Lords Sitting of 31 October 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester

THE ABERFAN DISASTER
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 what arrangements are being made for a memorial service in London to the victims of the Aberfan disaster.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Wales, was approached by a few individuals last week about the possibility of a memorial service in London. He indicated that he felt that the initiative for such a service should come from the London Welsh community, but that in the event of a service being held, the Welsh Office would be very pleased to give what help it could.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that sympathetic reply. May I ask him whether he would request the Secretary of State for Wales to discuss the whole matter with the President of the London Welsh Association so that a suitable place of worship could be designated for this service? In view of the large number of London Welsh people and of our English friends and representatives from foreign countries who I am sure will wish to be present, it appears to me that such a service ought to be held in Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedra], Central Hall, Westminster, or the Westminster Chapel.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales would be happy to meet the President of the Association, which can I think properly be
428
regarded as speaking for Wales in this connection. Should any representation come from that body or its President, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Wales would be most happy to do what he could to ensure that there was a satisfactory outcome regarding such an unhappy matter.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
2.38 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 Hurcomb.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LTSTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extension of protection for eggs of wild birds
1.—

(1) The power of the Secretary of State under section 2 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act") to prescribe common wild birds whose eggs may be taken or destroyed without contravening section 1 of that Act shall cease; and, accordingly, in subsection (4)(a) of the said section 2 the words from "or of any other common wild bird" to the end are hereby repealed.

(2) The prohibition imposed by section 6(1) of the principal Act on a person's selling, offering for sale or having in his possession for sale, and by section 7(1) of that Act on the importation of, the eggs of a lapwing, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section 10 of that Act, shall, instead of being limited to the period in any year after 14th April have effect throughout the year; and accordingly in that Act section 6(1)(iii), in section 7(1)(c) the words "on or after the fifteenth day of April in any year" and section 9(4)(c) and (d) are hereby repealed.

(3) In subsection (2) of this section any reference to sale shall be construed as including a reference to barter and exchange.

TILE EARL OF CRANBROOK TILE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: When the principal Act of 1954 was passed, the promoters knew country people, they knew country ways, and they knew that it was socially desirable to make provision to allow

429
country pursuits. They therefore provided that, so far as adults were concerned, virtually all the game birds were excluded from the provisions of the Act; that provision was made for wildfowling, for hawking, the capture of hawks, and the killing of birds by hawks. The promoters also provided that special provision should be made to cover the habit which is sanctified by time, that of country boys indulging in bird's-nesting.
Only a dozen years have passed since the inception of that Act, and those of us who live in the country, and know the country, know that country people have not changed at all. Grown-ups of all classes still go shooting; hawking still goes on in a small way; and country children of all classes still continue to make collections of wild flowers, shells, the skulls of animals and of birds' eggs. In that way they learn natural history. Of course, in so doing, they have hurt neither the wild flowers, the animals, the snails nor the birds. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, on the Second Reading of this Bill, admitted quite freely that scientifically there was no need for this subsection which I am asking your Lordships to delete. He knows, and all of us who live in the country know, that bird's-nesting by small boys has never done any harm to birds and has never caused any variations in the bird population.
On the other hand, the effect on the children themselves has been wholly salutary. For many years I ran a boys' club in the country which was primarily concerned with natural history. As most of your Lordships can appreciate from their own youth, I found that the collecting instinct which little boys have to collect these various things was the first thing which turned them to the study of nature around them. I can well remember the pride I used to take as some of those boys grew up and earned their first wages, and how quite a number of them who had been ardent egg collectors in their youth spent the first money they saved, not on motor-bikes and the like, but on buying themselves a pair of field glasses to look at the birds around them. I caught a teenager on a lonely part of my land this Spring. When I asked him what he was doing he said, "I am bird's-nesting, but I am not taking eggs as I used to do. I am now making a list of the nests I find".
430
In point of fact, he had a remarkably interesting collection of records covering a couple of years of various species of birds' nests, some of which I had never noticed, up and down one of my farms.
If there is no scientific justification for this subsection, the promoters have to seek around and try to find another one, which I must confess I myself have failed to do. Certainly no cruelty is involved, because we all know—I should perhaps say that we are all as certain as one can be about any natural phenomenon—that birds do not feel towards their eggs any sort of sentiments such as a human being feels towards its child. The bird does not recognise the cuckoo's egg; it does not worry if its offspring are taken out of the nest by the cuckoo.
On Second Reading the noble Lord suggested that small boys might not notice the difference between a skylark's egg and a woodlark's egg, and indeed that is possible, but by and large I have always found that those children who go bird's-nesting take remarkable care to learn what they are about and take only eggs of birds they reckon they ought to take. Incidentally, after all, the amount of depredation by small boys is in any case so small that if there was an occasional slip up it would not make a ha'porth of difference. Another reason that has been given to me is that "mods" and "rockers" go out from industrial towns and tear down nests and throw them on the ground. That is illegal under the existing law. The Secretary of State cannot allow people to destroy nests. He can only put on a list birds whose eggs may be taken. A practice of that kind can be prevented by the existing law.
In short, the only thing I can find that makes anybody want to support this clause is the sort of instinctive feeling which a number of people have that bird's-nesting per se is wrong and therefore should be discouraged, whether or not it is justified scientifically or whether or not the discouragement is justified logically. If this clause is passed the conscientious village policeman hearing that a small boy has taken a blackbird's egg is going to have to interview him in the presence of his parent, probably the father, who went down the self-same lane collecting eggs from the self-same bushes thirty or forty years ago; and when that father goes to the village pub that night and starts talking about it the whole

431
village is going to laugh at the policeman, because the whole climate of opinion in country districts is in favour of allowing small boys to continue to collect eggs in the way they have done.
I have no doubt that some of your Lordships sit, or have sat, on juvenile courts. What are we going to do when a small boy is brought before us—and I am glad to say not one has ever been brought before me, although the practice of bird's-nesting obtains pretty widely in my own county—for taking the eggs of common birds. We should talk to him with our tongue in our cheeks, and he knows that our tongue is in our cheeks because he knows the whole climate of opinion in the countryside is on his side. It seems to me a clause of this nature can do nothing but bring the law into disrepute. Your Lordships are being asked to pass a law which is based on really nothing but sentiment and nothing but emotion, and I cannot but believe that a law based on those grounds and directed intentionally against children must be a bad law. I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment, because, as far as I see it, this Amendment is really necessary to restore the flexibility of the principal Act, the Protection of Birds Act 1954. This flexibility is extremely necessary for the very good reason that the population of birds is controlled by the supply of food, and should we have a series of very mild winters it is quite likely, in fact it has happened several times, that certain common wild species will become so numerous as to become a pest. If this Amendment is accepted, of course the Secretary of State can then use his power to prescribe that the eggs of those common wild species that have increased in mild winters can be taken.
I consider it important that we pass this Amendment particularly for the protection of fruit farmers, because anyone at all conversant with fruit farming will know that you can get an absolute plague of certain birds, such as bullfinches. One
432
can of course trap them in cages, but that is surely far more cruel than allowing the eggs to be taken and therefore stopping any undue increase in the species, for when these birds are taken in cages they are put to death.
My noble friend mentioned the fact that some people object to this Amendment; that they say that if the eggs of certain common wild birds are allowed to be taken then small boys will be quite unable to distinguish the eggs of these common birds from the eggs of more rare birds. But under Schedule 2 to the principal Act it is not an offence to take the eggs of certain birds which are listed as permanent pests. But if bird's-nesters—for instance, small boys—cannot tell the difference between the eggs of a common wild bird, which the Secretary of State has said may be taken, perhaps temporarily, from those of a rare bird, why is it assumed that the same small boys will be able to tell the difference between the eggs of a common pest under Schedule 2 and those of a rare bird? It is not logical.
It is also said that it will be impossible for the police to differentiate between the eggs of a common wild bird and of a rare bird. Under Schedule 2, they are already asked to differentiate between the eggs of common pests and rare birds. I think one may say that what applies to the police applies equally to small boys. Again, under Clause 3, the person who has to prosecute (I presume it will be the police) has to distinguish whether or not the wild bird which is being disturbed comes within the First Schedule to the original Act. So I think it is complete nonsense for people to make the excuse that one cannot take the eggs of certain common wild birds because of the danger of bird's-nesters or police being unable to differentiate.
I also think, as my noble friend behind me has said, that it is a bad principle to make a law which runs contrary to what people in the country have done for generations, and which it will be very difficult to enforce. Small boys will always go bird's-nesting. It is really quite a harmless pursuit. It has never affected the bird population. It is the severe winters, and, to a certain extent, chemical farming, that affect the bird population. We also have the point that if we do not have this Amendment

433
we shall be turning hundreds of small boys into petty criminals.
To conclude, the Secretary of State is expertly advised: he has available to him all the expert advice. Surely he is competent to judge whether a common wild bird has, after a series of mild winters, become a pest. I think it is completely wrong to take the power from the Secretary of State. Therefore, I support this Amendment on the basis of common sense and the principle that it is bad to make a law which is completely unenforceable.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I think that most noble Lords will agree that there are few people in this country with a wider knowledge of the subject than the noble Earl, and those of us who know of his interest realise only too well that he would not be moving an Amendment of this nature in your Lordships' House if he felt that it would do harm to the birds themselves. Many of us know of his interest in the field of the protection of birds. The noble Earl quite rightly pointed out that the existing Act, that of 1954, does give adequate protection to birds, and there is a sufficient legal obligation there in the event of people abusing the conditions of that Act.
It seems to me that there is something to be said for encouraging young people nowadays to take, and maintain, an interest in nature. For some young people in our country districts to-day there is little to do other than, perhaps, observe nature, and this is something we ought to encourage. There is no likelihood of any real harm being done. I think I should like to take up the point made both by the mover and the seconder of this Amendment, that it would be a little facetious and in some respects quite harmful, should this Amendment be defeated, to have to bring youngsters before a juvenile court charged with an offence of this kind. I would only repeat, with the greatest respect, that I think the 1954 Act provides all the protection that is necessary, and I hope that your Lordships will support the Amendment.
2.58 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it is desirable to encourage young people to take an interest in the wild life by which
434
they are surrounded. I also think that if that is to be done the only way to do it in regard to this country, or the flora and fauna of the world, is to try to persuade them to respect it. To say that the best way of educating young people nowadays is to encourage them to go and collect birds' eggs seems to me the reverse of the whole trend of modern thought in regard to education and the preservation of Nature.
In order to get rid of it, I should like in passing to mention one point which I have found a constant irritant when I have been abroad. Many of your Lordships may have protested to your French or Italian friends against their practice of murdering in thousands every small migratory bird which passes through their country in the spring or in the autumn. I have been met with the retort, as your Lordships probably have, "Well, at any rate, though we shoot them and eat them, we do not encourage our children to take their eggs." But that is only by the way.
Of course I agree with the noble Earl, and the other noble Lords who have spoken, that we want to intensify the interest of children in the wild life that surrounds them. But surely, in the last twenty or thirty years since I was a boy, and even since the noble Earl was a boy, there has been an immense change in the whole approach to these matters. The broadcasting programmes, the literature, the arrangement of our museums, lectures of all sorts, local societies, county naturalists trusts—there is an enormous apparatus for educating the young and encouraging them to take an interest in wild life, without saying, "You must go and collect specimens". The noble Earl lives in a remote and charming part of Suffolk, where no doubt little harm is done by the practices to which he refers, but the surroundings of the big industrial towns are very different. Anyone who knows the Midlands knows very well that the practice of raiding the hedgerows and so on in the spring—not by "mods" and "rockers" but by ordinary people—is carried to excess.
My defence of the clause, however, is on broader grounds. I hope that your Lordships will adhere to the view which you took eighteen months ago, after full discussion, and try to make the law

435
more intelligible and more enforceable. Experience of the last ten years since the passing of the 1964 Act has shown that teachers up and down the country find it quite impossible to persuade children to protect birds and other parts of nature if they have to say, for example, "You may take a skylark's egg, but not a wood-lark's egg". The child does not understand that. He can quite see he may look at these things, may take pleasure in them and let them alone, but to say that he may interfere with one and not another is not intelligible to a child. That is the experience of a large number of teachers in our schools throughout the country who have tried to inculcate the respect for wild life which we all desire to see. As for turning small boys into criminals, that surely can be left to the good sense of the police and, if necessary, the magistrates.
This Order was revoked three years ago, and no dire consequences have followed to young people, nor has there been any enlargement of the criminal population in this respect. I cannot conceive any Home Secretary would ever be so ill-advised as to restore it. If he were to do so, think of the difficulty he would face in selecting the birds which he would put into the Order—the robin, our national bird; the skylark; the song thrush; the blackbird; the wren; the chaffinch; the linnet: all birds which our literature and poetry have singled out for special praise—on the list to be robbed. I may be accused of being sentimental, but this does not make sense. Not only is it impossible to ask young people not to take this egg while saying that they may quite lawfully take another but, if it came to a question of prosecution, the police would be unable to distinguish. They would not know whether an egg was that of a hedge-sparrow or a redstart. If we want to get young people generally to respect the law, to respect wild life, and to make it possible, in cases of real malicious or mischievous behaviour, to enforce the law, then I feel that this subsection is a very real advance. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment to a Division, but if he does I hope your Lordships will adhere to the view which you took fifteen months ago and will retain the subsection in the Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is not correct that, under Schedule 2 to the principal Act, which gives a list of birds classified as permanent pests—such as wood pigeons, certain gulls, starlings and others—anybody is allowed to take their eggs? Therefore, how are people who take the eggs of these birds to distinguish between such eggs and those of rarer birds?
LORD HURCOMB: Most of those birds are large birds whose eggs are easily distinguished. They are cliff-building or tree-building birds. They do not fall into the class of the small birds which we normally find in our countryside. It may be that there is a weakness here. It is not an offence to destroy those birds themselves, provided that it is done by an authorised person. That restriction was imposed in order to prevent people wandering on other people's land or on common land, and then alleging that they were out to destroy a pest. It may, as I say, be a defect in the present law which we might look into. I do not think that one wants to encourage children to say they can go wherever they like and then argue that they are destroying the egg of a "black-listed" bird.
3.8 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: Might I be allowed to set out the position of Her Majesty's Government? This matter was fully debated on June 17 last year when the noble Viscount moved his Amendment to the same effect. Most of the points made in that discussion have been made again to-day. I explained on that occasion that Her Majesty's Government would welcome a clear expression of the opinion of Parliament on the basic issue of policy. That issue is this: does Parliament want the present bird's-nesting provisions retained, with the clear intention that the Secretary of State should use the powers provided and by order establish a new list of common birds whose eggs would be denied protection: or is Parliament satisfied that these provisions can be repealed without exposing young people to the mischief of the criminal law?
Many of the arguments we have heard to-day have gone fairly wide of this basic issue, though they have all been relevant in one way or another. I do not want to offer any assessment of those

437
arguments or take sides, one way or the other. I should, however, like to mention two points on the matter of prosecuting young children. The first is that the age of criminal responsibility was raised from eight to ten in 1963, and there remains a Common Law presumption that a child of between ten and fourteen years of age has no malicious intent to commit a criminal offence unless the contrary is shown. It is true that this presumption weakens when the child's years near fourteen. The second point is that the number of children under fourteen convicted of offences against eggs or nests in the three years 1963 to 1965 amounted to 20. I have no details of the circumstances of their offences. Your Lordships may wish to take these points into account in considering what effect the repeal of the bird's-nesting provisions would have on the protection of birds and the protection of children.
LORD STRANGE: There is a deeper aspect to this question which I do not think has been fully touched one: it concerns the very rare eggs and the lengths to which people go to obtain them. I understand that some years ago a pair of Bewick's swans nested in a certain place in the British Isles (I will not give the place away, in case there are any collectors of rare bird eggs present), and a gentleman who was a known collector and dealer in rare bird's eggs arrived. He took the precaution of dressing in clerical garb, as he thought that might deceive the local ornithologists. He even spoke about the evils of bird's-egg collecting in a sermon in the local chapel. The local ornithologists, however, were rather suspicious of him and they took watch. They found him swimming back from the island where these Bewick's swans were nesting, with a cardboard box slung round his neck. They took two eggs out and put them back in the nest and packed him off home. But when the birds hatched they turned out to be mute swans. He had substituted the eggs.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: As my profession has now been brought into this debate, I feel justified in saying a brief word. I know that in some difficult matters it has been found helpful to distinguish between sin and crime. I am not myself prepared to say that bird's-
438
nesting is either a sin or a crime, but I am prepared to say that I think it is a better way of observing nature and taking an interest in nature to respect what is there, rather than just to violate it for one's own pleasure or even for some semi-scientific interest.
However, the crux of the matter is whether we want to increase the area of possible criminal action in relation to very young people. We know that, in any case, we cannot do anything with them until they are ten, and I expect the area of greatest risk in this matter is just over the age of ten. I should have thought it was really a matter of judgment whether or not something of this kind was better dealt with by the criminal law or by education. I should hope that there would be steady progress towards respect for all forms of life, even if that meant in the end the cessation of a time-honoured custom. But I do not think we are going to help very much by making this a matter of criminal offence.
LORD SALTOUN: I want to say only this. I remember very clearly bird's-nesting when I was quite a small boy, and the rules that were laid down for me to observe were that I was only to take an egg from a nest in which there were already three eggs, and that I was to take only one egg. I remember that I was never to do anything which would stop a bird from laying, and we observed that rule religiously. I also remember that we were able to distinguish between the eggs. I could not do it now, but we were very learned about the eggs of different birds. We were much harder to deceive then, and we would not take a wrong egg; that is, if if were "out of bounds", as it were. I think the whole answer lies in education. If you give children the rules they will observe them and observe them religiously. I am entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
LORD SOMERS: I do not doubt that my noble friend Lord Saltoun observed very strictly the laws which were laid down for him, but, unfortunately, that does not apply to children of every type to-day. Also, of course, egg collectors are not satisfied unless they get a complete clutch. Therefore, as one who like my noble friend Lord Hurcomb is in

439
grave danger of being classed as a sentimentalist, I think it is far better to educate children to respect nature by observing it rather than by wishing to destroy it. There are plenty of people who collect eggs but really could not tell the difference between one bird and another. If they would spend their time learning something like that, without collecting the eggs, they might then know a good deal more about nature. I cannot think that this passion for destroying everything one sees is a very good practice in which to encourage children.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I must confess that the only objections I heard against my Amendment were those of sentiment, in addition to the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that it does not matter very much whether we pass this clause, because the police will not enforce it. I cannot think of two points that are worse reasons for making a new offence.
LORD HURCOMB: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but of course that is not what I said. I said that the law in its present state is both unintelligible and unenforceable. But if the Amendment is rejected it can very well be left to the police to take action in cases of malicious or mischievous damage, and just say to the boy, "Don't do this again. You ought not to do these things."
May I in just one moment say this in reply to the right reverend Prelate? Although I know nothing about this Bewick's swan episode, it is quite true that in the past some of our most ruthless egg collectors have been parsons in the Church of England. However, I did not aim this Bill at that cloth on that account. But I would say again that teachers all over the country have said they find it impossible to get into a child's head why he should be able to take one egg but not another. A child can quite understand your saying, "Get to know them and leave them alone", but not if you draw these distinctions.
No teacher of experience who is consulted about this will accept the view that the law ought to be left as it is.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: A child can still take one egg and not another, under Schedule 2 which deals with listed pests.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: They must be pretty poor teachers. I have had quite considerable experience in working with children in this matter and it is quite easy to explain to them what they should do and what they should not do. What is really worrying is the figure, which the noble Lord gave just now, of 20 prosecutions over the past three years, when we know that hundreds and probably thousands of children have continued to bird's-nest throughout that time. What is the use of passing a law like that which fails to be observed and when the police very sensibly take no action? It is really ridiculous, and I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment. I shall have to go to a Division if the noble Lord will not accept it.
LORD SOMERS: Before the Committee goes into a Division, may I say just one word? The noble Earl has just said that the only objections to his Amendment are those of sentiment. May I say that it is a regrettable tendency on the part of those who are only happy when they are destroying life to class any who object to this attitude as sentimentalists. I must say that I rather take exception to that. It does not throw a great deal of credit on the noble Earl who said it.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I certainly did not want to be rude to the noble Lord, and if he feels that I have been I unhesitatingly withdraw.
3.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Auckland, L.

Crook, L.

Fleck, L.

Brentford, V.

Derwent, L.

Foley, L.

Burton, L.

Effingham, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Chesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Chorley, L.

Falkland, V.

Goschen, V.

Grenfell, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Salisbury, M.

Harlech, L.

Moyle, L.

Saltoun, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Shannon, E.

Ilford, L.

Popplewell, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Ironside, L.

Portal of Hungerford, V.

Thurlow, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Redmayne, L.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ailwyn. L.

Hall, V.

Rowley, L.

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sinha, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Hurcomb, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Blyton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Brockway, L.

Latham, L.

Strang, L.

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strange, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, Bs.

Citrine, L.

Mills, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Clwyd, L.

Milverton, L.

Twining, L.

Conesford, L.

Molson, L.

Wise, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: Here, again, I am pleading for the continuation of what is normal country practice. On many farms the right to collect and sell plovers' eggs has been for many years a perquisite of the shepherd or the ploughman. It seems to me curious that while the Act allows the collection and sale of the eggs of ducks and geese—and, indeed, the collection and sale of the whole of the produce of ducks and geese—throughout the whole year, it should be considered wrong to sell the eggs of plovers, which we are allowed to eat, before the 14th of April, when we know that for the last dozen years or so at least plovers' eggs have been collected and sold and there has been absolutely no diminution in the number of plovers in this country.
It has been suggested that this subsection is necessary in order that we may fall into line with the laws of other countries and prevent the importation of eggs from other countries where their sale is forbidden. I should have thought that Section 7(2)(b) of the principal Act covered that; but, if it does not, I think it entirely reasonable that there should be an amendment to that section in order to allow the Secretary of State to forbid the importation and the sale of imported eggs if such sale in the country of origin is contrary to their laws. That would
442
obviously be sensible and desirable; but I can see no reason why we should not allow people to continue to sell plovers' eggs in this country when we know that it does no harm to the plovers and does bring in a little extra cash to the farm worker who collects them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
VISCOUNT MASSER EENE AND FERRARD: I should like very briefly to support my noble friend in this Amendment. As people are now allowed to take plovers' eggs up to April 15, it seems pointless not to allow the eggs to be sold. We have in the past had several long discussions in this House on whether it is detrimental to take plovers' eggs before April 15. The House came to the conclusion that it was not detrimental and that, in fact, it could be beneficial. Therefore, I cannot see the object in preventing the sale. If you prohibit the sale of the eggs while at the same time allowing them to be taken, you are going to get a great number of "under-the-counter" sales and the law is going to be brought into disrespect. The plover is fully safeguarded by the powers already held by the Secretary of State who can bring in an order to protect them completely if it is found necessary to do so. Therefore I support the Amendment wholeheartedly. One of my chief reasons is that I do not want to see the law brought into disrespect—as it

443
would have been had the Committee not accepted the last Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: In the noble Viscount's opening remarks he said it was beneficial to take a plover's eggs. I did not quite understand this. May I ask the noble Viscount to say whom this is beneficial, except possibly to those who make a profit?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It is beneficial to the plover population. I do not want to bore the Committee with a long dissertation on the plover, but the reason is that the plover lays early, and, owing to mechanised farming, if the plover nests on arable land in early April the odds are that the clutch will be destroyed and certainly the young birds will be. The same applies to open moorland or grassland because the first hatch is always laid in very early spring when there may be very little insect life and the weather is bad so that the young birds usually die. If you take the first clutch you are really doing no harm at all. The plover will then lay again after April 15 (at which time you cannot take the eggs) when there is plenty of insect life about, when all the crops are sown and when no mechanised farming is going on so that the whole clutch will survive. I hope I have explained sufficiently to the noble Lady.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am afraid you have not explained why it is beneficial.
LORD SALTOUN: It is quite simple. When a bird has hatched a nest it is not so likely to lay again. If the bird lays too early and does not hatch its eggs it will form a nest and lay again later under more propitious weather conditions. We have found this to be the case in the past.
3.34 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: A great deal of time was spent on this subject fifteen months ago. I have never myself regarded this House as the proper place for a disquisition on the breeding biology of the lapwing, but if we are to embark on that subject I find it quite impossible, as an evolutionist, to believe that a species has hit on the wrong time to nest in the
444
course of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Of course, the ideal time for the plover to nest, in normal circumstances and in normal years, is very early spring, for the reason the noble Viscount has just given; if it nests at that time, in the middle of April or early May, there is abundance of insect life. Those who have investigated this subject have found in many parts of this country that if they do not get the young birds out till late in May the grass is too long, and there can be periods of drought and breeding success is less.
But that was not the issue which determined your Lordships' decision fifteen months ago. It was then pointed out—and with that I agree—that owing to changes in agriculture, to which the bird of course has not been able to adapt itself, a great many nests in the early part of April would be destroyed in the course of agricultural cultivation. For that reason your Lordships agreed that it would be reasonable to leave it to the owner or occupier of the land to take the eggs, but to prohibit their sale. Because if there is a market there will be exploitation and the plover's egg will be searched for in many parts of the country and in many areas where it would otherwise be perfectly safe. That was a compromise for which I was indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who said:
"The sense of the Committee quite clearly is that we want the law to stay as it is as regards taking the egg of the plover—not for sale, but taking it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 267, col. 243; 17/6/65.]
I think he then suggested that an Amendment should be put down on those lines, and this I did. I hope the Committee is not going to go back on a decision that was taken after great consideration fifteen months ago. On this particular point, where the taking of the egg is covered, it is only the commercial exploitation of this bird (which is wholly beneficial to agriculture) that is prohibited.
THE EARL OF CR ANBROOK: I should like to ask the noble Lord perhaps to think about it again between now and the later stages, because, as to commercial exploitation taking place, it has been taking place in this country from the beginning of time. The law does not forbid it at the moment. I do not think

445
there is any great commercial exploitation and the plover has increased enormously in numbers since the Act of, I think, 1925, when shooting was first forbidden.
I do not feel at all strongly about this. I think it would be sensible if the noble Lord were to accept it because in some parts of the country, although not in my part, it is a very definite "perk" of some of the agricultural workers which I should be sorry to see them lose. But I do not feel strongly about this because it does not happen in my own county.
LORD HURCOMB: I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. I do not know what numbers of eggs his agricultural labourers take, but perhaps they could hand them over to the noble Earl, for a consideration, which would solve the problem.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: Just to return to the point made by the noble Baroness. I do not know whether it would ease her doubts (I am neutral on the subject) if I suggested that this was compulsory abortion for the good of the mother, whether rightly or wrongly, and the plovers should not be denied rights which the noble Baroness would probably grant to human mothers. I may be wrong about that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I apologise for detaining your Lordships for such a long time and I will be as brief as I can, as I feel that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is disposed to accept this Amendment and I am glad that, for once, I find myself in agreement with him. This Amendment is not, like the last two Amendments, on behalf of country people, as apart from town dwellers. In towns the keeping of birds in aviaries has for long been a widespread hobby, particularly, if I may use an old-fashioned phrase, among the working people. In many cases it is their only contact with nature.
The 1954 Act said nothing about this side of the protection of birds, for the very good reason that at that time the average man who kept birds did little more than keep one of the seed-eaters—a linnet or a goldfinch—in a cage; and
446
the art, for it really is an art, of creating conditions under which birds can breed in captivity had scarcely begun to be understood by the average amateur aviculturist. Latterly, these people have succeeded in making a real break-through. Creating conditions under which birds can breed is profoundly satisfying to the individual concerned; he realises that he has conditions which are highly suitable to his charges. One hopes that it is also highly satisfying for the birds—although I do not think we need go into the breeding cycle of the birds in cages, any more than we need digress further into the breeding habits of plovers.
Many zoos look upon this, let us say, successful establishment of breeding units as the yardstick of their success. Your Lordships may have read of the recent visit of the panda, Chi-Chi, to Russia where she repulsed her Muscovite lover consistently for about eight or nine months, presumably because not even with help from the British and the Russians was it possible to create exactly the right conditions for them to be sufficiently happy to mate. That has been done with birds, but inevitably the people who succeeded in making this breakthrough were few. Equally inevitably, the number of birds for whom they succeeded in creating these conditions were few.
The result has been that, with the passage of time, these breeding strains have become inbred and can be replenished, as the law stands at the moment, only by making illegal purchases or by making illegal captures. For some time I have been Chairman of a Committee which advises the Secretary of State on the importation of rare animals and one thing which has become abundantly clear is that probably the only way to secure the continued existence of some animals is by getting breeding units in captivity from which they can later on be sent back to the wilds as for instance was Pére David's Deer in China which became completely extinct in its own country. It was maintained in captivity in this country and subsequently sent back to China for reintroduction. Another thing which is clear to me is that one of the best ways of stopping the considerable amount of suffering inevitably involved in the crating of birds and animals is by getting a

447
large number of species to breed in captivity as do, let us say, canaries and budgerigars, which are virtually domestic birds although they are descended from wild birds. On the animal side one gets the same thing with the hamster. Once you get these quasi-domestic breed strains they may be sold and passed from hand to hand with no greater suffering than is inflicted on a hen when it is sold to a buyer. My Amendment would allow the establishment of that sort of breeding strain. I believe it to be desirable on scientific grounds and on the grounds of humanity as well and I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment and that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Amendment is at page 1, line 22, to leave out subsection (3).
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I am sorry; I have been speaking to the Amendment after that. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish me to inflict that speech upon you again. If I may I will withdraw this Amendment, and perhaps you will take what I have just said as referring to Amendment No. 5, which I shall move at the appropriate moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: I had not realised until we started just how apt it was that a clergyman should be dealing with this Bill. I hope I shall not be credited with too much guile. When we came to the Second Reading of the Bill we forbore to say very much because the Government was rather hard-pressed with other business, but there are one or two points which I should like to make at this stage. The birds are undoubtedly very lucky in having the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, as the champion of their liberties, but what has happened in the last fifteen months under this Government has made us aware of the importance of safeguarding our liberties too, as citizens, and there is now an unwillingness to compound any more offences, which I think is perhaps a desirable trend. It would
448
be interesting if the noble Lord who is to deal with this matter for the Government could tell us at some stage exactly how many convictions there have been under the whole of the Act in the past few years. We have heard about the juvenile offences, but information about the others would help us to get things into perspective.
Another point is that so far the debate has emphasised the importance of hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb—we have already heard a little—about the steps that the councils, societies and associations interested in this matter are taking to enlighten the public and educate the young. If we could hear at some stage a little more about that I think it would be easier for us to judge the value and the necessity of the legislation which is being proposed. Legislation itself is not enough. Education and enlightenment is not enough. We must have both in the right balance.
I should like to ask whether we could hear a little more from the Government Front Bench about the difficulty or otherwise that the local police will have in enforcing the law and the Bench will have in punishing those convicted of crimes under this legislation. We do not get these wild birds, the rarer wild birds, the roseate terns and honey buzzards nesting near the Metropolis, where there are expert policemen and barristers to advise about how this legislation should be applied. This is legislation which, if it is to be enforced, will be enforced in the more rural parts of the kingdom.
It would be helpful if we were to hear from the Government Front Bench in exactly what form this legislation is going to come into the hands of the local police, because the result of passing this Bill which is before us now will be that hardly any single paragraph of this Bill or of the 1954 Act will be intelligible on its own. A good deal of explanation will need to be done before it is at all clear how it applies. It would be helpful to know in what form the local police are going to have this legislation before them in order to enforce it, and also what the prospects of consolidation are after we have completed this Bill to-day.
LORD BOWLES: My information on the question of convictions is that they number from 180 to 200 each year for all

449
offences created by the Act. The trend has not varied from year to year since 1954. As regards the other questions which the noble Lord has raised, perhaps he will allow me to answer them on Report stage, if it is convenient. I do not have the required information on the question of consolidation.
LORD HURCOMB: I do not know whether I am in order in ranging over these wide topics on Clause 1 of the Bill, which is very limited, but I would suggest to the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite that he should become a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and have a look at its literature and, if he has any children, he should get them to join its branch for young people. A great effort is made in educating young people. The teachers in schools throughout the country are very helpful and many of them are keen on this subject. I regret the decision which your Lordships have just come to, which, as I said, has made their task impossible.
As regards the police in those parts of the country where vigorous action against these maniac egg collectors is taken, the chief constables are great allies of the protectionists and do everything they can to carry out the law. If this Bill passes, as I hope it will, without dispute in respect of giving some powers of search, this will be a great help to the chief constables of such counties, particularly in Scotland. I hope that I have not transcended the limits of order, but I have tried to give some reply.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Special protection in severe weather]:
3.53 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: This clause makes use of the expression "in consequence of severe weather conditions". I submit that the word "conditions" adds nothing to the words that have gone before. What it really means is "in consequence of severe weather". There is one disadvantage of putting into an Act of Parliament a word which has no meaning. It is that lawyers tend to strive to give some meaning to every word in an Act of Parliament because they say that Parliament in its wisdom would not have included that word in the Act if the word had no
450
meaning. So, in this case, lawyers will strive to give some meaning to the word "conditions". If I am right that here "conditions" really means nothing, in my submission it would be better to leave it out, so that lawyers shall not strain to give the word some meaning which Parliament never intended it to have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("conditions").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD CONESFORD: May one lawyer support the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in this Amendment? I do not think that, if the Amendment is not carried, that will cause any exceptional difficulties either to lawyers or to the courts. Nevertheless, I think that the Amendment is a good one and that it has good authority. Nobody has written more splendidly against jargon than the late Arthur Quiller-Couch and, if I may, I would quote an example which is very much in point. I remember an essay of his in which he takes half a dozen sentences and translates them into English. In speaking to young people, I have often used his examples and asked my audience for a quick English translation. One of the examples was "despite the adverse weather conditions", which is translated, "bad as the weather has been". Another one I remember was "he was conveyed to his place of residence in an intoxicated condition"—"he was carried home drunk".
LORD HURCOMB: As I have said before, it is up to birds to preen their plumage carefully, and if this were a mere matter of English I should be delighted to accept the Amendment which has just been moved, but I think that there is more in it than that. There is a real difference in meaning between the two expressions. It is the conditions—the freezing of inland waters and estuaries and whether snow or ice is lying about—which are created by severe weather that make the special protection provided for in this clause necessary.
Wildfowlers themselves have spent many months in trying to find alternative, clearer expressions and they have accepted this. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who could not be here to-day because he is engaged on your Lordship's business in Scotland, authorised me to say that he

451
very much hopes that your Lordships will not seek to alter this wording. But, of course, he realises that what wildfowlers may have agreed or even find intelligible to themselves in no way need influence what your Lordships think appropriate. But I also am going to fall back on authority, as authority has been quoted against me. Some years ago, a book called The Complete Plain Words was written by Sir Ernest Gowers, who was an old friend of mine and no doubt a friend of many other noble Lords. It happens that in that book he dealt with this particular expression, which had been challenged in a letter from Mr. John Buxton in The Times in which he asked the question, "How long are we to suffer from weather conditions?"
"What exactly is the objection?"
asked Sir Ernest.
"It cannot be the objection of a grammarian to using the word 'weather' adjectivally. It is a common and useful English idiom to make nouns serve this purpose and few words can claim a better right to be so employed than weather.
"The objection, then, must be to the use of two words where one would do. A sound objection, if it can he sustained. But can it here?"
If I may quote briefly to your Lordships what Sir Ernest Gowers said, it was this.
"'Weather conditions' imports a larger idea than weather' does, at least in time of snow and frost. It embraces the conditions created by yesterday's weather and the likelihood of to-morrow's weather changing them."
I am not given to sheltering myself behind authority, but when I find such good authority so wholly with me, I cannot forbear quoting it. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I am sure that Sir Ernest Gowers would wholeheartedly have approved of the expression which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, used early in his speech—the expression, "in conditions created by severe weather". I wish that that expression had been the one chosen to be put into this clause. However, I do not think this is a matter upon which more Parliamentary time should be spent, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Additional matters for which licences may be granted
7.—(1) A licence may be granted under section 10 of the principal Act—
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to add to subsection (1):
"() for the purpose of aviculture, to take within any area specified in the licence by any means so specified, or to import, any number so specified of wild birds of any description so specified."
The noble Earl said: I find myself in some difficulty in having gone off into flight too early, and being out of Order for a long time. I hope that the Editor of Debates may find some solution to the grave mistake that I made. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
LORD HURCOMB: I do not propose to resist this Amendment. I am in sympathy with many of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made in his speech. However, I must make some reservations. In the first place, I cannot commit the societies with which I am connected, who are nervous about the use of such a vague expression. "Aviculture" is normally defined as "bird rearing and bird fancying". Those who wish to maintain a breeding population of birds under favourable conditions, and perhaps to improve them, are no doubt entitled to some help. The existing law may be too rigid. If someone wants to keep a population of birds in captivity for scientific or education purposes, he may already do so. Many people take the view that that is wide enough, and that there is a real risk, if the vaguer or more general word is used, that anyone who wants to keep a few finches caged up in his back garden will be at liberty to do so. Though I agree with the noble Earl that in many of these cases the caged birds are treated with humanity and kindness, I think it is far too easy for people who like keeping birds in cages to go on to think that birds like being kept in cages. Personally, I believe that on this question William Blake is just as likely to be right as the bird fanciers.
I suggest that, if he cannot do so this afternoon, the noble Lord representing the Home Office might consider this

453
matter. He might ask his Advisory Committee to lay down the rules within which they will be prepared to recommend licences. This may be a practical way of controlling what may be legitimate requirements, while not going to the length of saying that anyone who wants to keep a wild bird in a cage for pleasure, or esthetic satisfaction, or whatever it may be called, is to be free to do so. Subject to those reservations, and on the understanding, which I think the noble Earl accepts, that I cannot commit my successor as President to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who may take a different line in another place, I will not resist the Amendment this afternoon.
LORD BOWLES: Perhaps I may say a few words on these Amendments, which presumably are being taken together. As regards their merits, Her Majesty's Government take a neutral attitude. It is for your Lordships to decide whether and to what extent aviculture is an activity for which it should be legal under the Act to take birds under licence.
I want briefly to refer to one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. He questioned, I think, whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State could administer licensing in the form proposed. I think I can reassure him on this matter. The Secretary of State's power of licensing under Section 10 enables him to attach such conditions to licences as he thinks fit. Furthermore, he exercises his licensing function in consultation with the Advisory Committee. Accordingly it would be a simple matter to introduce administrative safeguards to ensure that before any licence were granted the Advisory Committee and the Secretary of State should be satisfied that the applicant would keep the bird under suitable conditions with suitable facilities; that he had whatever expertise and knowledge were required for aviculture, and that the birds he wished to take were not rare. In addition, each licence could require the holder to report from time to time on the condition of his bird and could prohibit him from handing or selling it to another. All these safeguards would be possible under the Secretary of State's powers.
454
In that connection the noble Lord urged that Schedule I birds should be excluded from the scope of the licensing. That, of course, could be secured administratively without further amendment. The noble Lord expressed his misgivings about the width of the term "aviculture" and suggested that it should be narrowly interpreted. I am not myself altogether clear what aspects of aviculture he would like to eliminate from the reckoning where licences might be sought. It seems to me that it is the purposes for which aviculture is undertaken rather than the nature of aviculture with which he is concerned.
A difficulty here is that the Act already empowers the Secretary of State to license the taking of birds for educational and scientific purposes. Any additional power, therefore, must be understood to be for other purposes. As I understand it, aviculturists claim that their keeping of birds is a hobby or a sport which is justified for its pleasure and æsthetic value and is no more likely to cause suffering than other activities involving birds which the law allows. The basic issue, therefore, to be decided is whether it is right to take wild birds for keeping in captivity. So far as licensing would be concerned, the Secretary of State would be guided by advice from his Advisory Committee and would naturally wish to be satisfied about the bona fides of each applicant and the provision that would be made for the birds he wished to take.
To sum up, therefore, there is no technical reason why these Amendments should be rejected. If, however, in the light of the noble Lord's remarks, the noble Earl would wish to explore the possiblity of some alternative form of words in place of "aviculture", I should be very glad to offer any assistance.
I was not quite clear what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, meant by what he said towards the end of his speech. I hope he does not wish to bring the Home Office into more evidence than it is at the present time. He mentioned the question of taking the advice of the Advisory Committee. This is what they said on this particular subject:
"We have not been able to satisfy ourselves that aviary stock requires an occasional admixture of wild blood. On the assumption that this is not scientifically unjustifiable, we see no objection in principle to amendment of the Act to allow genuine aviculturists to take

455
birds under licence for the purposes of aviculture whether this is scientific or not."
I hope that this will, to some extent, satisfy the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I shall be happy to look into this matter further, and I welcome the advice of the Home Office. However, I should be sorry to see the Schedule 1 birds exempt. As I said just now, it is important that we should try to set up breeding units of rare birds as well as common birds, purely for the sake of conservation. This is the sort of work where the amateur bird-fancier often does better than the professional man in a zoo, and the like. I am not an ornithologist myself, but I am interested in mammals. It is certainly true that the amateur, who can give more careful attention to his charges than a professional keeper, can often get much better scientific results, and learn far more than does the professional, whether at a university or in a zoo. I shall be very sorry indeed to see amateur bird-keepers precluded from doing the same thing as I have known done by amateur keepers of animals. But I shall certainly be delighted to have the advice of the Home Office between now and the later stages of this Bill.
THE EARL OF CANBROOK: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out ("or (c)") and insert ("(c) or (d)").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, at end insert—
("() In subsection (5) of section 10 of the principal Act (licences in respect of importation to Northern Ireland) the reference to subsection (2)(a) of that section shall include a reference to subsection (2)(a) of this section.")—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Short title, construction, extent and commencement]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, after ("Act") insert ("section 7 so far as it relates to the importation of birds").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
4.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. There is no need for me to give the House a long account of the problems of local government finance. The point is that local expenditure has been rising fast during the past decade, and since the proportion met by Exchequer grants has stayed roughly the same, a great strain has been put upon the rates, which are the only major source of local revenue. This strain has shown up defects in the rating system, which we on this side of the House have long recognised, and which were underlined in the report of the Allen Committee.
The Committee confirmed that household rates are regressive that is, they take a higher proportion of low incomes. Of the income left after the deduction of income tax, surtax and National Insurance contributions, rates took in 1963–64, on average, 2·9 per cent. of household incomes, but for households with more than£30 a week the proportion was only 2·2 per cent. while for those with less than£10 a week it was 6·2 per cent. For those with less than£6 a week—and there are some—it was as much as 8·2 per cent. The Committee also drew attention to the inconvenient arrangements for paying rates, compared, for example, with P.A.Y.E., and thought that the prospect of annual increases in rates gave rise to as much anxiety as their present high level.
The Government have already reduced the regressiveness of rates by giving substantial relief to ratepayers with low incomes through the rate rebates provisions of the Rating Act 1966. I cannot

457
give the House firm figures about the scheme, because administration is entirely in the hands of the rating authorities, but this year—the first year of operation—it appears likely that well over 1 million ratepayers will get relief, with an average reduction of about£15. The 1966 Act also entitled domestic ratepayers to pay their rates in ten instalments.
But this measure was only the first part of the Government's attack on the problem. Householders with incomes above the rebate limits have also been feeling the impact of rising rates. The Government believe that they needed some relief, too. The best solution would be a new local tax, easy to collect and fair in its incidence. But we have so far failed to find one suited to the present structure of local government. The obstacles in the way of devising a new and genuinely local tax are inherent in the present anachronistic system of local government, with its multiplicity of local authorities serving a population of which large numbers no longer live, work and shop all within the same local government area. So the Government concluded that a radical reform of local government finance would have to await the changes in structure which are expected to result from the work of the Royal Commission. Only when the new structure emerges will it be possible to decide how rates can best be supplemented. But we shall start fresh studies of local taxation in parallel with the work of the Royal Commission so as to be able to come to decisions in this field when the Commission conclude their work.
Rates could be kept down, and even reduced, by transferring responsibility for particular services from local to central Government. In the Government's view, that should not be done merely to relieve the rates; the test should be how the service may best be provided, and by that test, it seems to me, there is little indication for such transfers. The Government do not believe that it would be wise to transfer financial responsibility to the centre, while leaving local authorities to administer the services: divided responsibility of that sort does not work.
So, in the short term, relief must come by increasing the proportion of local expenditure met from the Exchequer, and the Government have decided upon a
458
gradual but steady shift in the burden from rates to taxes, so as to slow down the annual increase of the former. Most of the additional Exchequer aid will be channelled directly to the relief of the domestic ratepayer, by a means I will describe shortly, because he has to pay his rates out of taxed income and cannot pass on any of the burden. He is therefore more affected by rising rates than other ratepayers.
Although the Bill is essentially an interim measure, Part I introduces a new relationship between central and local finance. Instead of the various Exchequer grants being considered separately, and their general effect on the rates being left more or less to chance, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will, once the Bill is passed, determine for each grant year a total Exchequer contribution by reference to estimates of virtually all of the expenditure that would otherwise fall upon the rates. From this total contribution will be deducted the expected total of grants in aid of specific services, such as the police grant. The remainder, which is over 85 per cent. of the total, will be distributed by the three parts of the new rate support grant.
The Bill does not lay down how the total Exchequer contribution is to be derived from the estimated totals of relevant expenditure, but the aggregate amounts of the rate support grants have to be fixed by an Order which will be subject to approval in the House of Commons. These Orders will be accompanied by reports explaining how my right honourable friend has determined the amounts. The intention is for the proportion of total relevant expenditure met by the Exchequer to increase by about 1 per cent. each year. Under the new system, the Exchequer's contribution will be consciously related to the whole range of local expenditure. Another advantage of determining the total Exchequer contribution as a first step, is that the creation or abolition of specific grants will not affect the total of the Exchequer's liability; it will simply alter the way it is distributed. It follows that when the question whether a particular service should be aided by a specific grant or by means of the rate support grant is being considered, neither the departments nor the associations of local authorities

459
will be swayed by the prospect of getting more money out of the Exchequer!
The largest part of the rate support grant—the needs element—will be distributed in a similar manner to the present general grant, but with changes to which I will return presently. The second part of the grant—the resources element—is virtually the old rate-deficiency grant under a different name. Although the aggregate of this grant will be predetermined, instead of being "open-ended", as at present, the intention is to allocate enough money for it to meet the same proportion of estimated expenditure as it has since the 1963 general revaluation.
The third part of the grant—the domestic element—is an innovation. This is the device to which I referred just now for ensuring that most of the extra money which the Exchequer will be putting into local government goes directly to the reduction of the rates of the domestic ratepayer. My right honourable friend will prescribe, for each year, an amount by which the poundage of the general rate levied by each authority is to be reduced in respect of dwelling-houses. The reduction will be uniform throughout England and Wales: it is expected to be 5d. in the first year, 10d. in the second year and so on. If in the first year, 1967–68, the poundage of the general rate in area A is 10s. 6d. and in area B 12s. 6d., the reduced poundages applicable to dwelling-houses will be 10s. 1d. and 12s. ld. respectively. There is provision for partial relief for properties which are used partly as dwellings and partly for other purposes, provided that the ratable value attributable to the dwelling use is greater than that attributable to the other use.
The Bill also introduces specific grants for certain services where the incidence of expenditure among authorities is too uneven for distribution based on population to be fair. The amounts of money involved will be small compared with the rate support grants, but these new grants will be very helpful to individual authorities facing exceptional expenditure on, for instance, comprehensive redevelopment, the acquisition of land for public open space, the restoration of derelict land, or on special provision on account of large numbers of Commonwealth immigrants.
460
These grants will be 50 per cent. of approved expenditure.
The creation of these new specific grants is outweighed in size by a reduction in existing specific grants, namely those for school meals, for the improvement of Class II and Class III roads, and for the maintenance of all classified roads. The money previously distributed by those grants will be absorbed into the needs element of the rate support grant, which will therefore be even more important than the general grant which it replaces. The Government were impressed by the support among local authorities for the principles of a grant distributed on objective factors, and have therefore concluded that specific grants were justified only where a service needed specially close control—such as the police, or where the incidence of expenditure was very unevenly spread—of which coast protection is an obvious example. The changes I have mentioned in specific grants result from this reappraisal; the new grants have been introduced in order to improve distribution and the former grants have been discontinued in order to simplify administration and reduce central control. The change in respect of school meals, I should emphasise, affects only the method of paying grant. Authorities will have exactly the same duty to provide adequate meals, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has reserve powers to enable him to see that they do so. I will say more about roads in a moment.
As compared with the general grant formula, the needs element will have a new factor in respect of highways, and the supplementary grant for education is to be completely changed. The present supplementary grant is based on the numbers of primary and secondary school pupils on the school register. Thus a primary school child attracts exactly the same grant as a secondary school pupil aged 16 or over, although the annual cost of educating the latter is about three and a half times as high. And at the moment awards to students are not counted at all. Crude numbers of school pupils are therefore to be replaced by education units. The Bill does not specify how these units are to to be calculated for each area: that will be prescribed by regulations. The intention is that a different number of units

461
will be credited to an authority in respect of pupils and students at various levels, the numbers being in proportion to the national average cost of education at that level. Units will also be credited in respect of each one thousand meals supplied in a year. I am glad to say that complete agreement has been reached with the associations of local authorities about the various stages—that is, the levels of education to be taken into account—and the number of units appropriate to them.
Before leaving the subject of grants, I will refer to Part III of the Bill, which does two things. First, it provides the legislative framework for the new system of highway grants, and secondly it brings up to date the administrative arrangements for street lighting. At present, specific grants are paid for both the improvement and the maintenance of roads classified in Classes I, II and III: over 70,000 miles in England and Wales. Under the new system, specific grants, at 75 per cent., will be payable only for the improvement of a new category of roads, to be called principal roads, which will be roughly equivalent in mileage to existing Class I roads; namely, about 15,000 miles. All other expenditure on highways by local authorities will be assisted through the rate support grant. At the same time county boroughs will become eligible for the first time since 1929 for highway grants on the same basis as other authorities.
The payment of specific grants inevitably means a degree of detailed control by the central Government. This may have been acceptable when the classified road programme was relatively small, but its expansion in recent years calls for a new approach. By the limitation of specific grants to the improvement of the most important local authority roads both central and local Government will be saved a great deal of paper work, and local authorities will have more power of independent decision over the greater part of their highway responsibilities. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, is now undertaking a comprehensive review of the highway system, so that the network of principal roads can be designated when the new grant system comes into effect on April 1 next year. The Ministry's initial proposals for the new network were sent to local
462
authorities in June, and my right honourable friend hopes to let them know the results of the review before the end of the year.
The present organisation of street lighting dates from the age before the motor car, and the authorities responsible range from parish councils to county boroughs. Many are not the highway authority for the roads they light, and even where they are, their highways and lighting powers are separate. The Bill modernises these arrangements by transferring responsibility for road lighting—that is to say, lighting the primary purpose of which is to assist the safe movement of motor traffic—from local lighting authorities to highway authorities, including the Minister of Transport as highway authority for trunk roads. By asserting that the provision of lighting is an improvement to the highway, it also brings it within the grant-making powers of my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, and the installation of road lighting on principal roads will be eligible for 75 per cent. specific grant, like any other highway improvement.
We are concerned not only that the efficiency of road lighting should be improved but also that it should fit in æsthetically with its surroundings. In making grants for road lighting, therefore, my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, intends to make it a condition where amenity is likely to be an important issue that the Royal Fine Art Commission should be consulted, and that due regard should be had to their advice. The provision of lighting for other purposes, such as the lighting of footways for the benefit of pedestrians, will remain the responsibility of the present lighting authorities.
Part II of the Bill makes four major changes in the field of rating and valuation, of which one has been universally deplored, and the others have been generally welcomed. It is the postponement of the general revaluation from 1968 to 1973 which has been deplored. My right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, regrets that the postponement should be necessary, and so did his predecessor, who acknowledged that postponement both aggravated the lack of buoyancy of rates and increased anomalies as between one ratepayer and another. His decision to

463
postpone was not due to any liking he may have felt for the rating system as it now is; it was a matter of sheer necessity resulting from the shortage of valuers.
Some of the difficulties of the Valuation Office arise from an increase of existing work on redevelopment schemes, housing, and slum clearance, trunk roads and motorways, and there are also new duties in connection with capital gains tax and the Land Commission. The Government make no apology for these additional commitments, which arise from measures that are central to our whole programme of social reform. But the effect of them is that, despite the efforts of the Inland Revenue to recruit and train more staff, there is no hope of the next revaluation being done properly before 1973. The only honest course is therefore to recognise this and make provision accordingly, which the Bill does.
Postponement made it essential to provide a statutory foundation for the long-established practice of valuing properties between general revaluation by reference to the tone of the existing list instead of on current values as the law at present strictly requires. This is a matter that has been discussed in this House on more than one occasion. This Government has braved the difficulties that daunted its predecessors. I am glad to say that the clause has in the main stood up to close scrutiny by the professional bodies concerned and by other interested parties. It has been amended in another place to meet points they made.
The proposed rating of unoccupied property is new in England and Wales, except in the City of London, which noble Lords opposite will no doubt accept as a highly respectable precedent. The Government consider that there should be some deterrent to those who leave property vacant in times of scarcity in the hope of getting a higher price or rent. It is also the case that owners benefit from local services, such as police and fire and drainage, even when their properties are empty. But the proposal is not designed simply to be a revenue raiser; its primary purpose is to reduce waste of accommodation. Since the withholding of property from occupation is a more serious problem in some areas than others, the provisions have
464
not been made mandatory. They will apply only if adopted for their area by the rating authority, and those rating authorities who do adopt them will be able to get rid of them later if circumstances change.
Where the provisions are in force, there will be no liability until a property has been unoccupied for three months. After that, the owner will have to pay half the rates that would have been payable if it were occupied. So as not to discourage house building for private ownership, the free period for newly erected dwellings is to be six months. Certain classes of buildings are exempted entirely: those which it would be unlawful to occupy because, for example, of a clearance order; those which are vacant because a public authority is taking action to acquire them; and buildings of historic or architectural interest—listed buildings—for which it is often difficult to find a suitable new occupier. My right honourable friend has power to make further exemptions and intends to use this power to provide for cases where there is no one immediately in a position to dispose of property—for example, where the owner has died and no will has been proved.
The remaining major change in the rating field concerns the rating of offices occupied by Gas Boards, Electricity Boards and Transport Boards outside their operational land. Most of the property of these industries presents the fundamental difficulty of finding a rental value for things which are never let, and are not generally comparable with property that is let. Even the somewhat artificial method approved by the courts for the valuation of public utility undertakings breaks down in application to undertakings of the size and nature of the nationalised industries. So formulae for assessing and distributing a total value, or total rate payment, for each Board have been devised. Not surprisingly, the results produced by these formulae are not accepted as satisfactory by all the parties concerned. It would be odd if they were. At present local authorities as a whole believe that nationalised industries do not contribute enough to local revenues, and some authorities also believe that the distribution among recipient authorities is wrong. The nationalised industries, on the other hand, tend to

465
believe that they are paying too much in rates already.
A general review of this problem was started under the last Government. Unfortunately considerable differences remain between the parties, and the Government are not yet ready to propose fundamental changes. But there is one particular grievance which we consider should be remedied now. This is that where blocks of offices are rented by these industries they produce neither rates direct to the local authority, nor any increase in the area's share of the industry's total rate payments. This grievance has been recognised for many years. The previous Government did not deal with it. We are doing so. The Bill provides that offices away from operational land, such as the offices in town centres, and not those forming part of railway stations or at generating stations for example, are to be separately rated as from April 1, 1967. The rates payable on such offices will be additional to the amounts due from the industries under the existing formulae. So no local authority will suffer from this change, and a number of towns will benefit.
Part IV of the Bill abolishes a number of local licences and registrations which are considered to serve no useful control purpose and which are not worth keeping as revenue raisers. Some of these are fascinating enough as social history—agricultural gang masters and emigrant runners—but I will say only that they are now archaic. The gun licence is to go because it is an inefficient revenue raiser. It was never designed to serve a control purpose, and does not do so now. As the House will know, anyone, however irresponsible, can get a gun licence from a post office without any inquiry. Control over guns has been much increased in recent years under other legislation—the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act 1962 and the Firearms Act 1965. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced that he is working on plans to end the present unrestricted sale and possession of shotguns. Urgent discussions with interested organisations are being held. There is every hope that provision for better control over shotguns will he incorporated in the Criminal Justice Bill which is to be introduced this Session.
466
The fees for most of the large number of remaining local licences or registrations are at present fixed by Statute. Naturally the amounts in some instances have become very much out of date. The fee for the licensing of theatres, for example, was fixed in 1843; those for taking and dealing in game in 1860; and that for the dog licence in 1878. Power is therefore being taken for the appropriate Minister to vary the amount of the fees for these and other licences and registrations by order, subject to annulment by Resolution of either House. The arrangements for the exemption from licence duty of working dogs are being simplified. This Part of the Bill also makes many minor amendments to the law of rating and valuation in preparation for a Consolidation Bill which the Government hope to introduce later this Session. This Bill and the Rating Act 1966 comprise the Government's short-term rescue operation for the rating system. In the long run there will have to be a new permanent system. The two Bills make a number of valuable improvements to the rating system itself; they soften the regressive character of rates; they provide a mechanism for a progressive shifting of the increasing burden of local expenditure from rates to taxes; they improve the distribution of grants and they concentrate relief where it is most needed, for the domestic ratepayer. All this is done without reducing the responsibilities of local authorities and without impairing their independence. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
4.38 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with an attractive, quick-fire clarity. I think that the whole House would wish me to thank him for his clarity, and if the rapidity of the fire was a little too fast for some of us to be able to see where all the shots landed, and whether they hit the target, at any rate we have a full record that we shall be able to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I thought I detected him saying that all the new specific grants would be at the rate of 50 per cent. That does not seem to be what the Bill says. As I read Clause 11,

467
it appears that the Minister has discretion, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to fix the rate of grant, in the case of grants to local authorities where there are large numbers of immigrants. Perhaps that is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, would clear up when he comes to reply.
I should also like to thank the Government for coming round, though belatedly, to the view which I put before Parliament in 1958, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will recollect, but which the Party opposite decried and derided continually from that time forth until a few months ago. I refer to the superiority of general grants over percentage grants. I spent a good many years of my life in local government and recollect so often hearing my colleagues in committee, where a service at that time attracted a percentage grant, arguing that it would be better to go forward with a rather expensive scheme because we should have to pay only 50 per cent. of it and could make the rest of the country pay the other 50 per cent. That cannot in the normal case be a sound basis for good, responsible, economic administration. I am quite certain that the good of local government, which we must constantly consider behind all these financial arrangements, demands that, so far as possible, those who are reaching decisions involving substantial amounts of discretionary expenditure shall know that the expenditure for which they vote will be expenditure for which they will have to account to their electors.
The present Government have not always taken the view about the superiority of general grant to percentage grant which is embodied in this Bill. In 1963, the present Prime Minister used these words:
"The block grant encourages those backward local authorities who are only too glad of an excuse to lag behind in their provision of educational facilities; it penalises the forward-looking and imaginative. So we shall return progressively to a system of specific grants with first priority for education."
This Bill does not return progressively to a system of specific grants. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, frankly informed us, though there are four new specific grants in this Bill they are, in amount, quite outweighed by the existing specific grants which the Bill
468
proposes to abolish. I say nothing against that: I think it is right. Let me add that I think these four new specific grants are sensible ones, but I welcome the further movement in the Bill towards the substitution of general grants for specific grants. I think it was the 1964 Election Manifesto of the Labour Party, a document entitled The New Britain, which said that
"Labour will restore the percentage grant for education."
Well, this Bill certainly does not restore the percentage grant for education. Indeed, this is not the only current evidence that the new Britain the Government is producing is a very different new Britain from the one which the electors were led to expect. In that Labour Party tract, The New Britain, the larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries was to be transferred from the rates to the Exchequer. There is nothing about that in this Bill.
Last year the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Crossman (who is now Lord President of the Council), said that what we face now is a situation in respect of rates which is so serious that the Government must introduce reform and a radical change in the shortest possible time. That sounded, and was intended to sound, like real hope for the heavily burdened ratepayers. They had already been promised "early relief" in The New Britain. Most people who are promised relief from their burdens would assume it meant that their burdens would grow lighter, but this Bill is not going to result in that. If this Bill becomes law, householders will still find themselves paying more rates next year, and more the year after; and so on, ad infinitum. It may be that they will pay only 6 or 7 per cent. more each year, but that is poor comfort to those who had been promised that they could expect "relief".
Even the Government's own intentions for this Bill, announced in their White Paper published to help win the Election this spring are being falisified already by their own mismanagement. For the White Paper of February said that the Government's aim in the grant proposals of this forthcoming Bill
"would be to keep the average increase in rate poundages more nearly in line with the growth of the economy."
The economy has ceased to grow. All the high hopes in the so-called National Plan have been dashed already. But rate

469
poundages are going to continue to grow, and the Government know it—which makes their pride in the contents of this Bill seem, if I may respectfully say so, a little sick.
The Bill is like a dwarf: what there is of it is all right, but there is not enough. In the main, it builds on the foundations which the Conservative Government well and truly laid in the 1958 Act. The general grant and the rate-deficiency grant get merged, quite sensibly, in a new rate support grant. The concept of the new "domestic element" is designed to ensure that some extra money provided by the Exchequer will go for the benefit of householders, who pay their rates out of net income after tax, and not for industry or commerce who pay their rates out of gross profit before tax. The help thus given to the householder-ratepayer is not nearly enough:£30 million a year increasing cumulatively, as against our Conservative proposal of£100 million a year straight away by transfer of the cost of certain services direct to the Exchequer. My own judgment is that that would be only the beginning. There must be much more transferred as years go on.
I wish the Government had thought this out in relation to the established principles of local government finance, instead of simply as a cash exercise. I would have reviewed all local services, and transferred to the Exchequer the whole cost of those services where the element of local discretion is, in practice, minimal. That is the rational next step to take, even though the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, disparaged it. When decisions by councils can substantially alter the amounts spent, it would, of course, be contrary to sound finance for the central Government to bear the whole cost. But the corollary of this is equally important: that where the total cost of a service depends on factors which the local authority has virtually no power to vary, there is no argument of good administration why part of the cost should be borne locally. That is the principle underlying our Conservative policy. The Government have not yet recognised the force of the argument. Fortunately, I feel fairly sure the Royal Commission will.
It is the very heart of sound Government that elected councillors should feel a responsibility to their electors for the calls they make on their ratepayers'
470
pockets. I am not certain how much store the Government set on preserving that essential link. In the earlier days of modern local government councillors who voted away the ratepayers' money needlessly were likely to get turned out of office by angry electors at the next election. The spread of Party politics throughout local government, for which I am afraid the Party opposite are principally responsible, has now brought it about that at council elections good or bad administration has little effect compared with the national standing at the moment of the political Party to which each councillor seeking re-election belongs. This is—and we must recognise it—a serious loss.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt for one minute, am I to understand from him that this is one of the matters which the Royal Commission are considering at the moment and upon which he hopes for a favourable verdict from them?
LORD BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I am not a member of the Royal Commission, and I cannot say what the Royal Commission are considering. But what I said I hoped the Royal Commission would consider, and would recognise, was that where the total cost of a service depends on factors which local authorities have practically no power to vary, there is no strong case for part of the cost being borne locally. As I say, I cannot speak for the Royal Commission. I think that they have a very wise and understanding membership, and I am quite sure that they will give thorough consideration to every aspect of this important matter.
What I was seeking to argue was that this was not simply a matter of cash and figures. One has to probe through them, as I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, recognises, to the realities of local government administration behind. I was about to say that I also detect in Government thinking, as reflected both in the White Paper and in debates in another place on this Bill, a nave belief that we shall get better local government, as well as simplify the problems of local government finance, if we make local authorities bigger and bigger. That does not follow, and I very much doubt whether it is automatically true.

471
I have served on a very large local authority—the London County Council—but I started my local government career in connection with a very small one. Indeed, the first time I was ever induced to seek public office was in the village of Cumnor, where some 37 years ago it was suggested that I should stand for the parish council. I can certainly assure your Lordships that that election was not fought on Party lines; it was not fought at all. There were about 800 people entitled to vote, but there was no need to postpone the counting of the votes until the next morning. The counting took place in the village schoolroom, and when the count was completed it was announced that I had received 7 votes. It is all very well for noble Lords to smile, but I was triumphantly elected; and I am not in the least ashamed that I began to learn my local government on the lowest rung.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord this question? I am delighted that it was he who was elected in a poll which, as I understand it, was 7 out of 800. But is that part of his case for avoiding larger local government units?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: No, my Lords. Perhaps I was only reminiscing, but I thought it was not wholly irrelevant. I did not want your Lordships to suppose that all my local government experience, from which I can speak, was gained in bodies as large as the London County Council.
One difficulty with very large local authorities is that, besides the problem of persuading good enough people to come forward as candidates and be willing to serve on authorities which cover enormous areas, the link between councillor and ratepayer gets more and more tenuous, as the authority becomes bigger and the area becomes larger. The sad truth is that such councils—these very large ones—can be extravagant almost with impunity. Yet if we are to succeed in raising all our local services to the standards we require—and many of them need to be substantially improved further—the one thing we cannot afford is any waste or extravagance, because that would be a misdirection of scarce resources. What I am hoping is that the Royal Commission's Report will show an understand-
472
ing of these sound principles of financial responsibility, even though it seems to me that this Bill does not.
There is another and quite different principle which the Bill breaches, and this is that the householder pays rates for services rendered. That has always been accepted hitherto, but under Clause 21 owners may in future be made to pay rates at 50 per cent. on houses that have been empty for more than three months. The history of the rating of unoccupied houses in Scotland has not been a particularly happy one, and it may not be the fault of the owner at all that a house is empty; it may be the fault of the Government in ruining the mortgage market that prevents a man from selling his house as quickly as he would wish.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that the rating of empty houses in Scotland was introduced by a Conservative Government, at the instance of an ex-Chief Whip?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord is very well versed in the Party politics behind this subject, but I was not seeking to make any Party political point. I was just saying, whoever introduced the rating of empty properties in Scotland, that it had not been an unqualified success. But I do not think the noble Lord will disagree fundamentally with what I am about to say on this clause. I know the offensiveness of houses standing empty in cities where there is still a severe housing shortage, and I am not strongly opposed to trying an experiment with the rating of unoccupied houses where it is at the option of each local authority, as it is made to be in this Bill. But I doubt whether the experiment will come up to the expectations of its authors, and I suspect that in practice three months will be found to be too short a period to he a fair one before the 50 per cent, rating starts.
I like the idea behind Part I of the Bill, that the total amount of all grants to local authorities shall be defined in advance. That gets rid, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, of the open-ended character of the rate-deficiency grant, which was a valid criticism against what was otherwise a valuable instrument. What I cannot find is any provision in this Bill for transitional relief to those

473
authorities that will lose by it, as a number of country authorities surely will. If we had not introduced any transitional relief in what became the 1958 Act, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who was quick, though always most courteous, to attack me on every point where I might be vulnerable in connection with that Bill, would certainly have drawn critical attention to it. That 1958 Act, as it seems to me quite rightly, provided for transitional relief to losing authorities on a tapering scale. Perhaps the Government will explain to us why this Bill sets a lower standard of fairness in that respect.
After all, what matters to each individual local authority is what it itself stands to gain or to lose. All treasurers and chairmen of finance committees—in fact, every person holding responsible office in a local authority—will want to know how their own authority will fare. When I was taking the 1958 Bill through I was very strongly pressed by the Party opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to publish a table showing in detail the estimated effect of the Bill on each grant-receiving authority. Like so many of his suggestions, it seemed a reasonable one, and I acceded to it. I am not at all sure why the Government have not been willing to extend a similar helpful courtesy to Parliament in respect of this Local Government Bill. I cannot help wondering whether they are afraid that it might show up too clearly the need for transitional relief to losing authorities, for which the Bill has not provided at all.
The necessity for this Bill and for something far more far-reaching than this Bill stems from the lack of buoyancy in the rating system as an instrument for financing the present very high rate of growth of expenditure on local services—outstandingly, of course, education. The national tax basis can equitably bear a rate of growth of expenditure which the local rate system cannot. I think that by now that is common ground among us. I am not saying there is any easy substitute for local rates; there is not. I wish well to the Working Party, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned, that is going to study once again further alternatives or supplements to local rates. But none of us who has had much connection with local government finance is
474
full of high hopes that a secret solution will suddenly be discovered. I searched hard in 1957–58, but I confess it was difficult to make progress.
However, under the present law the rate system does get a fresh injection of buoyancy every five years, when there is a general revaluation. It is all the more lamentable that the Government now feel compelled to cancel the revaluation which, under the law, is due in 1968, and to delay the next injection of new buoyancy into the rating system until 1973. We all know—and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was frank to admit—that this is due to the acute shortage of valuers. This is a shortage for which the Government's capital gains tax and the Government's Land Commission Bill are principally responsible, and I am sorry to say that here the interests of sound local government are being sacrificed to the implementation of unsound Socialist theory.
In one respect after another this is a makeshift Bill. It is coloured by the quite unsupported view of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government who introduced it in another place that, somewhere just around the corner, there exists a substitute for rates waiting to be discovered, and that therefore the rate system can be decried and damned because before long, at any rate by the time the Royal Commission report, a substitute will have come to light. He reminds me of the little boy who, after incessant quarrels with his rather troublesome brother, said, "Mummy, we shall have to get rid of George". Mummy said, "Darling, we can't do that. You know, Dick, he is not like a dog or a cat; he can't just be put down". Dick said, "Well, Mummy, there is only one thing for it, then—I shall have to go and live elsewhere". That is just what, in this case, Dick has done, and he has left this Bill as his rather inadequate legacy—not to be rejected, but to he received with faint praise.
5.5 p.m.
LORD C1TRINE: My Lords, any Bill that comes to this House from another place having been passed by that other place is pretty well assured of a Second Reading. It may be damned with faint praise, and it may even be amended, but assuredly it will not be thrown out neck

475
and crop. This Bill seeks to remove certain anomalies which exist in the present rating law and practice, and it seeks to put at the disposal of the local authorities rather more money than they are at present receiving.
I want to speak, in particular, in relation to the effect that the Bill will have upon the nationalised industries. My interest in the matter is, I think, generally known. I was for ten years the chairman of the British Electricity Authority and its successor, the Central Electricity Authority, and I was for five years a part-time member of the Electricity Council. I was also for a time a member of the National Coal Board, and for five years was a part-time member of the Atomic Energy Authority. Now all those bodies are in one form or another nationalised undertakings, and while not all of them are dealt with under this Bill, precedents can be set which are easily extended on subsequent occasions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those who, like myself, are closely interested in the affairs of the nationalised industries to examine fairly closely what is proposed in respect of them in any legislation that comes before this House.
I suppose that as an ex-chairman of the Electricity Authority I read the Annual Reports of that body with rather more care than perhaps is the case of the individual Member either of this House or of the other place. It is natural it should be so; and I was rather struck, on reading the Annual Report for the year which ended on March 31, 1966, to read these words:
"Local rates weigh heavily on the industry; in 1965–66 its rates bill reached nearly£30 million, costing the consumer 7d. in every£of his electricity bill. In their Report for 1963–64 the Council referred to the increase in rateable values determined in 1962 by the Government in the light of the general revaluation at that time. This settlement was accepted with reluctance, mainly because it failed to eliminate anomalies stemming from earlier years in which the rateable values of electricity undertakings—unlike those of the majority of ratepayers—had been maintained at up-to-date levels. The rating arrangements of nationalised industries are now under review and the Electricity Council consider that the only satisfactory way of assessing the contribution of the electricity supply industry is by comparison with the contributions of other ratepayers. By any reasonable standard of comparison with private industry,
476
or with other industries in the public sector, electricity is, in their view, already heavily over-burdened. They will certainly regard as completely unjustified any additional impost beyond the increases that can be expected to flow from rising rate poundages."
There may be other noble Lords who, like me, have had enough experience of the relationship between the Government of the day and the separate nationalised industries to know the reluctance with which any Board makes a statement of that kind for public consideration. It is most unusual; it is the sort of thing that I myself did from time to time, though perhaps in a less direct fashion, but it means that it represents a deep sense of injustice on the part of those entrusted with supplying electricity to the public of this country. I stress the reference to "fair and reasonable comparison". That seems to me to lie at the heart of this subject. Surely, because an industry like the electricity supply industry has raised itself to a high state of efficiency, that is no reason why it should be unjustly treated. After all, electricity is supplied to the ordinary consumer. Whatever the category may be, at some point he or she is a citizen of the country and a ratepayer of the country as well as a taxpayer. It is surely unfair to put upon the electricity consumer burdens in the way of rates which are not justified by any of the ordinary canons that can be applied in matters of this kind.
As we all know, this Bill proposes that offices and other premises not situated on operational land should be separately rated. There is no provision at all in the Bill, as it stands, for any subsequent adjustment in the total rates that are paid by an industry. Therefore, we must assume that what is proposed here will add to the cost of that particular industry. I think that is unfortunate because some years ago when rating was being reviewed a precedent was set in respect of electricity showrooms. There are many of them and they were separately rated. The amount was deducted from the overall amount of rates which the electricity industry had to pay. I know of no other industry—I was almost tempted to say "any combination of industries" paying over or up to£30 million a year in rates. It is a very great sum and its consequences on the industry itself are very considerable.

477
Of course, troubles never come singly and the trouble in this Bill, as regards the rating of the electricity supply industry, comes in addition to a number of other things that have happened. I should like to draw the attention of the House to some of them. Paragraph 12 of the Report says:
"…the industry has throughout the quinquennium—had to bear the burden of fuel oil duty, which cost nearly£12 million in 1965–66; over and above the fuel oil tax, it has also borne the extra cost involved in affording a degree of preference to coal over other fuels. In addition it has, in common with industry generally, had to face rising costs of labour and materials and recently a sharp increase in the cost of coal has been announced. This latter increase does not become operative until 1966–67"—
the same period in which the rates will also come into operation—
"but the gross cost in that year is expected to be about£33 million."
So between these two sources, rates and other costs, the electricity supply industry has to raise somehow something like£63 million.
I think that is very considerable having regard to the history of this addition to costs. When I was Chairman of the Electricity Supply Industry it was feared that there would be a shortage of coal—it was rather an anomalous assumption—and the proposal was made by the Government, and not by the engineers and technicians of the electricity supply industry, that we should use oil in as many power stations as possible instead of coal, our normal fuel. We said that we should infinitely prefer to import coal in spite of the fact that it would be at a higher price than we were then paying; but on the insistence of the Government we converted a number of our power stations, some of which were on the point of completion and some in the course of construction. I use the word "insistence", but I am not implying any bullying on the part of any Minister; there are ways in which Governments can make their views pretty emphatic.
I have no time to check these figures, but if my memory serves me aright£16 million was needed to cover the capital costs of conversion. I remember signing a contract with Esso for two and a half million tons of oil. As I was told at the time, it was the biggest single contract that they had ever signed or had had in
478
their possession. I signed another agreement with B.P. which was for a slightly smaller amount. I would ask the House to remember this was at the insistence—I repeat, the insistence—of the Government; though, if it is a more acceptable term, I could say "strong representations".
So this industry switched over from its former fuel (with which it was perfectly satisfied) and at the urgent representation of the Government used oil, imported oil. I say this lest there should be any argument over the difference between imported coal and imported oil; for the same principle applies exactly. And the fuel tax imposed by the Government increased the industry's costs last year, the year ending March 31, by£12 million, which I think is a very substantial amount indeed. So if one takes only that last year, something like£28 million has been added to the industry's costs: £16 million capital costs plus the£12 million that I spoke of as being incurred last year.
Now, so far as I can estimate, this change in rating is likely to cost the industry another£3 million. I may be wrong about that, but I have tried to do what checking I could and that presumably is the amount. Therefore, I say that it is quite unreasonable to expect a striving industry that has raised its prices several times, because of circumstances largely emanating from legislation and Governmental and Administrational influence, to go on paying merely because year by year it is showing a large what I used to call "surplus". Incidentally, this is now referred to as "balance of revenue". To look at the balance sheet and to say that the industry has a balance of revenue of, say, £84 million or£85 million of course gives some people the impression that there are unlimited resources there upon which they can draw possibly for other governmental and taxation purposes. But I think it is quite unreasonable.
I wish, finally, to read paragraph 14 of the Annual Report:
"The Boards have succeeded in absorbing a substantial part of the cost increases that have fallen on them, but they could not absorb them all and tariff increases have been necessary. Since these tariff increases were made, the problems associated with bringing new plant into commission have continued, and so too has the rising trend in costs; in particular, there will be the sharp

479
rise in coal prices just referred to. As a result it is now expected that the Balance of Revenue in 1966–67 will be below the 1965–66 level and that, although the out-turn will vary as between individual Boards, the industry as a whole will fall short of its objective for the five years, albeit by a small margin in relation to the scale of its activities."
Those objectives were set for the industry by the Government. They were not set by the industry. The Boards have to pay, or earn, 12½per cent., I think it is, of their net assets. They have come very close to doing that, but never quite succeeded in doing it in the years since the system was establishedunder—I am not now talking politics—a Conservative Government.
I wish to wind up by saying that I think this is an unjust imposition and I hope that when we get to the Committee stage we shall be able to deal with it. I should like to make clear that so far as the actual change is concerned the electricity industry has no objection to the concept of rating offices separately, but it is strongly of the view that this change need not, and should not, be made in such a manner as to add to the burden of local rates borne by electricity consumers.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, raised so many pertinent points in his speech that if we are to get an adequate reply from the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government, we shall listen to a fairly long speech. I do not wish to make his speech longer, but I would ask him whether he can refer to one point in the Bill which I do not think has been mentioned this afternoon. In Part III, Clauses 26 and 27, the question of the lighting of highways is dealt with. It seems to me that if we are to deal with this subject, some compulsion, some power, should be taken to make the local authorities in any one area light their streets, certainly the main streets, by the same system and with the same sort of density. Even in the London area, or the Greater London Council area as it is now, you will find that you move suddenly from a road which is lit by orange lights into another strip of road which has are lamps, or sometimes a blue type of lamp. This adds to the hazards and dangers of driving. Surely by now
480
the authorities—I do not know; it may be the Ministry of Transport, or the lighting authorities—must have come to some conclusion about which type of lighting is the safest. The most economical, no doubt, has to be considered; but I think that safety should be the main factor. I wonder whether the noble Lord, in his reply, can say something about this question.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may be allowed a minute or two, I shall not be long. I think this a good Bill, and not just because I am sitting on these Benches; but one has to remember what kind of Bill it is. At the moment a Royal Commission is sitting considering on very broad terms of reference the structure of local government. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was right to mention that a number of the points which he was raising were really matters to be considered by the Royal Commission, and that in what is in a sense an interim Bill, as it has been described, one would not expect to find them, or expect decisions to be founded on any particular view of them.
This is a Bill, as I see it, introduced because of the urgency for some relief over rates. Relief has rightly been given in the first instance to the poorer group of domestic ratepayers. That has been done by one Bill and now relief is also being given to local authorities in respect of the burdens that fall on them out of rates which, as has been pointed out, rise year by year. The reason they rise is perfectly simple. It is twofold. Under thirteen years of Tory Government we have seen consistently rising prices. I am not saying whether this was inevitable or not; that is not a matter which we are discussing now; but it has happened and has, of course, told on local expenditure.
Secondly, we come to Parliament—the Tory Party has done it just as much as my own Party—and we put new responsibilities and new duties on local authorities and these have to be paid for. A great many of them arise out of the increasing complexity of the life we live in a modern society. When people say that rates ought to be reduced, I remember first of all that when Joseph Chamberlain was the radical Mayor of Birmingham his motto was:
"Higher rates and a healthy city."

481
That was a long time ago, and the administration of Birmingham at that time had been particularly scandalous, nearly as bad as that of Edinburgh in Cockburn's time. Without going back as far as that, it is true to say that if you really want to cut rates, cut the total burden on the local authorities, inevitably you have to reconcile that somehow or other with the increasing cost of their duties; and it just cannot be done.
The other question is, how do you distribute the burden as between the central Government and the local authority? Both Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to-day, and the Minister speaking in another place gave their own views as to the kind of criterion which ought to be applied. Like most of these matters of distribution between the central and local responsibility, it is a question of degree. It is quite easy to find some things which at the end of the scale are undoubtedly capable of being put more on the shoulders of central Government, and others where perhaps the share of the local authority is too small. When we have a Bill of this kind dealing with the broad financial burden I do not think we can do very much about that.
I do not consider that the question of the proportion in which teachers' salaries should be paid is a matter for this Bill. I should have thought it a matter for an Education Bill, and it would need to have regard to the partnership existing in education, as we all know, between the central Government and local authorities. The trouble about the general grant was not so much that it aroused any comments from the Opposition as that it aroused comments from all the education authorities and people interested in education all over the country. Rightly or wrongly, they felt that the Ministry of Education under a Tory Government had shifted its ground and was no longer keen on an arrangement which did allow local education authorities to make advances and ventures on their own, advances and ventures which this grant made impossible or at any rate unlikely.
One must never forget that rates are not a good tax. I do not feel quite so hopeless as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, does about alternatives. There may be something to be done. I do not think that we can hope to find a 100 per cent. alternative, but partial alternatives have been considered. Perhaps the
482
best answer to a too pessimistic view about this is to look at other countries which have a structure of local government not dissimilar from ours and finance it under quite different arrangements. They use indirect local taxes on a much larger scale than we do. I am not saying too much about it, but I think that it is right and proper that it should be investigated, as it is being investigated at this moment, and I am no more prepared to dismiss the work of that working party as likely to be useless than I am prepared to do so in the case of the Royal Commission which is considering the structure of local government.
What happened about empty properties was very simple. The Scottish Grand Committee gave the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Find horn, when he was Scottish Secretary, a good hauling over the coals on this matter, and he, being an ex-Chief Whip, persuaded the Government that Scotland should be allowed to do it; and they have been doing it ever since. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that we must not expect too much, and I also agree with the Minister who said exactly the same thing. That is why he left it to the discretion of local authorities. Glasgow, which has about the worst housing problem in the whole country, tried it on a large scale, and it has only a limited use. What use it has is very much as a deterrent against the kind of landlord who keeps his house deliberately empty in the hope of being able to sell it at a higher price than he can get at present. That is the kind of think it serves to prevent or discourage.
Finally, this is a Bill which is not putting any more on the backs of the local authority. So far as it does so, the effect is quite incidental. It does two main things, as I see it. One is to give them a relief at the rate of 1 per cent. of estimated expenditure. That is what is intended, though of course it is not in the Bill. It does so at a time when we all recognise that the burden on local authorities as well as the burden on the domestic ratepayer is becoming very heavy, and that seems to be a right and proper and sensible thing to do.
It is very strange to hear a former Tory Minister of Housing raising objections to deferring valuations. It is exactly

483
what they did, and for the same reason—shortage of valuers. There is no foundation for attributing that to anything in the past year or two: it has been the position for years and years past. I hope that some Government or other, some day, is going to do something a little more useful about this by way of training future valuers; but that is not the question to-day.
The second main thing this Bill does is make a distinct improvement in the rating system by the rate support grant. It is not the old general grant. It is something much wider than that. It is left to the Minister and it is based on a new formula including relief for the domestic ratepayer; and those two big changes seem to me to be well worth making. They are made in a Bill, which can last only so long as the structure of local government remains fundamentally unaltered and while that matter is under consideration by the Royal Commission. For what it is, I suggest to the House that this is a thoroughly good Bill. It was accepted without a Division in another place, and it would be strange indeed if, on a Bill which is not a Money Bill, in the technical sense, but still is nothing but a Financial Bill, this House were to differ from the place below.
5.35 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, one noble Lord has feared that if I attempted to answer all the questions that have been directed to this Bench this afternoon, it would take a long time. I thoroughly appreciate his calculation, but I assure him that it will not take a long time, because I do not propose exhaustively to answer the questions directed to me or to my noble friend; for many of the points, valuable as they are, can best be brought up on the Committee stage of the Bill. There are, however, one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which I will endeavour, if not fully at least partially, to answer. Though it would perhaps be better for us all if we discussed contrary proposals on the Committee stage, this discussion will help us then. Members of another place predigested this measure in thirteen stages of mastication, but I do not suppose that we shall require that amount of time when we reach the Committee stage.
484
We all recognise that rates are becoming an increasing burden on large numbers of people. Some of us feel that they are becoming like the last straw on the camel's back. George Orwell, in his enchanting and mordant satire and parable, Animal Farm, refers to a number of zoological specimens, but not to the camel. I do not know why he should not have done so, because the camel is a good synonym for the ratepayer. The ratepayer is always complaining, quite justifiably, that he is bearing too heavy a burden, which should be transferred elsewhere. The noble Lord will agree that one of the means by which the ratepayer could be relieved is by transferring the burden in some measure from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. I understand that in the latter part of the political campaign in which he and others engaged in the last Election, the figure of£100 million was advanced as the amount by which his Party proposed to transfer the burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. I would remind him that in his Party's political guide there was the statement, on page 301:
"It is all too easy to talk airily about transferring the cost of the whole of the services to the taxpayer, but are they prepared to face higher taxes in this connection?"
I would remind your Lordships that many of these matters are contentious and controversial, and certainly fall within the orbit of consideration by the Royal Commission. That is why, as has been emphasised once or twice to-day, this Bill is by nature an interim measure. It does not pretend to solve this very substantial problem. We must await the Royal Commission's Report. I agree that the Commission's Report will take time, and that it will take more time before it is implemented. On the other hand, I do not suppose that it will take thirteen years—which is a period of time that is familiar to noble Lords opposite.
Another proposal for relieving the taxpayer and the ratepayer of their burden is to decrease substantially the amount spent on social services. No one has suggested that this afternoon; nor did they do so in another place. For good or ill, we bear this burden of the social services; and we are glad to do so. It is one thing to have a burden to bear, but it is something else to appreciate the nature of the burden. It represents a comprehensive and vast expansion of our social

485
services generally. Their cost has to be borne in one way or another, but it is agreed that the ratepayer should be relieved in some measure. I would remind the noble Lord that he has said that this Bill, when it becomes law (I think these are his exact words) "will still leave the ratepayer to face increase in rates in the future instead of relief." Though that may be true, certainly this Bill will decrease the rate of increase.
And this applies not only to this Bill. Another measure which the Government have taken has already decreased the rate of increase for a large number of people in the country, and here I refer to the poorer ratepayer. They, at least, know by actual experience that, through the facilities provided for them by the Government, they have been able quite substantially to earn a relief of their burden. It is estimated that something like£15 a year has been the average relief to something like 900,000 people or more, who have applied for refund under the facilities which the Government have provided for them. I understand that the figure at the moment is 900,000, but that there are a number of late applicants, and the final figure for the first period may well be over one million. The amount of these rebates runs into something like £7½million. No one can argue that this is not a relief to some people, and although, through the general Incidence of the social services and other services, it is likely that rates will continue to rise, our task, of course, is to try to minimise the rise as much as possible. What we have done, and what we propose here, I submit, goes some way towards not only minimising that rise, but also towards making its incidence more equitable.
I now turn to one or two of the remarks made and the questions put. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked about immigrants. He stated that the Bill does not fix the rate of grant at 50 per cent. for a high proportion of Commonwealth immigrants. This is quite true. But the intention of the Government is to calculate grant at the rate of 50 per cent. of approved expediture in employing identifiable staff to deal with the special problems arising from the presence of Commonwealth immigrants in this country. Details of the scheme are still being worked out with the associations of local authorities.
486
The noble Lord not only argued that the Bill does not envisage a substantial decrease in the burden of rates, but also asked a number of questions, including one with regard to local authority services. He argued that where it could be shown that financial responsibility of local authorities was diminishing it would be just as well for the central authority to take complete charge of those services. This was a point that weighed in their minds. But there are serious dangers in that, because one of the great needs of this country is to preserve, so far as we can, the responsibility of local government. If, therefore, there is a continuous transference by virtue of the financial changes from local government to central Government, there is a danger of the whole structure of local government being eroded.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord what I meant. I was not suggesting that these services should all be taken over entirely by the central Government. What I was saying was that there was no strong reason against the central Government paying for the whole of certain local services where all the vital decisions are taken centrally and the amount of discretion left to the individual local authority is minimal. It is rather a different point.
LORD SORENSEN: I appreciate that, and I do not want to misrepresent the noble Lord. But I still feel that my suggestion holds good. A strong case can be made out for certain services being paid for entirely by the central Government. In certain cases, we know now of the large portion of expenditure that is met by central Government. With that there follows the logical sequence that, the more the central Government accept as their financial responsibility, so correspondingly less should be the responsibility of the local authority. All I am pointing out is that there is a great danger here. I would suggest that, even if the central Government do come to the aid of local authorities substantially, and even though, logically, they might say that correspondingly there should be a diminution of the responsibility of local government, nevertheless, the central Government would be wise to say, even though it may be entirely illogical: "In spite of our bearing a greater proportion

487
of the expenditure, we will still leave with the local authority considerable discretionary powers."
To turn now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Citrine, I may say that after the great experience he has had in national industries his observations weigh very heavily with all of us, as I am sure they will with the Government. But he must appreciate that there are arguments on both sides. There has been a great deal of discussion taking place behind the scenes. There are local authorities who can produce just as strong a case against the nationalised industries bearing what they contend to be too low a burden of the rates as, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, advanced in exactly the opposite direction. All I can say is that this is being seriously considered, and if the noble Lord feels that it can be considered still more by his putting down an exploratory Amendment, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. Meanwhile, I can assure him that the Government are exercised on this matter. They realise that it is unsatisfactory from every point of view, and they are hoping to conduct a drastic review into the whole incidence of this matter so that later on they can come to a more constructive conclusion.
Coming to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, he mentioned the diversity of lighting systems. Some of his remarks were of course irrelevant to this Bill. I would say, however, that the provisions of the Bill by reducing the present large number of authorities responsible for road lighting, and by making lighting the principal responsibility of the road authorities, reduce the serious difficulty and danger to which he referred. To that extent it is good. But I would remind the noble Viscount that the powers of the Bill possibly do not go as far as he wants them to. As one who has been driving for many years, I share with him the difficulty, embarrassment and sometimes danger of a sudden change in lighting. Sometimes the illumination is of a different type; sometimes it is poor in quality; and I therefore share with many others the desire for something to be done along these lines. I should have thought that reducing the number of authorities would go some
488
way towards securing continuity of policy over a long stretch of motoring highway.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I knew when I spoke that what I said was not entirely relevant to the Bill, but I was hopeful that, as we were discussing this, there might be an opportunity—it is doing no harm, and it may help—when we come to the Committee stage, to get something into the Bill by means of an Amendment which might go further than the Bill goes at present on this point, which I think is important.
LORD SORENSEN: I appreciate that. If the noble Lord cares to put down an Amendment, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. We can then argue the question, and having seen the terms of the Amendment we can possibly give him a more considered reply than I can give now. I am entirely sympathetic with the noble Lord in what he has said.
The House will not mind my saying that I do not propose to continue very much longer in reply to the remarks made by noble Lords. I think that I have covered some of them at least. I have referred to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and to my noble friend Lord Citrine. My noble friend Lord Mitchison intervened at the last minute, and we are most grateful to him, as we are to all noble Lords who have intervened, for the contribution made out of his great experience particularly with regard to Scotland. I would say again, as I began, that we appreciate that millions of ratepayers in this country have a great burden. Something has to be done to try to ease that burden, even though it can never be reduced as much as the ratepayers themselves desire. Nevertheless, something in particular should be done to ease the burden of those who can least afford it, and something has been done in that direction already.
This Bill will go a little way towards making the system equitable. Even for that reason, I trust earnestly that, though there may be Amendments which will improve the Bill, the substance of it will be acceptable to the whole House in due course.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1966
Draft Order proposed to be made under Section 3(2) of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 by Her Majesty in Council: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for Affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on July 25 last discharged; and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.