Lords Sitting of 19 January 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

TERRITORIALS AND THE CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS
3.6 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 whether they will make a statement on the intended relationship between the reorganised Civil Defence Corps, the Territorial Army Associations and the Territorials; having regard to the Statement to Parliament made by Her Majesty's Government on December 14, 1966.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the primary role of the Territorials will be to assist the civil authorities in the maintenance of law and order, whereas the future role of the Civil Defence Corps is the rather different one of helping the local authorities to man the control system and providing limited numbers of specialists. Arrangements are, however, being made for liaison between the Armed Forces and those local authorities who are responsible for raising divisions of the Civil Defence Corps.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. He said that arrangements for liaison are being made. Can he say by whom they are being made, and what the arrangements are? Are they being made at this moment, or does the noble Lord mean that they will be made if an incident occurs?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my words were carefully chosen. Arrangements are being made at this moment; in other words, the new organisation is
212
being set up. The authorities concerned are the counties and county boroughs, who are also the Civil Defence Corps authorities, and the Ministry of Defence are considering the appointment of suitable officers from all three Services to act as joint liaison officers between the majority of these local authorities and the Armed Forces as a whole. These officers will be available (and this, I think, deals with part of the noble Lord's point) to assist in peace-time planning and co-ordination.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am afraid there was a certain amount of noise when the noble Lord was giving his main Answer, and I did not quite catch whether he made any mention of the Territorial Army Associations. Are these officers now liaising with the Associations?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Territorial Army Associations have specific functions, which were outlined in the course of the debate, and those functions will continue. The Associations will not, as I understand it, be directly involved in this specific operational liaison, but they are fully in the picture and are being fully consulted. Here again, this is in process of being worked out. Perhaps I might add, as I am sure the noble Lord would wish, that Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the work of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces' Associations.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the greatest risk immediately after a nuclear attack is uncontrolled fire, and that at one time numbers of Territorials were to be trained in fire-fighting to help the fire authorities? Has that idea been dropped; and, if so, what alternative do the Government propose?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, think that is another matter, and perhaps he would like to put down a further Question. Broadly, his statement is correct, and the limited role of the Territorials in this respect will now, so far as I can judge from the present development, cease. The role of the Territorials is primarily that of supporting the Civil Power in maintaining law and order. This was fully explained in the debates that we had last summer.

SALMON DISEASE
3.11 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the disease which broke out amongst salmon in Southern Ireland was caused by bacteria or a virus or some other infection.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am afraid there is little I can add to the statement which my noble friend Lord Champion made on November 29 in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, when he informed the House of the work which is being done both in this country and in Ireland into the causes of the disease. It has still not been established whether the disease is caused by a bacterium or a virus, either separately or in combination. This type of research is by its nature a slow and laborious process, and I am afraid that it is impossible to predict how long it may take to establish the nature of the disease.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, can the noble Lady state whether the Government have considered the possibility of unification of research by all those countries which harvest the North Atlantic salmon?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think the simple answer to that is, No. If the noble Lord needs more information about the international arrangements already in existence, I can give this, but it all adds up to the fact that at this moment the reply to his question is, No.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether there is any danger to human beings from this disease?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I regret that I am unable to give a direct reply to the noble Lord, but if he would like me to obtain this information, I will do so. I think it might be dangerous for me to give an answer off the cuff to that question.

UNIVERSITY FEES OF OVERSEAS STUDENTS
3.12 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds the fees of overseas students at British Universities have been increased.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the Government do not lay down the fees to be charged by the universities. They have, however, decided that the next quinquennial settlement of recurrent grant to universities should assume a fee income of £250 a year from overseas students beginning courses in the next academic year. To avoid hardship, the increase in the fee assumed for those who have already started on courses which extend into the next academic year will be limited to £50 a year for the remainder of their present course. This decision was taken in the light of the recommendations of the Robbins Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates that the general level of fees should be increased so that they met at least 20 per cent. of expenditure. In the case of most United Kingdom students the general effect of such an increase would be to transfer expenditure from central Government to local government and thus would go counter to the Government's policy of trying to limit the rate burden.
However, the existing fee structure results in a concealed subsidy to overseas students at United Kingdom universities which grew from £3·4 million in 1955–56 to about £12 million in 1965–66. The Government were unable to contemplate an indefinite increase in this subsidy and reluctantly concluded that some increase in the fees for overseas students was justified. Even with the increased fee the element of subsidy to overseas students will be greater than it was five years ago.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, and appreciating the concession

215
which has been made to existing students, may I ask him whether it would not be possible to differentiate between overseas students from Europe, North America and Australia, who should not need this concession, and students from the developing countries, many of whom will be put in very great difficulties by the trebled fees which are to be charged?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I ought to stress that no additional cost will fall on students who are now, or will be in the future, financed from British official sources, including the British Council. Moreover, the Government will reimburse the additional £50 payable by students who have already started their courses and are financed by the Governments of developing countries.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he realises the very great concern felt at this increase by teaching institutions, such as the Royal College of Art, and by universities, such as Essex University, which have been endeavouring to attract to this country students from overseas? Have the Government taken into consideration any representations made to them by the Vice-Chancellors' Committee? Have they consulted the Vice-Chancellors' Committee? And have they undertaken any consultation concerning the effects of this change with any educational authorities likely to be affected by it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government are aware, of course, of the feeling that has been expressed by various people and organisations, and I have no doubt that the considerations which lie behind that feeling were taken into account by the Robbins Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates. But, even accepting the points that have been made by the various individuals and by the Press, and also direct to the Minister, I should have thought it was reasonable to say that some increase is essential and that the increase proposed is not an unreasonable one. Moreover, the off-setting arrangement which I described, both in the original Answer and in my answer to the supplementary question, is a highly selective one.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties, and I understand that many of those students who
216
come even from developing countries have parents such as oil sheikhs who can well afford to pay the higher fees; but is it not also the case that the Governments of developing countries are compelled to limit their scholarships, and to cut them down, and that in addition to those students who come with Government scholarships there are many others who are coming here by the sacrifice of their parents and living in very great difficulties in this country? Would it not be possible to come to an arrangement with the British Council, or with other responsible organisations, that in the case of recommended students the lower fees should still be maintained in the future?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what the noble Lord is saying is that there is a case for increasing the fees of some students and not of others. The effect of these proposals will be that some students will pay an increased fee. I feel we should get this matter in proper perspective. As I think my noble friend indicated in his first supplementary question, 30 per cent. of overseas students come from countries such as the United States, Canada and the Scandinavian countries, and they are well able to pay a higher fee. In fact, many come to this country precisely because they get their university education here at a lower cost than is obtainable in their own country. And it is interesting to see the figures that Dr. Byatt quoted in a letter to The Times yesterday, in which he said that in the case of the London School of Economics, of 812 regular overseas students, no fewer than 451 came from Europe, North America and Australasia. The element of subsidy to those students ought in present circumstances not to be increased at the rate that would have been necessary owing to increased costs generally. So far as those coming from developing countries are concerned, if they are sponsored by the O.D.M. or the British Council, as I have already said, no additional cost would fall upon them.
LORD BROCKWAY: For future students?
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I think we should be very careful not to introduce the sort of colour discrimination advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether his last reply indicates that this will apply to future students as well as to existing students?
LORD BESWICK: What I said earlier, my Lords, was that no additional cost would fall on students who, now or in the future, are financed from British official sources.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said about Lord Brockway's suggestion, I would ask: Are the Government aware that there is a great deal of anxiety, particularly in Scottish universities, over unsponsored students who have already started their courses? I think we all agree that something must be done about the future, but would the Government look into the problem of the existing students, of whom there are not many but to whom great hardship will ensue?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that to those students who have already started their courses the increase will be limited to £50 a year, and if they are students from developing countries that £50 will be reimbursed.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the Government, before coming to this decision, made any estimate of the value of the services provided by men who have come to this country on these grants and afterwards stayed on to work in the universities, particularly in the medical and science faculties, and indeed in the medical and other services in this country—in other words the brain-drain in reverse?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure all these considerations were taken into account, and nothing that I have said about students coming from overseas should be construed as meaning that we do not welcome them or that their presence here is not highly valuable to students generally.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, what will be the net saving to the Government of this measure?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it will be something of the order of £2½ million a year. That will be the net saving when the scheme is fully effective.

RHODESIA: GRANT TO SALISBURY UNIVERSITY
3.24 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what grant has been made to the Administration in Rhodesia for the period of the next three months in support of the University of Salisbury which was established as an inter-racial institution.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no grant has been made to the illegal régime in Rhodesia, but £62,500 has been paid into the University College bank account in London in respect of the first quarter of 1967.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, whilst appreciating the necessity to maintain this University, pending the eventual collapse of the illegal Smith regime, is it not a fact that at present the academic board controlling bursaries for African students has been replaced by civil servants responsible to the Smith administration, and that scholarships are being denied to Africans for technical and academic studies and limited to subordinate studies for jobs to which the Africans are restricted in Rhodesia? Is this not a form of educational apartheid?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that it is an advantage to everyone to have this University College operating fully, ready for the day when Rhodesia returns to legal government. But I should have thought it was also an advantage to have the College operating there in the meantime while it is offering places to African students. The number of African students who have applied for admission for the next academic year is higher than ever before. It is, as yet, too early to say how many of those applicants will be granted bursaries by the Rhodesian Scholarship Board.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords; but is it not the case that of the 121 university staff, 70 have either been expelled or have resigned, and that a fourth

219
of the African students have left, either compulsorily or voluntarily?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there have been changes, but I would advise my noble friend not to be too pessimistic about the effect of the changes. In fact I was interested to read the Press statement issued by the College Council, as at present constituted and reflecting the views of present staff, in which they say that they are determined
"to maintain the autonomy of the College under the Charter as a centre of higher education and research for the benefit of all, regardless of race, creed or political opinion."
I should have thought it was too early yet to say that they were not going to honour their commitments.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it is not for me to know what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway is about to say, but I think the formula "Is it not the fact that…?"can be carried rather far, and it has led in the last few minutes to a number of statements of the kind that were rather deprecated in the recent Report of the Procedure Committee.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government been able to ascertain whether the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is in favour of, or against, giving a grant to this university?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if the Government are prepared to reconsider, after this three months' grant, whether in fact this college is maintained on the multiracial basis of which, in reply to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I am entirely in favour?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the whole purpose of paying this grant in quarterly instalments is to enable Her Majesty's Government to have closer control, and certainly within the next three-monthly period there will be a number of factors which will make the future more clear. For example, it will be important to see how many of the Africans who have applied for scholarships will be granted them, and it will also be interesting to see the nature of the appointment of the Principal of the College.

MR. KOSYGIN'S VISIT
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House may well know that Mr. Kosygin, of the Soviet Union, will be visiting this country shortly and it is hoped that he will be able to meet Members of both Houses in the Royal Gallery on Thursday, February 9. I should like to suggest that as on previous occasions the House should adjourn at a suitable moment, so that noble Lords from all sides of the House may attend this meeting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Simey to advance the Motion now standing in his name from Wednesday the 8th to Tuesday the 7th of February.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In moving the Second Reading, which I count a great privilege, I am conscious of the fact that we have many Members on all sides of your Lordships' House who have served with distinction in the Government of London, both at county and local levels, and the list of speakers on the Bill leads us to believe that we shall have a lively and an informative discussion.
When the Bill which became the London Government Act, 1963, was before the House, we on this side urged the Government of the day to make provision for the two sets of elections in Greater London to be held in different years—after the initial elections of 1964—instead of in the same year, and eventually on the same day, as provided for in the Bill then under consideration. Our arguments did not prevail, and the 1963 Act provides for the elections to the

221
Greater London Council and to the London borough councils to take place in the same year, and ultimately to be held as combined elections on the same day. If the Bill we are to consider to-day is passed, it will achieve what we had in mind in 1963, in that the two sets of elections will be held in consecutive years. There will be no change in the year of Greater London Council elections: the next Greater London Council election will be held on April 13, 1967, the date already announced, and Greater London Council elections will continue to be held triennially thereafter. Ordinary elections to London borough councils will, however, be held in 1968 and each third year thereafter. Obviously as a result of this arrangement, the long-term provision for combined elections on the same day will go.
The scheme of the 1963 Act was that the combination of the two sets of elections would take place once Greater London had been divided for the purposes of Greater London Council elections into single Member electoral areas based on new Parliamentary constituencies. It was not known in 1963 whether this division would have taken place by this year, when the second set of Greater London Council and London borough council elections was due to be held. As will be appreciated, the division has not taken place, and cannot take place yet, because the new Parliamentary constituencies for the Greater London area have not been settled. Accordingly, for 1967 the short term arrangements for the two sets of elections to be held on different days in the same year will again operate as it did in 1964, unless there is amending legislation. It should be emphasised that the two sets of elections would not be combined in 1967, even without this Bill. Some confusion is understood to have arisen as to what would be the position this year under the London Government Act 1963, as it stands at present, and it should be made clear from the outset that we still have not reached a time when the long term arrangements envisaged under that Act would come into force.
Noble Lords will recall that these long term provisions for combined elections followed a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Local Government
222
in Greater London. In paragraph 856 of their Report the Commission said:
"We believe it would be possible, and if so we think it very desirable, that elections for the Council and elections for the Greater London borough councils should be held simultaneously, so that at one and the same polling booth at one and the same time an elector votes on a Parliamentary constituency basis for one member of the council for Greater London, and on a ward basis for his own borough, councillors as at present. It seems to us that this would bring about a very desirable measure of simplification and would help Londoners to understand better the type of council for which they are voting and the functions of the councils to which the candidates are seeking election."
The Government of the day made provision accordingly in the London Government Bill, which we considered in 1963. It should, however, be remembered that the Royal Commission had also recommended annual elections for the London borough councils and that this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission which the then Government found unacceptable. We did not quarrel with their decision on this point.
We on this side raised the question of the timing of elections on more than one occasion during our consideration of the London Government Bill in 1963. We pointed out that there were two distinct local government organisations with different functions. Some confusion admittedly existed at first as to whether the two sets of elections were to be held in the same year, though not on the same day, as a permanent arrangement. It transpired during consideration of the Bill in Committee that the ultimate arrangement would be, as has been said, for combined elections on the same day. The then Government said, agreeing with the Royal Commission, that they regarded the Greater London Council and the London borough councils as an integral part of the whole arrangement for local government in Greater London, and that it would be more effective to hold elections on the same day. They agreed, however, in view of the arguments advanced for taking a different view, to consider the matter further before the Report stage of the Bill.
When it came to Report stage, the Government of the day reiterated that they thought that combined elections would focus attention on local government

223
and bring a higher percentage of voters to the poll. They said that they thought that the Royal Commission's argument that combining elections might help to eliminate confusion and give a better chance of understanding the respective functions of the different authorities had a good deal of weight behind it. It transpired that there had been some consultations with the local authority associations concerned about the practical difficulties which might arise in holding the two elections on the same day and the Government thought that the difficulties need not be regarded as insuperable. Nevertheless, it was conceded that strong arguments could be advanced for a different view, and that the matter was very evenly balanced. The decision of the House went against us then and the provision for combined elections stood. The arguments we used in 1963 are still in our view valid. We now have as an additional factor the views of the new local authorities which were set up by the London Government Act 1963 and the views of the officials who will have to conduct both sets of elections.
To take the views of returning officers first. With the object of considering the practical problems involved when eventually the two sets of elections were combined, the Association of London Town Clerks set up a Working Party of Town Clerks. There seems to have been some misapprehension as to the origin of this Working Party. It was set up by a professional organisation for the purpose of making a survey of the situation once elections were combined. It was not set up by the Government. The Working Party's report was sent to the London Boroughs Association, which in turn sent it to the Home Secretary. Copies of the report have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. As will be known, the town clerks are returning officers for both London borough council elections and the Greater London Council elections. The Working Party in their report have mentioned a number of difficulties which can be foreseen, including the provision of equipment and staff, complications in postal voting and the greater risk that mistakes would be made. The Working Party came to the conclusion that, as we said in 1963, these difficulties may not be insuperable. Nevertheless, they also concluded
224
that the burden that would be placed on returning officers would be a very heavy one and that the resulting procedure might not be satisfactory either to candidates or to the electorate.
It seems to the Government that attention must be paid to the views of the experienced officials who would have to operate the provisions for combined elections. As was said in 1963, the question whether there should or should not be combined elections is not a Party issue. Clearly the town clerks were not politically biased, and they made their report of their own volition, in view of the serious problems which they thought might well arise were two sets of big local government elections to be combined. It should be emphasised, before we leave the views of the Working Party, that their report relates only to combined elections, and combined elections are not contemplated in 1967. There have been suggestions that an attempt has been made to use the report of the Working Party as an argument against elections in the same year but not on the same day. Therefore it must be made plain that the Working Party's report does not deal with closely following elections, but with simultaneous elections.
To turn now to the views of the new local authorities set up by the London Government Act 1963. The Greater London Council in February of last year represented to the Home Secretary that the law should be changed to provide for the two sets of elections to take place in different years. In support of their representations that the two sets of elections should be held separately, the Greater London Council pointed to the administrative difficulties entailed in combined elections. They also said that such elections would be confusing to the elector, making it difficult for him, approached by a political Party in presumably a single election address, to distinguish his preference for one Party for borough matters from his preference for another Party for the Greater London Council's policies. The Greater London Council were of the opinion that the holding of the two sets of elections not only on different days but in different years would help to foster a sense of civic awareness in an otherwise long interval without the opportunity to, vote.

225
The other elected bodies, the 32 London borough councils, considered the matter through their Association, the London Boroughs Association, formerly the London Boroughs Committee. The Association sought the views of all the constituent councils, and 27 of the 32 borough councils favoured a change to elections in separate years; 20 of those 27 wished to see the change effected by postponement of the London borough council elections from 1967 to 1968. The Association made representations accordingly to the Home Secretary last April. The town clerks then, who are quite clearly non-political, are very doubtful—to put it at the lowest—about the desirability of combined elections. A large majority of the elected bodies—and on this issue they have not split wholly on Party lines—are also in favour of elections in different years; and of those wishing to have a change, the greater number—once again, not all of the same political Party—wish the change to be made in the manner that is proposed by the measure now under consideration. In short, the views of the officials who will be running the elections and a majority of the authorities concerned are the same as our view was in 1963.
Indeed, it may well be that the question whether the two sets of elections should take place in the same year or in different years is no longer one which divides us here. The point of controversy in another place was when the new arrangement for elections in different years should begin. Let me explain therefore why we believe that the change should be made this year. Leaving on one side the fact that a majority of the borough councils would prefer the change to be made before the next London borough council elections, it seems to us plain common sense that there should not be two closely following local government elections of this magnitude in two consecutive months. The late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in the debate in 1963, said that provision for such elections would invite low voting and apathy, and put a great strain on Party organisations which is not in the public interest. It is quite true, as will probably be mentioned by noble Lords on the opposite side, that county council elections which are due to be held this year in the same week as the Greater London Council election will be followed a month afterwards
226
by municipal borough and district council elections. Every third year, that is, the year of county council elections, closely following elections are unavoidable in the counties where there are annual elections for borough and district councils, and triennial elections for county councils. The situation is not the same in Greater London, where both sets of elections are held triennially. Where we can avoid closely following elections there seems to us to be every reason for doing so. This would restore the position as it was before 1963, when the former London County Council and metropolitan borough council elections were held in different years.
After all, we are now able to look back at the elections held under the 1963 Act in April and May, 1964. The voting figures bore out what we said would happen. Despite the fact that the Government of the day had argued that the matters dealt with by the Greater London Council were hardly likely to stir up much enthusiasm—and this was advanced as a reason for ultimately combining those elections with the London borough council elections—over 44 per cent. of the electorate voted at the Greater London Council elections which were held in April. 1964. But a month later, at the London borough elections, where it had been assumed that more interest would be aroused by matters dealt with at the local town hall, just under 36 per cent. of the electorate voted—a drop of over 8 per cent. This seems to suggest that the timing of local government elections has just as much, if not more, bearing on the turn-out, as the nature of the local authority for which the electorate are voting. These voting figures are Jower than we should wish to see, especially when we consider how much publicity and interest had attended the setting up of the new authorities in Greater London. We accordingly think that if there is to be a Bill to provide, in the long term, for these elections to be held in different years, then the sooner that effect is given to it the better. Elections held a month apart have neither the alleged advantage of a concentration of interest—and we in our turn will admit that some argument can be made out for combined elections—nor the advantage of well spaced elections which serve to keep alive an interest in local government during the three years' cycle. The phrase "the worst of

227
both worlds" has been used to describe the interim arrangement; and we wish to bring it to an end before the next elections.
The Bill itself consists of only two clauses of substance and is quite straightforward. The main provision is in subsection (1) of Clause 1, which postpones until 1968 and each third year thereafter the London borough council elections due under the 1963 Act to be held in 1967 and each third year thereafter. The remainder of Clause 1 contains consequential provisions in connection with the election of aldermen of London boroughs and the filling of casual vacancies—a process which has already stopped because we are in the six-month period before the next elections are due to be held.
As has been said, the Bill does not itself affect the years of election to the Greater London Council; Clause 2, however, makes provision as to the date of the Greater London Council elections. This provision is necessary if the two sets of elections are not eventually to be combined. The date for the 1967 Greater London Council elections, April 13, has already been announced. Thereafter, the Greater London Council will have power, like the former London County Council, to fix their date for ordinary elections within the week in April for county council elections.
Before closing, it is right to say that the origins of this Bill lie in representations from the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association about the arrangements they desired for elections throughout Greater London. The 1967 local government election period will soon be upon us. The election period for the Greater London Council will start within the next couple of months and, without this Bill, the period for the London borough council elections a month later. So long as this Bill is before the House a state of uncertainty must exist both among the officials of town halls and in Party organisations. We accordingly hope that this uncertainty will be brought to an end soon by the amendment of the present law which is proposed in this Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
3.46 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing this Bill so charmingly, so clearly and so concisely. I do not think she really sought to conceal that this short Bill raises a grave issue. The issue is that, at the behest of what is at the moment the majority Party in the House of Commons, in the Greater London Council and in most of the London boroughs, the Bill proposes to deprive the people of Greater London of their right under the law, to decide four months hence whom they would like to represent them on the London borough councils for the next three years. It proposes to give those who were put in power by the electors in 1964 for a period of three years, and three years only, an extra uncovenanted twelve months of power during which they cannot be displaced, however strongly the feelings of the electors have turned against them.
The Government have no mandate whatever for this, either locally or nationally. The electors who are affected, millions of people, have not been consulted. One of the two main Parties on the borough councils affected, the Conservative Party, is bitterly opposed to this indefensible postponement of the elections—and no wonder! May I give an example? The Labour controlled council of the London Borough of Camden, where the Labour Party won a narrow majority by 34 to 26 when councillors were last elected in 1964 for the next three years, has been so conducting its affairs that it is running a deficit of no less than £1¾million a year on its housing revenue account; and it is no surprise that the district auditor, a wholly impartial official, has called attention to this as being a quite excessive burden thrown upon the ratepayers because of the failure of the council to charge reasonable rents to tenants who can afford to pay them. In the face of this sharp criticism from the district auditor, the council are taking quite inadequate steps to remedy the situation.
To judge by recent by-elections in that borough, the next borough council elections which, under the present law, are due to take place, as I have said, in May

229
of this year, will almost certainly result in the electors in Camden deciding to change a number of their present rulers and to replace them with people able to conduct the affairs of the borough with a greater sense of financial responsibility. That is one example only. The Labour Government, in the Bill now before your Lordships, are asking Parliament to keep the present councillors in power for an extra twelve months in Camden and in many other similar London boroughs. With the help of the Government majority, this shaming interference with the just working of democracy has been approved in another place, though it was vehemently opposed. That is how it now comes before your Lordships for consideration.
How has all this arisen? I will not go through the facts as they were stated by the noble Baroness, but I will pick out one or two of the salient points. The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London recommended that both the Greater London Council and the London borough council elections should take place on the same day. As the noble Baroness has said, in practical effect the London Government Act of 1963 provides that that should happen in 1970, 1973, 1976, and so on. I grant that there are practical difficulties about having different elections for different councils on the same day, and that there is a good deal of feeling that it would be puzzling to a certain number of electors—I think that it is a fairly evenly balanced matter—but I am influenced considerably by the report of the Working Party of Town Clerks who would have to run the elections. I accept that as a wholly unbiased report, and I think that we in this House should pay attention to it.
For that and for other reasons I, for one, take no objection to the proposal in the Bill that the Greater London Council elections should take place in 1970, 1973 and 1976, and every three years thereafter, and the London borough council elections in 1971, 1974, 1977 and so on. But to achieve that object there is no need whatever to meddle with the 1967 elections. Under the present law they were not going to be held on the same day in 1967, anyhow. The noble Baroness remarked that some confusion is said to have arisen about that fact. So far as I know, the only confusion was caused by a junior Minister in another
230
place who persistently asserted on television, quite mistakenly, that they were taking place under the present law on the same day. However, it has no doubt been explained to him that that was not the fact, and nobody now is labouring under that misapprehension. Under the present law, the Greater London Council elections will be on April 13, 1967, and the London borough council elections on May 11, 1967.
The noble Baroness spoke of the disadvantage of closely-following elections. But we have had closely-following elections before. We had them in 1964; we also had the London County Council and Metropolitan borough council elections with a similar interval in 1949; and, whatever the result, it certainly gave rise to no practical difficulty, except that the Labour Party lost a great many seats at both of them. But as in 1964 the Labour Party won a good many seats in both of them, I should not have thought that either side could make much of that particular argument. I believe that the people of London, having done this twice, would not find it intolerable to do it again in 1967, if there are reasons for that—and there are. I can see no valid reason why Parliament, if it thinks fit, should not enact that, at an election which has not yet taken place, the candidates should be elected for a period of two years, four years or whatever Parliament wills. Everybody knows then where he stands: the electors know, the candidates know, and there is no element of "dirty play". What is inexcusable in this Bill, and a flouting of fair play, is that elected persons or Parties who have been elected for a stated period should have their office extended for an extra year when there is no need for it, and when the electorate have not been consulted about it in any way, and when the Party out of power is positively and vigorously opposed to it.
In each one of the so-called precedents which were quoted in another place, both the main Parties—indeed, all Parties—were in agreement on what was to be done. I do not think the noble Lady referred to it, but she might have referred to the fact that, by agreement between the Parties, the London borough council elections of November, 1948, were postponed until May, 1949. There was a unanimous view that May was a better

231
time for elections than November, and nobody felt that it was a bad thing to make the change in that particular way.
In another place it was said—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, will remember this—that the reshaping of Greater London local government, following the Royal Commission's Report, necessitated the postponement of county council elections in Surrey, Essex and Kent. What happened was that parts of each of those three counties were being carved away and added to Greater London, and it would have been absurd to hold the county council elections in 1964 when,12 months later, a substantial part of each of those three councils was to be transferred to the Greater London Council and the Greater London boroughs. If the elections had been held in 1964, one would have had a confused election when some people were being elected for the normal period of three years as county councillors, and others were being elected only for one year until their electoral district was transferred to Greater London. Consequently, again with general agreement, with no opposition so far as I know from anybody, the county council elections in Kent, Surrey and Essex were postponed for 12 months.
I have said before that, where there was general agreement or overriding necessity, quite clearly it could not be taken as a gross infringement of democratic arrangements if there were a postponement of elections. In every case in the past, so far as I am aware, the political Parties—who, after all, have some claim to be representative of the electors—agreed that the changes were necessary. The postponement of the London borough council elections from May, 1967, to May, 1968, as proposed in this Bill, is not necessary, is not agreed, and is a unilateral decision by the Labour Party to deprive the electors of Greater London of their present lawful right to choose four months from now, whether or not they wish to retain in office the people whom they elected three years ago for a period of three years and no more.
It is an outrageous proposal to which the Government are asking your Lordships to agree. I do not, of course, blame the noble Baroness in any way. She is not responsible. She has been given what must have been to her a distasteful
232
duty, the duty of presenting a Bill to Parliament to legalise electoral cheating. The responsibility for this shaming action lies on the Home Secretary. At any rate, I can say that in discharging my duties concerning the representation of the people when I was Home Secretary—and I am sure this was equally true of my three immediate predecessors, if not more—I set my face absolutely against doing anything that was not completely fair as between all Parties. But other times, other manners. I would rather have resigned than yield to Party pressure to do such a thing as this. I would advise my noble friends not to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because it contains longer term proposals for 1970 and thereafter which are reasonable and acceptable. But when we reach the Committee stage next Thursday, we shall certainly seek to amend the Bill so as to restore to the London electorate their right to express their will in May next, a right which this Bill is designed to steal from them.
4.0 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaks as a real authority on matters concerned with London Government. He was for many years the leader of the Conservative Party on the London County Council, and during the whole of that period he did not, either by voice or by vote, give the slightest indication that he wanted to wipe that Council off the face of the earth and reconstitute a new Council with, as he hoped, a built-in Conservative majority to take its place. This afternoon the noble Lord has alleged that the Government have deprived the electors of their rights. That is precisely what he and his Government did in 1963, when the authorities were powerless under force majeure to raise any objection. He says that under this Bill an extra twelve months of uncovenanted power is being given to certain councils in London. That is precisely what he did in 1963 with the London Government Act. He says that the Government have no mandate. That was precisely the situation with regard to the reorganisation of London government, which he carried out in 1963.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would forgive me for interrupting for a moment

233
I do not want to enter into a quarrel with him, but I was not responsible for the 1963 Act. I was not the Minister in charge at the time. I was dealing with quite different things.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Of course not, my Lords. But the noble Lord was in the Cabinet and there is such a thing as the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. The noble Lord accepts that. He alleges that there is to be interference with the just working of democracy. That is precisely what happened when he refused to allow me to lead my Party into a county council election in 1964, when he insisted by Statute that the Tory majority on my council should be extended for a further twelve months. He says that we are flouting fair play in order to let these councils have their office extended. That is precisely what he did under the 1963 Act, when he extended for twelve months the tenure of office of quite a number of councils. He alleges that this Bill is cheating. Then, by the same token, the 1963 London Government Act was also cheating, and we pointed that out in this House at the time.
I want to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Phillips for the clear, objective and, I think it will be agreed, non-Party way in which she introduced this as an administrative measure. She has saved me the trouble of saying many things which I should have chosen to say, because I think they were accepted without demur from the other side; therefore there will he no need for me to emphasise them.
We are often told that politics is the art of the possible. I accept that. But I think that there is something more in it than that. I think the question of right and wrong has also to come into the question of politics. I have no doubt that a very grievous electoral wrong was perpetrated in the London Government Act 1963. This Bill is aiming to right that wrong, and so I support it. What happened in the 1963 London Government Act? It is a few minutes since my noble friend explained it objectively, and I will repeat it so that we start from an agreed foundation. First of all, it abolished the scheme for holding the Greater London Council and London borough elections in separate years. It muddled them both together in the same year, with only a few weeks' interval
234
between the two. Secondly, it laid down that after this year there should be combined elections, with the elector going into the polling booth and being handed two long lists of candidates, which might have anything up to twenty candidates on each. He was then expected to be able to decide for whom he wanted to vote, in circumstances where he would have been voting for two separate authorities, with perhaps two separate sets of programmes and policies put before him by each one of the Parties. This Bill upsets those two pieces of confusion and restores the position to what used to be regarded as the normal.
I do not want to make a political speech, and so I am not going to suggest that there was any undue Party political malevolence in the Bill which the noble Lord's Government introduced in 1963. I am not going to suggest that, finding themselves unable to capture the London County Council at the polls, they picked out a number of Tory boroughs round the periphery and tacked them on to London. I am not going to suggest that they decided to have the two elections within a month of each other, merely in order to confuse the electors. I am not going to suggest that they had it in their minds that, after voting in April, people would perhaps feel rather mystified as to why they should be called upon to vote in May as well. I am not suggesting that there was any electoral trickery at all in the suggestion that you combine the two elections in one polling booth onone day at one particular hour of that day. I am going to assume that the Conservative Government regarded these electoral provisions of the 1963 Act as a tidying-up piece of administration carried out for the convenience of the public. But I suggest that under the Bill which the Government are introducing to-day this system will be made tidier still, and will be made even more convenient to the electors, and that it is an even more meritorious electoral exercise than was the 1963 Act.
What is to-day's Bill going to do? It is going to arrange that the Greater London Council elections shall be held in April, which is normal and about which there is no disagreement in any part of the House; and also, instead of confusing the electors with two elections in a few weeks, it is going to defer the

235
elections for the boroughs until next year. That seems sensible to me; otherwise a lot of people are going to say, "Why ever have we got to go and vote again? We voted only a few weeks ago." But this apparently sensible proposal seems to have caused an outcry from noble Lords of the Party opposite and from their colleagues in another place, who are telling us that a bonus year is being added to the period of office of the Labour-controlled councils in London—and incidentally, of course, to the Conservative-controlled councils as well.
On that point I want to say two things. The borough councils elected in 1964 did not really take over the full reins of authority until 1965, and they have therefore had only two years of real authority, real control of their municipal administrations. So the extra year which they are now being invited to carry will not be a particularly heavy burden. We know that there are large numbers of Conservative councillors who flew into office three years ago and who are now finding that the work entails more sacrifice of time than they ever imagined, and they are eager to lay down their burden. That was admitted by Members of another place.
The second point about this bonus year is one which I remember very well indeed. It concerns that same year, 1964. I was then the leader of my Party on the Essex County Council. I had been leader for many years and, by the grace of God, I am still the leader. We knew that an Election was due in 1964. The Tory Party was then at a very low ebb and Labour was riding the crest of the wave. We knew that we should regain control at that 1964 Election—nothing was more certain. But then the 1963 Act came in and robbed us of that opportunity of consulting the electors and saying to them in a democratic spirit, "Please will you return us to control in the Essex County Council?". We were robbed of that opportunity by the noble Lord and his Cabinet colleagues of that time.
This came about under Schedule 3, paragraph 7, of the Act for which the noble Lord's Government was responsible. That paragraph said:
236
"county councillors and county aldermen due…to retire on the ordinary day of retirement in 1964…shall…continue to hold office until…1965".
If what we are doing to-day be an offence, that was equally an offence on that occasion. As I say, the councils had to act under force majeure, with a very powerful Conservative Government in office at that time. I do not accept that it is necessarily immoral to extend the period for which a council has been elected if there are some kind of unusual circumstances. Even Mr. Quintin Hogg has some qualifications in this respect. It was done for Kent, Surrey and Essex, and you cannot have a moral thermometer which registers in Centigrade for one Party and in Fahrenheit for another.
My Lords, I consider that this agitation, the spearhead of which this afternoon has been the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is an entirely spurious one. Let us have a look at the history of this affair. Twelve months ago the Tories in London knew of the possibility of deferring the borough council elections. They knew that that suggestion was being considered. They did not oppose it on the Greater London Council. They knew in January last year, at the meeting of the London Boroughs Association, that that proposal was very much on the cards. They knew still further in April of last year, when the Home Secretary said that he was sympathetically considering the proposal. Was there an agitation then against this mythical monstrous injustice? Of course there was not. Nothing was said in another place. Nothing was said by noble Lords in this House. There was not even a single letter written by any borough to the Home Secretary in the three months following his April announcement and his announcement of the introduction of the Bill in July or August. As for the suggestion that in April, when Labour first intimated publicly, in the House of Commons, that this Bill was coming, Labour was then afraid of the electors, what was the position? We had just won a General Election with the greatest majority in our history, and all the public opinion polls were showing us on top and the Tory Party going down and down. To suggest that we made this change and announced it in April merely because we were afraid of facing the electors is about

237
the most rubbishy excuse which could be put forward.
But time marched on, and we found that the full effect, the full consequences, of the economic crisis were revealing themselves. The Government had to freeze and squeeze, and had to take all kinds of unpopular measures—and that is when a few clever Tories thought that here was a whip with which they could lash the Labour Party and pretend that the Labour Party was acting in an immoral way. They said to themselves, "We did it ourselves in 1963, but what does that matter? We are entitled to a double moral standard in political affairs". Then there was one of their leaders, a bit "too clever by half", who lifted his eyes up from the card table and said, "Ah! This is the time to pull out that ace of spades that I have been hiding in my slipper". So at that stage the Tory Central Office was called in and the agitation started—and, as I say, it is a spurious agitation from start to finish.
There has been a good deal of misrepresentation, springing from Tory circles—and very influential circles—about the proposal for deferring the London borough elections. The facts show that the Special Committee of the London Boroughs Association—the constitutional Committee—was unanimous in suggesting that the borough elections be deferred for a year; and when the matter came to the full Association, as my noble friend Baroness Phillips has said, 27 of the 32 boroughs voted for holding the elections in separate years; and, of that 27, there were 20 who said that this year's elections should be postponed. The others said they favoured postponement but wanted this year's elections to take place, as the arrangements for them would already have been made. There was a split Party vote on all the divisions that were taken in the Association. So it was not a question of all the virtue being on the Labour side and all the vice being on the Tory side: there was a split vote every time this was put to the meeting.
My Lords, it has been suggested in Tory circles—and I want to mention this because it calls into question the honour of a very respected London government politician—that the meeting of the Special Committee was not unanimous. The
238
chairman of that Committee was not actually called a liar, but a very prominent member of the Conservative Party said, "It is not true". So I have to inform your Lordships that Mr. Norman Prichard, the chairman of the Association, has received a letter from the deputy chairman, who is the leader of the Tory members of the Association, confirming that the vote in the Special Committee of the London Boroughs Association was unanimous. I have here(I do not want to read it to your Lordships because I am taking too long as it is) an impartial record drawn up by the officials of the Association—people like town clerks, and so on—which indicates beyond any shadow of a doubt that that original decision was unanimous; that it was not challenged in any way at all. There was one lady from Enfield who raised some questions but, of course, when one mentions the borough of Enfield, one begins to see cloven hooves leaving their footprints on the sands of time. But there was no serious challenge whatsoever to the unanimity of that decision.
I do not know what arguments there were which convinced the members of the Association that it was desirable not to have the two elections in the one year, but my own experience of conducting county elections—and I have conducted quite a number—has always been that at a second poll a few weeks after the first poll people tend to say, "We have already voted," and there is a smaller percentage poll on the second occasion than on the first. The statistics show quite clearly—and, although I know that a good deal of juggling can be done with statistics and that a good deal has been done with these particular statistics, yet those which my noble friend Baroness Phillips quoted quite objectively at the opening of this debate show what the effect is: that when you have two close elections the vote goes down on the second one.
Now there are even some Conservatives who are beginning to feel that to have two elections close together is not necessarily too good. Mr. Heath—and he is still a Conservative; he is still the Conservative Party leader, despite what the Gallup Poll said in the Daily Telegraph this morning; I have not heard of him

239
"doing a Jo Grimond"—said on October 24:
"There may be something to be said for the view that the Borough and Greater London Council elections should be in different years".
We have had the same suggestion from other Tory quarters, too. Indeed, we had a hint of it from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, this afternoon. If it is ideal and high-minded to take that view now, why was it not inserted in the 1963 Act, over which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and his colleagues had complete power? They had the chance to insert it in that Act, and they were cognisant of the Chuter Ede precedent of 1949. During the 1963 debate my noble friend Lord Champion actually proposed that the G.L.C. should be given a four-year tenure of office, but the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who was in charge of the Bill for the other side, refused. He said that the Government stood by the normal three-year period, and added:
"…we feel that…the two sets of elections—the Greater London Council elections and the borough elections—should be held in the same year…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249, col. 1229; 14/5/63.]
If I might use a hackneyed expression, he seemed to go "the whole Hogg".
My Lords, if there is now some genuine Conservative doubt about holding future elections in the same year, why should we have two of them this year, in the same year? Why not get rid of the evil straight away, as Her Majesty's Government are proposing to do by this Bill? There is nothing like acting promptly. As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said when he was pioneering the 1963 Bill through this House:
"…it is in the best interests of everyone that the changes should be brought into effect as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 929; 9/5/63.]
So far, my Lords, I have been dealing with the deferment of the borough elections, but the Bill deals with another, more serious matter; namely, that the elections should be held on the same day, in the same polling station, with two sets of papers being handed to each elector. I think that would be calculated even more to confuse the electors.
Because I am speaking non-politically I will not go on to say that that is precisely
240
what Members opposite intend. Down at Lambeth, in the Greater London Council elections, there were 14 candidates on the ballot paper. Imagine an ordinary elector being handed one G.L.C. slip with 14 names on it and then another, for the borough, with another 14 names on it. How is he going to bring his intelligence to bear on voting in circumstances like that? We feel strongly that a case is being made out for printing Party identifications on ballot papers, so that when people are confronted with a long list of candidates they will know which are Conservatives, which Labour, which Liberal, which Independent, and so on. I am reinforced in this view because in my area at the last elections we had a candidate called Davis. He was our retiring Labour councilor who had had a big majority, and was almost certainly going to be re-elected. What did the Tories do? They searched until they found a candidate named Davis. That fortifies me in suggesting that where there is a multiplicity of candidates (but not in the ordinary, small elections) the Party identity should be incorporated with the names on the ballot paper.
My Lords, I want to say this about the scheme for combined elections on the one day. The Working Party of the Association of Town Clerks, as my noble friend Baroness Phillips has said, found this to be almost unworkable and unsatisfactory, both from the point of view of the candidates and of the electors. I am not going to recite their Report to your Lordships, but it is really a most convincing document. I am sorry that, not only in another place, but also outside, some influential Conservatives have used most offensive language about the town clerks. I therefore want to say, as did my noble friend, that they undertook this investigation into the practicability of combined voting completely of their own volition in their capacity as returning officers for the election. They were not pressed by any politicians to do so. If Conservative leaders are going to continue denouncing those officials, I shall not hesitate to stand up here and praise them. In fact, in 1963 the town clerks also put forward information—not voluntarily, not of their own volition, but at the request of the Tory Government. Both Lord Hastings and Lord Jessel praised them.

241
Why are we having criticism of the town clerks this time? Is it merely because their views happen to coincide with those of Her Majesty's Government? I think that these town clerks are very worthy public officials. They always have been, right back to the days when the Acts of the Apostles was written; and I have just been referring to that Book in case any reinforcement were needed that these are very worthy people. Noble Lords will recall, I am sure, that in Chapter XIX of the Acts of the Apostles there are found these words:
"The whole city was filled with confusion: …Some cried one thing and some another: "
Then in verse 35 we find how wisdom was brought to bear. It says:
"…the town clerk…appeased the people,…"
That Book of the New Testament puts on record some of the things that the town clerk said. It might almost have been addressed to noble Lords here to-day. He said:
"Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly…For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's work…. And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly."
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that in New Testament days a man, although called the town clerk, held a quite different office from what a town clerk holds today?
LORD LEATHERLAND: Yes, my Lords, and Bishops in those days held a different office from that which they hold to-day. They used to be people who held inquisitions, who cut off people's heads, or put them on the rack.
I have only one thing more to say. There have been suggestions to-day, very unfair suggestions—although I think that anything is fair in love and war (not that I know much about love)—that postponing both elections will deprive a great many electors of the chance of killing comprehensive education. I do not want to see comprehensive education killed. I think it is one of the things that will enable us to catch up with our industrial rivals, to stop the brain-drain occurring at 11-plus so far as thousands of potentially able children are concerned. But that is not
242
the main point. The main point is that comprehensive education is now national policy. It has been fortified by the two mandates of the General Elections, and the Minister has made it clear that he intends to see that comprehensive education is put into operation by every education authority in the country.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at this point? He said that comprehensive education is national policy. Might I suggest that what he means is that comprehensive education is Government policy?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, this is a Government who have the national interest at heart, a Government of the nation laying down policy for the nation. To suggest that you can kill comprehensive education, the national policy, just by changing councillors is merely begging the question. I suggest that that is another example of the confusion that the Conservative Party are trying to sow in respect of this measure.
I have dealt with only a few aspects of this measure's proposals. I have tried to deal with them rationally, without any of the hysterical blethering that we had from Mr. Hogg on television a few weeks ago. This Bill tries to reverse a bad decision made by the 1963 Act. It is trying to put wrong right; and, surely, that is what Parliament is for. I think there is a great deal of merit in having elections in London in two out of three years. It tends to keep public interest alive; and surely that is to be desired in one of the greatest metropolitan cities in the world. I am not going to suggest that all the indignation we have had in connection with the Bill is synthetic. Some of it is genuine; and, so far as the genuine indignation is concerned, I suggest that the time to have displayed it was in 1963, when the original wrong move was made.
Finally, my Lords, if I were a Tory, and if I thought that Labour was going down and down in the public estimation, I should be inclined to say: "Let us postpone these borough elections until next year. The Tories then will be even more more popular than they are now and will be able to turn out the Socialists neck and crop"—although that has to be read in conjunction with the Gallup Poll in the Daily Telegraph. In the meantime, your Lordships may have gathered that I support the Bill.
4.29 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has drawn upon many different sources for his inspiration this afternoon. It may well be that the town clerk whose advice and actions are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles was a different sort of official from the official with whom we are acquainted today. Whether he was the same sort of official or whether he was different, I am sure that all of us who have had dealings with town clerks accept very readily their advice and the action which they recommend. In this particular matter I think that all of us, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said, accept the conclusions reached by the Working Party set up by the Association of Town Clerks. I have not had the advantage of reading the Report of that Working Party, but I understand that it was mainly concerned with the possibility or impossibility, of holding two elections on the same day. I do not think it went beyond that.
My Lords, I do not think any of us is advocating this afternoon the holding of two elections on the same day. That is an idea which had its birth in the minds of the Royal Commission on London Government; and the Act of 1963 was, of course, very largely based upon their advice. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has spoken at some length about the Act of 1963. It is quite true that in that Act some changes were made in electoral periods, but what was happening then was that the whole of the local government of Greater London was being completely transformed. So far from regretting anything done in 1963, I think that my Party are entitled to full credit for the passing of that Act. It is the only contribution to the reform of local government made in the last twenty years, and for that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was responsible. No other Minister was found who was prepared to do the thing which has been most urgently needed in local government; that is, to come to some conclusion on what the structure of local government ought to be.
It seems to me that the Government are attaching much too much importance to the question of not holding two elections in the same year. It is a very different thing from holding two elections on the same day. Outside the area of Greater
244
London it has, of course, always been the case that in the third year, when the elections for county councils take place, there are two elections within a few weeks of each other. I think that all of us who have had some experience of that system see nothing wrong in that. It works quite satisfactorily; indeed, those responsible for Party organisation (I say nothing to their discredit because, after all, Parties are an essential part of our democracy) sometimes welcome the system. They make their arrangements for one election and do not have to make them a second time in a later year. I think there is a good deal to be said for having the two elections taking place in the same year.
But, my Lords, there is something of much greater importance than that in this Bill. I think that the Bill trespasses against a principle which lies at the foundation of our democratic system of government. I am sure it is right that where a councillor, or any elected representative, is elected for some prescribed term of office, that term should not be extended—apart, of course, from some exceptional circumstances, such as war, or the reconstruction that took place in London government. It may be desired. for some reason, that the term of office of sitting councillors, and that of councillors who will be elected at some future election should not be the same as in this Bill where it is desired to separate the Greater London Council elections from the borough council elections by twelve months. But apart from something of that sort I believe it is a most important principle that the period for which a candidate has been elected should not be extended.
Quite different considerations, however, apply in the case of a candidate not yet elected. There would have been nothing difficult or wrong in this Bill's providing, as it ought to have provided, that those councillors elected in the London boroughs at the last elections should serve for a period for which they were elected, and not for a longer period, and that councillors elected at the next elections should serve for a period of four years, or whatever longer period was thought desirable. There would have been no difficulty whatever about doing that. But it has not been done. Instead, a different course has been chosen, and it is one which, in my view, offends against

245
as essential principle of our local government law.
My Lords, it may well be that the political implications of this proposal have not been fully appreciated by the Party opposite. But whatever we say here, I am sure they will find it to be the case that the public will regard this as a device for avoiding elections which the Party opposite believed they were not going to win. I think that the Party opposite would be well advised to take this aspect of the matter into account; to drop this proposal and substitute for it a proposal more in accord with the principles on which our local government law is based.
4.36 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I will try to follow the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and not raise an undue number of Party political points. I hope I may meet with a similar amount of success. In common with those of my noble friends who have spoken from his side of the House I utterly deplore this Bill. Its object is to prolong by Act of Parliament a body which has been elected for a specific period of three years, a point already made by my noble friend Lord Ilford. In so doing it deprives the electors of London of the right to choose what sort of government they want for the period ahead. I fully agree that if we had had warning of this in the 1966 Election Manifesto of the Labour Party, the case for objection to this Bill would have been considerably weakened, but we had no such warning at all. Indeed, we have just been told by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that the warning came after the 1966 Election results had been declared.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord, but what I said was that the Special Committee of the Association made its decision on January 28, 1966. On February 9 of that same year the full Association made its decision. Towards the end of April, 1966, the Home Secretary announced that the matter was being considered sympathetically.
LORD LINDGREN: The General Election was in March.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I hope that I am not being very stupid, but I do not see that there is any matter of substantial difference between us. So far as I can see, no such warning was given to the electors, and now the electorate is being faced with a fait accompli for which it gave no mandate and against which it has no chance to protest. Frankly, my Lords, I find this to be a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government.
What are the reasons given by the Government? They gave them most clearly here and in another place in an earlier debate. They spoke first of all of convenience and confusion. They said there would be confusion in the minds of the electorate. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in a most explicit speech, covered this point very fairly. She explained that there were two elections in the country and, whatever happened, it was better not to have two in London. On the other hand, I must say that she did not pay the electorate of London a very high compliment by suggesting that the electors are unable to discern between two elections separated by a month. There was more talk in another place of a low poll caused by apathy. If any of your Lordships had had the amount of correspondence and representations which I have received, from late constituents and people living in London, you would think, as I do, that it is a very arguable proposition that there is at the moment apathy in London over this Bill.
Finally the Government fall back on the argument of administrative convenience. We have heard a lot said in this debate about county clerks and sitting councillors, but I have not yet heard one argument raised on behalf of the unfortunate electorate whom this is going to affect. Surely it is a new conception of Government and democracy to put the convenience of officials before the rights of the electorate, and this is precisely what is being done in this Bill.
In another place, when he spoke on this Bill, the Home Secretary referred to it as a relatively non-controversial matter and called it "A sensible administrative rearrangement. "But this entirely ignores the fact that 1967 is going to be a critical year for the administration of London. As regards education it is going to be a

247
decisive year. It is against this that we on this side of the House and in my Party object to this Bill. Noble Lords who read the Hansard of another place will have seen deployed at great length the arguments on behalf of various boroughs and constituencies. I shall not go into them in detail and bore your Lordships, but the following points were raised as coming up during the course of 1967: the reorganisation of secondary education; changes in various boroughs and in local administration; changes in the management of certain housing estates which are vital to constituents living in those areas; changes in the level of rating, and changes in the application of housing subsidies in certain constituencies and boroughs.
All these arguments have been put at length, and I would simply ask here and now: are the rights of parents, of owner-occupiers and of ratepayers to have a say in the administration of their own boroughs simply to be swept away on the ground of administrative convenience? Because that is the argument which has come up in this House today. It simply "will not wash" to say that decisions by the electorate on these points have only been deferred, because we all know that the decisions taken during the course of this year on these controversial matters will have reached the point of no return by the time the electorate are empowered to vote next year.
I am extremely critical of the Government. I think that they are much in the same position as Henry VIII when he said that although he could not prevent the Pope from sending a Cardinal's hat to one of his Bishops, he could make certain that the Bishop would not have a head to put it on. Democracy has been described as "to have the right to say 'No' to the boss", and my charge against the Government here is that they are denying the electors that essential right in 1967. In another place, the Government were accused of gerrymandering. I looked up this word in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and this is what I read:
"gerrymander…manipulate (constituency etc.) so as to secure disproportionate influence at election for some party or class;".
The Government denied hotly that they were gerrymandering. It struck me as the
248
height of cynicism to claim that the definition did not apply in this case because no election was being held. The issue of the reorganisation of secondary education is the most important of the issues coming up, and it is one on which I have had a mass of communications from friends of mine living in London.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me? He says that he has had a mass of letters. Could he give me the date, approximately, of the first letter he received on the subject?
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I think it was just before Christmas. There is very strong feeling about this. Let noble Lords make no mistake about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the point I was trying to make was that the issue we are now discussing was well-known some six months prior to the first letter the noble Lord received. If the general public were so "steamed up", I think the noble Lord would have received letters a good deal earlier.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I do not think so, because people are not quick to take up these issues. It takes a certain amount of time to gather strength in a borough. The letter came from a friend of one of the grammar schools. These issues take time to sink in. I think that is perfectly reasonable; we are not all politicians rushing to the newspapers to see the latest pronouncement of what is going to happen in future. There is strong feeling among parents interested in grammar schools. This is the last opportunity they will have to make a decision on this issue.
In reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said, may I point out that the Secretary of State has no power to compel local education authorities to adopt policies which they feel to be educationally unsound? This should be decided by the electorate.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords. I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord unnecessarily, but when my Party was in power in the Essex County Council and I was the Council's chairman, we put before the Minister proposals for certain comprehensive schools. The Tory Minister turned them down.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I do not question that specific case. We are not in the least bit for or against comprehensive schools. They are excellent institutions. What we are worried about in our Party is the destruction of the grammar schools. I remember my old father used to say that it took the Almighty hundreds of years to grow a tree, but it took some ass with an axe only half-an-hour to cut it down.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we are not discussing education at the moment, but local government. So far as local government is concerned, it works within a framework created for it by Parliament. Is the noble Lord really exciting local authorities to defy the Government? No local authority can work outside the provisions made for it by Parliament and by the Minister in charge of whatever Department may be concerned.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, according to the news I have read in several newspapers, certain local authorities have decided to stick to their own sort of education. And good luck to them!
LORD LINDGREN: They will lose their grant.
LORD ST. HELENS: I am simply arguing that the electorate are being deprived of the opportunity to express an opinion, and I think that is an appalling thing.
I would make one comment an grammar schools. About ten years ago, in company with other noble Lords and Members of another place, I went on a Parliamentary delegation to America and visited many schools and universities all over the country. We had discussions with many professors and schoolmasters about the future of education. All and every one said how greatly they envied the British system of grammar schools. They reckoned that it took the first year in an American college to reach the standard reached in the sixth form of an English grammar school. In this Bill, without any forewarning, the electorate are having taken away from them the chance of protesting against these administrative changes.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite off the mark. We are discussing the elections of borough councils. Within London, not a single borough
250
is an education authority. There is the Inner London Authority and there is the Outer London Authority, but, so far as London is concerned, the municipal boroughs are not the education authorities.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, surely it is the case that outside the area of the old administrative County of London all the authorities are educational authorities.
LORD LINDGREN: Only the counties.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I get a word in in try own speech? I am greatly obliged to my noble friend, and, indeed, what he says is so. If the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who I am beginning to suspect has not done much homework on this subject, had bothered to read the Hansard of another place, he would have found this point which has been made by my noble friend made most forcibly at every stage in the discussions on the Bill.
In conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, I will not detain your Lordships for much longer, but I want to conclude by saying this. I admit that, after all that has been said in another place and in this Chamber, this Bill concerns, in effect, a local issue. It is a local issue concerning only one of the great cities of our country. But it is an issue that contains a major principle of democracy, and one that has been fought for over the centuries in Parliament; that is, the principle of the right of the electorate to decide at specific intervals—and I reiterate the words "specific intervals"—the sort of government that they want for the future. I maintain that if this Bill is passed there will be many people in all parts of the country who will say: "Where is this sort of thing going to end?"
4.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor in opening this debate and those that have followed from this side of the House have stated the case, as I see it, so admirably that I shall be brief. I start by making an admission which I am afraid will make me slightly ludicrous. I am a lawyer by profession, and I have always thought that there were few more ridiculous things than a lawyer asserting

251
that he was shocked. But, frankly, I am shocked by this Bill, and I am sorry that two Ministers for whom I feel so much respect as I do for the two Ministers in charge of this Bill should be in charge of so disreputable a measure.
Let me say at once that of course there are cases where Parliament may have to interfere with the rights of electors to elect some legislative or local democratic body. But it has generally been thought necessary, when there are interferences of that sort with existing democratic rights, both to prove their necessity and to seek to achieve consent and unanimity. In this case there is admittedly no necessity of any kind. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has limited his opposition to this particular proposal of extending by a year the tenure of office of the existing councillors in the boroughs. For that provision in this Bill no necessity has been proved; nor, so far as I know, has it even been claimed. It is demonstrably unnecessary. There is no agreement by the other Parties.
When I was first elected a Member of Parliament for Norwich, I had no expectation or belief that I should be elected (this was in 1935) for 10 years. But the reason for the taking away of the rights of the Parliamentary franchise then was that we were fighting a great war. There was a National Government of all Parties, and there was agreement by all Parties to postpone the Election. When there ceased to be that agreement between the Parties, the Election took place. Is there not some substance in the case that there is something shocking in simply taking away the rights of electors, when admittedly there is no necessity, and admittedly there is no consensus agreeing to that change?
A very vigorous speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and I hope I am not saying anything improper if I say how much I enjoyed it. The formula that ran through it was to make a series of the most appalling accusations against Ministers in a former Conservative Administration and against the Conservative Party, every sentence being introduced by the beautiful formula, "I shall not say". I had previously enjoyed a speech on much
252
the same lines from an experienced speaker at Marble Arch. But that was on a very cold day. To be able to enjoy such a speech in all the comfort of your Lordships' House was indeed a delight, and I hope that we shall often hear from the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in a similar way.
The argument that I am advancing about there being something shocking about what is proposed was even asserted by the noble Lord himself at an early stage in his speech, as he will discover when he reads Hansard to-morrow, when he said that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, or the Government of which he was a Member, had done precisely the same unscrupulous bit of cheating in 1963. I thought that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor and others had shown that this was a quite different case. Apparently, however, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, thinks that it was cheating. But if it was, is that a complete justification for their cheating? Later in his speech the noble Lord apparently abandoned that and did not think it was cheating, but seemed to think that the two things were quite parallel and both were all right. But to attack one as cheating, and then to say, "I support this because it is doing the same thing", seems to me to be advancing an argument which I should have thought would be rather shocking to the Bench of Bishops.
LORD LEATHERLAND: It would be a most reprehensible line of argument, which would be shocking to the noble Lord. But what I said was that the 1963 Act had perpetrated a wrong, and that my noble friend's Bill was going to put that right.
LORD CONESFORD: I thought the noble Lord said that it was perpetrating a wrong in extending the life of certain local bodies and, in so far as he thought that wrong, this Bill is not putting it right: it is perpetrating what the noble Lord has described as a wrong. I hope the noble Lord will not find that too difficult to follow.
Then there was this question of comprehensive education which seemed to cause so much confusion in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. Of course, the Minister of Education may have a wish; he may have a policy;

253
but the mere fact that he has a wish or a policy does not by itself alter the law. And it remains a fact that in some of these boroughs the constitution of the local authority may have an important effect on the future of the grammar schools in their area. At least that is the universal belief both of the authorities and of their electors; and I think of the electors on both sides in politics. Therefore, I entirely support the point that has been made by my noble friend Lord St. Helens, that this makes what is now proposed particularly outrageous.
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House. However much I have differed from noble Lords opposite—and I do not think I have concealed that I have some quite considerable differences from noble Lords opposite—and however profoundly I have been shocked by much of their legislation, I have not generally questioned their intentions. Considering my respect for many of them, I think they must in their own minds have found some justification for what is proposed. If they have found such a justification. I hone they will tell us what it is. I have been quite unable to discover any justification. I hope they will agree that it must be at least prima facie wrong to deprive electors of rights of election which they at present possess by law, and to which they attach enormous importance. Most of the provisions of this Bill could be carried out perfectly simply without committing what I think is that outrage. No necessity for the outrage has been shown, and no attempt has been made to secure the assent of other parties to it. Nor would it have been any good, of course, to seek such assent, because it could not be granted. Whether we are right or wrong in the views we hold on many of the questions which may fall to be decided and argued in local government elections, we assert strongly that it is the right of the electors to decide upon them, and they are being deprived of that right without agreement.
5.3 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I rise for only two minutes to say that I also am profoundly shocked by this Bill. I have been tempted to rise to my feet by a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, with regard to withdrawing rights from local authorities, which was referred to in the speech of my
254
noble friend Lord St. Helens. I am subject to correction by the Front Bench, but I think I am right in saying that the Government have no powers to force local authorities to disband their grammar schools and introduce comprehensive education, unless they conic to Parliament to do so. They can use persuasion, and they are trying to do so. But until Parliament passes an Act the Government have no right to say they will do it. And for them to say that they will withdraw grant is, in my submission, entirely wrong, because local authorities are carrying out statutory duties under the great Butler Act of 1944; and until that Act is altered grant cannot be withdrawn. They could make different conditions, and not give grants for new building projects and so on; but, in my view, as I have said, to announce that they will withdraw grants for education is quite wrong. Perhaps noble Lords on the Front Bench will correct me if I am in error.
5.5 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I am in the unhappy position of agreeing with much that has been said on both sides of this House, and I was particularly put in that position when I listened to the preliminary exchange of pleasantries between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland. I absolutely agree with Lord Leatherland that the London Government Act 1963 was unnecessary, reactionary, expensive, complicated, and introduced for the wrong reason, which was to break Labour control of London Government.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? I think perhaps I have some authority to speak in this matter, as it was on my recommendation that the Royal Commission was set up. That statement of the noble Baroness, I must say, so far as I am concerned, is absolutely untrue. It was necessary to have an inquiry because by almost universal consent London local government was not in a satisfactory state; and a Royal Commission, containing members of all Parties, unanimously recommended fundamental change.
BARONESS STOCKS: That may be so, my Lords, but the precise form which the change took was a product of a Government Bill, and I still think it was

255
motivated to some extent by the fact that many people wished to break the Labour Government. That is by the way, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Leatherland on that. I also agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he suggested there was more in this Bill than meets the eye, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland put his finger on it when he suggested that possibly some of the opposition to it was motivated by the fear that local authorities would be forced to stay put while "comprehensivisation" in education was carried forward, I think very ruthlessly. It is, of course, national policy—we know that. But it is a policy which can be implemented ruthlessly, or reasonably, elastically, and at different rates of progress. That means that many local authorities would wish to be able to express an opinion on that subject in the course of the next year, which the next elections would give them an opportunity of doing. Therefore, I feel that this Bill, as I still think was the case with the London Government Act, has an ulterior motive. I do not like it and I shall not vote for it; and I can only express my thankfulness that I have no constituents who will turn me out at the next Election for voting against the Labour Party.
5.8 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I first of all express appreciation to my noble friend Lady Phillips for the manner in which she presented this simple—although I gather from the tone of certain speeches, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—highly controversial Bill. Some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, led me to believe that my task would be simple; that perhaps I could save some of the ammunition I might need to defend the Government's position for use on the Committee stage—because obviously, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, says, we shall see an Amendment. But, my Lords, as to some of the later words he used, if it had not been for the tone of his speech I should have regarded them as a scurrilous attack upon the Borough of Camden and, in particular, on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. They would have been
256
scurrilous if it had not been for the tone in which he said them. I should perhaps have left the matter until the Committee stage.
I want to say this before I develop the case on which my right honourable friend made his decision. I say this—and I will sit down if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, wishes to concur or to disagree with me. Whatever we may think of the opinions of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—to some maybe on the Back Benches he is too radical, perhaps too lenient, perhaps too far ahead for most of us—I do not believe there is anyone who would get up and say that the right honourable gentleman is dishonest. But that is what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said this afternoon. He said that my right honourable friend had cheated, hut he said it without a vestige of evidence to substantiate what is, in political terms, one of the most serious charges than can be made. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will change those words. He may say that my right honourable friend was ill-advised, but I hope the noble Lord will not leave it as it is.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has invited me to intervene. What I said, and what I repeat, is that the Home Secretary yielded to Party pressure to present to Parliament a Bill which involves electoral cheating.
LORD SHEPHERD: All right, my Lords; there is some qualification there, and therefore I must deal with it.
I am sure the speech made by my noble friend, Lord Leatherland, was enjoyed by all of us. He was certainly my first choice to come in after the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He did exactly what I wanted him to do. He certainly proved the saying that those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones, and he was able to throw a few back, because there is a good deal in what my noble friend said. I have heard from noble Lords opposite that the voices of the local people in local authorities should always be heard. Indeed, this is what we were saying in 1963. If I remember rightly, we then had 13 days on the Committee stage on the London Government Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will remember that, I am sure

257
—and on many occasions we drew the attention of the Government to the fact that the county councils concerned were all united in opposition to the proposals of the Government of the day. Not only was the London County Council opposed to them, but the Surrey County Council, the Essex County Council and the Kent County Council, all of which had been elected on a popular franchise. They were not all Labour—in fact, only one was Labour and, if my memory is right, the other three were Conservative.
It is perfectly true that there was need for reform in London and that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had set up a Royal Commission, but those who had experience of local government in London and the Greater London area were opposed to the Bill, and we begged noble Lords opposite, on two or three occasions, that if they wanted to proceed with the Bill and put it on the Statute Book they should at least make the enacting day (the date on which the Bill would come into operation) a date after what everyone expected to be that of the General Election, so that not only the electors of London but also the political Parties involved could be in some position possibly to amend that Bill if they so wished. But the noble Lords who this afternoon have spoken so fervently on behalf of the electors of London and their rights in regard to the sort of local authority or political Party under which they should live, all went into the Division Lobby against us on that matter. I will not pursue that any further this evening.
I want to say one thing to the noble Lord and to the House as to why the Government accepted the recommendations of the London Boroughs Association, as the representatives of the London boroughs, for the postponement of the London borough elections from 1967 to 1968. I leave out the report of the town clerks because really that is not involved in the issue that is before us to-day. All we are concerned with are the recommendations that were arrived at and were conveyed to my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, by the London Boroughs Association, representing the London boroughs, that these elections should be postponed.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt for one moment I should like to say, in connection with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said in regard to the electorate's being given no chance to voice their desires before the Greater London Bill was passed, that I happen to live in one of the boroughs which might now have been one of the Greater London boroughs, and it was owing to the desires of the inhabitants of that borough that it did not take place. Therefore I do not think his allegations are entirely true.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in fact the noble Lord has proved my case. The only reason why the Borough of Epsom and Ewell was excluded from the Greater London area was because the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, could gather up sufficient support on his own Cross Benches and on the Opposition Benches against the Government for the removal of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell from the Greater London Area. Epsom and Ewell were fortunate that they were able to get enough support from the Conservative Benches to ensure their removal.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, and others only did so on the advice of the inhabitants of Epsom and Ewell.
LORD SHEPHERD: The point I am making is that the electors of Epsom and well were fortunate that they had the support of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. There may well have been a number of other districts which are now in the Greater London Area which would have preferred not to be in it.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I would not admit that I am as powerful as all that.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord well remembers that night, and so does the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. But let us leave that for a moment.
The recommendations were made by the London Boroughs Association. I think all of us are concerned about the low level of voting at local elections, not only in London but throughout the country. Therefore, whatever we do should be with the aim in mind of achieving a higher level of voting. Unlike

259
some noble Lords, I do not support compulsory voting, such as there is in Australia. But we must recognise that it is upon the political Parties that the responsibility falls to see not only that the electors know the issues but that the Party machines work smoothly. Not so long ago, because my wife is the chairman of my local Party, I had to go out canvassing, put election addresses into envelopes, and the like. Only someone who has been concerned in fighting elections can know the tremendous amount of work involved.
Let us consider these London Boroughs. The average size is some 200,000 electors, although there are some which have over 250,000. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, with his experience, must know that even for the Conservative Party machine, or for the Labour Party machine which, it is true, depends mainly on voluntary work, it is a formidable task merely to inform the public of the names of the candidates.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, we did it with success in Ilford for a good many years.
LORD SHEPHERD: That may well be; but the task is formidable. When one contemplates the fight for the Greater London Council in April, and then, one month later, the Party machines going into action again, one realises how Party machines and Party loyalty are strained well beyond their capacity; and I believe that in the end the Party machines and local elections will suffer.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I should have said one could argue the other way: that it would be an immense advantage during the second election to have a fully marked up register.
LORD SHEPHERD: This may be true, but one of the great problems of Party machines is this. The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, with his experience, may agree that it is one problem to get your register marked and to know where everyone is, but the real problem lies in getting the voters out and in knowing who are the sick and elderly. The register is quickly out of date. In the case of the
260
Greater London elections and borough elections there are different candidates and different issues; the issues for the Greater London election will be entirely different from those of the borough elections. This is why noble Lords opposite created these two specific machines with different functions. I do not believe the Party machines could do their job properly, notifying the public and, above all else, getting the voters out, on the basis of having two major elections within a month.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, that the elections in 1967 are going to be very important, and it is for that reason that we should ensure that as far as possible those elections are cerried out in the best possible way. It is for no Party political advantage—I will deal with that in a moment—that we have brought this legislation forward for the elections to be in a separate year. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that these proposals were bitterly opposed by the Conservatives.
In another place the right honourable gentleman for Enfield, West, Mr. Iain Macleod, said that the declaration by Mr. Norman Prichard, when he wrote in The Times (he was the Chairman of the London Boroughs Association) that the Special Committee had been unanimous, was not correct. Mr. Prichard had said it was unanimous. In fact one may say Mr. Prichard had been called a liar publicly. That, like the earlier statement, is a very serious allegation. I think it is right now to put this on record. I hope some of the Press, who printed this correspondence and who were not prepared to print the later letter will take note. I now quote from a letter of Alderman Taylor. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will know him. He is the Leader of the Conservative Party on the London Boroughs Association and he is deputy chairman of that Association. He writes:
"As you know, I was not myself a member of the Special Committee at that time"—
that is the time the decision, reported to be unanimous, was made, agreeing to postponement—
"…but I have made enquiries and am satisfied that the recommendation was in fact unanimous, and I have the authority of all Conservative members present at that meeting to say this."

261
I felt it right to put that on record as a vindication of the stand that Mr. Prichard has taken throughout this matter.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I have never said any word against Mr. Prichard. Could the noble Lord just tell us what the recommendation is to which that letter refers?
LORD SHEPHERD: The recommendation was made by the Special Committee. On the 27th January, 1966, the Honorary Secretary to the London Boroughs Association received a letter from Greenwich London Borough Council asking that the Association's Special Committee should consider a suggestion that the London borough council elections should be postponed from 1967 until 1968, leaving only the G.L.C. elections to be held in 1967. On the 28th January—that is the meeting to which we have referred—the Special Committee unanimously agreed with the views expressed by the Greenwich Council but instructed that the views of the constituent councils be sought, which was done; because not all the London borough councils are members of the Special Committee.
My Lords, I have, perhaps with inadequate words, tried to make the case as to why we thought it right in the interests of the electors of London Government to change the date. I would say only this to the noble Lord in terms of political gerrymandering, political advantage. The decision was made by the Government on the recommendation of the London boroughs early last year. We had just had a major victory. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, himself suffered by that Election, although, if I may say so, we gained by his loss and, if I may say so, he certainly lends an air of competence to the Front Bench opposite. But we had that major victory. The opinion polls showed us with a lead that was astronomical. Anyone who was knowledgeable in political life did not take much account of it; but it certainly seemed clear to anyone who was in politics that in the foreseeable future, in any election that was fought. whether borough
262
or parish, if it was fought on political grounds Labour would certainly win.
I will say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I have had a long interest in Party machines. My father was national agent of a political Party from 1924 to 1945, and I remember some of the things he taught me. If I was a Party manager last April and May, making a decision for Party advantage, I should have chosen 1967 when the wind was fair. In 1968 it would be a little bit more doubtful; it would be a little beyond the range of radar so far as one could foresee. But the London boroughs, both Labour and Conservative, took the view that it was in the interests of the electors that the election should be postponed. If there could have been any advantage to the Labour Party in London, I have not the slightest doubt that it would have been to let the present Act continue and to have the elections in 1967.
On the debates on the London Government Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that they rested upon informed opinion, and he used this argument on many occasions to vindicate the view of the Government of the day. The informed opinion that is available to Her Majesty's Government in this matter is no Royal Commission Report; because there is no Royal Commission in existence. Informed opinion consists of the councillors of the London boroughs, both Labour and Conservative. True, not all of one Party agreed one way or the other. There were some Labour councils who took a contrary view to the majority of Labour councils, and there were some Conservative councils who took a different view from the majority of Conservative councils. There was a division of opinion in Parties in this matter. I have not the slightest doubt that what the Government propose to-day is right.
Finally, I would say that there was no political pressure brought on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, really believes that my right honourable friend would fall for it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAND COMMISSION BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Land Commission Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Part III [Betterment Levy]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to leave out Clauses 27 to 85. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move to leave out Clauses 27 to 85—that is, Part III of the Bill. This is one of two procedural Amendments which it is my duty to move, the other being Amendment No. 9, to leave out Schedules 4 to 13, which are the Schedules that are concerned with the betterment levy. Your Lordships have made three Amendments in Part III of the Bill, that is to say Clauses 27 to 85, which relate to the betterment levy. All of them have been welcomed by the Press as improvements, and I myself believe that they are wholly in line with public opinion. One is for the complete exemption of charities from betterment levy, as charities hitherto have been exempted from other forms of taxation. The second is for the exemption of owner-occupiers from betterment levy, in the same way as this Government have exempted owner-occupiers from liability to capital gains tax. The third is for the exemption of small transactions, on the ground that it is useless for the Land Commission to spend time collecting small sums which will probably be more than offset by the cost of administration and collection.
If, however, the Bill were sent back to the Commons with these Amendments, it would undoubtedly infringe the ancient privilege of the Commons, going back for centuries before the Parliament Act of 1911, to determine the shape of clauses that deal with Supply. I have no desire whatever to challenge that privilege—naturally so, in that I was for many years a member of another place, and I know how jealously that privilege is guarded. Fortunately, there is a traditional and well-established way of avoiding that in the case of a Bill such as this, where some Parts of it not dealing with finance are as open to amendment by your Lordships as any other Bill, and only one Part, in this case Part III, is financial.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read the passage in Erskine May, at page 841, which clearly explains this matter. It is headed:
"Rejection by Lords of separate financial provisions in non-financial Bills."
The passage reads:
"The right of the Lords to reject a Bill for granting aids and supplies to the Crown has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people when such provisions form a separate subject in a Bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend. The claim of privilege cannot, therefore, be raised by the Commons regarding Amendments to such Bills whereby a whole clause or series of clauses has been omitted by the Lords which, though relating to a charge and not admitting of amendment, yet concern a subject separable from the general objects of the Bill."
I am advised that Part III of this Bill is a separate subject, in the sense described in Erskine May, and so, in inviting your Lordships to agree to these Amendments which would leave out Part III and the relevant Schedules, I am following a well-precedented course.
That this is a procedure accepted by the Commons as not infringing their privileges I can show by quoting the work of Sir Gilbert Campion (as he then was), at that time Clerk of the House of Commons, entitled, Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons. In that authoritative book, after setting out what the Lords cannot do, he goes on, at page 285, as follows:
"The Lords may omit from a Bill which they are otherwise entitled to amend provisions creating a charge upon the people, provided that such provisions are separable from the rest of the Bill and that they are omitted as a whole."

265
I hope that these two quotations will convince your Lordships that if we follow the course that I am suggesting there can be no infringement of Commons privilege according to the traditions and the precedents.
The effect of passing these procedural Amendments will be to afford the Commons the opportunity to restore Part III and the Schedules in any form they think fit, either in their exact original form as they came to us from the Commons—though I hope it will not be in that exact form—or, as I rather hope, in an amended form, taking note of the Amendments which your Lordships have made, and also of other practical suggestions for improving the working of the Bill which noble Lords have made, but which the Government felt it necessary to resist, if only because they, the Government, would not be an accessory to amending Part III in your Lordships' House. At the end of the Report stage there was an interchange between the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in which the difficulty Which was created by this matter of Commons privilege clearly became apparent. I hope I have made it clear that I am moving these Amendments for technical reasons, following a tradition accepted by both Houses as avoiding any infringement of Commons privilege. These Amendments are not a sort of final fling against the betterment levy; they are purely procedural Amendments which the practice of this House and of another place requires. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clauses 27 to 85.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
5.39 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I think that the constitutional position has been clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. Although it may seem a little puzzling to the general public, the intention in moving to delete the whole of PartIII is to avoid offending against the Commons' ancient privilege. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the Commons' claim to privilege in these matters of Supply goes back much further than the Parliament Act 1911. As long ago
266
as 1678 the Commons passed a Resolution containing the following clause:
"That it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons, to direct, limit and appoint…the Ends, Purposes, Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of…Grants (of supply); which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
To take one other example, the Paper Duties Repeal Bill of 1860 led to the affirmation by the Commons of their privileges in these matters of Supply. At that time Mr. Gladstone sought to repeal the Excise duty on paper in order to make newspapers and books more readily available to the mass of the people, and your Lordships' House at that time were suspicious of the effects of the Bill in facilitating the circulation of radical literature. The other place insisted upon their privileges—and I must say that my sympathy is with them in regard to that action at that time. It would appear to be clear from the precedents that if we are to suggest to the Commons detailed Amendments relating to Part III, the only way is to adopt the procedure provided by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. For these technical reasons, I support it.
The only comment I should like to make is this. If there is to be modernisation of our Parliamentary procedure, and if it is to be as business-like as possible in future, some consideration should be given, I hope by both Houses, to a better procedure than this rather roundabout way of suggesting Amendments on particular points to the Commons without infringing their privilege. I deliberately use the word "suggesting". I am not arguing in favour of overruling the Commons, but if a Bill comes before this House of such a nature that it is felt desirable that some Amendment or improvement should be made to it—and perhaps even the Government may believe that there is a case for certain detailed Amendments—it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise some simpler procedure than this. However, in the meantime we are quite clearly bound by precedent, and therefore I support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with leave, I have two points to make on what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said to the House. I refer, first, to

267
the point about the substance of the Amendments passed in this House to Part III; and, secondly, to the point about the Amendment now before the House; namely, to leave out Part III. The noble Lord said that the three Amendments which have been passed to the provisions of Part III have been welcomed by the Press and are wholly in line with public opinion. I would not for one moment agree with the second proposition. I do not believe they are wholly in line with public opinion; or, at any rate, with more than half of it, or a minority of it. I agree that they have been very largely welcomed by the Press, but the British Press is very largely Tory in complexion.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD KENNET: All three Amendments, although they appear at first sight—and one must remember that journalists have to write in a hurry—to be protections for the small man, are, in point of fact drafted in such a way as to leave the door wide open to the big man to get through and escape the levy. Unfortunately, this is a fact.
Having said that, let me now turn to the Amendment to leave out Part III, which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, as he puts it, on procedural grounds. I have only one point to make about this. Without either commending or, as it were, "uncommending" the procedure he has adopted, I have no objection to the Amendment proposed.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I simply add this comment in support of the Amendment? The Amendment is really part two of a procedure in which the Government were responsible for part one. If the Government tack on to a Bill which is otherwise not a Supply Bill a number of clauses which are Supply clauses, then, if this House is to perform a useful function as regards the Supply clauses, this is the only method we can adopt that avoids trespassing on the privileges of the Commons. The method we are here following is one that was pointed out, with perfect accuracy, at an earlier stage by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I therefore welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Interpretation]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment would have the effect of changing the Bill in parallel with a draft Transfer of Functions Order which has been laid before both Houses, the Order being one which is familiar to all sides of the House; namely, to transfer functions of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This Amendment simply makes that parallel change in the Land Commission Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment move—
Page 90, line 37, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Housing and Local Government").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 40, leave out ("only") and insert ("but not Scotland").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order to seek leave to move the next three Amendments together?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, they can be discussed together, but must be put separately.
LORD KENNET: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 4 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 41, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Housing and Local Government").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 43, after ("only") insert ("or in relation to Wales (including Monmouth-shire) only").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 6, leave out ("Land and Natural Resources") and insert ("Housing and Local Government").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Supplementary provisions as to general vesting declarations]:
5.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES) moved, in paragraph 20, after "paragraph" to insert "6(a), 7,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to this Amendment and the next, because together they accomplish the purpose intended. The effect of the Amendments is to take into account paragraphs 6(a) and 7 of Schedule 3 which provide that where a person has given a notice of objection to severance the Commission may withdraw, or be taken to have withdrawn, the deemed notice to treat in respect of that person's land. In such circumstances a general vesting declaration covering plots belonging to different persons will then have effect in relation to a smaller area of land than when it was originally made. Paragraph 12 of the Schedule, although it deals with the reverse case, namely, when a general vesting declaration will apply to a greater area than it originally comprised, does not cater for the withdrawal of a deemed notice to treat as mentioned.
These Amendments rectify this and have the effect of ensuring that when a general vesting declaration is recorded in the Sasine Register it will clearly specify only the land which is to be vested in the Commission by virtue of the general vesting declaration. This is obviously desirable, from the point of view of preserving the value of the Register of Sasines, and the Amendments are of a similar nature to those which I moved at the last stage in order to preserve the integrity of the general Register of Sasines. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 20, after ("paragraph") insert ("6(a), 7,").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 22, leave out ("larger") and insert ("different").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Schedules 4 to 13.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have spoken almost too much in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and I do not intend to detain the House for long. But I should like to beg a few minutes of your Lordships' time, if only because I should not like the Bill to pass without taking the opportunity of expressing appreciation to those of my noble friends who have taken an active interest in the Bill and who, in my submission, have helped materially to improve the Bill. I should like also, if I might do this with respect and without causing embarrassment to him, to express appreciation for the handling of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and for the tremendously hard work which he has quite clearly put into it. He is working here for another Minister. It is not specifically his Bill, and it is by common consent an unusually complicated Bill. He has even managed always to keep his head in front of his noble friend Lord Mitchison, who sometimes had not got the departmental briefs quite right. But the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, never failed.
At least one thesis of the Government in presenting this Bill is that the development value of land should accrue to the community because it is created by the community. I believe, for my part, that the thesis that all development value in land is created by the community is a fallacy, which is no longer believed except by those who are positively drugged with Socialism. Development value created by planning permission is, I fully agree, a justifiable object for taxation like a lot of other objects, but there is no justification whatever for the contention that the Exchequer has a greater moral right to collect the development value from land than to levy other forms of taxation.

271
Secondly, this Bill was presented by the Government, and previously offered as an attraction to the electorate by the Labour Party, as a Bill which would have the effect of reducing the cost of land. We have had prolonged, though nearly always good-tempered, debates on the Bill, but I, for my part, am still unable to believe that it will reduce the cost of land: I think it is far more likely to raise the cost of land. But the proof of this pudding is in the eating. I do not think it is going to be a very good pudding, but in due course the public will have to eat it, and then it will be proved whether the Government were right about this, or whether we were right.
I have said that in a number of respects I felt confident that your Lordships' House had effected improvements. I have been looking through the speech I made on Second Reading two months ago, and on that occasion I raised a number of difficulties and fears. The Government have allayed, and sensibly allayed, some of those fears. The Government have given a perfectly satisfactory assurance to your Lordships' House that the Land Commission will observe what one might call the Crichel Down rules, and that if they do not do so the Government will be prepared to issue a direction to them.
The Government have removed a number of our anxieties about the use of the concessionary crown hold powers, which clearly are greatly narrower in use than they would appear to be in the Bill. When we raised the point that it might be impossible for the citizen to learn for six years whether his land was going to be liable to betterment levy and, if so, liable to what amount, we were assured that the Land Commission will reach decisions as quickly as possible, and that if they do not their activities will be within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman. I still have an anxiety lest the Ombudsman might be even more busy than the Land Commission. At any rate, this is an apparent safeguard, and we will see how it works.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I expressed great anxiety about the earliness of the date which had been suggested by the Government for the first
272
appointed day. I think it is, at any rate in part, as a result of that short debate that the Government postponed it—not as long as I would have suggested; not, I think, as long as the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, would have suggested, but at any rate by five weeks, which will be of some value.
On Clause 8, which was a clause which gave my noble friends great anxiety and, I think, caused considerable apprehension outside the Palace of Westminster, the Government were wise enough to introduce an Amendment which would protect the occupier of a house from having it taken away from him and being deprived of his home under the shortened compulsory purchase procedure. That was a valuable step forward, and when I tabled an Amendment on Report that the shortened procedure should not be available for acquisitions generally throughout the country but only for particular classes of acquisition, the Government were good enough to put down Amendments of their own which, no doubt in better words than mine, met our point.
The Opposition have, in fact, pressed and carried six Amendments to the Bill. Perhaps I may say here that our tactics have been not to take every finicky little point which we might have raised throughout the Bill, but to seek to concentrate attention in your Lordships' House on big issues. It seemed to us that that was a part which the House of Lords could usefully play in the examination of a Bill like this.
One of the Amendments which we pressed and carried was to remove the provision which relieved the Land Commission of the obligation to state any purpose when it was seeking to acquire land compulsorily after the second appointed day. We carried the Amendment in Committee, and on Report stage the Government put down an Amendment of their own with which we were entirely satisfied. We pressed and carried five other Amendments which now go directly or, shall I say, indirectly, to another place. There was the Amendment to Part II, to the effect that if the Government wished the Land Commission to have more extensive powers after the second appointed day, they should be required to come to Parliament and seek those powers in the Order appointing the

273
second appointed day. That was the second of our Amendments. The third was to the effect that, when the Government wished to bring in the special, shortened procedure for compulsory purchase in respect of any specific class of acquisitions, they should have to bring forward an Order which would require an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. In our submission, the Negative Resolution procedure is not sufficient in so serious a case as that.
As I said a few minutes ago, we carried three Amendments to Part III of the Bill, the financial part, and it is because of these Amendments that, for reasons which the House now understands, I have had to move to omit Part III from the Bill—and I am grateful to the Government for accepting this as the proper procedure in the circumstances. One Amendment concerned the total exemption of charities, one the exemption of owner-occupiers from development levy, and the other was an attempt to secure the exemption of small transactions from betterment levy in the same way that small estates are exempted from death duties. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said that these are so ill-drafted that though they might be all right so far as the small man is concerned, the big man could exploit them. I do not know who the big man is in the case of a charity. I always thought charities were forms of trust which benefited people who were deserving of charity in the eyes of the law. But I will not pursue that matter. It will no doubt be explained in another place, if the Amendment is not accepted as it stands, who the big men are who might take undue advantage of a provision about charities.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt in order to clarify that point. Although I was no doubt careless in my phrase, I did not seek to imply that big men could exploit the Amendment made by the Opposition in respect of charities but, more particularly, the Amendment concerning owner-occupiers.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I certainly do not claim any special virtue for my own drafting, and I think that the noble Lord understands perfectly well the purpose which we were seeking to achieve through these three Amendments. What
274
I should like to say to your Lordships is that I hope, and I trust that the whole House hopes, that in another place a proper and fair consideration will be given to the purpose which this House was seeking to achieve through these Amendments.
There are, in conclusion, three matters which I raised during the Second Reading debate on which the Government have been able to give us no help at all. That is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because the trouble is inherent in the Bill itself. First, at a time when we know that there is a shortage of professionally qualified people, and valuers in particular—a shortage caused largely by the Government's new forms of tax—this Bill threatens seriously to aggravate that shortage. Secondly, I called attention on Second Reading to uncertainty. There will be just as much uncertainty in the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House as there was when it came here. We have been able to do nothing about that, and the reason is that the fact of uncertainty—an inescapable fact—is one of the reasons why any form of betterment levy breaks down in practice. I have never been one of those who have set their face against a betterment levy in theory. I think there is a tremendous amount to he said for this form of taxation in theory; but it remains a fact that no Government has yet managed to devise a scheme which will work with reasonable satisfaction to all concerned; and I suspect that this Bill will continue that old and bad tradition. Uncertainty in the incidence of a betterment charge is an inescapable attribute of the charge itself.
Thirdly, and finally, I regret to say that the Bill is no less complicated and obscure as it leaves your Lordships' House than it was when it came to us. I do not think, however hard we might have worked on either side of the House, we could have done much about that. Once the decision had been taken to introduce a Bill of this kind, its complexity was unavoidable. I will content myself with saying that up till now I had really believed that this was a Government which had set as one of its high objectives the simplification of the law of the land. I must say that in the presentation of this Bill to Parliament it seems to have fallen a great way short of attaining that objective.
6.7 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I think there is little more to be said about this Bill. All the appropriate epithets have been used up; but I should like to make it clear that none of the epithets is intended to be directed against the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has presented this Bill with great courtesy—and I should like to thank him for doing so. In my view, there is a very real need for improving our town planning procedure, and there is a need for speeding up the process of acquiring land for development without sacrificing the rights of the citizen. But I do not think that this will be achieved by creating just one more body with powers of compulsory purchase. I do not think it will be helped by creating this Land Commission. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who prophesied the possibility of the Land Commission proving to be a paper tiger. I am not sure whether it will turn out to be a paper tiger or a bureaucratic giant—the future alone can tell—but certainly I remain unconvinced by any of the arguments for the creation of the Land Commission.
With regard to the levy, I am disappointed that the collection of betterment is being dealt with in this way. It is going to be appallingly complicated, and I think that before long that very fact will be used as an argument for abandoning altogether the whole idea of collecting betterment values. I believe that there are other and better ways of collecting values created by the community. I have not altered my view on the general principle, that land is a special case, and that where land is concerned values created by the community should, at any rate in part, be collected for the benefit of the community. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that I am not drugged with Socialism but regret the method that has been adopted by the Government.
Finally, I do not think sufficient regard has been paid to the problem of those who will have to operate the provisions of this Bill and advise others about it. It seems to me that their very real difficulties have been largely ignored; and on all these grounds I think this Bill stands condemned. My Lords, I must conclude with an apology. I am very sorry, but I have to leave at half
276
past six to catch a plane. No discourtesy on my part is intended, but if I am not here at the conclusion of this debate I hope that the reason will be understood.
6.9 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should like to say just one word, from the Back Benches. And I think it is appropriate that somebody should do so. I do not like this Bill at all. It is extremely complicated, and I do not think it will have the effect the Government hope that it will have. We tested pretty thoroughly whether it would really help to reduce the cost of land, and we found that all the betterment which is going to be collected from the private individuals—an estimated £75 million a year—will have to be paid over by the Land Commission direct to the Treasury, and that the only money the Commission will be able to keep is the betterment they make on their own revolving credit of £45 million, which can be increased (by an Affirmative Resolution, I think, of the House of Commons) to £75 million.
I should like to conclude by thanking my noble leader on this Bill, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the great work that he has done. There has been only a small team on our side and he has worked extremely hard to help us on this very complicated measure. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his courtesy; the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who so ably assisted through many hours; and, with respect, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who was most helpful to us on the complicated legal aspects of the Bill. Though I cannot support the Bill wholeheartedly, I hope that it will have the desired effect; I doubt whether it will, but I shall watch with interest what effect it does have.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the last opportunity disappears to discuss this Bill I should like again to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to one of the most widely misunderstood clauses in the Bill; namely, Clause 67. Perhaps I should add that I have given notice to the noble Lord of my intention to raise this point. If I may summarise briefly Clause 67, the House will be aware that it deals with the case of a development that is begun before the first appointed day but, for

277
one reason or another, is not completed until after that day. The object of this clause is riot, as I believe many people think, to exempt from levy all development begun, but not completed, before the first appointed day: its purpose is to act as a rider to Clause 27, so that when a development escapes levy under Clause 27 it may still be caught in the Land Commission net on part at least of the development under Clause 67.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, took some trouble to give the Government interpretation of this clause during the Committee stage. I am sure that many people concerned with development are grateful for this and will have taken note of what he said. I think there is a general understanding now that where an owner has full planning consent or permission for the whole of a project of material development, and makes a start on it before April 6, he will be free of levy on the whole of the project, because neither Clause 27 nor Clause 67 can catch him. This is the case where full planning permission authorises the carrying out of the entire project without any further reference to a local planning authority.
But the case that is causing so much trouble—and one in which legal doubts have been expressed to me as to the previous interpretation of the clause by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—is where outline consent has been granted on the whole of a development and where this outline permission has been built up into full planning permission in respect of part only of that development. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, at the time of his interpretation during the Committee stage demonstrates that so long as some part of the outline permission has been built up into full planning permission by the obtaining of the detailed approval required and a start is made before the first appointed day, the remaining part of the development (which, of course, only enjoyed outline consent) would escape levy in the future. The question I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet is: Can an outline permission be built up in this way? According to Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1963,
"…the approval of the authority shall be required with respect to the matters preserved
278
in the permission before any development is commenced."
There does not appear to be any authority under the Bill for separating parts of the planning permission, and it would seem very difficult to separate parts of a planning permission for the purpose of building up these parts into full permission by piecemeal authorisation.
My Lords, the second specific question that I should like to ask the noble Lord on Clause 67 is: Could he indicate what is the position where outline permission is obtained over 50 acres for 500 houses but a separate detailed planning permission (as distinct from approval of detailed plans) is obtained over 10 acres for 100 houses and the builder makes a start on one of those 100 houses before the first appointed day? It would seem from the wording of Clause 67(2) that only the 10 acres in the authorising permission—namely, the detailed consent on part—is free from levy, whereas if detailed plans had been approved, the authorising permission would then have been outline permission and the whole 50 acres would have been free from levy.
The third specific question I should like to ask the noble Lord on Clause 67 is: What would be the position where a developer has outline consent, limited by time? Would he be liable to levy should this time period run out even if he has complied with making a start before the first appointed day? These questions have been put to me for the noble Lords to answer at this late stage and I know that it would be appreciated if he would comment on them.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify one other point. This relates to Schedule 4, page 113, line 38, where the date "December 21, 1965" is mentioned. This date does not tie in, I submit, either with Clause 83 or with Schedule 4, page 115, line 4. I raised this matter on Committee and the noble Lord promised to examine whether the date should be altered. I should be grateful to learn what reasoned conclusion he has now reached on this matter.
6.17 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, before we part with this Bill, may I make a most earnest plea to Her Majesty's Government to think again about the date of the first appointed day? This is a very

279
complicated Bill, one of 102 clauses and 17 Schedules; but it is a revolutionary Bill in the sense that it creates a whole range of rights and duties which are completely strange and new to our law—indeed, a new code. Furthermore, the far-reaching effects of this Bill are not by any means understood or foreseen by the public at large to-day. This Bill will affect every transaction in conveyancing of every piece of land and every house, however modest or small, throughout the whole of the country; and the rights and duties of the parties after the first appointed day will be affected also by steps which are taken, or are not taken as the case may be, by the date of the Royal Assent and the first appointed day. One would have thought, in face of this, that the very least that Her Majesty's subjects could expect would be to have proper legal advice about their situation. That, in the present circumstances, if the first appointed day is maintained as Her Majesty's Government have suggested that it should be maintained, is quite out of the question. It is utterly impossible that in the few weeks that can exist between the date of the Royal Assent and the first appointed day the legal profession can absorb this Bill and be in a position properly to advise their clients.
That raises, I believe, what might almost be said to be a constitutional issue. I cannot remember ever before hearing of a Bill which goes as far as this, and which goes as deeply as this, where there has not been a proper interval allowed for the ordinary citizen to go to his lawyer to have proper advice. This is not the fault of the lawyers. The Law Society, I know, has been corresponding with the Department about this matter and they are deeply exercised. The solicitors' branch of the profession will certainly not he in a position to advise properly in the time available. That is not the fault of the solicitors' branch of the profession. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack would claim that the Bar are in a better position, or would be in a better position. Here is a great new system of law going to be imposed on the nation at about five or six weeks' notice without the least possibility of people's getting proper advice. That is wrong; and, however difficult it may be for the Government to make a change, I beg them in the name of common justice to do it.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I see my noble friend Lord Mitchison about to rise from his seat. My noble friend has spoken so much on this Bill that perhaps he will allow me to say a word now. We are temporarily parting with this Bill, and I think that those of us who have taken a close interest in it will be very glad to have a little relief from it. We shall see it again, and this Third Reading is an occasion for summarising some of the discussions which have taken place during the passage of the Bill and for paying a number of compliments.
I should like first, and in no formal sense, to pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the way in which he has handled the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. He did so in a completely responsible manner, being objective so far as it is possible to be objective in a matter on which one holds strong views. I think that all his arguments were completely fair, and though one might not always agree with them, they were certainly put fairly and moderately. I should like to say the same of my noble friend Lord Kennet. He has had a very difficult task. If I may say so, this is not really his subject; he came quite fresh to it. He was under the disadvantage of speaking to someone else's brief in a Department that is not his own, and I think he did extraordinarily well. My noble friend Lord Mitchison does not need any compliments from me, but he has been of tremendous assistance to the Government.
My Lords, the discussions we have had have not affected in any way the main structure of the Bill. This, I think, has remained completely unshaken. The two principles enunciated by my noble and learned friend when moving the Second Reading, the question of the development levy and the acquisition of land, have not been affected by the arguments. The machinery by which these two principles are to be implemented has, in my view, been completely justified. I doubt whether the Amendments passed are of such a fundamental nature as to go to the root of the Bill, and though I do not know what the Government will do with them, an opportunity has certainly been providentially provided by the removal of Part III of the Bill for the

281
Government to reconsider the matter. Again to-day the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, expressed his view about the complexity of the Bill, the difficulty in understanding it and so on. I must say that he was certainly not inhibited by this difficulty. The noble Lord seemed to have attained complete mastery of the Bill and appeared to find no difficulty at all in dealing with every clause which he felt disposed to criticise.
The Government will have an opportunity to look again at this Bill. They will be forced to do so, because they have to look at Part III, and I hope they will take advantage of the opportunity provided to look at the whole of the Bill much more closely. They have given me the impression that they have had to introduce this Bill and endeavour to pass it in a state of panic, or frenzy, in which it was found necessary to meet every day for a series of days and for your Lordships' House to sit fairly late. I have been wondering what is the urgency. What does it really matter whether the Bill is passed in January, February or April? It is not of such world-shattering importance that the Government may be justified in not giving the Bill the fullest possible consideration, and I regret to say that there are signs that the Government have not done this.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, about the first appointed day. I raised the matter at the beginning of the Committee stage and I am very disappointed indeed. I think it is contemptuous merely to defer the matter until April 6. We are in the second half of January, and even now we do not know when the Bill will become law or how much time will be available between the passage of the Bill and April 6. I agree absolutely that there will not be enough time to deal with a Bill of such length and complexity. I do not dispute that it is a complex Bill, and my earlier reference was to the language of the Bill. It is complex in its conception, as it is bound to be, because there are so many special cases to be considered. The matters upon which lawyers will be consulted will not be the normal cases of persons buying and selling houses. There will be consultations about very complex questions which will trouble lawyers, solicitors, barristers, valuers, the Land Commission and everybody else. We are
282
not even giving the Land Commission a chance properly to digest this Bill. The Commission have to understand it if they are to administer the measure.
There are a few matters which I hope the Government will consider further when they take advantage of the opportunity which has been presented to them to look at the Bill again. There is the question of stating the purpose for which land is to be compulsorily acquired. I am not sure whether that applies to a person occupying a house or what is involved in the Amendment introduced by the Government. Things move so rapidly that one gets notice of an Amendment on the same day that it is being moved. One hardly has time, especially with the lateness of the post, even to see Amendments before one comes to the Chamber, so that I am not sure how far the Government have dealt with the question of disclosing the purpose for which land is to be compulsorily acquired.
If they have met the case of a person who is occupying a house and is in danger of losing his home, what about a person who may be in danger of losing his livelihood? What about a person whose shop, or warehouse, or factory, or other means of livelihood is being threatened? Why should he not know the purpose for which his land is being acquired? Do the Government attach so much less importance to the livelihood of a person than to the house he occupies? I think that the case for one is exactly as powerful as the case for the other. There is also the question of this speedy procedure. I do not know how far the Government have met the criticisms that have been made, but they are real. This speedy procedure, by which, if an objection is raised and the matter is urgent, the Minister can come to a decision after hearing the full facts of the case from the objector, seems to me completely wrong and misses the whole point of a public inquiry. The Minister cannot get the full facts from a person who may not even know the purpose for which the land is to be acquired. He cannot get the full facts unless he knows the full case and the full justification for the acquisition of the land; and a person who is objecting is tremendously handicapped by not being able to hear the case for acquisition, to cross-examine the witnesses and

283
to bring witnesses of his own at a public inquiry.
I can well understand that there may be cases where it is necessary to use speed, but I wonder whether noble Lords are aware of the time that is taken to-day in dealing with these public inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will know. But it has got worse. I am not blaming the Labour Government for this, but the fact is that from the time when an objection is lodged with the Ministry one is lucky if there is an inquiry eight months after, and very fortunate if one gets a decision four months after that. I am still in practice, and I am speaking from personal experience. I have at least half-a-dozen appeals that were lodged about a year ago, and I still have not got a decision, although I have had the inquiries.
If there is an urgency, is there not some means of getting speedy inquiries without depriving the unfortunate owner of the land of an opportunity of putting his objection? It is not his fault if there is urgency. I hope that the Government will pay more attention to the question of speeding inquiries and decisions, particularly in cases where there is urgency. Is it not possible to give some kind of priority, if the Minister is satisfied that there is an urgency?
There are other matters on which I feel that the Government might have taken a less rigid attitude. There is the question of de minimis. Are the Land Commission to be worried about every trifling alteration that takes place which requires planning permission? If a person has a space where he is keeping his car and wants to put it under cover, he has to get planning permission before he can erect this cover. I am taking an extreme case. He has to give notice to the Land Commission that he is about to put up a garage. Then the Land Commission solemnly come along and assess it for the increase in value of the property as a result of putting up this little garage, less, of course, the cost of the garage, and allowing him 10 per cent. In the end; the assessment might come to £25. But he may think it too much and he may argue about it. Is it really worth while the Land Commission handling matters of this kind?
284
Fortunately, there is Clause 63 of the Bill. I hope that it will stand, and that the Government will introduce a code of exemptions which include de minimis provisions. I hope that it is their intention to do so. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is in a position to commit the Government on this, but I sincerely hope that it will be one of the first things the Government will do. We have been told by the Government spokesman in another place that there will be about one million cases a year with which the Land Commission will have to deal. If we can reduce this by a couple of hundred thousands a year—and I think we could if we had a serious provision for leaving out these small cases—it would be a great help in relieving the pressure to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke or Cumnor, has referred.
I should like the Government to look again at the question of the statutory market authority (in which I have no interest whatever, I should like to make clear), not because it is of such tremendous importance to the market authority, but because I believe that a great injustice is being done to them. This discrimination, which is based upon two grounds, is wholly unfounded. I hope that the opportunity that has been presented to the Government of having to look at Part III again will enable them again to look at all these rigid acts which they have obstinately, in my view, refused to deal with. The Government will not lose face if they take advantage of the time which they have providentially been given, if they do not rush, and make quite sure that this measure will start off with the maximum of good will, not only from its supporters, but from its opponents as well.
If we get rid of these small anomalies, which may not affect a great many people, I believe that this Bill will stand a far better chance of acceptance, and that the fears of the noble Lord who thought that this Bill might come to an untimely end in what he hoped would be the near future, but which I hope will be a very far distant time, will not be justified. I am sure that if the public feels that this Bill has been fairly considered, that there are no injustices to anybody, and that it will be fairly administered, at long last this Bill will have a chance of being successful where others have failed.
6.38 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, it is getting, for this House, quite late, and I do not propose to go into any detail or make any personal observations except one or two of a complimentary character. Then I should like to say a word or two about the Bill. Taking personal observations first, and not forgetting the Bill, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Silkin has had sufficient praise for what, after all, was the theoretical and practical foundation of this Bill—his own Act. It is true that it was repealed, but I believe that it stood for an important principle, to which I shall turn shortly.
I would accept in one sense the description of this Bill as revolutionary, but I am not quite sure whether, in this House, that is a commendation or the reverse. I am sure that it is a courageous Bill. I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said about betterment. I am sorry that I missed, not much but a little, of the beginning of what he was saying owing to another engagement. But if he does not mind my saying so, I have watched him for some time in one way or another, and I have always accepted that he realised the inherent injustice of compensation without betterment, and objected to betterment only on the ground that he did not see how to effect it. This Bill is a courageous attempt to deal in a slightly different way with the problem of betterment. If it is a revolutionary attempt, it is a rather remarkable one, because it began notionally with an expert Committee, sitting, I think, in the middle of a war, presided over by a Chancery Judge and containing a number of experts on the land and questions connected with it. I refer, of course, to the Uthwatt Committee. We owe that Committee a great debt for the clearness with which they presented to us the inherent problem that lies behind these questions of compensation and betterment with which this Bill seeks to deal.
It was said that this matter was not urgent. But I think there is some sense of urgency. From one point of view, the trouble about the land in this country in recent years has been that those who needed it for public purposes had to pay for it prices which were continually rising, and which often had become so high in relation to other costs that the use of the land was restricted. Rents might
286
be too high; it might be difficult, because of the cost of the site, to build a hospital that was badly needed; and matters of that sort which I need not elaborate. But this difficulty has been going on for many years; it has never improved. And latterly, in the last few years, up to about (I do not want to be political over this) 1959 or 1960, and perhaps later, it had become really serious and had reached a degree of urgency which was important.
The second point was the question of the profits that people were making out of land. I am not rising now to make any general remarks about profits—it would not be appropriate at this moment—but I think it must go against the grain with many people to find some of the cases that have occurred where lucky, or shrewd, people have taken quite inordinate profits out of land, which is a peculiar subject matter, and without which, after all, there would be no world to live in. The land has always been a matter of difficulty. It has been the foundation by way of tenure of all kinds of things. I remember that it was the Gracchi who were rather anxious to get it back for the use of the common Romans. If we go a little further, we find in this country, at any rate, a feudal tenure which was responsible for a great deal of good or evil here. We find in Scotland something rather different.
I think it is only rather lately that the notion of the ownership of land has been re-examined in the light of the interests of the community as a whole. I believe that many of your Lordships, apart from Party contentions at the moment, will feel that it is not right that inordinate profits should be made, as they have been made lately, out of land when the contingency of those profits depended on what the community itself was doing in one way or another. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor (if he does not mind my saying so, he hardly needed to tell me, at any rate), sees the point. He may not draw the line at the same place as I do, but that is another matter.
In those circumstances, this is a courageous Bill. Of course, it is complex. It is bound to be complex, because of the complexities of our own land system, and also for another reason which it is as well we should face up to quite frankly.

287
For some reason or another the question of land is apt to arouse strong emotions in people, and they sometimes do things about land which I do not think they would do about other forms of property. Yet, again, the sense of ownership of land can be very strong indeed, and while people may recognise, in theory, that there ought to be a community interest and community value in this, they feel reluctant to apply it in any case with which they themselves are concerned. I need hardly say that I am not directing any of these remarks to any Member of your Lordships' House, and it may be that the number of people affected by this attitude that I have described is rather smaller than I think. But I believe it is fairly well known that a measure of this kind does lead people to seek ways of evasion which they would be rather reluctant to seek in other connections.
For those two reasons, I suggest that land presents not only the urgent problem which I mentioned, but also a difficulty in dealing with it. We add to that difficulty by the complexity of our land system. Lord Birkenhead, many years ago, was, I think, in another capacity a galloper; and he certainly galloped a bit at the land problem in his time. I am not going into the results of it. But it may well be that the moment has arrived, in the light of this Bill, to see whether something which needed to be done in the public interest could not have been done more simply, and without the possibility of misrepresentation about it, if the system of land tenure had been simpler One obvious instance I can take at once. It is quite clear that the registration of land may be of great use in this and in other connections. That is one thing that occurs to me.
I turn from that to one other comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. We all know that there is a shortage of valuers; and this has been so for many years. But it is not quite fair to attribute the shortage to this Bill or anything like it. After all, this measure in itself, so far as the levy is concerned, is simply carrying out something which was introduced by a Tory Budget on short-term capital gains not long ago. There is nothing novel in that. No doubt more valuers may be required to work this Bill, than to work the scheme for
288
taxing short-term capital gains, because it goes rather further; but the essential point, the need for the services of valuers, was raised at that stage, and is still before us. It seems to me that the way in which the base value has been treated in this levy section of the Bill is a real contribution to minimising the extent to which we need depend on the services of valuers.
I am not going into it now, but I can assure your Lordships that it was well in the minds of those of us who had to consider this Bill earlier that there was this shortage; that valuers are required for many purposes, including those under a Tory Budget or under a Labour Budget, and that we must not waste their particular skill. It takes time to develop. But, my Lords, it would be a sad state of affairs if something which was needed in the interests of the community itself, and in the interests of ordinary men and women in this country who have to find houses to live in and places to work in, was seriously delayed or not put forward because of the shortage of valuers. The time factor must be taken into consideration, I suggest, in preparing and passing a measure, but it is not a factor which by itself ought to govern that measure's acceptance or rejection.
May I say this with very great respect to your Lordships? We are not finished with this Bill. It is going back to another place. Alterations may be made—I do not know. There is a good deal that can be done to it regarding exemptions, the matter of timing, and so on. But in the long run we are going to have this Bill. In view of the general position about land and the matters I have indicated—the shortage of it for public purposes, the difficulty, such is our legislation, of dealing with it, and the abuses (I call them abuses because there have been large and inordinate profits made from it)—I feel sure we shall all recognise that it is our bounden duty as citizens, once this Bill is through, to do our best to make it work. It is such an obvious necessity to have something of the kind. I agree it is a complex Bill; I agree it is a difficult problem, though how far the difficulty rests in this matter alone is another question. But I earnestly trust that we are not going to allow feelings about the land to interfere with the contribution which I believe this Bill can make towards the betterment of

289
the community and towards the daily need of the citizens who depend on this rather complicated measure for a great deal that they reasonably and rightly require from us.
6.53 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, at the beginning of this final debate on this Bill I had thought that, with any luck, I might be able to get away with not having to make a last speech from this side, but after the last three speeches to which we have listened I feel I cannot duck my responsibility and must make a few observations. The first is this. I express the hope, as I am sure my noble friends behind me would also, that the Government will think long and hard about the very powerful plea advanced by both the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the first appointed day should be still further postponed. Nobody who heard those two noble Lords would imagine for a moment that they were speaking from anything except their great and long professional experience of matters related to those with which the Bill deals, and there was no political content whatever in what either of them said.
I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, very much indeed for the tribute he paid to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor for the way he has led the Opposition on this Bill and for the immense amount of preparation and work which that required. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that those on this side, particularly those who have endeavoured to help my noble friend from time to time, certainly feel exactly the same way as Lord Silkin does. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, like everyone else who has spoken on this final Motion, expressed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the way he has conducted the Government case; and I respectfully should like to do so, too. I do not think the noble Lord ever really revealed the extent to which he had been subjected to strain by this Bill, but obviously he must have been to some extent, because I really do not understand, from my limited experience, how any Minister in charge of the whole or at any rate a large part of a long and complicated Bill can fail to be subjected to strain.
290
I do not think I had better embark on any lengthy reply to the philosophical disquisition of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, but I should like to thank him very much indeed for the great help which he gave, certainly to me, by his intervention in almost every debate, at every stage in this Bill. I personally always enjoy enormously listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on any subject, but in the case of this Bill, so far as he has been giving us the benefit of his views, he must have had a great deal to do with it in its preparation and writing. I found these interventions particularly helpful for two reasons. The first was that I found the Bill so difficult to understand that it was a great advantage to me to have the benefit of two expositions from different sources of the Government's case, especially when one had to think of something to say in reply to the Government's case. The other reason was this. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, gave one a much clearer insight into the philosophy behind the Bill than perhaps Ministers felt it prudent to do from the Front Bench.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said (if I remember rightly) that the main structure of this Bill has been left unshaken by the Amendments made to it. I would respectifully agree about that, and would add that it was always our intention, at any rate, that that should be so. We made no attempt to shake the structure. We have tried to concentrate on the crucial points, and particularly to protect, so far as we have been able to, what we considered to be the undeniable rights of ordinary individual people. The Opposition always like to think they have made a Bill a better one, and I do not think there is any doubt that this is a better Bill than when it came to us. It is not a good Bill; it is still bad—and, in my judgment no amount of amendment would make it anything else. But it is a better Bill, and the proof of that is that we succeeded in making the Government meet us on several issues that seemed crucial to us.
Why our doubts remain, why our scepticism remains—at any rate, why mine does—is that I am just as unconvinced as ever I was that it is really necessary to have this enormous new piece of bureaucratic machinery in order

291
to achieve the two objectives of the Government's land policy set out in paragraph 7 of the White Paper. I listened with complete agreement to what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said about theoretical collection of betterment; and I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that the time has come when it should no longer be possible to make vast profits out of land transactions. But that is not the same thing as saying that I believe it is necessary to have a great, complicated piece of machinery to effect the change.
Well, my Lords, will the Bill do it? Will the Land Commission achieve the two purposes set out in the White Paper? It is anybody's guess, and I will not attempt to make one. But what is absolutely certain is this: the ordinary men and women in this country to-day have not the faintest inkling of the size of the rod that has in this Bill been fashioned for their backs, and when they do realise it, when the Commission start to operate, I am afraid their wrath will be great and their grievance profound. We have in fact—when I say "we" I mean the Opposition on this side—performed the duty of lessening the area of grievance by the three Amendments to Part III which we have inserted in the Bill, because we have increased thereby the number of exemptions from the levy. This seems to me to be something in the long-term interest of the Government, because surely they do not want the area of grievance to be larger than it would otherwise be. My last word is simply this. I am afraid the Government will live to regret this Bill. If they do, they will not be able to blame us: we have given them plenty of warning.
7.0 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, arising from the drugged stupor of Socialism to confront the shining morning faces of free enterprise, I should like to start by associating myself with all the kind things which have been said about the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and to compliment him, if it is not impertinent of me to do so, on his courtesy and his clarity, and indeed the expedition with which he and his colleagues have dealt with this long and difficult Bill. "Though I say it as shouldn't", I have also admired his political dexterity in doing so, but that is another subject.
292
The noble Lord said that he had never been against a betterment levy in theory, but that it always breaks down in practice and that he expects it will do so again. I do not want to turn our last discussion on this Bill into a political matter, but I am still in the dark as to what the Conservative Party would have done to confront the problem of vastly inflated development values in and around cities and, equally, the problem of assembling land for development. I do not know what would have happened if a Conservative Government had been in power at this moment and for the next five or ten years. I strongly suspect that nothing would have happened. But let us not pursue that now.
Noble Lords have referred to the Bill as "complicated" and "obscure". I remember vividly, and with pleasure, because it gave me a certain sense of shock, meeting one of the noble Lord's supporters in a corridor of this House—I will not give his name, but he is one of the most redoubtable supporters of the noble Lord—who confided in me that he thought the Bill was brilliantly drafted. I think this is true. Parliamentary draftsmen come in for a lot of kicks, but the more I have come to know this Bill the greater has become my admiration for the way in which it is drafted. I do not deny that it is extremely long and complicated, or that in places it is extremely refined; it is bound to be, because our land law is in places already extremely long, in places extremely complicated and, in some places, extremely refined. I think it is a good Bill, not only in its outline but also in its drafting.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me again about Clause 67, and I shall be happy to go further into it with him, because I know that the Law Society is in doubt about some of the points he raised. I know also that beyond that there is a body of opinion among developers who are still honestly not quite sure what effect this Bill will have on them. I think it is the duty of the Government to deal with this point, and I am particularly happy to do it since the noble Earl is no longer telling me that I am making misleading statements about it as he used to do at one time. The doubt expressed by the noble Earl relates to the case where an outline planning permission has been given—a permission which is subject to conditions and

293
which does not in itself authorise the start of development.
Does this permission exist in its own right, or has it in some way to be built up by a planning permission which authorises development to be begun? The answer is that it has not. Such a planning permission is in existence, and no further planning permission is needed. Application for detailed consent does not involve an application for planning permission. I know the Law Society has in mind that even if some authorities require application for consents to be made on the usual planning permission application form, the fact is that the type of application form used does not of itself determine that this is an application for planning permission. So long as the applicant knows what he wants he is safe, and should not be disadvantaged by any procedural requirements of the authority.
The noble Earl asked me four questions. To his second and more detailed question, which I will not repeat because he will have it in mind, the short answer is that only the 10 acres are free from levy, because the 10-acre planning permission is the one under which the works started before the appointed day were authorised. The third question was about the time limitation. Generally, time limited permissions are not outline permissions. They generally require a start to be made within a limited time, and no difficulty should therefore arise because the clause applies where a start is made. The fourth question was in regard to the discrepancy between one date in the Bill and other dates. I said at an earlier stage that I thought this might be a misprint, and if so I would have it rectified. It is not a misprint. It is a mistake, and it is desirable that it should be rectified, and there will be another opportunity of rectifying it before the Bill passes into law.
I know that the House heard the dubieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, with the greatest attention and respect, as will also my right honourable friend when I carry them to him. At an earlier stage of the Bill we discussed the question of the first appointed day, and it is not quite fair to say that since then it has been adhered to by the Government. In fact it has been delayed by five or six weeks. I make the same point to my noble friend
294
Lord Silkin, whose observations on this Bill, of course, I and my right honourable friend the Minister, and indeed the whole House, treat with the greatest possible respect, since he is virtually the inventor of the land and planning law which this Bill seeks to carry forward into another stage. My noble friend asked: what is the urgency? I was surprised by his question. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the headline in the Evening Standard to-day, which I do not endorse as a fact, "100,000 Homeless by 1981". I would, however, endorse it as an indication of urgency. We have talked before about a "Bristol" every year, and it seems to me the urgency is very great indeed, and is staring us in the face.
As against the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Silkin about the early start, I should like to do what I can to reassure him that some of the provisions of the Bill will not be as disadvantageous to the ordinary citizen as he fears. He raised the question whether, after all the Amendments and counter-Amendments that have been made to the Bill, the Commission will be bound to state its reasons on a compulsory purchase order after the second appointed day, and whether it will be bound to state them to the occupier of a house or to everybody. The Commission will be bound to give its reasons to everybody before and after the appointed day, in the absence of the speedy procedure and in the presence of the speedy procedure.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the speedy procedure itself. He questioned how much good it would be for a property owner to state his case when he does not even know the reason for which his property is being compulsorily acquired. I hope I have removed that worry from his mind. The noble Lord also raised the question of the right of the property owner to a public inquiry under the speedy procedure. I made the point two days ago, on Report stage, that the right to a public inquiry does not now exist in many cases of compulsory purchase. The Bill does not propose, even under the speedy procedure, to take away a right which now exists. What there is a right to is a hearing, and this will equally be available to the occupier of a house under the speedy procedure in the Bill.

295
The last set of worries which my noble friend Lord Silkin touched upon related to the likely number of transactions in a year. He mentioned the figure of one million transactions to be considered for levy every year; and here I think I can do something to remove his anxieties. The figure of one million is the number of transactions notified every year for stamp duty. The Land Commission will be using the stamp duty notification procedure as its first sieve, and the large majority of these cases will be sifted by the Land Commission as being obviously not liable for levy. We think at the moment that it is only about 150,000 which are likely to be liable to levy every year, but it is easier to use the existing stamp duty notification procedure as an initial sieve than to impose additional requirements; it will save everybody trouble, both the Land Commission and the citizen, and will make things quicker. The figure of one million transactions for levy every year should not be allowed to run further. Our best guess is something more in the nature of 150,000.
On the de minimis question, the provisions regarding the 10 per cent. of current use value will have a fairly large de mininis effect by themselves. In speaking about this, the noble Lord left out of account the very wide definition in the Bill of exemptions from material development: there will be excluded from levy extensions of a house up to 1,000 square feet, which is the size of an average three-bed roomed house. Such exemptions go far beyond anything the noble Lord was thinking of in his speech.
Let me end up with a round of thanks. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have been kind enough to compliment me on my handling of the Bill. I do not deserve their compliments. I admit to a sense of strain, which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was sensitive enough to notice. It was not due to any doubts about what we are presenting in this Bill, a Bill which is fundamentally sound as to social purpose and is as well drafted to achieve that purpose as is humanly possible. I would again thank my noble adversary, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the way he has handled his side of this long affair, and all those of my noble friends who have so skillfully
296
and repeatedly backed up the case of the Government.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DEER (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We now turn from one form of land use to a slightly different form of land use, which, if not quite so important, many of us may find easier to understand. I his is a simple Bill and it is designed to be entirely non-controversial. It is also designed to cover the three points which the Red Deer Commission, in paragraph 23 of their Annual Report for 1965, said they would like to be amended in the original Deer (Scotland) Act 1959.
Clause 1 of my Bill gives the Red Deer Commission the right of entry for census purposes. The Commission consider, and I think most noble Lords will agree with them, that censuses are very important, both for the control and for the conservation of red deer in Scotland. It is obvious why they are so important for control, and it is also fairly obvious why they are so important for conservation. At any rate, I have been fascinated by the findings of the Nature Conservancy on the Island of Rhum, and I think much of the interest of their findings is due to the fact that they take extremely accurate censuses every year.
It would therefore be a pity if, owing to the hostility of one particular landowner, the census in a certain area of the mainland of Scotland was incomplete. Accordingly, Clause I of my Bill gives the Red Deer Commission the right to enter upon land for the purpose of taking censuses. Having first, of course, tried to get the agreement of the owner concerned, and if he or she will not agree, the Commission then have to give him a fortnight's notice and state the period during which they will be entering on the land for the purpose of the census; and this period cannot exceed one month. It is obviously to the advantage of all concerned to try to get agreement, if at all

297
possible. It is worth noting that under Clause 15 of the Deer (Scotland) Act the Commission already have the right to enter land for the purposes of control schemes and to deal with marauders. It is thought, but it is not sure, that this might cover also the taking of censuses, and this clause is included purely to make sure that this is so.
Now I should like to move on to Clause 2 of the Bill. The first half just re-writes Section 33(2) of the Deer (Scotland) Act in such a way that officers or servants of the Red Deer Commission may kill marauding deer at night. Under the original Deer (Scotland) Act the only people allowed to kill marauding deer at night on enclosed land—and one is not allowed to kill deer at night on any other land—were the occupiers of the land concerned. This has led to difficulties where the occupier is either too old or infirm or in some other way incapacitated, or possibly not there at that particular moment to be able to kill marauding deer at night; and if we accept the fact—and this was discussed at great length in the 1959 Bill—that it is desirable for the occupier to have this right, I think probably this small extension of the right will not do any harm and might do a lot of good.
There are only seven stalkers of the Red Deer Commission, and I think it is unlikely that any of the Commissioners themselves would be asked by any occupier to kill marauding deer at night on any enclosed land. The advantage, in my opinion, of allowing the stalkers of the Red Deer Commission to do this would be that they would do it safely, whereas it is by no means sure that all occupiers would do it safely. The Commission's stalkers would minimise the cruelty concerned; they are much more likely to kill the deer outright than the average occupier, such as your Lordships, who, let us face it, is not anything like so accurate with a rifle, even with telescopic sights, as the stalkers of the Red Deer Commission. They have been trained; they get a lot of practice, and it would be much more certain that they would kill the deer actually doing the marauding, since they, would be in the enclosed ground at the time, whereas by the following day, when they would be allowed under the 1959 Act to kill them, the deer might well be out of the enclosed ground and have joined up with a lot of
298
other deer on the hill. Once that has happened, it is extremely difficult to decide which deer are actually doing the marauding, and which are entirely innocent and have spent the night on the hill where they should be.
Subsection (3)(a) of Clause 2 of the Bill simply re-enacts Section 33(3) of the Deer (Scotland) Act and introduces nothing new. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to authorise people to take or kill for scientific purposes any deer out of season. The Red Deer Commission in their Report ask that they should be given this power so far as red deer are concerned, but I think it is only logical, now that we have the imposition of the Deer (Close Season) (Scotland) Order 1966 in operation (which gives close seasons to fallow deer, sitka deer and roe does), that it should also be possible for these forms of deer to be taken out of season for scientific purposes. That is why in the Bill the Secretary of State and not the Red Deer Commission is given this power.
One reason that springs to mind why the Secretary of State may make use of this power is if some research is required into the feeding habits of deer. This might easily suggest ways whereby marauding deer could be considerably reduced—by giving them licks or something like that out on the hill. Possibly the research might be to see whether deer carry certain diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, which seems much in the news at the moment. Incidentally, the Secretary of State already has this power, and his Department issues licences in regard to some other animals, such as seals, and certain birds. I hope that I have explained clearly the purposes of this short Bill, and that your Lordships will agree they are desirable purposes and will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
7.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I should be grateful to your Lordships if you would be kind enough to afford me the indulgence that you give to those who have the honour to make their maiden speech in your Lordships' House. While in principle I wish to support the

299
noble Duke's Bill, and would commend it to your Lordships' consideration, there are two points on it that I should like to raise. I feel that if they were included in the Bill it would be much better, and certainly more complete.
The first point concerns a requirement that censuses, which have already been referred to by the noble Duke, should be carried out annually by 'the Red Deer Commission in any area that is subject to a controlled scheme. The reason for this is that in any controlled area the Commission have laid down as a guide that the total number of red deer to be culled per year should be one-sixth of the numbers of stags and hinds in that particular area or forest. They feel that if owners do this voluntarily the numbers of red deer in Scotland will probably be kept under reasonable control. It is impossible for any owner to do this at present, to satisfy both the requirement of the Red Deer Commission and also that for good deer management, which is equally important, because officially the number of deer that he may have in his deer forest is not known.
The Red Deer Commission have indicated to me that they are not prepared to accept an owner's census report of his particular deer forest. I am not quite sure why that is. It may be that they think that owners, as interested parties, might try to "cook the books". But, whatever the reason, it is logical that the Commission themselves must take an annual census to ascertain the correct numbers of deer to be culled in any one season in any one controlled area. The Commission may say; "We have not enough men for the job", but that does not seem to be a good argument. The Commission have been put into being; they are in existence, and they are doing a good job of work. It seems a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar: they should get some more men. It will not cost all that much, I hope. If a job is to be done, it must be done properly. If an annual census is to be taken and more men are required for it, then I feel that the Commission ought to be allowed to employ more men.
The second point I should like to raise concerns the shooting of marauding deer, in accordance with Section 6 of the principal
300
Act. While the need for this is understandable, though none the less regrettable, it is important that some safeguard is created to ensure that these noble beasts do not suffer more than is absolutely necessary. At present, a great deal of suffering is caused. I have seen the results of such suffering. They are caused mainly by the use of the wrong weapon. I have here a letter from the British Deer Society, written on January 8, so it is quite up to date, from which it is perfectly clear what the British Deer Society feel about this particular point. I should like to refer to the letter. The Scottish Secretary writes:
"My Council feel strongly that the killing of deer in Scotland by any type of weapon is most unsatisfactory, and they feel that the relevant Scottish law should be amended to prohibit the use of certain weapons, with possible adjustments."
Basically, what it boils down to is that, for red deer, they do not recommend the use of a rifle of a calibre of less than 0.240 ins., with a smaller one for various other types of deer. But I am dealing solely with red deer this evening. They do not favour the use of any smooth-bore gun, shotgun, or anything like that; nor an air-gun, an air rifle or an air pistol. For ammunition they would like to see only bullets with a soft or a hollow nose being used. That is quite fair. If your Lordships could see the horrifying effects on beasts that have been shot at with shot-guns and small-calibre rifles and other similar weapons, equally ineffectual, you would understand my desire that some provision should be made in this Bill to incorporate the requirements and requests of the British Deer Society.
I understand the argument that many farmers in Scotland who suffer badly, as I readily admit, from marauding deer may not possess the necessary weapons should this requirement he included in the Bill, but I think that this argument cannot hold much water. Surely the answer is that they must go and get the right weapons. We cannot, and should not, allow farmers who have their crops to protect, or the Forestry Commission who have to protect their young trees and plantations, to be affected by the rather weak argument: "I have not the right weapon; therefore it does not matter. "This just is not good enough, and I am keen to see that a provision on the lines I have suggested is

301
incorporated in the Bill. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Government would be kind enough to give my suggestions their sympathetic consideration. I propose to table these Amendments for further discussion in Committee.
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, my first duty is the pleasant one of congratulating the noble Viscount on his maiden speech. We both have one thing in common, that is, that we are a type of hybrid in that we both possess Irish and United Kingdom Peerages. We also have in common a great love of red deer, and I agree with a great deal of what the noble Viscount has said. I hope that he will make many more speeches on subjects in which he is interested, which I am sure range far and wide, and that he will not confine his speeches only to the subject of deer.
I have no objection to this small Bill. The only regret I have is that it does not include a great many measures that I should like to see it contain, but I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not propose to recount them all to-night. Certainly nobody can object to Clause 1. I have never heard of a landowner in the Highlands who has objected to the Red Deer Control coming on to his land to take a census, although there may have been one or two who have objected. It is, of course, essential that if a red deer census is to be taken the Commission should not be thwarted by any landowner. Clause 2(3)(b) authorises the Secretary of State in writing to take deer for scientific purposes, and one cannot object to that.
I do not object to the other provisions of Clause 2, which raises the rather controversial subject of night shooting which, of course, is cruel, and can also be dangerous to human beings. Section 33 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 was rather badly drafted in that respect. Although it allowed the occupier to shoot deer by night on enclosed land, it did not take into consideration the question that the occupier might be a cripple or an old lady who might be incapable of performance of these provisions. I agree that Clause 2 of the Bill puts this matter right, in that the occupier can delegate this duty, and there is no reason why he should not delegate this power to the
302
Deer Commission. The Deer Control are supposed to be experts with rifles. I suppose there are occasions where this has not been the case, but then one always has exceptions to every rule. I am sure that the Red Deer Commission do their best to ensure that the people whom they employ are expert marksmen.
There are one or two remarks I should like to make about night shooting from the cruelty angle. As to the use of firearms, the calibre of a firearm is controlled under the Deer (England) Act 1963. I hope that at some time the Government will bring in some similar Act, or will amend the present Acts, to ban the shooting of deer by firearms such as shotguns and small calibre rifles, because this is extremely cruel, especially when it takes place by night. The other thing I should like to see is a restriction that only one rifle should be allowed out in any one confined area, otherwise it can be dangerous to human beings; and a telescopic sight ought always to be used and a spotlight carried. If one has a spotlight one can hold deer in the beam. The other thing that also ought to be done on this matter of night shooting is that a person who embarks on it ought to have a trained sheep dog or hound to track down the deer if it is wounded. Under the existing Deer (Scotland) Act, so far as I remember its provisions, one is not allowed to follow deer with a hound or dog. I think this should be rectified as applying to wounded deer.
The other matter I should like to raise is the sale of venison out of season. There are various views on this matter, and I understand the point of view of the National Farmers' Union. When the occupier shoots out of season venison which is marauding on enclosed land, he presumably likes to get the money for the sale of the carcase, but if one sells deer out of season it does the venison export trade harm. Deer out of season are in very bad condition, and we now have a very good export trade to Germany. I am sure that the police would be far happier if dealers were licensed to sell venison, as is done on the Continent. I have often shot in Germany and in Scandinavia, and I know that venison cannot be sold out of season in those countries. Every carcase has to be tagged. In Germany the Forstmeister, who is in control of the various regions, issues so

303
many tags for the number of deer which it is desired should be shot. These carcases are then tagged, and the dealer who buys them cannot then take off the tag and send it to a friend of his and put it on another carcase, because the tags cannot be used again. They are rather like the tags used in the dairy trade; that once used they cannot be used again. I should like the Red Deer Commission to issue these tags to proprietors and occupiers who desire to shoot marauding deer. I shall no doubt go further into this matter at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill.
There is another question which I should like to raise, and that is the question of the definition of "enclosed land". It is really very loose. I have known instances—and I am quite sure that others of your Lordships who have experience of deer know of similar instances—where farmers go up into the hills, lime part of the heather and plough it up. They sow a very bad crop of rape and, perhaps, they put a few old fence-posts around and one strand of wire. Then, of course, if any deer comes near, they telephone the Red Deer Commission straight away and down they come, who then have an excuse to follow so-called marauding deer. We really ought, somehow, to try to tighten up the definition of "enclosed land".
I have also known instances where tenant-occupiers have deliberately made holes in the deer fence to allow in the deer in order to shoot them for commercial gain. I do not say a great number do that, but I have certainly known some do so. I realise that the Government are inclined to think of all tenants as angels, and of all landowners as devils. But the boot is sometimes on the other foot.
That is really all I want to say. I should like to end by saying that I believe that Her Majesty's Government, and previous Conservative Governments, and their advisers, have not fully realised the economic possibilities of the red deer in the Highlands. To-day, especially, I find that one can get very big stalking rents if one's estate is managed properly and the deer are properly controlled. One can also sell the carcases for extremely attractive prices. I was obtaining far more per pound for my venison than I was for my lambs this autumn. Therefore,
304
I would ask Her Majesty's Government to take seriously this question of the farming and ranching of deer, and the encouragement of deer in the right areas, because I am quite sure that in certain areas of the Highlands it has a very big future.
I should like to congratulate the noble Duke on the way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall probably be putting down a few Amendments regarding the sale of venison out of season, but apart from that I am quite happy with the present Bill. However, as I say, it is a great pity that it does not contain many other improvements.
7.45 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I also should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mount garret, and I agree with a great deal of what he said. It will be remembered that the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 owed its existence to co-operation between the Scottish National Farmers' Union, the Blackfaced Sheep Breeders' Society, the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the British Field Sports Society, and that that Act actually brought into existence the Red Deer Commission. It is surprising, therefore, that eight years later the Red Deer Commission, as the "child" of these four bodies, should have sought additional powers for itself without even consulting the bodies which set it up originally. The result is that the Bill now presented does not find favour in certain quarters, and covers only a small number of the amendments which have been found desirable as a result of eight years operation of the Deer (Scotland) Act. Thus, it is the greatest pity that no attempt has been made to get a comprehensive and agreed Amendment Bill before this particular Bill was submitted.
Possibly one of the most important things that has come to light as a result of the establishment of the Red Deer Commission is that the amount of marauding done by red deer is comparatively small compared to that expected following the outcry which took place prior to the 1959 Act. Indeed, there is as average of less than six cases of marauding reported to the Red Deer Commission each month. The pendulum is at last swinging, and at last people are

305
beginning to realise that red deer in this country are vermin only when they get into the wrong places, and that in the vast majority of their habitat they are a national asset.
It is difficult to get an accurate figure of the total venison sales in Scotland, but the figure has been conservatively estimated by the trade at no less than £420,000 per year—a very substantial sum. Much the largest proportion of this sum is earned from exports to the Continent, and therefore it is a very important item in the Highlands economy. Furthermore, from the national aspect, the stalking rents amount to substantial sums; and from the public aspect the local authorities are drawing not less than £40,000 per year from stalking rates.
The red deer are also responsible for keeping in employment many men in the remoter areas of Scotland. The stag has a tourist attraction. At least one hotel has lured Continental sportsmen to the Highlands and is charging them £50 per stag. This is not surprising when the German is prepared to pay in his own country £100 for a stag. There may well be further developments on this line, and it is important, therefore, that the red deer should be kept at their maximum numbers, compatible with the well-being of the animal, in the areas where they are an asset. But they must, of course, be properly controlled in the areas where they are doing damage.
In New Zealand they are treated entirely as vermin, and the New Zealand Government are subsidising their slaughter. Consequently, the New Zealander is happy to get whatever he can for his venison, and the New Zealand Government are prepared to send venison in Government-subsidised refrigerated ships to Europe. There is a grave risk of New Zealand venison undercutting our Highland exports to the Continent, with a consequent loss of this £420,000 of Highland income. At the present time, Scottish venison is preferred to the New Zealand venison on the grounds of quality, but it is most important that the present reputation of Scottish venison should not be damaged by the export of a comparatively small quantity of bad meat.
About ten days after a stag has been with hinds, his carcase has deteriorated very markedly, and such meat as is left
306
on him has become tough and strong-tasting. It is therefore important that out-of-season stag venison be removed from the market. This would also, of course, have the desired effect of removing the temptation for the unnecessary killing of a national asset.
My noble friend has also referred to allowing deer into fields to kill them. I know of one particular case where a fence was deliberately left open, and the deer were fed into a rape field, and no less than two lorry-loads of deer were sent away the following morning, mostly out-of-season stags. Last year a young boy of eleven was bragging that he had killed 26 stags during his Christmas holidays. This is quite unnecessary and must be stopped.
I must make it clear that I am not in any way suggesting that deer which are doing damage should not be killed, if there is no other reasonable method of protecting a crop; nor am I suggesting that a forester or farmer who suffers unavoidable damage should not be compensated. But we have here a problem which must be very closely studied, and a position which is far from satisfactory at the present time. The Red Deer Commission have suggested the licensing of venison dealers as a means of control. This might help to a small degree, but it would not, by itself, be sufficient. In any case, this is probably not the Bill into which to introduce such a scheme, which would mean an amendment to the Game dealers Licensing Act 1831.
There is also the point that if one kills an old milk-hind, one must, to avoid cruelty, kill her calf. But if that is done there is a 50–50 chance that the calf will be a stag calf; and if one kills a stag calf one is then killing a stag out of season. Here is a quite simple Amendment which must be agreed to by everyone and which should have ben incorporated in any Deer (Amendment) Act. It is therefore to be hoped that sufficient time will elapse between this Second Reading and the Committee stage to permit all the bodies concerned to get together and agree upon Amendments to my noble friend's Bill, so that the Deer Act will be suitably amended and may last for a further period of years without further amendment. But, my Lords, time is short if any Bill is to pass through all

307
its stages before the end of this Session, and it is therefore important that all the bodies concerned should get together as soon as possible and discuss this matter in detail to try to agree on Amendments to the Bill.
7.51 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, although I am several speakers behind him, I feel that I must offer my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. Having known his father as a well-known deer stalker, and as one very interested in deer forests and stalking, I was delighted to see his son here this afternoon to give us the benefit of his views. I should also like to congratulate the noble Duke on moving the Second Reading of this little Bill—although, of course, if it gets its Second Reading and the Amendments proposed by some of the experts who have already spoken are moved and carried, it may emerge almost as long as the Bill to which we have recently given a Third Reading, which had, I think, 189 pages.
I must declare my interest, as I am an ex-deer stalker. I shot my first stag nearly 50 years ago, and I have shot many since. I had better not admit how many because that might be rather conceited of me. I was very interested in the ownership of deer forests until 1954, and I welcome the Bill proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, who has a great experience of owning forests himself and of administering them—and, if I may say so, of administering them very well.
We have heard remarks on the prices of venison. In order to assure the noble Lord, Lord Burton, how lucky he is now, may I tell him that I remember selling stags in 1932 at 15s. a head, and also selling lambs—certainly what are called shott lambs; that is, those lambs which would have died in the winter if they had not been sold—at 2s. 6d. a head. Of course, we are in a period of inflation at the present time, but I think the deer forest owners—and I parted with mine in 1954—are much luckier than I was in those days. I must admit that during the war all my stags went down to the Connaught Rooms, and I believe that many masons fed upon them very satisfactorily in those days.
308
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government if they would be good enough to encourage the noble Duke to go on with his Bill because, bearing in mind the 1959 Act, on which I remember moving an Amendment and, with the help of Lord Lovat, defeating the then Government, I think certain Amendments might be passed to the advantage of the deer industry (if I might call it that) in Scotland, as well as Amendments to prevent venison being sold out of season and stags being shot by unauthorised poachers, which very often entails a great deal of cruelty. With those few words, I should like to say how much I congratulate the noble Duke, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.53 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have practically no experience of shooting red deer in this country, but I have had experience of big game elsewhere. I should like to congratulate the noble Duke on this Bill, and I personally support it very much in the form in which it is. I feel, from what the noble Lords, Lord Burton and Lord Brocket, have said, that there may be a number of ways in which the existing legislation ought to be amended in a fairly extensive way, but this will mean delay. And here is a simple, straightforward measure which I believe we should accept as it stands; or nearly so.
I have two comments to make on the speeches of the two noble Viscounts. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, on his speech, and to refer to firearms. In my experience, particularly at night, the 12-bore loaded with the lethal ball can be an extremely effective and merciful weapon, if properly handled, so I would not go all the way with him in saying that shooting with a 12-bore should be forbidden, so long as it is used with a properly made spherical ball. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, mentioned the question of venison and stalking. Surely, the remedy there is that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Burton; namely, an amendment of the Game Licensing Act. If venison could be brought within the scope of that Act, that would go a long way towards impairing the ability of poachers to dispose of their illegal game.
7.55 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in extending congratulations to the noble Duke for the way in which he moved this Bill. I must admit that I was tremendously surprised at the amount of wit he was able to introduce into so unlikely a subject. I must also congratulate him on the general felicity with which he moved the Second Reading, and on the commendable brevity with which he managed to cover the whole range of the Bill.
I would also congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, on his maiden speech. I suppose that it is almost without exception that maiden speakers are told how well they have spoken, and are encouraged to speak often, although not necessarily encouraged to speak at length. I think that in this case it is more than a formality that we say that to the noble Viscount, and I personally hope that I shall have the benefit of many of his contributions on Scottish affairs, notwithstanding his Irish Peerage. Then (although I do not think he is with us at the moment) I feel that I ought also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on what he said—not necessarily because I agree with it all, but because I admire the fact that he can compress into seven minutes about as much as anybody else could say in twelve, because of the speed at which he speaks, yet managing to keep every word quite distinct. I am quite certain that if we could all imitate his style we could say just as much as is said now in this House and still get home at least an hour or two hours earlier on any given day.
I think the noble Duke must feel satisfied with the Bill which he has presented, in one sense, at any rate: that no one has offered serious criticism of its content. And I do not think he is in the slightest danger of being presented at a subsequent stage with an Amendment to delete any of the provisions which he has inserted. That is certainly an experience which few Ministers are able to lay to their credit: Amendments are as often directed to taking something out of a Bill as to putting something else into it.
310
As the noble Duke said, the subjects which he has chosen as the content of the Bill figure in the Annual Report for 1965 of the Red Deer Commission. I am quite certain that they were not included because these were the only things which they thought might be suitable as amendments of the 1959 Act. I am sure they were chosen as matters which were now of urgency and which it was almost certain would not be controversial. These are necessary qualities for a Private Member's Bill, particularly if it is to get through another place. There would be no difficulty in adding some of the other items which have been raised to-day, some of which are obviously suitable for inclusion in a Deer Bill which is a Government Bill, and which might include controversial items if the Government were convinced that this was the right thing to do.
As to the other amendment, the amendment about venison out of season, I quite honestly think there is a great deal of merit in what has been said on that subject, but I am not at this stage persuaded that it is a suitable item for inclusion in a Bill of this kind. There may well be other opportunities, much more suitable ones, to legislate on that subject, but in saying so I do not in any way wish to diminish the importance of this aspect. I think we should be well-advised at the next stage, in considering possible Amendments to the Bill, to keep in the forefront all the time the consideration that the Bill must remain a non-controversial Bill, likely to command the support of all those people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, were responsible for the foundation of the Red Deer Commission.
Finally, my Lords, I would say that I think my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would wish me to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work which has been done by the Commission during the seven years they have been in existence. I think it could truthfully be said that the setting up of the Commission was perhaps the first comprehensive attempt to deal with a problem which has been the subject of controversy for more than two centuries. It says a great deal for the Commission and their small staff that, as they were able to say in their last Annual Report, while they do not claim to have solved the deer problem, they have taken some

311
of the heat out of it, notwithstanding the many different interests involved. I am certain that all who are familiar with the work of the Commission will endorse this statement. Having said all that, I am able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and others that Her Majesty's Government are very happy at the content of this Bill and will willingly give it their support.
8.5 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords for the general support they have given my Bill, even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, they seemed strong in their desires to add to the Bill rather than to subtract from it. Another reason (which he did not mention) why I hope this is not done to any great extent is that at the moment the Bill fits nicely in four pages and costs 8d. If it had anything added it would presumably have to go into eight pages and would cost a shilling, and the Prices and Incomes Board might have to be asked about it. Nevertheless, I reckon that by our Amendments on the previous Bill this afternoon, we shall even then have saved about five shillings. But, seriously, my Lords, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I hope that any Amendments which are put into this Bill will be strictly non-controversial.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend, Lord Mountgarret, on his extremely interesting maiden speech. I might say that I once failed to congratulate a maiden speaker who spoke just before me. For once this House was running before its scheduled time, or at any rate earlier than I had been told would be the time when I should be speaking. I arrived just as a speaker was sitting down, and was told by the clerk on the door that I was the next speaker on the list. I rushed in, apologised for arriving late, made my speech, and was then told that it was lucky that I had arrived late or I would have congratulated the previous speaker, and he did not deserve it. I can assure my noble friend that my congratulations are most sincere, and I hope he will speak again on many subjects, particularly those connected with Scotland.
Perhaps I ought to apologise for not having declared an interest at the start of
312
my speech, because at one time we were very interest-conscious; but we seem to have dropped that a bit. None the less, I think it is a good idea to do so, and I should like to apologise for my omission. May I say that my noble friend Lord Burton has apologised to me personally for having had to rush off; there is only one train to Inverness and it leaves Euston at 8.20, and he felt he would not like to risk hearing the rest of us out.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret raised the question of an annual census in controlled areas. I cannot, of course, answer for the Red Deer Commission, but I am sure they will take note of what he has said. This seems to me to be essentially something which one cannot write into an Act of Parliament. There may be many technical reasons why they could not carry out a census every year, but I am sure they will take note of what my noble friend has said and, where it is possible, will take an annual census. My noble friend and several other speakers spoke about the limitation on weapons. When we reach the Committee stage of the Bill I shall probably have to resist any Amendment on those lines, although I entirely agree with all speakers that the use of unsuitable cartridges in shotguns causes great and unnecessary cruelty to the deer. Unfortunately, one cannot get the agreement of all the parties concerned about this matter, and I am convinced that were some provision on those lines inserted, it might result in wrecking the Bill in the Commons. All I can say is that there is a Bill called the Criminal Justice Bill coming up which, presumably, will reach us quite soon. That Bill is all about shotguns, rifles and such things, and as it is a Government Bill perhaps noble Lords who feel strongly on the subject might consider inserting Amendments in it. Then it would be up to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to resist them, and not me.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard also spoke about weapons and the danger of night shooting. I agree that there is a great danger in night shooting, and I think this is one good reason why the Red Deer Commission stalkers should have the power to undertake night shooting in enclosed areas. I was rather surprised when the noble Viscount said he thought there ought to be an Amendment to limit rifles to—so far as I could make out—one to

313
each forest. This seems to me an unwarranted interference with the rights of the forest owner, who presumably knows how many—
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No, my Lords, I meant to one field, or to one enclosure. We do not want to have three or four people with rifles going into an area of ten acres. That would be highly dangerous at night.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend; I did not realise that he meant that this applied only at night. I quite agree with him. But there are, probably, at the most two or three people, because of the limitation on occupiers, and all the Commission stalkers. Even if this Bill is passed, there will be only one practical person who has the right to shoot at night in these enclosed spaces. My noble friend was also worried about the fact that, as he read the original Act, one could not follow up a wounded deer and kill it by any means other than with a rifle. I think that if he looks at Section 33(1) of the principal Act he will find that it covers this point. Once a deer has been wounded, or is diseased, it can be despatched in the most efficient way and in the best way to hand. I remember many discussions on this clause when the original legislation was going through its various stages, and one of the main reasons for inserting this provision was that a deer might have been hit by a motor car and be severely injured. The driver might not be carrying a shotgun or a rifle in his car, and the best way to deal with the animal would be to hit it over the head with a car jack. I think this section of the principal Act will cover all the points about which my noble friend was worried.
My noble friend Lord Burton said that the Red Deer Commission did not consult the bodies which were its parents before sponsoring this Bill or suggesting that a Bill should be introduced on these lines. I think my noble friend was being slightly unfair about this, because the Red Deer Commission has representatives of all these bodies on it, and I should have thought that on matters such as this the Commission could presume that the representatives were speaking for their sponsors. If this were not the case, it would seem to me to raise very great difficulties about ever trying to get any
314
agreed legislation in this country; so I think that point was a little unfair. My noble friend also brought forward the point that when you kill a milk hind it is considered best to kill the calf with it, as otherwise the calf may die of starvation, and if it is a stag calf you could be transgressing against the law. I was very taken by this point, and I will try to come to some agreement about an Amendment on these lines to be inserted in the Bill—even at the risk of increasing the size of the Bill from four pages to eight. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, very much for their support and the compliments paid over this Bill. I find it most encouraging that they, at any rate, and those noble Lords behind them, did not appear to want to add a great deal to the Bill.
The main point which was raised by several speakers was the question of the sale of venison out of season. This seems to me a difficult point. I fully appreciate what is worrying the noble Lords who raised it, but I honestly do not think that this is the Bill with which to deal with the problem. As my noble friend Lord Burton said, in order to license game dealers we should have to amend the 1831 Act. To get deer classed fully as game, would presumably mean some Amendment to the 1860 Act, and I should have thought that to ban the sale of out-of-season stag carcases would come more appropriately under Food and Drugs legislation, or even in the Protection of Consumers Bill—if we ever see that measure again. It seems to me that you might be selling venison under false pretences if you sold stag venison out of season; and when people came to eat it, I am convinced that they would think they had been sold venison under false pretences. I hope, therefore, that my noble friends will desist in their efforts to add something on these lines to the Bill during the Committee stage.
My Lords, I am going to try to allow an extra long time between now and the Committee stage, so that the various interested parties can get together to sec whether they can agree on any other Amendments which might be incorporated in a strictly non-controversial Bill. I am delighted to hear that the Chairman of the Red Deer Commission is going to convene a meeting for the

315
purposes of discussing this matter. That is an excellent idea, but I feel that I should utter a note of warning now. Knowing how busy another place is, I think that, to have any hope of getting this Bill through, we must allow them three or four months, so that there is some chance of slipping in the Bill somewhere under the Ten Minute Rule. It is essential, therefore, that this Bill should leave your Lordships' House by Easter, and in these circumstances I feel that it would be impracticable to delay the
316
Committee stage later than the beginning of March. So any discussions which are to take place must, in my opinion, take place within the next six weeks. I hope, my Lords, that I have covered all the points which have been raised and that you will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.