that all existing byelaws at the four aerodromes will continue to have effect until vesting date. Under the present wording of the clause, all byelaws now in force will cease to have effect as from the coming into operation of Clause 9, which means as from the date on which the Bill is given the Royal Assent, probably about April, 1965; so there would be a gap from that day until the vesting date, which could not be until October, 1965, at the earliest.
For the majority of existing byelaws this will not matter, but there is one group of byelaws, for the regulation of vehicular traffic, which would lapse unless the
1088
Amendment were accepted and it could be serious if such byelaws—for example, that requiring compliance with traffic signs—ceased to have effect for six months or more. The Amendment ensures that that position does not arise, as the byelaws in question will remain in operation until the actual vesting date.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 16 and insert ("vesting date").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Are the Government satisfied that the penalty of £25, under subsection (3), is sufficient for all the crimes that one can commit under subsection (1)? It seems to me that one gets away lightly if one can be fined only £25 when one makes a major obstruction within the aerodrome, or something like that, which I should have thought would be extremely dangerous and should certainly make one liable to a fine of far more than £25. Or could one then be "had up" under some more general law for causing danger to the public, and thereby get a much bigger penalty?
LORD SHACKLETON: It would be easier to answer this point on an actual Amendment. Clearly the matter was carefully considered, but I take note of what the noble Duke said and if by any chance, on the point he has made, there are not adequate powers we will raise the matter again. On the Question whether the clause shall stand part, as it is dealing with the control and management of aerodromes, perhaps I can answer the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. I understand that under Scots law, firms are corporate bodies and therefore it is necessary to bring in the individuals. I apologise to your Lordships for that slight breach.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Airport police]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This clause sets up a conference to deal with the constabulary, and I wonder whether the reference to "an equal number" is necessary. Suppose the conference is

1089
unequal—does that in any way invalidate it? It seems to me that these words could well be left out.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5, leave out ("of an equal number").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD BESWICK: This wording follows the wording of an Act passed by the previous Administration—the Transport Act, 1962—and it might well be thought that that is not a good precedent. I should have thought the tendency would be to accept the noble Earl's Amendment. When I looked at it, I was not certain whether we were protecting one side or the other, whether it was unfair to the management if they had one more than the constables or the other way round. But, on reflection, I agree that it would seem unnecessary to have an equal number. In any case, decisions are not made by a majority vote. And in the Police Act, 1964, which provides in Section 45 for a Police Council to perform functions similar to those of this conference, there is no provision for an equal number. Therefore I would suggest that the noble Earl's Amendment be accepted as an improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Reports and information
(5) The Authority shall, in addition to the information to be given under the foregoing provisions of this section, furnish to the Minister such returns or other information relating to the property, financial position, activities or proposed activities of the Authority as the Minister may from time to time require, and shall afford him facilities for the verification of information furnished to him under this subsection in such manner and at such times as he may require
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "require". The noble Earl said: This is another case where I am asking whether it is necessary to have the final sentence in Clause 20, which seems to impugn the independence of the Authority. In ordinary language, the last sentence gives the Minister power to make investigation to see whether the Authority had been lying to him. Is it really necessary to put that in the Bill? I
1090
should have thought that if such a situation had arisen, it was time the Minister had got rid of his chairman. I think that this is a slightly insulting phrase to put in the Bill:
"… for the verification of information furnished to him … "
I wonder whether it is necessary to ask for this power, particularly after the emphasis which the Minister has put on the independence, the standing and the prestige which the Authority is supposed to have vis-à -vis the public. Frankly, I think this is something which could be left out. I do not think it would complicate the life of the Minister if that were done, and it would remove something of a slur on an authority which has not yet come into existence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD BESWICK: Here again the provisions of this subsection are largely common form. They seem to have gone through both Houses of Parliament without the scrutiny which this Bill is receiving this afternoon. For example, the wording can be found in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, the Electricity Act, 1957, and the Gas Act, 1948; and even the Covent Garden Market Act, which has provided such a lot of support for the noble Earl, contains the wording to which exception is now taken. I agree with the noble Earl that what these words say is that, information having been provided, the Minister should want to see whether it is truthful information. This is probably an indication of a lack of confidence as between the Authority and the Minister. I do not think this suggestion is justified, and, on balance, I should have thought that the Bill would be improved if we accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Earl. For the Record, I can say that, although this power has been in these other Acts, it has never been used. The various Ministers have never required to have verification of the information given to them. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that we should accept this Amendment, also.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think I may say that this means

1091
that we have done something quite useful, because here is a useless phrase which has been put into previous Acts of Parliament because somebody behind the noble Lord (whom I will not mention) thought it necessary, and experience has shown that it is not. I should like to thank the noble Lord sincerely for what he has said, and for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, with Amendments.

COMMONS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
5.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 4:
Provisional registration
(2) A registration authority may register any land as common land or as a town or village green, notwithstanding that no application for that registration has been made, and shall so register any land in any case where it registers any rights over it under this section.
(3) No person shall be registered under this section as the owner of any land if the land is registered under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936 and no person shall be registered under this section as the owner of any other land unless the land itself is so registered.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): As happened last time, I should like to begin by informing the Committee that there are three Amendments on the Marshalled List on which I think I should warn your Lordships that, if the first of them is carried, the second cannot be called. I will mention them again when the time comes.
LORD MOLSON: In view of the Amendment standing in the name of the
1092
Parliamentary Secretary, No. 15A, I do not propose to move my first Amendment, No. 15.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The next Amendment, No. 15A, is one of those to which I have referred. I have to inform your Lordships that if this Amendment is agreed to, No. 16 will not be called.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from the beginning down to and including the words "village green," and to insert:
"() An application for the registration of any land as common land or as a town or village green may be made by any person, and a registration authority—
(a) may so register any land".
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to clarify what we have always intended about this clause. Our intention has been that anyone, whether or not he has any legal interest in the land, should be able to apply for its registration as common land, or as a town or village green; that is to say, should be able to apply on the question of status—and when speaking on Second Reading, I mentioned the question of status. Looking at the language of the clause again, and having listened to the arguments about it at an earlier stage, I felt that the language could be improved and the point brought out in a way which possibly was not achieved under the earlier draft. That is the object of this Amendment: to make perfectly clear that any person, with or without a legal interest in the land, can apply for its registration on what we have conveniently called status.
I may perhaps add at this point that there is a wide definition of "person" in the Interpretation Act which will allow this provision to apply not merely to individuals and to companies, but also to groups of persons, as, for instance, the Commons Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society (if I have the title correct), or a local authority; or, for that matter, the Minister. They are all, I think, "persons". It is about the widest word one can use. Perhaps it would not be flippant to remind your Lordships that it is on this very wide definition, or a similar one, of "person" that so many peopde have to pay tax—they are taxed as persons; and local authorities and many other people have

1093
to pay tax under that description. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("notwithstanding") in line 40 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD MOLSON: I should like to thank the Government very much for putting down this Amendment. It covers the point I have tried to make, both on Second Reading and at an earlier stage, and I welcome it. I am also very glad that the Government now agree that this Bill is not a simple one to understand, and that there may be cases where an alteration in the wording may make it clearer. I hope that this Amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to add a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has said. As the Honorary Secretary for the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, I may say that our Council are particularly grateful for this Amendment. We have on several occasions found it difficult to obtain status in connection with a number of matters in which we have a very real interest but where, as a result of legal difficulties, we have not been accepted. It is good to know that, should we become interested in the preservation of a common, we can now make a claim to have it recognised.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, after ("and") insert ("(b)").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the next Amendment, Amendment No. 17, is agreed to, No. 18 cannot be called.
6.1 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "any land". The noble Lord said: If it is agreeable to your Lordships, I should like to speak to both Amendments No. 17 and No. 18 at the same time. The main point of Amendment No. 17 is to obtain from the Government an explanation of this subsection. It really is not easy to understand. If I may read it to your Lordships with one or two comments
1094
and questions, I think your Lordships will agree that it is not altogether lucid. It says:
"No person shall be registered under this section as the owner of any land if the land is registered under the Land Registration
Acts… ".
We understand that, because the Parliamentary Secretary has explained that as the registration under the Acts of 1925 and 1936 gives to the owner of the registered land something in the nature of a guaranteed title, it is not thought desirable that the land should again be registered under this Bill. I should, however, like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is to be any opportunity for the Chief Land Registrar in any case to bring to the information of the local authorities who are keeping these registrations any information which is available to him. I know he is precluded under the Act of 1925 from giving information as to who is the owner of the land. But it is not clear to me whether the local authority which is registering these common lands will be able to ask the Chief Land Registrar whether it has been registered with him as a common, and possibly any other information which would be relevant to the registration of commons.
The subsection goes on:
"… no person shall be registered under this section as the owner of any other land unless the land itself is so registered."
Frankly, I am not at all sure that I know exactly what land is referred to, and I am not quite sure whether this has any bearing on what the Parliamentary Secretary and I have discussed before: dominant land owned by commoners which gives to the commoner common rights over the land. That is my question: exactly what does this subsection mean?
My Amendment No. 18 sought to insert the words "with title absolute" after the word "registered". I follow the line of reasoning of the Government that it would be undesirable to have two registers of titles which conflict with each other. But it is the case that, under the Land Registration Act, there are three kinds of title that can be registered. One is a title absolute, and I can quite follow the Government's objection to that. I move this Amendment so that where there is a title absolute which has been accepted by the Land Registrar

1095
there shall be nothing further. But there can also be a possessory title, which is registered with the Land Registrar. That is where, as I understand it—and I am not competent to speak on these technicalities—a person cannot establish an absolute title, but where, without quite knowing what his title is, he has in fact been in possession of it for a long time. Also, there is the registration of a leasehold title. It is not apparent to me why there should be any objection to the registration under this Bill in cases where there is not a title absolute. Those are the questions I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope of obtaining elucidation, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out from first ("land ") to end of line 7.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for the helpful and, if I may say so, friendly way in which he has put his questions on this subsection. It really means exactly what it says, and it therefore means that if the land is registered, and registered with any of these titles, under the Land Registration Acts, 1925 and 1936, no person is to be registered under this clause (which is in effect the whole Bill) as the owner of that land. Your Lordships will bear in mind that the Land Registry receives information on a confidential footing, and it will answer to any one who inquires of it one question, and one question only. That question is whether the land is registered. It will not answer the question of what the title is, and one can see, I think, the sort of reason why it would be improper to do so. But, at any rate, that is not only the intention of the Land Registry but, I think I am right in saying, the clear provisions of the Acts constituted. Therefore, we have here a case of confidential information, that there is only one question that the Land Registry can answer, and that it does, I understand, with great promptitude.
All this subsection says is that if the answer to that question is that it is registered under the Land Registration Acts, there is to be no registration of ownership under this Bill. This does not relate to status, and it does not relate to rights of common; it is purely a question of ownership, and the one and only intention
1096
of the Clause 1s to provide as best one may, without altering the Land Registration Acts, which no one wants to do in a Bill of this sort, that there shall not be a conflict; and unless you are going to alter the Land Registration Acts you must, as I see it, have a provision of this kind in this form. I cannot see that any other provision would meet the case. If one takes, for instance, the possessory title—the leasehold title is unlikely to be involved here, although it is possible—one of the difficulties about shortening the period for these registers to remain open to entries, as we have done since the Report of the Royal Commission was made, was that if we were to accept anything constituting a title to ownership, the period we are considering was too short to establish a proper title by virtue of possession. You have to possess for a period of years longer than the three years we have in mind for these registers to remain open. I hope I have made the position clear.
The effect of this Amendment to page 3, line 5, would be that the subsection would read:
"… if the land is registered with title absolute under the Land Registration Acts."
You could not get the answer to that question out of the Land Registry without altering the Land Registry legislation, and therefore it would impose a prohibition which could not be carried out. No stranger could possibly discover the confidential information in the Registry. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will agree that, whatever else we do here, we cannot take a Bill about the registration of commons and rights over commons and put into it other provisions altering the whole system of land registration, which after all has been in existence for some time. I said earlier on in the course of our proceedings that when the registers had been closed and the objections disposed of and we came to the second stage legislation, we would at that stage consider whether we could do anything by way of using the information about common rights in the Land Registry. That, too, is not disclosable at present because the only answer is "the land is registered"; and the Registry cannot say anything about what is registered, or in whose name, without breach of confidence and breach of the statutory provisions at present. We should like to look into that point at that time. As I

1097
said, we have reason to believe that there are very few entries of common rights in the Land Registry; it is quite exceptional for there to be one. I will, if the noble Lord wishes, look at it again, but I do not see any possibility of meeting this point.
LORD MOLSON: Without expressing myself entirely satisfied, in view of the explanation that has been given, at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall be agreed to?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to ask one question, of which I have given notice, on this clause. There are scattered up and down the country various odd pieces of land which can be described only as derelict or waste, in the sense that they are covered with brambles and thorns and weeds, and are not used for any purpose, either amenity or production, except possibly for the deposit of quite unauthorised litter. One of the difficulties about this type of land is that as often as not it is not possible to trace that there are, or ever have been, rights of common, or who the owner is, or whether it has ever been manorial waste. I should like to know whether, in spite of the fact that the registration authority are never likely to establish any of these things, they would be entitled to register, possibly on the presumption that such land is included in some form of manorial waste; that is, until somebody can come and prove that it is not. I certainly feel that such pieces of land ought to come under somebody's control, because they can constitute a nuisance from the point of view of litter, fire risks and so on.
Perhaps I should declare an interest, of rather an odd kind, in this matter, because I am a Lord of the manor, and when, on occasion, I have asked my professional advisers to define the limits of my empire I have found that they were quite unable to do so. It may not redound very much to my credit, but it does strengthen my argument that there are these pieces of land about which practically nothing is known. I would ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible to register them as manorial wastes, notwithstanding
1098
that we have no record that they have ever been so.
LORD MITCHISON: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, not only for having raised this interesting point with which one has a great deal of natural sympathy, but also for having been kind enough to tell me earlier today that he was going to do so.
Once an application for registration is made, if it is accompanied by a declaration and the prescribed documents, there is no doubt that the registration authority have to register the land. The practical question is, therefore, what is going to be the form of the declaration and the supporting documents, if I may so describe them.
It seems to me that even the most public-minded local authority or other person might find it difficult to declare that the land in question was, in their opinion common land. They might find it easier to declare that it was waste land of the manor. But, as I understand the purport of the Bill, in one form or another they have to assert their belief that it is common land within the meaning of Clause 21 (1), which includes waste of the manor. It is probably true that in a great many of these cases no one really knows who owns the land, or anything about it. It may have been waste for a long time. It may not be a very large parcel of land, but, on the other hand, it may be of use to some person or people and may have possibilities for public access, recreation and so on. I quite see the point.
I think the most one can do is to note the point that has been made and to try, when one comes to the declaration and the documents, not to put too heavy a burden on the persons who are declaring. That is to say, if they have reasonable ground for thinking it is waste land of the manor, they ought, if possible, to be allowed to make the declaration. It may have to depend a little on who the declarant is. The local authority is in a slightly different position in this sort of matter from an individual, and one would have to consider that kind of question when one comes to dealing with the declaration and the accompanying documents.
The other side of the picture appears in paragraph 264 of the Royal Commis-

1099
sion's Report. It was their recommendation that claims should be made in the form of a statement as prescribed in regulations by, they envisaged, the Minister of Agriculture. They went on to say that the statement should be countersigned by a responsible person. We rejected that proposal, on the ground that a wilfully false declaration carries penalties under the Perjury Act, which we thought was a better arrangement. It is a common practice to provide for something to be supported by a declaration. Then it was suggested that it should be a criminal offence for anyone to register such a claim if he knew it to be without just cause. That, too, we have toned down. Those are perhaps minor changes in the machinery, but I am sure that they are on the right side. But I think one must have some provision against the quite odd person who often seems to be connected with ancient and obscure rights, and who makes what is described as a frivolous or vexatious claim. He may mean no harm, but he may be so odd that, in practice, it is advisable to prevent him from giving too many people too much trouble over unfounded matters. That is the reason for a provision of this sort.
I have answered the noble Viscount as fully as I can. I repeat that we will take careful note of what he has said, and of the real point behind his comments, and will try not to make the form of declaration and the supporting documents so narrow that claims, about which there is a genuine doubt yet some possibility or probability of their being right, will be turned away.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I think I can attempt to persuade my own authority to register without undue fear of committing perjury. I hope that we shall be able to bring some of these pieces of land under control.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Notification of, and objections to, registration]:
6.23 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "less" and insert "more". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is similar to the second Amendment which I moved the other
1100
day. It is not quite the same, because it refers to the period of objection once the register comes into force. As it is written in the Bill, the period of objection is to be no less than two years. It could, of course, be any length of time. The noble Lord was good enough on the second Amendment to give me an assurance that in fact it was the Government's intention not to delay. Could he give a similar assurance on this Amendment, that even if the period for which objection may be accepted is more than two years, it will not be substantially more than two years? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("less") and insert ("more").—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD MITCHISON: May I again repeat that we have every intention of adhering to the timetable that I indicated, I think on Second Reading—namely, the timetable covering the periods both for registering and for objections? We cannot give an absolute promise about it, because one never knows what is going to happen in a matter of this sort. I trust that we shall not be delayed by lengthy proceedings, such as prosecuting the County Clerk of Kent in relation to declarations that he may have made, or anything of that sort. But there are such disembroilable things as that which can happen in a case of this sort. I hope that the noble Earl will again accept my assurance that we hope to put this Bill into operation with diligence; indeed, it would be an utterly ridiculous measure unless we intended to follow it up with substantial legislation.
EARL FERRERS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance. I am sure that I can rest contented that he will proceed with the provisions of the Bill as quickly as possible, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Vesting of unclaimed land]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MOLSON: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he

1101
could give us a little more information about the kind of procedure that will take place before a Commons Commissioner. When there has been a registration of a claim by someone who owned a common, and when an objection has been entered, then the registration authority shall refer the matter to a Commons Commissioner. There then, presumably, is something in the nature of a real action at law before the Commons Commissioner; and it appears to me that then, at any rate for the purposes of registration, one will have a case tried to determine who is the owner of the land.
We have been told on a number of occasions—and it has been emphasised in the correspondence which I have been fortunate enough to have with the Parliamentary Secretary—that it is not intended that registration under Clause l (1) (c) of this Bill shall be an indefeasible title. But where the ownership of the land has not been registered under the land registration, and where a claim has been made under Clause 1 (1) (c) of this Bill, where an objection has been raised, and where the matter has been referred to a Commons Commissioner and determined by him, then I believe that that registration becomes final.
But is it the view of the Government that under this Bill the owner who has had this action at law before the Commons Commissioner will have an indefeasible title to that land? If not, then it would appear that there would be some difficulty in persuading claimants to incur the costs of an action of this kind, if at the end of the hearing the decision of the Commons Commissioner is not to be conclusive evidence of title to the land. I should like to ask what kind of evidence anyone who has registered the land and whose registration has been objected to will be expected to bring forward.
6.30 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: This raises the question of what the Commons Commissioner is. He is, it is true, an officer of a judicial character, but one appointed simply for the purposes of this Bill; therefore one whose decisions will not go beyond the purview of this Bill. Taking that as what he is, let us see what now happens. First of all, if land is registered under the Land Registration
1102
Acts the question does not arise—I am looking at subsection (1) here. But assuming the land is not registered under the Land Registration Acts, the condition which has to be fulfilled is that there has already been a final registration of the land as common land or as a town or village green—that is to say, its status has been finally determined—but there is no owner registered for the purposes of this Bill. It is only in those circumstances that the question comes to the Commons Commissioner. When it does so come, his first duty is to inquire into the matter. That appears to be a duty which does not depend on any motion or application from outside. It is a duty which it will be unusual to find in the case of a judge.
Subsection (2) says:
"After the registration authority has given such notices as may be prescribed, the Commons Commissioner shall inquire into the matter.… "
No doubt the effect of the notices may well have been to bring forward claimants. For his first duty, he has deliberately to look for an owner; and though no doubt somebody has to start the proceedings, in one sense it does not follow that there will be a disputed claim; he is at large as to inquiry into it. That is the way I read the subsection at present. Consequently, the next question is, Who is going to decide his procedure? There is no provision in the Bill that I can find for the Lord Chancellor to deal with the procedure; that is to say, it is not regarded as a matter on which legal rules would be made in the way they so often are in these Statutes. I find that there is a provision for the Minister to make rules in subsection (1) (e) of Clause 18. It is therefore going to be determined by the Minister what is to be done in cases of the kind we are now considering. It is in quite general terms, and I do not think I need go into any detail about it.
The result of all this seems to be that the likelihood of an undetermined ownership is not going to be very large. Moreover, there has had to be a preliminary proceeding. The preliminary proceeding was registration under Clause 4. We have just made it perfectly clear, partly at the noble Lord's own instance, that persons (using a very wide term) may apply for registration in those cases and may do so where no other application has been

1103
made; and may further do so in cases (I think I am right in saying this) where there is no question of ownership at that stage. Accordingly, the chances that there will be cases of unclaimed ownership to be dealt with at the end of the day seem to be almost minimal. But if there are such cases I come back to what I said in the last Committee proceedings. We come to what one noble Lord called the lacuna, and it is a lacuna because the ownership of the land will then stay where it is; that is to say, it will be in the Crown. It may be in some person who has not appeared. Nothing will be done about it until the next stage legislation when questions of ownership will have to be dealt with.
It is said in those circumstances, "What about the decision of the Commissioner, if in fact there are proceedings before him and he comes to a conclusion?" I have already answered that point. It seems to me that his conclusion will be that So-and-so has the ownership of the land for the purposes of this Bill, and no more. It will be perfectly open to someone to question, in the appropriate proceedings in open court, whether or not that person really is the owner. I do not think one can get any greater exactitude or finality about these matters at this stage. I would ask noble Lords to bear in mind that what we are now doing is to provide for what, I hope, will be a comparatively short period, after which, undoubtedly, provision will have to be made for dealing with ownership rights and the like in cases where there is no claimant and no apparent owner. That is the best information I can provide for the noble Lord. I feel a little inclined to say that it would no doubt be more convenient if there were no lacuna, but I do not see any practical way of avoiding this temporary difficulty. When I call it "a difficulty", I think it is the right thing to do.
LORD HURCOMB: Where the Commissioner is not satisfied about the ownership of a town or village green there will not be a lacuna, because he will then direct, or might direct, that the land shall be registered as belonging to the local authority.
LORD MITCHISON: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I am sorry that I did not repeat it, but I have said it several times already: I was
1104
talking about common land. That is, of course, the case.
LORD HURCOMB: Yes, but what is puzzling people is that you do not allow a lacuna to exist in the case of the village green but are content to let it exist in the case of a common. It may be that the cases are minimal, but it is not satisfactory that there should be a lacuna in time during which a great many abuses or encroachments might take place on what is held to be common land. It may be that outside organisations fail to appreciate the full complexities of the Bill and of the situation, but that seems to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs, even if it relates only to a comparatively small number of areas which hitherto have been supposed to be common land.
LORD MITCHISON: I am sorry I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, but I had not mentioned a town or village green on this occasion, though I had on previous occasions. That is a comparatively simple case. A town or village green obviously ought to go to the local authority, but it is by no means such a simple case when one is dealing with common land, which is a much wider term and will include things which are completely different.
Our view about the matter is that it will be necessary to deal separately in different areas with the commons, though not so much with the town or village greens, as there is little doubt about them. The Royal Commission were of the same opinion about this matter, and if noble Lords will look at the report of the Royal Commission they will find that they, too, divided their recommendations into two stages; the first was the registration which we are now considering, and the second (the larger part, I think), was the recommendations as to what should be done finally.
Those recommendations were of the most general character; that is to say, you must see what you have got to deal with before you decide what is to be done with a common. You must see not only about rights; you must see about uses, and you must see about the area in which the common is situated. Actually, the considerations that arise in connection with a common within 50 miles of London—and there are many such commons—are likely to be quite different from those which arise in connection with the

1105
commons in those parts of the country where there is the largest area of them; that is to say, up in the hill farming area in the North, in the West and in Wales.
We take the view, therefore, that, while it is possible to make an immediate provision as regards town or village greens, if we tried to do anything of the sort in connection with commons at large, we should then, in effect, be trying to do what we believe is impossible at this stage—that is, provide for the ultimate destination of commons before enough is known about them. The whole object of this Bill is to provide eventually for their ultimate use and disposal to the best public advantage. The Bill itself is a preliminary, because, before that can be done, it asks for them to be registered in the way described.
Then it is said that you are giving an opportunity to encroachments, to abuses and so on. It would be very nice—I have said it before, and I say it again—if we could stop up the lacuna immediately. That is what we say we cannot do. We have first to find out what the position is, and that is what this Bill is about. One can at any rate console oneself by saying, for what it is worth, that we are adding a period of five years, or thereabouts, to what has already been going on for centuries. It would not be a good reason if we were going to add a long period, but as it is a comparatively short one then I think it is very much better that all the facts should be right, as we are trying to bring about in this Bill, before we try to make provision for the commons. I am sure your Lordships will feel that this matter has been well thought about, not only by the Ministry for which I am speaking but also by the Royal Commission, and I can see no way of making a temporary provision for commons pending the ascertainment of the facts about them. I hope that I have made my point clearly, whether or not your Lordships agree with it.
6.44 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I must say that I find it rather difficult to understand why it would be more difficult to deal with commons around London than with commons in Yorkshire. They should all be registered with the local authority. That is the purpose of registration. There surely cannot be any differ-
1106
ence about the actual method by which the commons are dealt with, and about the way in which they are going to be used. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has a very sound point here. The Minister has said that it is not of great importance because this is a very small lacuna. It reminds one of the well-known story about the girl and the illegitimate baby, who explained that it was "a very little one". But I am not at all sure that that will always be so. It seems to me that the situation would be very much simpler—I cannot see how it is going to be more complicated in the way the Minister suggests—if the commons were to be registered, as is going to be done with the village green, in the name of the local authority.
LORD MOLSON: The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated his argument that the commons have been whittled away by encroachments over many centuries; and he asks: "Why worry about the further period of three or five years?" But these three or five years are going to be far more serious than the previous centuries. At that time it was not known who was the owner of the commons. Now, under this Bill, it will be published, for all to know, that there is no known owner of particular commons, and, therefore, no one who can stand behind the legal or other proceedings that are required to protect the commons from encroachment. That is why this lacuna, even if it is only a matter of five years, is likely to be so much more serious than the time which has elapsed in the past.
LORD MITCHISON: I venture to think that one can have no better illustration of the need for the lacuna than the views of the two noble Lords who have just spoken. One of them wants the commons handed over to a Custodian; the other wants them handed over to local authorities. They are both quite clear that that is the only way of dealing with them.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sorry, but the Amendment for the Custodian was withdrawn; otherwise, I should certainly have supported it. A Custodian would be much better. But I am suggesting, as the Government have rejected the Custodian and are using the local authority in connection with the village greens, that they should use the local authority here as well.
LORD MOLSON: In the speech with which I withdrew the Amendment concerning the Custodian, I said that we were not wedded to that proposal and would be quite willing to agree to local authorities.
LORD MITCHISON: Let us put the matter in a very gentle way. It appears that noble Lords see no particular advantage as between the Custodian and the local authorities. I do not think this is fair to the commoners, and I do not think it is fair to the public. I thought we were bringing in this Bill with the consent of the whole House—certainly, with the consent of two former Conservative Ministers of Agriculture who spoke on the matter—for the purpose which I thought everybody agreed was essential: to find out who were the parties and what were the rights before we decided on the disposal of the commons. The difficulty about the lacuna is that we are being invited to make some final disposition of the commons, as I understand it, before we have found out what this Bill is intended to discover. That is the whole point about this business.
I really cannot see what one is going to do with the commons, if it is intended to fill the lacuna. What is the point of handing them over to the local authorities, or to a Custodian, for a short time, if at the end of that short time one is going to make the final and necessary provision for their disposal in the public interest, and in the interest of the commoners and others concerned? I do not regard the short period of the lacuna as a reason or an excuse or anything of that sort. I think it is merely the background of the picture. There are not going to be many of these cases. The cases will be those where something has been going on for a long time already, and I cannot believe that it would be wise to make a provision without sufficient knowledge, in order to avoid having to make it five years later than now.
For those reasons, there is no way, so far as I can see, of avoiding this difficulty in the case of commons; though, as I said before, town or village greens are a very much simpler matter and can be disposed of. I might remind noble Lords that the Commission which dealt with
1108
commons did not deal with town or village greens, which are rather a separate matter. I am perfectly willing to take this matter away and listen to any views which anybody cares to present to me, and will come back to the matter on Report stage, if need be. But I repeat that, so far as I can see, there is really no possible means of avoiding a gap of this kind. This is the gap which is in-dictated by Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, which says:
"Where any land is registered under this Act but no person is registered as the owner …
(b) if it is common land"—
it is to—
"be vested as Parliament may hereafter determine."
That is the lacuna. We have passed that clause, incidentally, but I am not relying on that, and I really do not see what else one can do in the interests of the commons.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Effect of Registration]:
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, after under", to insert "Section l (1) (a) and (b) of". The noble Lord said: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept this Amendment, and in saying that, I rely upon what he said in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, in the earlier day's debate on the Committee stage of this Bill. He then pointed out that in Clause 9 the registration is to be conclusive evidence of any land registered as common land or as a town or village green, or of any rights over any such land which, as he pointed out, are the rights of common, but he went on to say "they are not conclusive as to ownership". The registrations which take place under Clause 1 of this Bill are divided into three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), but, as even the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, with his long and distinguished legal experience was not quite sure whether the rights referred to in Clause 9 were the rights under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1 (1) of this Bill, it seemed desirable to make it quite plain that it is only what the Parliamentary Secretary referred to which are to be conclusive, and not the claims of ownership. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("under") insert ("Section 1 (1) (a) and (6) of").—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: I hope I can help the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. I do not think the language is quite suitable, but I think we can do the same thing in another way. And may I say to him that my reason for wishing to do that is just exactly the one he himself indicated? I went back and thought to myself, "Well, if the noble Lord, Lord McNair, was not quite certain what it meant, it is about time we made it clear". With that in view I am going to move, on Report, the following:
"The registration under this Act of any land as common land or as a town or village green, or of any rights of common over any such land … "
If the noble Lord will turn to Clause 1, he will see that that covers in terms the language of paragraphs (a) and (b), and of course it does not cover paragraph (c). It is therefore the same thing. I do not want to have a narrow grammatical argument, but in fact I slightly prefer this language, which in substance is exactly what the noble Lord has asked for, and I hope it is just as clear, except that in my view it is better.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary. He has accepted the burden of my argument. I still prefer my own wording, but I will not be more difficult about it than he has been. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Exemption from Registration]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MOLSON: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the drafting of subsection (1) which says:
"The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to the New Forest or Epping Forest".
Then it says
"and shall not be taken to apply to the Forest of Dean".
I am sure there must be some special reason for that. One would naturally have supposed that the Parliamentary
1110
draftsman would have said "shall not apply to the New Forest or Epping Forest or the Forest of Dean". I am sure there is some special reason for this wording, with which I am not familiar.
LORD MITCHISON: I can give your Lordships the special reason. Whether the language is wholly happy is a little difficult to say, because the circumstances are rather unsual, but the point about the Forest of Dean is that nobody is really certain whether it is a common or not, and this was thought to be, language suitable to meet that case. I can assure your Lordships that the exemption is as complete in the one case as it is in the other: that neither the New Forest nor Epping Forest nor the Forest of Dean will be affected by this Act. The reason for that is simple enough; it is because they have legislation of their own.
EARL FERRERS: If it is not quite certain whether or not the Forest of Dean is a common, would it not be a good idea if it were made subject to this Bill, in order to find out whether anybody had any rights over it?
LORD MITCHISON: The rights are there, but they depend on other things which are not necessarily common rights. There is a good deal of legislation about it and, if I may say so with respect to your Lordships, I think it is better left where it is. It is not an easy question; nor, for that matter, is the New Forest or Epping Forest. I have heard in another place the most vehement complaints by constituency Members about animals from Epping Forest poking their noses into gardens, and indeed into houses round about Epping Forest.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Subsequent registration under Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936
11.—
(b) if the registration authority is notified by the Chief Land Registrar that the land has been registered under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936 the authority shall delete the registration of the ownership under this Act and indicate in the register in the prescribed manner that it has been registered under those Acts.
6.57 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: In order to save time, may I, with your Lordships' permission, also ask a general question about the meaning of the clause, which otherwise I should have put on whether the clause shall stand part? As I understand it, this Clause 1s of special importance in the Bill. I have argued on several occasions on various Amendments that it is unfortunate that registration of claims and rights in respect of commons will appear in two different registers, the Land Register set up under the Act of 1925 and the register set up under this Bill. When the Parliamentary Secretary has said that it is undesirable to have two registers which might conflict, I have suggested to him that it would be most desirable to try to devise some machinery so that rights registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925, should also, provided it were possible to prevent any conflict arising, be registered under this Bill, because then these registers would be available to the public.
In the correspondence which I had with the Parliamentary Secretary about this Bill on this matter of the ownership of common land, he explained the position to me as follows. Where the title is already registered at the Land Registry a claim may not be registered under this Bill, but registrars under the Bill will know that registration has been effected at the Land Registry. In the case of land which has not been registered at the Land Registry, while it must be registered under this Bill to avoid terminal inquiry under Clause 8 and possibly vesting under Clause 8 or future legislation, it will eventually become registered at the Land Registry under Clause 11 of this Bill, after it has been registered in the registers which are being set up.
I take it that these two paragraphs deal with the precise machinery by which, when the registrations have become final, they will ultimately be registered on the Land Register under the Act of 1925. Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to confirm that? And could he explain what is the exact meaning of paragraph (b), which, by this Amendment, I move to delete? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: Clause 11 is, I agree, rather complicated, and I am afraid I did not say very much about it on Second Reading. I think I can summarise its effect. One has to begin with Clause 11 (a). Under that paragraph, common land or a green which is registered under this Bill will become compulsorily registrable at the Land Registry on the first subsequent sale of a freehold or grant of a long lease or sale of a long lease. I am using the words "long lease" roughly. That will, in time, have the effect of getting all the common land and greens on to the Land Registry. That is paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b) is to provide for the Land Registry to notify the Commons Registration Authority of a compulsory registration made under paragraph (a), and when they do so the Commons Registration Authority will delete the ownership registration from the commons register and note in the register that the title is now registered at the Land Registry. The effect of that is to prevent a duplicate registration of ownership, possibly a conflicting registration of ownership, and again to centre the registration on the Land Registry, if I may put it that way. That, incidentally, was a recommendation of the Royal Commission—that those duplicate registrations should be avoided.
Now if paragraph (b) were taken out, you would have a Land Registry which would be up to date and good in law in consequence of paragraph (a), but you would have side by side with it a commons registry entry which could well be misleading to anybody and would have no legal effect at all outside the provisions of this Bill. It is therefore necessary, as we see it, to preserve the principle of one, and only one, conclusive registry for general purposes—and that is the Land Registry.
I am sorry to put a point of this sort in what must sound a highly confusing way, but the real difficulty of it is that it is a complicated business. The principles are that things should be brought on to the Land Registry in time, and that the conclusive registry should be one and only one—and that is the Land

1113
Registry, and not registration under this Bill.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his careful explanation. When I have had an opportunity of perusing Hansard tomorrow I hope that I shall understand it a little better than I do at the present time. I am sure he has explained it quite clearly, but, as he himself says, it is not easy to take in when one is listening to a speech. I am much obliged to him for his courteous explanation. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw—
LORD MITCHISON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I assure him that I shall be only too glad to try to develop this a little further at any time and place convenient to him; and that, if the matter were to arise again on Report, I would again try to consider it. I would not regard what was done now as in any way debarring him from putting any further point.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his courtesy. It is quite likely that I shall take up his offer and correspond with him about it. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Amendment of registers]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 21A were to be agreed to, Amendment No. 22 could not be called.
7.6 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: The intention of this Amendment is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson—and, I think, to go a little further than he was contemplating going. By the Amendment we propose to leave out of paragraph (b):
"in substitution (on compulsory purchase or otherwise) for any land registered under this Act".
The object of the Amendment is to remove a limitation so that land which in future becomes common land may be put on to the registers. There will not be many such cases, but there may be grants of common land and the like; and, of course, some of those grants may be in substitution for some other right or property.
1114
The view we have taken of the point which the noble Lord has raised is that, having regard to the comparatively small number of cases there are likely to be, and on the general equity of the matter, it is right that any future common land—that is to say, land becoming common land in the future—should be put on to the registers by way of amendment; and the same goes for town or village greens. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will take it from me that we have tried to meet his point, and, as I indicated, even to extend it a little; and we are very grateful to him for having raised it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 16, leave out from ("green") to ("or") in line 17.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD MOLSON: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary very much indeed for accepting my point—and for going a little further than I had proposed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Quantification of certain grazing rights]:
7.10 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a definite number '' and to insert:
"shall be capable of being maintained during the winter by the stored produce of the claimant's own land as registered under section l (1) (c)".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to give guidance where there is a right of grazing and no number of animals is stated. The clause as drafted says that, for the purposes of registration under this Bill, a right to graze shall be treated as exercisable in relation to a definite number of animals. My Amendment seeks to lay down a criterion. The number to which I would desire to lay a limit for the grazing rights is the number that shall be capable of being maintained during winter by the stored produce of the claimant's own land as registered under Section l (1) (c) of this Bill.
There are, unfortunately, many cases where too many animals are turned out on the green in winter. A great deal of distress is caused when the commoner's own land cannot support them. A great

1115
deal of public attention has been drawn to this in connection with Dartmoor, but I think the same applies to many other commons. It seems that, when registration is going to substitute a definite number for an indefinite number, that number should bear some relationship to the accommodation which the commoner has on his own land at a time of year when he is not exercising his grazing rights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("a definite number") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: This is a very old matter. There used to be what was called a rule of levancy and couchancy that you could put on the common only the number of beasts that you could keep in your farm for shelter; and it was administered by the manorial courts which have, some time since, in most cases disappeared. The specific point was considered by the Royal Commission, and their recommendation—and I am going to quote from paragraph 274—was:
"Each claimant should be free to claim those rights of pasture which he believes he is entitled to."
Then they go on to point out that where there are stints (that is to say, arrangements for partitioning or dividing the rights of common or pasture) the question really does not arise. It is only in cases where there are no such rules that it arises; and about that they say (and I quote from the same paragraph):
"Under modern conditions to attempt a definition according to the winter carrying capacity of the farm—a revival, that is, of the old rule of levancy and couchancy—or according to the valuation of the farm as a pastoral unit would often be more a test of the capabilities of the farmer than of the capacity of his land."
When I read that paragraph I was not quite sure whether the reference was to the capacity of the farmer as a farmer or to the capacity of the farmer as a claimant. However that may be, I see the practical difficulty of doing it.
I can assure the noble Lord that not only did the Commission give consideration to this, but we too have done so. The short answer is that you simply cannot do it; there really is no way. The manorial courts, as I have said, have in practically all cases disappeared
1116
and conditions have changed so much that the old rule would now be impossible to apply. It was a part of the manorial system and if you had to apply it properly and fairly you would have to go back and find out what in each individual case that particular system was.
The conclusion we have come to on this matter, in common with the Royal Commission, is that you get rather an arbitrary division and it would, in fact, not bear much relation to customary or existing usage in the common in question. I see the object of this; so did the Commission. They did not regard it as altogether satisfactory that a claimant should be free to claim whatever he believed he was entitled to. They considered various possibilities, and they finally decided that there is really only one course—and I quote paragraph 275—and that is:
"to allow the commoner in his claim to rights of common to pasture, to define them himself."
In other words, to allow him to claim whatever he believes he is entitled to. Then they say:
"If our recommendation is accepted we do not think that in practice it will work badly. In most places the commoners will settle their individual claims by discussion before registering them, some in their present associations or manor courts, the others in all probability by getting together informally in the parish hall or bar parlour."
I think there is a great deal of common sense in that, although perhaps the Royal Commission took a somewhat optimistic view of the commoners. I am inclined to think that this provision would in fact work out all right. But I am afraid that the Amendment would be impossible of application, and might produce arbitrary results. Again, I should be only too glad, if the noble Lord wished to make further points when he has considered the Royal Commission's point of view on the matter, to bring this question up again on Report stage or to assist him to do so in any way I could.
LORD MOLSON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Commons Commissioners and assessors
16.—
(2) Any matter referred under this Act to a Commons Commissioner shall be dealt with by such one of the Commissioners as the Chief Commons Commissioner may determine, and that Commissioner may sit with an assessor selected by the Chief Commons Commissioner from the panel appointed under this section.
(4) A Commons Commissioner may order any party to any proceedings before him to pay to any other party to the proceedings any costs incurred by that party in respect of the proceedings; and any costs so awarded shall be taxed in the county court according to such of the scales prescribed by county court rules for proceedings in the county court as may be directed by the order or, if the order gives no direction, by the county court, and shall be recoverable in like manner as costs awarded in the county court.
7.18 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: This Amendment merely seeks to establish the principle that
"the Chief Commons Commissioner shall not select any Commons Commissioner or Assessors to deal with any claim affecting any land situate less than 30 miles from his normal place of professional business."
It is important not only that justice should be done but that it should be seen to be done. It does appear undesirable that someone should exercise an important quasi-judicial function of this kind in a vicinity where he is known and where he may be suspected of having business relations with one of the parties to the dispute. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, at end inser—
"Provided that the Chief Commons Commissioner shall not select any Commons Commissioner or Assessors to deal with any claim affecting any land situate less than 30 miles from his normal place of professional business".—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: I much appreciate the reason why this Amendment has been put forward. As the noble Lord rightly put it, it is not so much a question of ensuring justice as of ensuring that justice should be apparent. But I am afraid that this is a matter that should be left to the Chief Commons Commissioner himself. One could and should provide in some form or another, either by regulations or some administrative arrangements, that commissioners with an interest should not hear any claim. But this is a geographical limitation and I think it is rather too wide. There will
1118
be cases where the local knowledge of the Commissioner may save the parties quite a lot of time and trouble without in any way impeding the course of justice. I think that the effective prohibition of an interest is the right way of doing it, and that beyond that we should leave the matter in the hands of the Chief Commissioner. The noble Lord will recollect that the Chief Commissioner and commissioners are all legal gentlemen of considerable experience, and where a commissioner is functioning the code of his own profession will be a pretty effective deterrent to any damage and an effective justification in the eyes of the public. After all, to take an obvious instance, the clerk to the magistrates is often resident in or near the area of the court and often carries on practice as a local solicitor. I have never heard anybody complain of that fact, although they make many complaints about the courts in other respects.
LORD MOLSON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided nevertheless that upon the application at any stage prior to the issue of a writ of any party or of the Custodian of Common Rights, the Chief Commons Commissioner shall have power at his discretion to certify in any particular case that because of the complexity of the problems to be resolved or that the subject calls for a decision of great importance to the public, the costs of proceedings shall be at High Court scales and liable to taxation by the officer of the court."
The noble Lord said: There have been many long and costly actions at law with regard to commoners' rights and the ownership of commons. If it had not been for these actions and suits in Chancery in the nineteenth century, the commons around London, which are now available for the enjoyment of the public would have been enclosed and used for building purposes. It is quite possible that the course of proceedings before the Chief Commons Commissioner under this Bill may be long and costly, and it may be that the costs of the proceedings should be rated at High Court scales and liable to taxation by the officers of that court, rather than, as provided in the Bill, at county court level. I hope that this will not arise, but it is

1119
impossible for any one to say that it will not. Therefore, we feel that the Chief Commons Commissioner should have the discretion to determine costs at a higher level. If it did occur, it would be important that where a claimant had had to face a long and vexatious dispute, and was successful, he should be able to recover costs on an appropriate scale. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment raises to some extent the question of balance of convenience. I do not think that there is such a thing as a High Court scale of costs. Costs are taxed on established principles, and there is a considerable variation in the application of those principles. One could no doubt think up something on those lines, but that is not the real point I want to make. The county court scales of costs are varied. If I remember rightly, there are four separate scales, and quite a considerable provision for costs can be made in a proper case under these scales.
The broad question is whether we ought to let what is an inferior court—a special court, if you like, but an inferior court—award High Court costs in cases of this kind. I think that I am right in saying that it is not done as a rule. There are cases where costs are entirely left to the discretion of the judge or person acting as judge, as they are in ordinary arbitrations. But here I believe that the introduction of High Court costs, or, if I may take it generally, higher costs, would do more harm than good, even if it were at the discretion of the Chief Commissioner. I do not think that any of these cases is likely to be a major lawsuit, in the usual sense. Access to the courts is already open for cases where access to the courts is required, and there is nothing in this Bill which prevents people litigating, if they choose to do so. It is intended to provide a simpler and, I hope (in spite of the complexities of the matter), a cheaper and easier way of dealing with the question before us—how to ascertain the commons and the rights over them.
Therefore, on balance, I would suggest,—feeling, if I may say so, rather a beast in suggesting it, because I have already
1120
rejected some of his Amendments—that this Amendment would be a mistake. The best opinion my advisers and I can form of it is that, on the whole, we do not think it would be useful. I recognise that the power is discretionary, but it is a discretionary power that ought to be used rarely, and I think that, on the balance of convenience, it is better to lay down definitely that proceedings should be dealt with on one or the other of the county court scales. I have the figures of these here, but I do not think the noble Lord will want them. There is quite a difference between the several scales.
LORD MOLSON: I noted with great satisfaction that the Parliamentary Secretary felt that he had been rather a beast to me. I hope that he will not forget that he feels he has been a beast, when some of the more important Amendments I have put forward are considered on Report stage, and that he will take action in order that I may be able to say that he has not been a beast, but the kind of friendly, conciliatory and statesmanlike Parliamentary Secretary I really believe him to be. In view of his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
7.27 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to Clause 16:
"() The Lord Chancellor shall have power to make directions as to the custody of any document produced in connection with the establishment of title with regard to common land or common rights."
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment, which I was asked to put down because it appears to be important that the Lord Chancellor should have power to give directions as to the custody of any document produced in connection with the establishment of title in regard to common land or commons rights. I may be told that the Lord Chancellor already has power, or that in any case documents would be in safe custody; but in view of the appalling complexity of the disputes about commons rights, where some useful document is produced in the course of proceedings, it is most important that it should remain available for the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD MITCHISON: I fully understand the reason why this Amendment has been put forward, but I feel a difficulty in accepting it. The reason is that full provision for dealing with manorial documents is already contained in the Second Schedule to the Law of Property (Amendment) Act, 1924. It begins with the general provision that all manorial documents shall be under the charge and superintendence of the Master of the Rolls, and then provides that they are to remain in possession of, or under the control of, the Lord of the manor for the time being, but that he must not destroy or damage them. The Master of the Rolls may from time to time make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining that any manorial documents are in proper custody, and if he thinks that they are not being properly preserved he may direct to have them transferred to the Public Record Office, and so on and so forth.
There would be a conflict of duties and responsibilities between the existing legislation and what is proposed by this Amendment.
I do not say again that I am a beast. I would rather suggest to the noble Lord that the matter is fully covered by the 1924 Act, and there is no need for the Lord Chancellor to have a battle with the Master of the Rolls (what a terrible scene it would be!) as to who is to deal with documents.
LORD MOLSON: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I had an idea that the point might be covered, but I was not aware of that particular matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Regulations]:
7.31 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (1), to add after paragraph (f):
"() for enabling the Church Commissioners to act on behalf of the incumbent of any ecclesiastical benefice of the Church of England which is vacant".
The noble Lord said: This is a simple matter, but one which was overlooked when the Bill was drafted. This Amendment is to enable the Church Commissioners to act on behalf of the incumbent when an ecclesiastical benefice is vacant.
1122
There are many ways in which an incumbent can come within the provisions of this Bill. I understand that a curate who is carrying out the incumbent's spiritual duties could not deal with this particular matter; therefore it is necessary to have a provision of this sort. I can assure your Lordships that the Church Commissioners welcome it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (2), after "therein" to insert:
"and any land to which rights of common registered therein are attached, ".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to Clause 18 (2), and it would insert after "therein" certain words referring to the dominant land, as we have called it during these debates. This is a subsection which applies to maps to accompany applications for registration and to form part of the register finally; copies to be deposited and the like—I need not go into all the details. This is simply to cover the dominant land, and exactly the same principles apply to it as apply to common land.
I should like to take this opportunity of correcting a small—perhaps your Lordships will think verbal—slip of mine at an earlier stage. I said that dominant land would be noted, but not registered. I ought to have said that it would be registered, but it would have no more effect than the registration of any other land which we discussed earlier. I noticed it used in a peculiar sense in Clause 3 of the Bill. It does not apply to dominant land. I hope I have made this clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 41, after ("therein") insert the said words.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, after subsection (3), to add:
"() Before making any regulations under this section the Minister shall consult with such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests of owners of common land and holders of rights of common."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a perfectly simple one which I feel sure will commend itself to the

1123
noble Lord opposite. He was good enough at the beginning to put your Lordships in the picture and say that he would not be able to accept many Amendments. I rather assumed that this meant he would be able to accept some, and as I think to date he has not accepted any other Amendments than his own, I look forward to this one, at least, finding favour with him.
The Amendment provides that before making any regulations his Department should consult with any bodies who they think can be of assistance to them in framing the regulations. There must be many bodies throughout the country which could help his Department, and I hope the noble Lord will agree that the Department should be obliged to consult them. This is not new wording. I think the noble Lord will find that it appears in many other Acts. The noble Lord said the other day, in answer to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman—and it encouraged me greatly—that these gentlemen would be foolish if they neglected to consult with persons interested. I hope that the inclusion of these words in the Bill may prevent these foolish people from becoming evident. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 46. at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD MITCHISON: Was ever an Amendment moved so persuasively? But these good beginnings do not always end so well. What I have been doing—and it is very much what I am doing in this case—is to say how much I agree with the principle of a good many of these Amendments, and in some cases having looked particularly to the language of the Amendment put the point in a slightly different form. But this is a case of making regulations covering a wide field. I repeat what I said the other day: that a Minister of Land would be very foolish if he did not consult the persons interested. This Amendment, however, refers to one group of persons interested—namely, the owners of common land and holders of rights of common land. There are other people, too. There are the local authorities, and I could think of a good many more. It seems to me that there would have to be quite wide consultations in framing these regulations.
1124
If I remember rightly, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, pointed out in this case that the question he was raising would really arise on the regulations themselves. I think it is unwise to tie the Minister by Statute to consult a particular group—a very important group, I agree—in every case and not to mention other groups who would have to be consulted in other cases. I think, in short, that in a Bill of this kind the right course is to suppose that the Minister is a moderately sensible person—my own Minister is more than that—and he will not make regulations without consulting these people in most cases, and other people in other cases. Therefore I trust that the noble Earl will accept the assurance of good intentions and not try to get it put into the Bill, because I think in a Bill of this kind it would only cause confusion to mention one case when there are many others falling to be consulted.
EARL FERRERS: I must say that for quite a long time I have been trying to discover what arguments the noble Lord could think of to bring up against accepting this Amendment, and I could not find any. I misjudged the noble Lord's ingenuity. However, I see the point he has made. I would not, of course, press him over this matter at the moment, except to ask him whether he can think about it again—he has been good enough to say that he would—because we are dealing with people who have had interests and rights in common land, and it would seem reasonable that they should be consulted. I agree that there may be other people who should be consulted as well.
I wonder if there is any possibility before the next stage of the Bill of seeing whether there are any words that might suit the noble Lord and which would request the Minister to consult with the people concerned before actually making the regulations.
LORD MITCHISON: I will gladly do that; in any case, I said that I would. I mentioned local authorities, and perhaps I ought to have mentioned to the noble Earl the other group of people who are likely to be concerned. These are substantially the commoners, the agricultural interests, and so on. There are also the public amenity societies, the commons, footpaths and open spaces people, the

1125
Council for the Preservation of Rural England, whose honorary secretary is the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others of that kind. When it comes to the second stage legislation, that is the balance we shall have to keep between the kind of people referred to in this Amendment and the more general interests of access and amenity, whether represented by local authorities, by these societies, or in any other way. I will look at it, but I am afraid I see little choice between something so vague as not properly to meet the noble Lord's intentions, and something too narrow which will admit people whom one can think of afterwards and say, "Why did we put this lot in?" I will do my best.
EARL FERRERS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation]:
LORD MOLSON: There is no need for me to move Amendment No. 33. The Parliamentary Secretary moved Amendment No. 15A which refers to any person, and under the Interpretation Act, 1889, my point is covered. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this point.
EARL FERRERS: The object of this Amendment is not merely to bring the Committee stage to an end with a flourish of the English language, nor indeed to request learned gentlemen continually to refer to the dictionary when trying to find out what this Act means. It is really to find out why these categories of people who have an interest in common land have been omitted. The Bill says that rights of common include cattle gates and beast gates. By saying that it includes them, it presumably means that there are other rights as well. Later it says,
" 'town or village green' means … ".
This is much more specific. I wondered whether it was possible to be more specific as to all the rights of common land. Admittedly they include cattle gates and beast gates which are, after all, rights of grazing. These other rights which I have mentioned, such as estovers and pannage, refer to rights of having pigs, cutting turf and wood, and these other curious rights which still remain.
1126
Are they to be included and, if so, is it possible to put them into the Bill; or is there any reason why they have not been included? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 3, after ("includes") insert ("estovers, pannage, piscary, turbary,").—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD MITCHISON: I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, the more so because when I first read this definition I shied like a frightened horse. I said to myself, "This says it includes so and so, but surely one must be able to indicate what rights of common are." I then tried, and I can assure the noble Earl that quite literally I spent hours over this, but I could not find a form of words which covered rights of common properly. Having said that, may I point out, as he has already pointed out, that town or village green is a real definition. This is not a real definition. It is taking rights of common and including with them a number of rights which are not even rights of common, or are very doubtful rights of common, whereas the ones he has mentioned are in fact true rights of common.
Then one says, "Well, if those are true rights of common, why not put them in?" The answer is because there are other rights of common, too, and they have not got these nice, picturesque names. They vary from one place to another. For instance, I do not think the noble Earl's list includes the rights of taking gravel and things of that sort, which exist in some places and not in others, and can apparently be rights of common. Halsbury on this subject has a long article about rights of commons. I tried to find a phrase that would cover it. The nearest phrase one can get is, "taking produce from someone else's land without disturbing the soil", or something of that sort. But that will not do because that may be done in many ways otherwise than by exercising a right of common.
I was therefore strongly advised (and I am sure that the advice given to me was right) that one has to leave "rights of common" as it is, and that is largely why I advise people to go and see a solicitor if they are in doubt. It really is a term of art, and you have to accept it. It is impossible to find a clear and compendious phrase that covers it, and if you try to find one you leave people out. Therefore, the right thing to do is, I believe,

1127
as I was advised, to take it as a substantial phrase, and not add these other doubtful rights. There is one consolation. Where there is any practical doubt about this, it will come before, the Commons Commissioners, who will probably know when they begin, and certainly after a short time, more about rights of commons than most people do. I think this is the right way to do it. I hope the noble Earl will not think I am a terrible fraud. I am glad he raised the point.
EARL FERRERS: The last thing I should think the noble Lord was is a terrible fraud, and I am sorry he should have spent so many hours considering either this Amendment or this clause. Before withdrawing the Amendment, I should like to say that he has obviously spent hours on this Bill, and I would thank him very much for the kind and courteous way, and the most thorough way, in which he has dealt with everybody's Amendments. It really has been most encouraging. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with Amendments.

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

FUTURE OF COWBRIDGE GRAMMAR SCHOOL
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their attention has been drawn to the proposal of the Glamorgan County Council to destroy Cowbridge Grammar School, an ancient and admirable foundation in the Vale of Glamorgan for which there is a great and continuing need, providing both boarding and day-boy facilities, in favour of a comprehensive school to be built some miles away at Llantwit Major; and if so, what steps they are taking to persuade the Glamorgan County Council to reconsider this decision so far as the Cowbridge Grammar School is concerned.
LORD BOWDEN LORD BOWDEN: The Glamorgan County Council have not taken any decision about the future of Cowbridge Grammar School. Any decision to close this School would require the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.