Lords Sitting of 24 July 1967

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

USE OF CYCLAMATES IN FOOD
2.35 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 full information is being obtained from the United States of America, in connection with the investigations taking place in that country, about the adverse effects that appear to arise from the wider use of cyclamates for artificial sweetening, and what progress is being made in the United Kingdom in the consideration now being given to this subject.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I have no doubt that when the work which is being undertaken in the United States has been completed the results will be made available. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has received the Report of the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee, following their appraisal of the further toxicological data about cyclamates which had been submitted to him. He will announce his decision about the use of these before Parliament rises.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether it would be possible for a Statement to be made in this House at the same time as it is made in another place?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I hear a murmur from the Chief Whip that, "It all depends …". But if it is not possible I will certainly see that the noble
608
Lord receives this information in writing, and any other information that comes with it.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that further reply; but is it not desirable that other noble Lords also should be made aware of this statement which may be about to be made?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the reason why my noble friend said that "it depends …" is that it depends upon the day on which the Statement is made. If it is non-controversial it may well be taken on a Wednesday in the morning, in which case it has been found unnecessary to repeat it in your Lordships' House in the afternoon. But, clearly, if it is made on a weekday afternoon at 3.30 o'clock it will be repeated here as a normal event.

THE MIDDLE EAST: SINAI AS U.N. DISTRICT
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: 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 are giving consideration to the proposal to establish a United Nations District in Sinai.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the broad concepts behind the proposal to establish a United Nations District in Sinai—including, as I understand it, the establishment of a permanent United Nations presence in the area, the desirability of large-scale development, and also the tackling of the refugee problem—have been and are very much in the mind of Her Majesty's Government. We believe that progress on all these matters must be an integral part in any eventual long-term settlement in the Middle East.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I find an encouraging one. Would he not agree the Sinai Peninsula is admirably situated as an assembly point for a United Nations Constabulary and also for the development of desalination plants, and, in

609
addition, for the urgent problem of resettling refugees?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there is much force in what the right reverend Prelate says. Without answering specifically on the question of desalination plants and the refugee problem at this particular time, I would say that at the moment we, and all our friends in the United Nations, are preoccupied with the question of restoring a lasting peace to the area, and I am not sure that at this moment to inject into the argument the idea of establishing some new status for Sinai might not make the task more difficult. But certainly we will bear in mind what the right reverend Prelate has said.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, over the past few weeks quite a number of your Lordships—the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and others—have made constructive suggestions about solving this problem. Is the noble Lord aware that on every single occasion he has given stonewalling answers? There may be a reason. But may we take it that behind the scenes the Government are making constructive proposals and working for the settlement of this problem?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord may take it the Government are working hard and constructively for a solution to this problem, inside the United Nations and through other channels. I regret that he should find the answers the Government have made stonewalling, but I know he will agree that at a time like this, when the proposals which are being put forward and the negotiations which are being carried out are very delicate, it might not be helpful if we aired them all in your Lordships' House.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, what many people find so depressing is this continual harping on "a long-term solution". Of course there must be a long-term solution; but the noble Lord is surely aware that there is a great deal that could be done now in the short term to get things moving in regard to refugees, desalination and other feasibility studies.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course there is a great deal that can be
610
done, and is being done. Her Majesty's Government do contribute. The noble Lord mentioned the refugee problem. I think our record over the refugee problem is second to none in the world, and we will continue to do all the things he has asked us to do.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, could this be done without a new resolution? I presume there would have to be a new resolution in the Security Council. Would it not need to have the support of Russia?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if the noble Earl is referring back to the original Question regarding the establishment of some new status in Sinai, may I say that I think this would have to be a matte, for agreement in the United Nations. I am not yet clear whether it would have to be agreement in the Security Council, and therefore whether the veto of any member of the Security Council would arise. Certainly, if this problem came to be seriously discussed it would have to be agreed in the United Nations.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what people are discussing this at New York? Are discussions taking place without a blue print or plans before those discussing it?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, at the moment what is being discussed is the broad concept. There is, as I understand it, no detailed plan for this.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that there has been no progress at all in the field of disarmament, does not my noble friend think the time has arrived when priority should be given to a proposition of this kind, which might prove to be an alternative?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I have understood the drift of the noble Baroness's question. I think there has been some progress in disarmament over the past two and a half years: I hope so. If the noble Baroness is referring to arms control in the Middle East as an aspect of disarmament, an element of disarmament, I certainly agree with her that some form of multilateral international control over the supply of arms for the Middle East is a prerequisite for any lasting solution of the problem.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could not the noble Lord be a little more specific on the question of desalination raised by the right reverend Prelate? This is an extremely important matter on which the future of these countries depends.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that at the moment I cannot be more specific about the question of desalination, or desalinisation. In fact, it does not arise directly out of the original Question, which was concerned with the establishment of a United Nations District in Sinai. But this is another matter that Her Majesty's Government have in mind, and are discussing with our friends. But it would be wrong—indeed, it would be impossible—for me at the moment to go into any detail on those plans.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, ought not the Sinai desert first to be made habitable before any community is condemned to live in it? Could not the co-operation of the Israeli Government be obtained in this matter as they have had a great deal of experience in converting the Negev desert into habitable territory?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think we are now going rather wide of the original Question; but certainly anything that can be done to make the Sinai desert either habitable or into a base from which we can conduct future initiatives to settle this problem once and for all will be welcomed by Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that Scotland is right in the forefront in the design and manufacture of desalinisation plant?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that Britain is in the forefront in this matter.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Israelis themselves are now having a review, through a Commission of Inquiry, into the whole problem of refugees? Would it not be wise to await the result of this inquiry since no one else, none of the great Powers, has ever tried to do this?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we are aware that there is a study of this sort going on, and we shall await its out-
612
come with great interest. But I feel that there is still a great deal that we and the other countries of the world can do to help in the immediate problem of these wretched refugees in the Middle East.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that the policy of Her Majesty's Government on desalinisation is different from that of the last Government, of whom I asked not long ago what they were doing about it, and was told that the best thing I could do was to have my head examined?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I was not aware that the previous Government had a policy on desalinisation.

MRS. SANDRA HUTSON
2.47 p.m.
LORD SNOW: 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 why Mrs. Sandra Hutson, an American citizen who is a graduate with academic honours of Mills College, who has had substantial experience in teaching and in social work, and who wishes to devote herself to the teaching of maladjusted children in this country, has been refused recognition as a qualified teacher.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science accepts American graduates, if their degrees are comparable in character as well as standard to degrees obtained in the British Isles. The subjects which Mrs. Hutson studied for her degree of B.A. from Mills College were unfortunately too diffuse to be equated in character with a degree obtainable in the British Isles. This, of course, implies no reflection on the standard of Mills College. According to information which the Department has received, her teaching experience, all in the United States, amounts to a little over three years, including some supervised vacational work as a student teacher, two years assisting in a private nursery school, and one year teaching art in a home for unmarried mothers in San Franciso. Mrs. Hutson also claims one year of social work among delinquent youths.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer, but I must say that I find it profoundly unsatisfactory. I think that for any country to decide not only the standards of another country but the nature of its education is utterly preposterous. Is my noble friend aware that in fact an English graduate holding an old-style Cambridge degree would not by most of us be regarded as comparable in class with the holders of well-known American women's scholarships?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that he is probably better informed on this than I am. I would merely say that it is necessary, in considering the claims to qualified teacher status of people educated overseas, to be aware of what is required of our people, and the Department is, of course, constantly in contact with the American Universities in that connection.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that precisely the same answer, in almost precisely the same words, was given 12 years ago to another American graduate wishing to teach in this country, and that this case went on for four years before Sir Edward Boyle intervened personally? I have the correspondence here. At this rate, it seems to me that the Department of Education and Science will take 8,000 years— 2,000 times 4—to reach any reasonable solution of the equivalents of American degrees to ours. This is a long time.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will certainly see what I can do for the noble Lord. As he will be well aware, I have already talked to my right honourable friend on this matter. This is possibly cold comfort, but I am given to understand that the Department is able to accept the majority of United States graduates. However, I will pursue this further on behalf of the noble Lord. More I cannot promise at this stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government could not go into the matter a little further, since in this field surely the best qualifications are a sense of dedication and a vocation for the task, which I have reason to believe this lady possesses to the full?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am afraid that as an ex-teacher myself I could not agree entirely with the noble Lord. Vocation and feeling for the task, yes; but I think that nothing could be a complete substitute for training in this rather difficult field of operations.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether the question really concerns equivalence of degrees, or qualification as a teacher?—because the two things are not identical.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the two things are not identical, but, as the noble Lord will no doubt be aware, at the moment (I think I made this point earlier) in considering claims for qualified teacher status a degree of a British university is for the time being accepted for such status. Therefore, I think there is some reason behind Mrs. Hutson's making a claim on these grounds.

LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at approximately 3.30 p.m. I shall be making a Statement on family endowments.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
2.52 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I rise to say how glad I am that this Bill has reached the present stage. I do so because I should like to say a few words about this particular project. I must start by saying something about the history of the matter. There had been a feeling for a great many years that there was a need for some contact between one side and the other of the Thames in its lower reaches.

615
I believe that a shaft was even sunk vertically at Gravesend, but I think that was in regard to a railway. In the mid-'twenties a great deal of discussion, investigation and research went on about the construction of a tunnel and the place where it should be. It was finally decided that the best reach would be between the outskirts of Dartford, in Kent, and Thurrock, in Essex. At that time, there was a good deal of financial restriction, even more than there has been recently, and there was also the feeling that we had won the war which was going to end all wars, so that there was no great hurry about all these matters. So it was that the Act of 1930 authorised the construction of the tunnel which exists to-day.
The Ministry of Transport undertook to make a contribution to the cost, which was estimated at £2,900,000. There was also in that Act the usual time limit which is almost always inserted in such an Act. It read:
"If the tunnel is not completed within ten years from the passing of this Act then on the expiration of that period the powers by this Act granted to the councils"—
that is the county councils of Kent and Essex—
"for making and completing the tunnel shall cease."
That is a very usual clause in an Act of this nature and it applies to the Bill which we have before us to-day. To show something of the difference in outlook in those days, I would mention that that Act provided for the use in the tunnel of horse-drawn and steam-driven vehicles, a requirement which does not apply to-day.
Because there was no need for great speed, it was stated that the expenditure should be spread over a long period. Therefore the building of the roads approaching the tunnel and the work on the tunnel—investigation, and so on—were not done with any rapidity. The result was that by the time the Second World War started very little progress had been made. The pilot tunnel was through, and the shield, which is used to press forward and form the full tunnel, had moved a slight distance, but not very much. If what was coming had been realised, no doubt the tunnel would have been pushed through very rapidly and would have been of immense value during the war to
616
transport supplies and munitions through the tunnel to the Channel ports. But there it was. The tunnel could not possibly be made during the war, and therefore all operations ceased.
At the end of the war, operations got under way again; and, because of the time limit to which I referred a new Act had to be passed to authorise the carrying out of the work; and again the Kent and Essex County Councils were the responsible bodies, as they are to-day. That went on as each of the Acts expired; in the end there were six of them before the tunnel was opened in November, 1963—some 33 years after the original Act. The final Act was in 1962 and gave until 1965, so the work was completed with two years to spare.
To-day the two-way tunnel, one up and one down from North to South, is simply a two-way road. Already it is completely overwhelmed by the traffic. The present maximum capacity is estimated at about 33,000 vehicles; indications are that it will not be very long before it is 40,000. As roads are improved, motorways lead to this two-way tunnel, and it is quite easy to imagine the confusion and delay which takes place and which will continue to increase. One can imagine long queues of cars having to wait so long to go into a road half the width of the one they have just been using that the drivers will find some other way of getting across the river, perhaps by way of Blackwall Tunnel.
I pay special attention to this matter because it is obvious that to make this tunnel a reasonable way of crossing the river at this vital spot must mean the doubling of the carriageways. That is what this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will provide.
The Dartford Tunnel is sometimes compared with some of the other tunnels underneath rivers—the Clyde, the Mersey, and the Tyne. Those tunnels are in heavily furnished manufacturing centres, and they are required to keep industry going on both sides of the river. The Dartford Tunnel is quite different. It is true that there are some factories at each end, but the main feature of the tunnel is not local. As I say, during the war it might have transported munitions from the Midlands and Eastern England, and today it could transport vehicles and goods from those areas to areas South

617
of the river, to the Channel ports and the factories there. Therefore, it is extremely urgent to get this side-by-side tunnel finished without delay.
The important point is that, whereas the original tunnel received financial support from the Government, the finance for this side-by-side tunnel to double the capacity will be provided by the county councils of Kent and Essex. No Government help has been applied for. The experts say that it will take about four years to complete the construction work, about one year for the design work, and so on, but I hope that it may take less than that. But if this tunnel is put on the road waiting list there will be a very long delay. Indeed, the delay may be so great that the existing tunnel will almost fall out of use because it will take so long to pass through it.
Clause 19 provides for completion by 1977, which is too far ahead for the tunnel to be of real use. As the cost of the tunnel is to be borne by the two county councils and not by Government finance, it is hoped that this valuable work will not be put in the road "queue" waiting for sanction. The Ministry issued a report on this, which was considered when the Bill was before another place. The cost of the tunnel and the approach roads is estimated to be about £12·5 million, so authority would be required by the councils to establish loans to finance and carry out the work. The return which they would receive on those loans would be the fees charged to the users of the tunnel.
The Bill was promoted by the county councils named, and the Ministry made it clear that they would give it their blessing. But the councils hope that the Minister of Transport will agree to support an application to the Treasury for funds, and if that application is granted it should be possible to avoid a delay associated with this scheme being included in the road programme. It should stand by itself and avoid that delay and also the very heavy losses. I hope that the Minister will give this her blessing. I would end by saying that I hope this tunnel will be built under a single Act, instead
618
of under six Acts as in the case of its companion.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that the Promoters of this Bill will note carefully what the noble Marquess has said.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment to be printed.
MATRIMONIAL HOMES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
ADEN, PERIM AND KURIA MURIA ISLANDS BILL CIVIC AMENITIES BILL FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREATER LONDON PARKS AND OPEN SPACES) BILL
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee (on Re-commitment) read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Confirmation of Order in Schedule]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps I should remind the Committee that we have already started to discuss the Amendment to Clause 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—that is, after the word "Act" to insert "with the exception of article 17 of the order". We are now continuing this discussion.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has informed me that Her Majesty's Government are now willing to bring about the result that my Amendment is designed to achieve, but prefer to do it in rather different language. If my Amendment is withdrawn the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to move his manuscript Amendment. In those circumstances I hope that the Committee will give me leave to withdraw my own Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): I rise just to confirm all that the noble Lord has said, and to explain that since we are past the place in the Bill where my Amendment should come in I shall move it on Report stage which, in the new streamlined House of Lords, we should be reaching in about 30 seconds.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Amendments which I am moving will have exactly the same effect as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, last week. I am grateful to the noble Lord, who I know drafted his own Amendment in great haste, for agreeing to withdraw it; and I know he agrees that the Amendment I am now moving meets his point. If I may remind the House, the point is that in certain areas in the outer part of what is now Greater London the local authorities have powers to take up to one acre or one-eighth of the area of a park, whichever is the smaller, and use it for car parking. The Order which is annexed to the present Bill, as unamended, would confer these powers on all London borough councils, both Inner and Outer, and on the G.L.C. This proposal was made with the agreement of all parties concerned. A public advertisement was made, and no objections were received.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, criticised the proposal vigorously in the House last week, and I think I should be right in saying that the House in general agreed with his criticism. Once again, there has been no objection from the London authorities to the alternative procedure namely, that we should not confer these powers on those who do not now have them or to them being left in the hands of those few peripheral London authorities who already have them. The Government are therefore ready to meet the expressed feeling of the House, following the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, last week. I believe that this sort of care for our amenities and this sort of detailed attention to legislation is something that this House is particularly good at. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, after ("which") insert ("as amended").
In the Orders set out in the SCHEDULE, delete article 17.
Schedule 1, delete the entry relating to the Essex County Council Act 1952.
Schedule 2, delete the entries relating to the Sutton and Cheam Corporation Act 1951, the Middlesex County Council Act 1956, and Section 111 of the Croydon Corporation Act 1960.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for doing what he promised on the last occasion—that he would look into this matter, which has had this happy result. The Amendments which he has moved wholly achieve my object. In view of what he has said, let me say at once that I and those who share my views see all the difference in the world in powers being given by Act of Parliament after discussion, and powers being given under an Order which can be carried out without Parliament having any power whatsoever to interfere.
My Lords, the deletion of article 17 of the Order is therefore of the greatest importance. It is a matter of some interest that almost exactly six and a half years have elapsed since I last struck it out. I then struck it out of a Public Health Bill, and any noble Lord who is interested will find the debate, which took place on January 30, 1961, reported in Volume 228 of Hansard. On that occasion, I was supported by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend Lord Luke, who spoke on behalf of some of those societies outside that are very much concerned with the preservation of open spaces.
I do not wish to delay the House from proceeding to the important business before them. I merely want to convince them that the Amendment that I moved on the last occasion was, in my view, an Amendment of the greatest importance; and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having moved Amendments which carry out my intention.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41, having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
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, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANTARCTIC TREATY BILL
3.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I do not wish to detain the House on a matter upon which there has been so large a measure of agreement, both in this House and in the other place. However, there are two main points on which, if your Lordships will allow me, I should like to briefly.
I am sure your Lordships will welcome the recent announcement that the Government of the Netherlands have acceded to the Antarctic Treaty. As your Lordships will be aware, the Dutch have a distinguished record of exploration in the Arctic, but have not until quite recently taken much part in the Antarctic. In the closing years of the 16th century the courageous Dutch navigator, Wilhelm Barents, voyaged three times in search of a North-East Passage, and opened up what we now know as the Barents Sea, which is so important to our distant-water fishermen. For the last three years the Netherlands have participated in Antarctic research work in a joint expedition with Belgium, and I am sure that their accession can only strengthen the Treaty and the international co-operation under it.
Perhaps it may be of some interest if I remind your Lordships of the Governments which have signed this Treaty, to which the Netherlands is now added. These are the Governments of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
The other point I should like to mention concerns a phrase the interpretation of which is of some importance in the objects of this Bill. Under the Agreed Measures, all Antarctic fauna and flora are accorded a considerable measure of protection, but some species of animal and some areas of the Antarctic are specially protected, and in these cases the restrictions on issuing permits are more severe. The

623
Agreed Measures say that an individual of a specially protected species may be killed, or a specially protected area may be entered to carry out biological research, only if
"a compelling scientific purpose is to be served"
It is that phrase, "compelling scientific purpose" to which I wish to draw your attention. It is not an exact phrase and therefore it leaves a great deal of latitude for judgment which could result in differing practices by those responsible for issuing permits. The most obvious restriction imposed is that the purpose must be scientific and that all non-scientific purposes such as providing food for men or dogs are precluded. In relation to scientific purposes, it is reasonable to suppose that the purpose would be "compelling" if the required scientific information could not be gained in any way other than by the killing or capturing of individuals of a specially-protected species, and the same sort of thing would apply equally to a specially-protected area.
Let me take as an example the fur seal which is a specially-protected seal. Fur seals are slightly increasing in numbers following extensive slaughter and near-extermination twice in the 19th century. But relatively little work has been done on the general biology of this species. The most recent piece of research has been carried out by our own British Antarctic Survey. We still do not know enough about the breeding habits of this seal to predict with confidence what degree of interference would upset their natural ecology or endanger the existence of the species. Nor do we know much about the parasites of the fur seals which might be a means of introducing diseases in the species and transmitting it to other species. Research is therefore needed in all these facets of the biology of the fur seals which are specially protected. Where it can be shown that it is necessary to kill some seals for the purpose of such research and, ultimately, for the continued survival and propagation of the species, this, I understand, would be justified as a "compelling scientific reason".
If significant differences do arise in national practices as to how this phrase might be interpreted in any given case, there is a further check available. Article XII of the Agreed Measures calls
624
for the exchange of records of permits and
"statistics concerning the number of each species of native mammal or bird killed or captures in the Treaty Area.".
Under Article XII it would be open to any Treaty Power to raise at a consultative meeting differences of national practice in the issuance of permits if it was thought that these differences were contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Agreed Measures. So, it would seem as if this phrase was adequate for its purpose.
My Lords, I would like to close by putting the Bill and its intention into their international perspective. The Agreed Measures to which the Bill gives effect on behalf of British nationals, are much the most far-sighted and large-scale conservation measures for wild life that have ever operated over a large part of the world. In a field where dispute might be said to be the rule rather than the exception, the measures in the Bill have achieved a remarkable degree of agreement among the Governments concerned and, indeed, within this country. They have also been universally welcomed by scientists. In this context I am thankful that the Bill has received strong support in your Lordships' House and has passed through another place without amendment. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I will detain you only briefly, but on behalf of the Government I should like to say how pleased we are that this Bill is being passed into law. Once again, I am sure your Lordships will reflect with satisfaction on the stimulating and, at times, unusual nature of this House, that the Bill should be guided through its final stages by someone from the Bishops' Benches who was himself for three years a geologist in the Antarctic. It is somewhat interesting that most of his speech to-day was on biological subjects; but he was a distinguished geologist. I, too, should like to welcome on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the accession of the Netherlands to the Antarctic Treaty. As the right reverend Prelate made clear, they have played an important part in a joint Belgian expedition in the last few years; and this sort of co-operative

625
expedition is very typical of present-day proceedings in the Antarctic. The right reverend Prelate will recall other recent expeditions. There was the Anglo-Swedish and another nation (I cannot remember the third nation) who cooperated together. The Dutch have worked with the Belgians who have a very distinguished Antarctic record. It is interesting that the leader in Belgium to-day of Antarctic exploration is Gaston de Gerlache, who is the son of the great de Gerlache who was first active in the heroic days of exploration.
We hope that other countries will accede to the Treaty and will take part in this very exciting international scientific co-operation. We were interested in the right reverend Prelate's exegesis of the "compelling scientific purpose". Of course, this is not a precise phrase; but I think the strength of the Antarctic Treaty is the spirit in which the Agreed Measures are carried out. To make them too rigid would, I think, have endangered them. I do not think anyone can fail to notice the contrast between what takes place under this Bill and events in other parts of the world. This will enable the United Kingdom to continue to play its full part in the protection of Antarctic flora and fauna. It makes subject to our own law British observers and exchange scientists; and that is as it should be.
It is worth while to recall, very briefly, the developments when explorers like Scott and my father first went to the Antarctic. They went for two reasons, perhaps three: there was some element of personal glory, certainly the glory of their country and there were scientific reasons. I do not think the glory of their work, or the glory that will come, has been diminished by the fact that we are now continuing these affairs on a more international basis. We accept this development. But there has always been in British Antarctic exploration—as indeed in our exploration in all parts of the world—a strong scientific purpose. The great Royal Navy expeditions—like those of Ross and Captain Scott and since—have always had this strong scientific purpose. So, whatever the heroic side, there was the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for mankind.
This will continue. The British Antarctic Survey will continue to do their
626
work. We should certainly pay tribute to those who, like the right reverend Prelate, play a part. There will still be opportunities, both for scientists and for those who wish for adventure; and, in an age when so many people think adventure has gone, it is interesting to note that probably more expeditions are going out from the Royal Geographical Society than ever before in the history of this country. They have certain advantages. An R.A.F. expedition has just come back from the Canadian Arctic where, in two months, in territory where I had originally been, they did twenty times as much work as we were able to do in 15 months. It only remains for me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on the elegant way in which he has piloted this Bill through, and also Sir Clive Bossom who did the same in the other place.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
3.30 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 9:
Purchase price and costs of enfranchisement, and tenant's right to withdraw
9.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the price payable for a house and premises on a conveyance under section 8 above shall be the amount which at the relevant time the house and premises, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise on the following assumptions:—
(a) on the assumption that the vendor was selling for an estate in fee simple, but subject to the tenancy, and if the tenancy has not been extended under this Part of this Act, on the assumption that it was to be so extended;
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment paves the way for the next one, so it might be a good thing if I said what the second Amendment is about. Amendment No. 2 is to remove a doubt about the meaning of this clause, this being the clause which provides that the price paid by the leaseholder for the freehold is to be the open market value of the freehold interest on the property subject to a 50-year extension. There might have been a doubt whether this value

627
should be taken as being diminished by the leaseholder's very right to enfranchisement at all, thus constituting a vicious circle. I do not expect that the Lands Tribunal would have accepted that, but they presumably might just have done. That is the reason for my putting down the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("but").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. I do not suppose it will make very much difference to the valuations which are eventually arrived at, but it is, at any rate, something that the seller, who is indirectly described in the Bill as a willing seller, should not be, even by implication, an obligatory seller. The change that this pair of Amendments appears to me to make is to establish beyond doubt as between valuers, and for the information of the Lands Tribunal, that the seller is genuinely a willing seller; and that the requirements in the Bill which would oblige him in certain circumstances to grant the request for enfranchisement are not to be taken into account in settling the value.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, after ("tenancy") insert ("but on the assumption that this Part of this Act conferred no right to acquire the freehold").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN moved, in subsection (1)(a), after the first "tenancy", to insert:
"; and on the assumption that, during the period commencing on the date 25 years before the original term date, or at the relevant time (whichever is the later), and ending on the original term date, the rent payable under the tenancy was to be the letting value at the commencement of that period ascertained in accordance with section 15(2)(a) below;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment in my name on the Paper. Clause 9 lists a number of assumptions which are to be made in calculating the price of the freehold in compulsory enfranchisement, and the purpose of this Amendment is to add one
628
other assumption. It is an extremely simple one, namely, a review of the ground rent in the present lease. I have taken an interest in this Bill from the start and accompanied by the Bursars of two of our Cambridge colleges, have been on a deputation to the Minister in the other House on the subject. We take a very great interest in this Bill. My Amendment is, however, of a general character, applying to all freeholders. All I ask for, in simple terms, is a rent review in the present lease. In detail, the assumption is that the ground rent was to be the current market value of the site, either from an effective date 25 years before the end of the present lease, or with effect from the time when the leaseholder gives notice of his desire to acquire the freehold, if that time is less than 25 years.
The reasons for the Amendment are extremely good ones. I have here the White Paper, Leasehold Reform in England and Wales. Clause 1 of the Bill, in addition to the White Paper, states that the compulsory sales of freehold will be on "fair terms"—those are the exact words—and the sole object of this Amendment is to try to create fair terms as between freeholder and leaseholder. For example, paragraph 4 of the White Paper says:
"… the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder."
Paragraph 11 states:
"The price of enfranchisement must be calculated in accordance with the principle that in equity the bricks and mortar belong to the qualified leaseholder and the land to the landlord."
All I am seeking to achieve by this Amendment is to make the circumstances for the landlord a little more fair than they are in the Bill as it stands at present, and to ensure that in fact fair terms are carried out by the Bill.
Since the start of the existing midterm lease, values would have risen considerably—both the value of the land and the value of the bricks and mortar. The leaseholder in the mid-term lease—I do not mean a 999 year lease but anything up to 99 years—will have benefited fully from this rise in values. The freeholder has received no benefit whatsoever. His ground rent is still the original figure of, for example, £10 a year, whereas the current ground rent of the plot may

629
be £100. There may have been various other additional factors known as the "marriage value" for short. Under the Bill, however, the freeholder of a midterm lease would get a very unreasonable price for his land, and this is an attempt, by amending Clause 9, to affect the enfranchisement price.
Some will say that the freeholder has granted a long lease at a low fixed rent and must suffer the consequences. The short answer to that objection is that it postulates an intolerably one-sided approach. The Bill proposes to nullify completely one of the most vital provisions of the lease in the freeholder's favour—his right to the bricks and mortar. That is the principle upon which the Government's policy is based and I am ready to accept it. But if we accept that, equity must not be one-sided. Equity demands fair treatment for both sides. If the chief benefit for the freeholder is to be swept away, equity demands that the Bill must also sweep away the chief drawback for the freeholder. If the calculation of the enfranchisement price is to ignore the reversion of the bricks and mortar, it must also ignore the freeholder's obligation to go on letting the land at a low fixed rent. We must review the whole lease and not just that part which it suits the tenant to tear up.
No reasonable person, familiar with property investment, would nowadays regard it as fair for a freeholder to be forced to let a site for, say, 99 years where his return was to be only a fixed ground rent. In the past the quid pro quo for the fixed rent was the ultimate reversion of the house erected by the lessee. Now that reversion is to be abolished and the freeholder is to be left with only the land. So the enfranchisement price for the land must, in my opinion, be based on the assumption that the present lease contains a rent review. That is the object of the Amendment. It must not be unduly depressed by the substantial unexpired term at a low fixed rent. The Bill itself recognises the necessity for rent reviews in the new 50-year extension leases, and this only serves to emphasise the inequity of Clause 9(1) regarding the enfranchisement price where,
630
without this Amendment, there would be no rent review.
It is plainly unjust for this enfranchisement price to be depressed by the capitalisation of a new derisory ground rent which was fixed for a very long period without regard to changes in the value of money. A building lease is a two-sided bargain where the two sides are intimately related. It is patently unjust to make a part change in one side without adjusting the other, and the obvious adjustment is a rent review. That, then, is the purpose of the Amendment which I am moving, and I take for example a typical mid-term lease, not of 999 years but of 99 years or less.
As regards the effect of this Amendment, it will be simply to give the landlord a price for the sale of his freehold rather closer to the current value of the land with which he is parting. This is not an extreme Amendment. In no case will it lead to a price higher than the current value of the land and in many cases the price which it produces will still be far far below the current value of the land. I have tested it against some properties that have come to my attention. This appears to be the result. For example, in one of the properties that I have examined the price might be one-fifth of the site value, instead of one-tenth. Can the Minister, or indeed anyone, maintain that in the sale of a freehold on fair terms it is unreasonable for the lessee to pay one-fifth of the value of the land which he acquires, leaving aside altogether the bricks and mortar?
I maintain that this is an Amendment which is according to the spirit of the White Paper and according to the spirit of the Bill and I hope that it will be pressed to a conclusion. I wish to emphasise that the Amendment does not give the freeholder any part of the value of the bricks and mortar. It seeks merely to give him a larger share of the value of the land, which the White Paper repeatedly tells us is his, and it does so by means of assuming a rent review, a conception which is itself drawn from the proposal of the Government for extended leases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, after "tenancy" insert the said words.—(Lord Butler of Saffron Walden.)

FAMILY ALLOWANCES, SCHOOL MEALS AND WELFARE MILK
3.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio in another place. It is as follows:
"The problem of family poverty is complex and there is no simple or single solution to it; nor can poverty be removed overnight. Our attack on it must therefore have many aspects and include long-term as well as short-term plans. Our immediate intentions are as follows:
"In April, 1968, we shall increase the existing family allowance by 7s. for second and subsequent children. But we intend to give help before the winter to the large families, who are those most in need. Therefore from the end of October next 5s. of this 7s. will be paid for fourth and subsequent children. There are about one million such children in 609,000 families.
"The cost of the increase in family allowances, net of tax and other adjustments, will be about £83 million in a full year. Such a sum could be raised in a number of ways. Since the purpose of the increase in family allowances is to improve the incomes of families in need, it would be logical, in considering how it should be paid for, to consider, among other things, some adjustment of the income tax allowances which affect families. It must be left to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose, at the right time and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, the method or methods by which the necessary revenue could be raised.
"We are much concerned that those entitled to school meals and welfare milk free often do not take up their entitlement. We shall arrange publicity campaigns to see that families are quite clear what they can get and how to get it. The arrangements are now being reviewed so as to make it easy for them to exercise their rights without embarassment.
632
"We shall be raising the income limits below which families can get free school meals and welfare milk in line with the recently announced increases in supplementary benefits. We shall improve our provision for large families by extending free school meals to the fourth and subsequent children in a family and free welfare milk to the third and subsequent children under five (including expectant mothers with two or more children under five). This will be in both cases regardless of income and will take effect next April.
"We feel bound to increase the charge for school meals and welfare milk for those who do not qualify for them free. The present charges were fixed in 1957 and the cost has since greatly increased. Continuation of the present level of charge involves a claim on our resources that can no longer be justified. We intend next April, therefore, to increase the charges for school meals by 6d. and for welfare milk by 2d. a pint. There will still be a substantial element of subsidy in these charges. The subsidy will be 1s. 1d. per meal at a net annual running cost of about £64 million. At the present retail price of milk the subsidy for welfare milk will cost about £35 million a year.
"The net saving resulting from the increased charges for school meals and welfare milk after taking account of the wider free provision for large families will be about £25 million. Thus the total net cost of the increases in family allowances and the charges in regard to meals and milk will be about £58 million a year.
"We recognise that these measures cannot alone solve the complex problem of family poverty. Rent and rates can bear heavily on families of low income. Our rate rebate scheme, which, like rent rebate schemes, applies to the person as distinct from the house, is of great help to the needy. We have also introduced generous new housing subsidies and we are encouraging local authorities to extend local rent rebate schemes so as to ensure that subsidies are used to give help to those who need it most.
"The relief of poverty is not however solely a matter of cash benefits to individuals. It is also a matter of social

633
capital, and it is necessary to tackle the poverty of the physical environment in which many children grow up. It was this which the Plowden Report had in mind when it spoke of educational priority areas. The Government propose to make a start on tackling this problem by allocating an extra £16 million over the next two years for schools in such areas on top of existing programmes. Additional funds will similarly be made available for Scotland."
That is the end of the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated that Statement, which is of great importance and which obviously will have to be looked at very closely. It seems to divide into two parts: those measures which will take effect soon and those which will not take effect until next April. First of all, there is the interim measure for an increase in the family allowance for the fourth and subsequent children of 5s. each from October. Am I right in thinking that this will be done by Order under the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill, which has not yet received the Royal Assent but will enter into effect very soon after the House has returned?
Secondly, there is the publicity that is to be given to the extension of free school meals to a higher proportion of those eligible for them than at present take them. Can the noble Lord say what proportion of eligible children do take school meals at the present time? Can he also say how far the method of collecting the amounts due for school meals is responsible for the fact that a great many children do not take them who are eligible?
On the wider aspects of the 6½ million children who are to get 7s. a week more from April next, am I right in supposing that this will be the subject of legislation or, at any rate, an Order under the Family Allowances Bill? If that is so, am I right in supposing that that would be the right time to debate the wider issues of help for families containing a large number of children, and where the resources coming in are small?
Finality, may I ask the noble Lord about the measure he announced of allocating an extra £16 million over the next
634
two years for schools in educational priority areas? Is that to come into force right away? Perhaps I have given the noble Lord enough to answer at the present time, but I have no doubt that a number of noble Lords will want to raise questions on this important Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am bound to say that perhaps the most important question the noble Lord has asked me, as a business manager, is how these matters will be dealt with, by Order or by legislation. This is the one piece of information that I have not with me. It may well be that the increases in the family allowances could be carried out under older legislation, but my guess is that that will be done under the Bill in which the noble Lord took such a prominent part some days ago. I will look into that question and give the noble Lord the information that I receive.
I am glad the noble Lord raised the problem of children and free meals, because this was one of the most worrying aspects for previous Ministers, and it has some bearing upon what one might call "means test" and "selectivity". I think the noble Lord himself drew attention to the fact that we have a system in our classes whereby school teachers collect money for a meal from one child, but because another child comes from a poorer family and comes in the exempted class, that child is not required to pay. Therefore we have in the classroom selectivity, class or fortune. I am sure the noble Lord is right when he says that this is utterly wrong, and that we should speedily remove this system. This is the reason why we have said in the Statement that we are going to review the manner in which these things are done, to see that families can exercise their rights without embarrassment.
I believe that over half of the children who are entitled to free meals do not get them, although perhaps a quarter of these are children who may go home. But what is increasingly worrying is that the proportion is higher where there are fatherless children, or children with fathers who are sick or unemployed. This is a matter with which we shall need to deal, because it is obviously in these families that the greatest need to help arises. I shall certainly see that the noble

635
Lord is provided with the information as to how these matters will be dealt with by Parliament.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches welcome the efforts to help those who are referred to in the Statement, and particularly those, if I may say so, who are to be the recipients of the increased family allowances, which were pioneered by such great people as Eleanor Rathbone and the late Lord Beveridge. But can it be right to bring forward proposals of this sort in a piecemeal fashion? We are told that there has been a complete review of public expenditure, and that it is still going on. Surely, we have the right to ask the Government for a comprehensive statement showing not only what we are going to spend by way of increased subsidies, but what cuts are going to be made, and the increased taxation that we are in for, so that we can see the whole picture. I suggest that the House cannot wait until the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings in his Budget next April to be told what is going on. Does this mean that there will be an Autumn Budget?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has gone rather wider than the Statement. But your Lordships' House is sometimes too generous, and we will forgive the noble Lord on this occasion. He will be aware that the review of public expenditure is a continuous review. We felt that it was right, before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess, that this Statement should be made, particularly taking into account that the early payments for those families in greater need will be made in October. It is for this reason that this Statement has been made in isolation. But I should have thought that on its merits it was entitled to stand on its own.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I would put it to the noble Lord that this is relevant, and it is wrong to come forward with additional expenditure of over £50 million, for however good a purpose, and to be told that we have to wait for many months until the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us how the money will be
636
raised. This is a wrong principle, and it is relevant to this Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that if I had been asked to make a Statement about family endowments, and I had said that it should wait for a general review of public expenditure, I should have been criticised from all quarters, because these people are in great need, and it is right that we should meet that need as soon as possible.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether his cost of £83 million for family allowances is before or after the Inland Revenue claw back their share?
LORD SHEPHERD: I believe it is net.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us on these Benches appreciate very much the action of the Government in taking immediate steps to deal with the poverty in these homes with children, and that we do not take the view that this review should be postponed until there has been a proper estimate made?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I welcome the support from behind me.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I, in fairness, tell the noble Lord that I did not suggest any postponement whatever. I asked that we should not wait for many months to be told how the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal with these matters. On consideration and examination of these figures, I think we shall discover that, taking into account the cost of living, which has gone up by 2s. 6d. a person since 1964, all that each child gets is about 2s. That is why we want to examine how the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with the matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we must be careful not to get into debate. If I may say so, I think that, between my noble friend Lord Brockway and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, we have placed ourselves in some difficulty at Question Time, in that there is a tendency for one side to keep on asking questions, placing noble Lords on my side, who

637
cannot catch the Minister's eye, at a disadvantage. I hope that we shall continue with a good arrangement across the Floor of the House.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the Statement is rather difficult to follow, but I hope that I have it right. I want to ask the noble Lord three questions. First, as to the cost of the meals, as I heard the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, he said that the saving would be £25 million, taking into consideration the number of children from the families with three or more children who were going to get meals free—and I am glad that this is going to happen. Therefore, there is no estimate for the amount of money that will be lost—and I use the word "lost" in a technical sense—to the Exchequer when the means test is altered. This is going to be an extremely difficult thing to do. And the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as I understood him, put the teachers on notice that they will not in future have to collect this money. We should all have liked to relieve the teachers of this particular—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with very great deference, I hope—
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think I might be allowed to put this argument. This is very serious. I am dealing with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. Indeed, we have all tried to find ways to relieve the teacher. My question is: Has this reason of the means test been decided without knowing what is the exact machinery for implementing it? If so, that is very serious. That is my first question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Viscount that he was making a statement, and that therefore, in so far as anything is ever a little irregular in this House, what he was doing was not quite in the usual form?
LORD REA: My Lords, is it not a tradition of this House that if two noble Lords rise to their feet and one does not sit down, then both should sit down?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I was trying to help the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, because this is a very serious
638
matter, which will get into circulation: that possibly the teachers are going to be relieved. So I am asking him whether that is so. My second point concerns the £16 million for schools in the backward areas. I am very glad indeed that this money has been allocated. May I ask whether it is only for primary schools, or is it, as I hope, for both primary and secondary schools? Secondly, is it intended for minor works as well as for reconstruction? I hope that it is for minor works as well as for reconstruction.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the first supplementary question which the noble Viscount asked, the net cost for the meals service will be some £72 million. In regard to the question of the teachers' being relieved of collecting for the meals, I think the noble Viscount went a little beyond what I said. What I was agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was that one must try to find a way in which children of families in need should receive those things to which they are entitled; and the fact that at present embarrassment is caused to families in taking free meals, because under the existing system it is quite clear that the child is receiving a free meal, means that we must find a way of replacing the existing system.
In regard to the £16 million, I am afraid that at this stage I cannot say whether it is to apply to primary schools, but as the Plowden Report is specifically referred to I believe that that will be the case. But I should not at this stage wish to be specific.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it will undoubtedly, apply to primary schools, because of the Plowden Report; but will it also apply to secondary schools?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I could not be definite on that point at this moment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I he very virtuous and ask what is really a question? Are we to understand that there is to be no change in the system of providing school milk?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is going to be extended. More children will come into this group, because we shall be raising the qualifications that flow from the rise in the supplementary benefits.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
4.4 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, reverting to the Leasehold Reform Bill and the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, one can have—indeed I have—the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord's intention to get closer to the Government's stated aim of fairness as between freeholder and leaseholder, while yet seeing certain disadvantages in how this Amendment would actually work out on the ground. It is effectively the same as an Amendment which was put down by the Opposition on Report stage in the House of Commons, and it is an Amendment which tends a little to the advantage of the freeholder and the disadvantage of the leaseholder—not that that necessarily makes it fall outside the concept of fairness which the Government are seeking to achieve.
What would happen if this Amendment were law? I think that what would happen would be that the leaseholder who is in a position to hang on to the very end, to wait until the existing lease falls in, would simply put off enfranchisement until the very last years of the term, because he would sit it out at his existing low ground rent. I am not at all sure that this would be to anybody's advantage. Indeed, it might conceivably, from the landlord's point of view, be even worse, since he would be kept in suspense longer than might otherwise have been the case: and when it came to the end he would receive very little, if indeed any, more than he would under the Bill as it now stands.
Now consider the leaseholder not in a position to wait, who wants to part with his house immediately in order to go somewhere else and take another job, he being an industrially mobile citizen. He could get round the situation under the noble Lord's Amendment by taking his extended lease and thereby getting a saleable asset. He sells his extended lease, and the next leaseholder, whoever occupies that house under the extended lease—who would continue to be at the original ground rent until the original term date, since this Amendment does not apply to extended leases—would defer enfranchisement until as near the original
640
term date as he could. I feel bound to say that what would count would be the ability of the parties concerned to manoeuvre to the best advantage, rather than the basic facts of the case; and that is the reason for which the Government are not too happy about the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am glad that the Government recognise that this Amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, does not impair the general principles of the Government's White Paper. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, and I took his point that leaseholders who were in a position to do so might well put off enfranchising until the end of the lease. Of course, if they did so, that might not be disadvantageous to the landlord, because in the enfranchisement terms the landlord would not long have to bear what I can only call the burden of this long lease at a ground rent which had been originally fixed without any knowledge of the Government's proposals.
I am quite sure that a solution needs to be found—and it may be that only the Government can find it—for the gross unfairness which follows when a tenant desires to take advantage of the enfranchisement provisions of the Bill, even though the lease has run only a comparatively few years. The Government must surely recognise the difference between the two cases which I am going to outline. First, there is the case where the lease has run for nearly the whole period of 99 years, or whatever it may be, and the landlord has been receiving what he bargained for: the ground rent over that period. What he is deprived of by this Bill is his interest in the bricks and mortar towards the end of the lease. But he will be able to claim in the enfranchisement price the benefit of an almost immediate substantial improvement in the ground rent. He will not have hanging round his neck a period of many years at a low ground rent, and therefore the enfranchisement price will not be kept down by that fact.
The other type of ground landlord, the one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, has in mind, is in a wholly different position. He granted the lease relatively recently. He granted it on the assumption that at the end of

641
the 99 years, or whatever it might be, the bricks and mortar would revert to him and therefore he was content with a low ground rent over the whole period of 99 years. But in this case the Government are intervening in the bargain at a much earlier stage and they are saying that the property in the bricks and mortar is to be transferred to the leaseholder but that the freeholder is still to be burdened, in the price which he receives on enfranchisement, with the expectation of a many years' lease at a low ground rent.
It seems quite unfair to treat those two ground landlords in just the same way. It seems grossly unfair that when, by this Bill, the Government are upsetting the terms of the original contract at an early stage, they should take no account of the grave loss they are going to cause thereby to the ground landlord. He would not have dreamt of granting a lease at a low ground rent for a long period of years if, at an early stage, it was to be interfered with by this enfranchisement legislation. He is in quite a different position from the ground landlord where the original lease granted nearly 99 years ago has almost run out, and the enfranchisement price therefore will only have to take into account a relatively short term of years at the low ground rent.
The Government know my opinions on the objects of this Bill. I stated them in quite clear terms at Second Reading. But here we are discussing an Amendment which is within the general principles of the Bill—principles to which I deeply object but which, for the purposes of this debate, we are accepting. By some means such as this Amendment it would be possible to do a greater degree of justice and yet carry out entirely the Government's plan. The noble Lord suggested one or two difficulties which might arise. No doubt that is so, but those difficulties could be overcome by giving further thought to all the implications of this Amendment and, possibly, by further consequential Amendments elsewhere, which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, could hardly have been expected to prepare, not having all the resources of the Government and of Parliamentary draftsmen. I stress most strongly that in the Bill there is an in-
642
justice here, and if the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, desires to press this Amendment I, for one, will support him.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I do not think I have any alternative but to press this to a conclusion. As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has said, this is within the spirit, not only of the White Paper, but also of the terms of Clause 1 and other clauses of the Bill. Moreover, I do not think the case put forward by the Minister was at all a convincing one. In the great majority of cases, for example, it will not matter at all to the freeholder if the leaseholder delays enfranchising until nearly the end of the lease. The freeholder will at any rate be quite sure of getting the full value of his land—or a better value—because there will be virtually no deferment of the modern ground rent. So I do not think that objection is a very powerful one. Leaving aside that particular objection, as this is the only way we can see of getting a fairer enfranchisement price within the terms of the Bill itself, I think the only thing to do is to reach a conclusion on this matter to see whether we can amend the Bill.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before we come to any decision about this clause I should like to take up the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on his two cases with which he made such effective play a moment or two ago. It seemed to me that his second case—that is the one of the newly issued lease, where the leaseholder has been there only a few years—is not likely to be affected by the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, because this will bite only on the last 25 years of any lease. The leaseholder will have had to be there for five years in order to enfranchise at all. I do not know how many leases are issued for a period of 30 years or less these days. I should have thought rather few, and moreover, since we are considering recently issued leases a recently created ground rent is not likely to be very low and this, too, affects the dramatic contrast drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, between his case (a) and case (b), if I may so call them.

643
Having said that, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, that if he would consider withdrawing this Amendment to-day we shall have another "shot" at this Bill in October, on Third Reading, when it can still be amended in this House. I will undertake to look at it again, but in the usual form of words I must say that I do so without any commitment to being able to introduce something which would meet the point.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if I may speak again, of course I appreciate that if a lease has run only six years any increase in the ground rent for the last 25 years will still be a long way ahead. But in the kind of example I was giving I was thinking of the lease which was, perhaps, getting on for halfway through its term. I think the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, has been modest in the request that he has made. He might not have said 25 years; he might have said the midway term of the lease.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, the Minister has made a generous suggestion. However, I think it would probably be better to reach a conclusion on this Amendment, and then we can still look at it again when we come back in the autumn. I think it would be better to try to amend the Bill now, but at the same time I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for the courteous suggestion he has made. Whatever decision we reach about this Amendment this afternoon, it has been considered by a great many legal luminaries in this country, not only those in another place. I have had it examined very carefully indeed to see its effect, and I believe it would be better to reach an agreement on this now and then consider the matter again in the autumn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not at all sure that what the noble Lord proposes in his Amendment should be done, but I am quite certain that the way in which he seeks to achieve this effect is not a good way. That being so, if the noble
644
Lord does press it to a Division I must advise the House to vote against it.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, before we proceed to a Division or not to a Division, may I say that I regard this as a rather remarkable and somewhat obvious manœuvre. It appears that noble Lords opposite desire at all costs to have a Division at a convenient hour of the day, and for that reason they are adopting a course which I should have thought would discourage any Government from ever offering to look at anything at all. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, talk about justice and injustice, and I came rapidly to the conclusion, perhaps too rapidly, that his view of what was just was anything that helped the freeholder, and that what was unjust was anything that helped the leaseholder, and I still remain of that opinion. I do not think there is any principle here at all. I think this is simply a question of how much, a matter of degree, as between the two parties to the lease. In a case of that kind it seems to me simply asking for trouble to refuse an offer by the Government to look at the matter again.
What is the object of it? The object, I suppose, is simply to waste the time of another place—and they are very short of time at the moment. I can see no other object. If this is pressed to a Division it will obviously go back to another place and we shall see what happens there. I do not know whether or not the offer to look at it again will be repeated elsewhere. All I can say is that if I were the Minister in charge, and having regard to the position of the elected and this non-elected Chamber, in a question of this kind I should not repeat the offer which has been made here.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not think Lord Mitchison's intervention has helped the proceedings of this House one little bit. My reading of the situation is that if we put some words in the Bill, which admittedly are not very good words, it will mean, at any rate, that the Government will come forward with their own Amendment on Third Reading to elucidate the matter properly.
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, in subsection (1)(c), to leave out "section 10" and insert:
"sections 10 and, where appropriate, (covenants transferring landlord's liability for common facilities) below".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who much regrets that he is unable to
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mar, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Margadale, L.

Airedale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Albemarle, E.

Dudley, L.

Meston, L.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundonald, E.

Monsell, V.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Monson, L.

Atholl, D.

Effingham, E.

Moynihan, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Bathurst, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Bessborough, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Rea, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Redmayne, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gage, V.

St. Helens, L.

Buckton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Butler of Saffron Walden, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Byers, L.

Hawke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carrington, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandys, L.

Colgrain, L.

Inchyra, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jessel, L.

Strang, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strange, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lambert, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

Latymer, L.

Teynham, L.

Croft, L.

Lothian, M.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wolverton L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Royle, L.

Gifford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Samuel, V.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Bowles, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Latham, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Darwen, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Faringdon, L

Phillips, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor)

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

be present to-day. If it is convenient to the House, I would suggest that we consider at the same time Amendment No. 11, which is also in my noble friend's name, and for which Amendment No. 4 is a paving Amendment.
Amendment No. 4 arises out of an Amendment which I moved at the Committee Stage, the object of which was to deal with the case where the landlord is providing communal facilities that are enjoyed by a number of leaseholders on his estate when these leaseholders exercise their right to enfranchisement. Your

647
Lordships will recollect the problem that when a number of them have enfranchised the landlord will be left with a number of communal facilities, be they gardens, trees, streets or sewers, which he will have no incentive to maintain. The Amendment that I moved on the last stage sought to put an obligation on the local authorities in such cases to undertake the provision of these facilities; but as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, there were certain difficulties and objections to this course
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the desirable thing was that the person who had enfranchised, and who would be benefiting, should be the person to carry the responsibility. He went on to say that there is no effective means of passing on the burden of positive covenants from the vendor to the purchaser. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross mentioned last time that he thought he could recollect a precedent for the making of positive covenants. This occurs, in fact, in Clause 9 of the Manchester Corporation Act 1965, and it is because of this provision that he has put down the main Amendment here, Amendment No. 11, for a new clause suggesting covenants transferring the landlord's liability for common facilities.
I think the proposed new clause is fairly straightforward and self-explanatory. The first subsection outlines the circumstances in which positive covenants may be included in an enfranchising conveyance. The second and third subsections are the mechanics for the way in which the covenant transfers to the enfranchised person a pro rata amount of the landlord's provision. If one imagines a number of houses sharing a garden, when each householder enfranchises the enfranchising leaseholder takes on a proportionate obligation for the upkeep of the common garden.
Subsection (4) provides that the covenant shall be enforceable by the other enfranchising tenants, and by the landlord, where he has some interests left, against a defaulting enfranchised leaseholder and his successors. In other words, if, after the landlord has shared out the maintenance of the garden among the various householders, one of them fails to keep up the covenant, the landlord, if he is still interested in property on the
648
estate, or the other enfranchising leaseholders have a right against him or his successors. Subsection (5) outlines the conditions in which the covenant is enforceable. Subsection (6) sets out the method by which the covenant can be enforced. My noble friend has made it as simple as possible, in that the other parties concerned may enter upon the land, perform the covenant and then later recover the expense of so doing. Subsection (7) introduces the need for registration of the covenant under the Land Charges Act.
This seems to me a fairly straightforward clause. It meets a point that has already been agreed. The Minister in another place accepted that there was here a difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in this House intimated that he would favourably consider any kind of solution that would put the burden on the enfranchising tenants, and I believe that my noble friend's clause achieves this objective in a fairly sensible and straightforward way. As I have already said, the Amendment which we are at present considering, No. 4, is a paving Amendment. If the new clause is inserted this Amendment will permit, in computing the price that the enfranchising leaseholder has to pay, an allowance against the obligation that he will have under this new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("section 10") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Aberdare.)
4.40 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord earlier, I am very happy to discuss Amendment No. 11 under this paving Amendment No. 4. The new clause of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is, as I myself can see and as I am informed by those who are better qualified to judge than I am, extremely ingenious and carefully drafted, as one would expect from the noble Viscount. But at the end of the day I am advised that the clause would not really improve the situation which, as the House knows, the Government are probably as concerned about as the noble Viscount. It is possible to provide for the continuance of common services under a Clause 19 scheme which is something tailor-made for a particular area precisely defined by a map, and which

649
contains detailed provision for maintenance and closely related default powers, but it is not possible to secure this objective by covenants which, in the nature of things, have perforce to be rather vaguely expressed.
The new clause assumes that the landlord will already be under covenant to his leaseholders to provide and maintain the common services; and it provides for each leaseholder to take over this liability so far as it affects his house on enfranchisement. But this, unfortunately, is a situation which will hardly ever arise, because landlords very rarely enter into any covenants with their leaseholders beyond the standard one of "quiet enjoyment". In nearly all cases where the landlord provides common services the lease merely binds the leaseholder to pay the freeholder, in addition to the ground rent, a rateable proportion of the cost that the landlord incurs in providing these services—but without imposing any liability on the landlord to provide or maintain the services. Consequently, this clause could practically never be invoked.
Another difficulty which the Government see is that in so far as the clause seeks to impose on the leaseholder sometimes a liability to "provide" common services as distinct from maintaining them, this permits of another loophole. I am sorry to be going into such detail on the drafting, but this is an intensely carefully drafted new clause and I think that I owe it to the House to take it up in detail. Assume that the landlord were under a liability to provide, let us say, a recreation ground—unlikely as the example may be—how could the liability to provide it be transferred to the enfranchising leaseholders? In any case, bearing in mind that the leaseholder may on enfranchisement redevelop his property as he pleases (subject only to planning permission), it seems most improbable that a covenant even to maintain a recreation ground in perpetuity could ever be made to work. I use an extremely unlikely case of a recreation ground, but it points up the difficulty in a dramatic light.
In practice the only person who can maintain a property is the owner or some body specially empowered for the purpose, and this is precisely what is contemplated
650
under Clause 19 of the Bill. The individual participation of a large number of unorganised freeholders should properly take the form of a money contribution to the person who undertakes the maintenance, but this new clause envisages maintenance direct, not payments for maintenance. It does so because of its fundamental idea of transfer ring a liability, or a share in a liability, without transforming it. Some leaseholders would no doubt decline to enter into such covenants but would nevertheless continue to enjoy the common services But without the new clause there is nothing to prevent the leaseholder and the landlord from entering into a personal agreement for the leaseholder to take over responsibility for certain of the landlord's services which were previously provided by him under covenant. The only difficulty standing in the way of that free personal agreement is the one which we discussed at such great length in Committee: that is, that as the law now stands such an arrangement would not "run with the land" so as to be enforceable against the leaseholder's successors in title but would fall with the passage from the present leaseholder or enfranchised freeholder to the next one.
This, however, is a very temporary disadvantage, because a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Wilberforce Report is very likely to be introduced in the near future, and when it comes into effect any such agreement entered into between the freeholder and the leaseholder will take effect as a "land obligation" and will run with the land from that leaseholder to his successor in title. So that in so far as the noble Viscount's clause is inspired by the defect in the law as it stands—and I believe it is largely inspired by that—it is hardly necessary to make complicated and special provision in this Bill to overcome it, even when that special provision is drafted with as much care and ingenuity as the noble Viscount has brought to it.
4.46 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful, and I know that my noble friend will be grateful, for the care with which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has considered this clause and for the kind words he said about its ingenuity. But there are still difficulties. I am sorry that we

651
have not got a little further because, although there are points of drafting, I am sure that these could be quite easily got over. Where it is a matter of "providing" rather than "maintaining", I am sure that this is only a matter of drafting; and if it could be a matter of financial contributions, I am sure that we do not intend leaseholders to go out and cut the lawn or anything of that kind. The idea is that they would all contribute towards the upkeep of the communal garden. There are certainly cases where this difficulty will arise which will not be covered under Clause 19 schemes and which will apply only to certain defined, well-managed estates.
What my noble friend was seeking to do was to try to put in the Bill something in the way of positive covenants which would anticipate what might later emerge from the Wilberforce Report and which could later be modified in the light of the Wilberforce Report. But until that Report arrives, I think it was in my noble friend's mind to put into the Bill a sensible clause which would allow for positive covenants which would thereby enable a landlord to share out among his enfranchising tenants some of these communal facilities. I hope that we can have more talks about the situation. I know that the Government are anxious to put it right. I urge on them that there might well be a solution through this form of positive covenant, and I hope that they will be able to talk to my noble friend when he returns and it may be that we can get somewhere at another stage.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws or otherwise his Amendment, may I say that I am not sure that the noble Lord is right about the Wilberforce Report. He said, "Until we get the Wilberforce Report". We have got it; it is published. It is there and it has been considered. All we have to wait for now is the legislation based upon it, which I have every confidence will not be too long delayed. Lastly, neither of us has mentioned the fact that the noble Viscount has been in direct touch with the Parliamentary draftsman about this matter, and the difficulty which faces the Government in accepting this Amendment is twofold: first, that it simply does not seem to us
652
to be worth while to go such a long way round to achieve the effect for such a short time as we hope the situation will be uncovered; and, secondly that the best legal advice available to the Government is that this new clause, despite its ingenuity, is in the end defective, not only on minor points of drafting but also a little more completely than that.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for the correction about the Wilberforce Report, and I hope my noble friend will be able to see what the Minister has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.50 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that the price payable shall in no case be less than the open market value of the site (without including anything for the value of the buildings on the site) at the date of enfranchisement, subject to the tenancy then existing."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in very much the same terms as an Amendment which was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and later withdrawn after some discussion about its possible ambiguity. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is not able to be here to-day, and it seemed to me desirable that I should keep the matter open on his behalf, as there is a further stage of the Bill coming after the Recess, and as he withdrew the Amendment, as Hansard shows, on an invitation from the Government to withdraw it and to meet and discuss. I am not aware whether those discussions have taken place, but this is an important matter and I feel it is desirable that the House should return to it.
The Government know my opinion on the main proposal in the Bill for settling the enfranchisement terms; that is, that the interest in the bricks and mortar should be taken away from the landlord. This Amendment, however, is drafted in terms which I should have thought represented exactly what the Government by a roundabout method were trying to do in the Bill. The reason why I think we should further consider it—and, so far as I know, one of the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, put down an Amendment of similar effect in Committee—is that he and I both have some

653
doubts as to whether the roundabout and indirect manner in which the Bill is drafted to achieve the Government's purpose will in fact work out unfairly to the landlord, and will fail to give effect to what the Government have stated in their White Paper they mean to do.
As I understand it, Clause 9 is drafted so that although it appears to include the value of the house and premises, that value is to be effectually excluded by the provisions in subsection (1)(a) of that clause which say:
"… if the tenancy has not been extended under this Part of this Act, on the assumption that it was to be so extended".
If the tenancy has, in fact, been so extended, there is of course no need for the assumption to be made, because it is a fact. I take it that the Government are advised by their valuers that the extension of the tenancy by a further 50 years will in practice eliminate the value of the bricks and mortar, which will already have been there for a considerable time before the 50 years started, and therefore their present value assuming another 50 years is nugatory. That may be so, but I have seen some evidence that the formula which the Bill provides may not in all circumstances give to the landlord what my Amendment specifies. My Amendment says that
"… the price payable shall in no case be less than the open market value of the site (without including anything for the value of the buildings on the site) at the date of enfranchisement, subject to the tenancy then existing.)".
That is perfectly clear. I do not mind the Government having the words which are in the Bill now, as long as this proviso is inserted as a long-stop to ensure that the landlord never gets less than the White Paper says he is to get.
I am not a surveyor or a valuer, but the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is a man of immense experience in this field, and he, for his part, was clearly not satisfied at the Committee stage that the Bill was protecting the landlord's interest in the way the White Paper claimed it would. It seems to me that no harm whatever could be done by including this proviso; that it would make considerably clearer how the enfranchisement price was to be fixed; and that it would put beyond all doubt that the purpose of the White
654
Paper was achieved in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 2, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is not able to be with us to-day. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, he had down an Amendment at Committee stage which was very similar to this and he agreed to withdraw it when I said, not that the Government might be able to reconsider it but that I myself was in confusion about its meaning at that time. So I invited him during the Committee stage to come and discuss it with me later. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has not been free to come and discuss the matter with me, but I have written to him, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will have seen my letter. But I think that, for the information of the House, I should go just a little into the detailed background of this matter.
The point is that the words:
"without including anything for the value of the buildings on the site",
as used in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, come to the same thing as adding the 50 years' extension. But where there is development value as well, the proviso fails to give the desired result of the value of the site for the house alone plus development value. What it gives is these values plus something more (I see the noble Lord is smiling; it may be that I should explain that I meant "the result desired by the Government", for development value is the worth of the site to do things with, after making due allowance for getting the tenant out. If the tenant could be got out for nothing, then the proviso would work. But under the Bill the tenant has to be compensated for being got out and this fact cannot be ignored, as otherwise the development value would vary according to whether the tenant chose the extension or the enfranchisement.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that he was determined that the landlord would never get less than the White Paper said he would get, and that that was the purpose of the Amendment. But I am informed that the

655
Amendment would give him more than the White Paper said he should get. There are three values are there not? There is the value of the site for its present use; there is the value of the bricks and mortar, and there may or not be development value over and above. The White Paper made it very plain that the freeholder should receive compensation for the value of the site and for development value, in the cases where there was any, but not for the bricks and mortar value. My Lords, where there is no development value, this Amendment is all right in accordance with the White Paper. Where there is development value, it is not all right, because I am informed that its effect would be to make the enfranchising leaseholder pay to the freeholder not only the site value and development value, but also an element of the bricks and mortar value. For that reason the Amendment is in conflict with the principles laid down in the White Paper.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has the advantage of all his officials and the Parliamentary draftsmen in explaining to him, if he needs any explanation, exactly what these Amendments would mean in relation to the wording of the Bill. By his last few words I am thrown back to the same difficulty I was in when we discussed this point in Committee. I find it so extraordinarily hard to understand how the words
"without including anything for the Value of the buildings on the site"
can, according to him, in certain cases include something for the value of the buildings on the site. I wonder whether it would be possible, as we now have another two months or so before this Bill reaches its final stages, for us to meet, perhaps with the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, who is also interested in this, to try to see whether we can thresh it out. It is extremely difficult for me, on the Floor of the House, to follow a complex explanation in a matter in which I am not professionally qualified, as the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is. I am bound to say that my Amendment seems to me to say exactly what I always thought the White Paper was trying to say, and that the wording of the Bill seems an unnecessary complexity, which therefore, not unnaturally,
656
raises my suspicions that it may mean that people would not in fact get in all cases what they had been led by the White Paper to expect they would get.
I think it would be a mistake for me, in these circumstances, to press this Amendment to-day. We have advanced in one respect beyond where we were on the Committee stage, in that the Government said then that there was an element of ambiguity in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and that has not been said to me to-day. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will agree to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, if he so wishes, and with me. Through some mischance, I have not received a copy of the letter he mentioned, which I have no doubt is on its way to me, so I am handicapped in that respect. But if the noble Lord will be good enough to say that he is willing to discuss the technical details of all this in circumstances when we can do so at greater length and with less difficulty than on the Floor of the House, I will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, is the position this: that when the Minister offers to consider an Amendment we have a Division, but when the Opposition invite the Minister to consider an Amendment, and he agrees, we do not have a Division?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, of course I shall be happy to discuss this matter with the noble Lord at our leisure during the summer. If I might just run over the history again, I invited the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, to come and discuss it at the last stage. He was, I was informed, too busy to do so. I regret that. I have not invited the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to come and discuss it, but I will do so if he will be so kind as to withdraw the Amendment. I hope that we shall thereafter soon finish with this point. At the time of our last discussion, as I said, I was myself confused about the effect of this Amendment. I am no longer confused, having had full professional advice; and I believe that when the noble Lord comes to see me he will find that the position is as I said it was.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(5A) Where under a lease executed to give effect to this section the new tenancy takes effect subject to a subsisting charge on the existing tenancy, and at the time of its execution the person having the charge is by reason thereof entitled to possession of the documents of title relating to the existing tenancy, then he shall be similarly entitled to possession of the documents of title relating to the new tenancy and the tenant shall within one month of the execution of the lease deliver it to him, and the instrument creating or evidencing the charge shall apply in the event of the tenant failing to deliver the lease in accordance with this subsection as if the obligation to do so were included in the terms of the charge as set out in that instrument."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to meet a point raised by the Building Societies Association. They were worried lest a leaseholder whose lease was subject to a mortgage might obtain an extended lease without the mortgagee being brought into the matter at all, and fail to hand over the new lease, which the Bill states is to be "in substitution for" the existing lease, to the mortgagee. This could make for difficulty if the mortgagee subsequently had to foreclose or sell the house. The new subsection which I now propose makes it clear that whenever a mortgagee has possession of the title deeds relating to the original tenancy he is also to be entitled to the deeds relating to the new tenancy, and the new subsection imposes on the leaseholder a duty to hand over the new lease to the mortgagee within one month of its being executed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Terms of tenancy to be granted on extension]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, and perhaps I may speak to the two subsequent Amendments at the same time, Nos. 8 and 9. All these three Amendments are consequential on an Amendment to Clause 15(2)(b) which was agreed to in Committee, and it seems right that, the provisions in paragraph (b) having been altered, the remainder of the clause should be brought in line. I trust
658
that the consequential Amendments are correctly drafted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 19, leave out ("either") and insert ("each").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I rise simply to say that the Government accept these Amendments on the "no commitment" basis.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("by") and insert ("equally by the landlord and").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 24, leave out ("of the twenty-five,") and insert ("year of any period of ten").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Retention of management powers for general benefit of neighbourhood]:
5.8 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (8)(a), to leave out "regulating the redevelopment" and insert:
"empowering any person or body of persons specified under the scheme to redevelop, and for regulating the".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 19, agreed on both sides of the House to be of exceptional importance. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, who cannot be here to-day, moved to leave out Clause 19 and to substitute a new clause which he had drafted, part of the purpose of which was to secure opportunity for the redevelopment of well-managed estates or parts thereof by stopping enfranchisement on estates which had received a certificate of good management. He, for his part, at the end of a considerable debate, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment for two reasons: first, because he said he was confident that, having heard the debate, the Government would in fact have another look at many of these difficult

659
problems; and, secondly, because he did not wish to be found with a badly drafted Amendment which had been carried.
My Lords, this is the penultimate stage of the Bill, and we may have to settle the final shape of Clause 19 in your Lordships' House on Third Reading, after the Recess. It seemed to me, in the absence of Lord Silsoe, that it would be a mistake for me to put down again at this stage another Amendment or a new clause similar to his, partly because this is not the last stage of the Bill but largely because it still seems to me extremely important that the House should have a real answer to the principal question which I asked in Committee when we were dealing with this clause. That question is to find out what the Government mean by their references in the Bill to regulating redevelopment.
If your Lordships will look at Clause 19(1) you will see that the Minister may grant a certificate that it is "likely to be in the general interest that the landlord should retain powers of management", et cetera,
"in order to maintain adequate standards of appearance and amenity and regulate development in the area in the event of tenants acquiring the landlord's interest in their house and premises under this Part of this Act."
We have not yet been able to elicit from the Government what they have in mind by the words:
"regulate redevelopment in the area in the event of tenants acquiring the landlord's interest in their house and premises under this Part of this Act".
Two pages further on, still the middle of this lengthy clause, we come to the same phrase again. Subsection (8) reads:
"Without prejudice to any other provision of this section, a scheme under it may provide for all or any of the following matters:—

(a) for regulating the redevelopment, use or appearance of property of which tenant has acquired the landlord's interest under this Part of this Act;"

I hope I have made clear from the beginning that in relation to Clause 19 it is the aspect of redevelopment which seems to me to be outstandingly important in the national interest. We all have a fair knowledge of which are the well-managed estates. Many of us could mention one or two, and there would be unanimous agreement about them. At
660
some stage in the past—sometimes in the long past—those estates were strikingly and laudably developed. I should have thought that there was no question whatever about its being in the national interest that when the bricks and mortar are due for redevelopment, the redevelopment should take place to the same high standard. I ought not to have spoken of "bricks and mortar" being due for redevelopment; because redevelopment is much more than a matter of renewing bricks and mortar. One may have to change the layout or the whole town-planning concept. This is something which, in my submission, has to have a single purpose behind it. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, said in our last debate:
"There are a great deal of redevelopments which can be done properly only comprehensively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1217; 12/7/67.]
In the previous column, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet himself spoke of areas where the ownership had been fragmented, and went on to say:
"When the plan for redevelopment came, they have been reassembled, in some cases—it all depends on the circumstances—into larger freeholds, and thus we have seen some of the best redevelopments in this country."
I cannot help thinking that the Government have in mind under Clause 19 that the kind of scheme which might be submitted for approval by the High Court would in some way provide for this high-quality redevelopment envisaged in those passages where I have quoted both noble Lords. But there is no indication whatever in Clause 19 how this is to happen. The questions I asked last time—and I admit that I asked them without previous notice—received not very comprehensive replies, if I may use the word "comprehensive" in this context. These words which I desire to amend:
"for regulating the redevelopment, use or appearance of property of which tenants have acquired the landlord's interest"
clearly are intended, one would think, to cover redevelopment, use and appearance alike. But in most of our debates, and in most of the discussions on Clause 19 and the schemes under Clause 19, the Government's concept seems to be that a scheme can be made to maintain the look of the estate for the limited period which the estate still has to last. Clearly, its life must end at some time. There

661
does not appear to be any effective plan for regulating the redevelopment.
I do not know at this stage whether I should wish to put down a further Amendment to Clause 19 on Third Reading. Still less have I any idea whether Lord Silsoe would wish to do so—I have not had an opportunity of consulting him about his intentions when he can attend your Lordships' House again. But it would help me greatly, and, I submit, it would help the whole House, if the Government could say something more about how they envisage the content of schemes under Clause 19. If they are simply to be schemes to maintain the look of well-managed estates, that is not enough for me. If they are schemes that are really to be effective towards securing wise and far-sighted redevelopment of a quality equal to that which went into the original development, then this clause assumes a new importance. But I am anxious about this matter because I do not think a comprehensive answer was given to these questions on the last occasion and because I find it extremely difficult to see from anything in this Bill how a scheme can successfully regulate the redevelopment of an area which has been avowedly well-managed but which has afterwards, equally avowedly, been fragmented. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 20, leave out ("regulating the redevelopment") and insert ("empowering any person or body of persons specified under the scheme to redevelop, and for regulating the").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
5.19 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I want to say only that it seems to me that what we have to look at here is the language of the Bill itself. This is not really a question of Government intentions; it is much more a question of landlord's intentions. If the noble Lord would look back at the heading to these three clauses, Clauses 17, 18, and 19, he will find it is "Landlord's overriding rights". It is the landlord (or, in an Amendment introduced, a body of tenants) who has to make the scheme; that is to say, it is the people on the spot. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and his friends think that this has been very well done on a good number of occasions, in a good many cases by
662
London landlords. I would not differ from that; I think it has in a number of cases, though we could argue about it. That being so, what is the real difficulty? What is the effect of this Amendment? I cannot imagine wider words than "regulating the redevelopment" of an area—
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I hoped that I had made clear in my speech that I was not proposing to press this Amendment. It is a probing Amendment. But the noble Lord himself has not explained how the landlord who, he says, is the operative person, can himself regulate the redevelopment of an area where he will no longer possess the freehold.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not want to hold back the Minister. He is "raring" (I think that is the word) to speak. All I wish to say about this is that if you look at Clause 19 as a whole you will see that the motive power in this matter is the landlord, or the body of tenants. The Minister has a controlling power and certain conditions have to be fulfilled, and the purpose of the exercise has to be, among other things, to regulate redevelopment. I have looked at the Amendment; it substitutes for the words "regulating the development" other words which seem to me to narrow, rather than to widen, the effect of the clause. Having said that, and in view of the obvious wishes of the Minister, I will sit down.
5.22 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that he hoped the schemes under Clause 19 would cover use, appearance and redevelopment alike. I must apologise for not having been sufficiently comprehensive last time, but I would confirm what my right honourable friend said: I hope so, too. I imagine that the meaning of the words "regulate the redevelopment" is intended to be to say (of course I must be careful here not to trespass on the functions of the courts, because the courts will be coming in all the time on the schemes) how new development is to be done; whether the new building is to be a 90-storey hotel, or a two-storey house like the ones beside it, or whether it is to have a flat roof or gables, and so on. To "regulate the development" will be simply to say

663
what the new development will be and what it will be like. What, of course, it does not mean is what this clause is not intended to do (and I think it would be most unlikely the Government could ever accept any Amendment which made it do so); that is, to enable a freeholder to withhold enfranchisement on the grounds of getting more watertight control over redevelopment. This would be going too far, in my judgment, and I hope that, having said that, I have, within the bounds of Parliamentary propriety, satisfied the noble Lord in his quest for definitions.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I hope that some agreement can be reached on this point. We laymen become accustomed to hearing a great number of things which defy intelligibility. If there are these estates which are to be fragmented, one wishes to know how the fragmented part is to be brought into the redevelopment scheme. We are told that these are the landlord's rights, but these fragmented parts will not be under the landlord's control, and somehow they have to be brought in. I hope that the noble Lord and my noble friend will manage to get this process made more clear than at present it seems to be.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sincerely puzzled by the noble Lord's sincere puzzlement. This is precisely what the scheme will do: this is what it is for. Presumably the landlord and the former tenants, together in agreement, or, if not, then one party (or, since the recent Amendment, the other party) without the agreement of the other, having got the Minister's certificate, will go to the court and say, "We want an agreement which will control the following sorts of things." Among the sorts of things may or may not be the height of new development; the shape of the roof of new development; the colour of new development; the material of new development. It will be up to them to propose to the court, and up to the court, in the event of disagreement between the parties to the scheme, to adjudicate between them.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I believe that as mover of the Amendment I have the right of reply. I am afraid that I am not at all satisfied with what the noble Lord has said. He
664
suggested that the scheme would say how the new development is to be done. I can understand a scheme saying that certain things are not to be done, but unless there is some central control there will not be a comprehensive scheme of redevelopment. I have had some experience in the planning world—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I did not say that the scheme would settle how redevelopment was to be done. I should imagine that it would be more in the nature of defining what aspects of the new development would be subject to the scheme. I cannot imagine a scheme saying, if a new block was to be built there: "The block shall look like this." I can imagine a scheme which would say, "The appearance of a new block, as defined in such and such a way, shall be subject to the scheme."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I took down the noble Lord's words, and what I took down was that the scheme would say how new development is to be done. What is troubling me is this: that though you can, by a scheme, or by planning legislation, or otherwise, prevent various things from being done, you can secure that a comprehensive plan will be carried out only if somebody has some unified control over that. May I give an example from another field, with regard to the control of high buildings? You can, by planning control, ensure that high buildings will not be in certain positions and will not break the skyline at certain points. But you cannot, unless there is unified control, ensure that there will be a high building erected at point A or B or C. That will depend on the owner of that particular plot of land.
As I see it, what the Government are likely to achieve by this clause is that when a well-managed estate is broken up, a scheme may be agreed by the High Court to forbid certain types of redevelopment. But I cannot see how that scheme can ensure that simultaneous redevelopment of high quality is to take place, if the area in question is then owned by a number of different individuals, some of whom do not wish, or are not able, to redevelop when the rest of the redevelopment is going forward.

665
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is saying on behalf of the Government that this, the securing of far-sighted unified redevelopment, is less important than enabling the existing leaseholders to secure their capital gains on their houses. He is saying that what he cannot contemplate is any interference with enfranchisement, and on these well-managed estates enfranchisement means capital gains to the leaseholders. I am saying that before we legislate to provide for these untaxed capital gains to individuals who hold leases on these well-managed estates, we should consider carefully what we are sacrificing. It appears to me that we are sacrificing the ultimate opportunity of comprehensive, wise and far-sighted redevelopment of the quality which we had in the original development. This is why I have been pressing the Government. Certainly up till now I have not seen any way in which this redevelopment can be secured except on the lines of the earlier clause of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, which would stop enfranchisement in these areas. There may be some other way, but I have not yet discovered it.
Frankly, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, who obviously attached a great deal of importance to what can or cannot be done under Clause 19, will be no more convinced by the Government's answer than I have been. I can only hope that in the next two or three months it will be brought home to the Government that the eventual comprehensive redevelopment of these well managed estates or parts of them is an object of high priority in the national interest, and that Clause 19, whatever form it takes, should be so drafted that it will contribute towards that and not militate against it. Having said that, I repeat that this was a probing Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Agreements excluding or modifying rights of tenant]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment and the next are consequential to an Amendment which we carried to Clause 14. They also make drafting corrections with which I need not trouble the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 41, at beginning insert ("section 14(5) and (5A) above and,").—(Lord Kennel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 42, leave out ("section 14(5) above").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Retention on resumption of land required for public purposes]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is put down to honour the undertaking given by my noble friend the Leader of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who was moving an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, about the word "shortly". If I remember rightly, the Amendment on Committee proposed seven years "or such time as the Minister may determine".
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, it referred to seven years, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House thought that ten was better.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Amendment before the House has ten because that is precedented in earlier legislation. Unless the noble Lord has a special reason for preferring seven, I will not detain the House but simply say that I am glad to have been able to meet him at any rate so far. I hope that three years will not stand between us. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 40, leave out ("shortly") and insert ("in ten years or less").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I never seek to move a manuscript Amendment without apologising to the House. I hope that your Lordships will feel that in this case there is some excuse for doing it in this way. This is an Amendment which will more effectively achieve the purpose which I was seeking to achieve in Committee by an Amendment to subsection (6) of Clause 28. The Government were good enough to say that they thought the point was a valid one, and that they would look into

667
it further and see whether a more successful Amendment could be drafted.
The point is that under the Bill as it stands the advantages of Clause 28 may be lost if part of the land is to be redeveloped under the auspices of a local authority by a private developer. In certain cases it is agreed to be desirable that that should be done, and it would be a pity if the law were to forbid it. When I said "under the auspices of a local authority", what I meant was that a local authority might, as part of a comprehensive redevelopment scheme, make land available for private development. It is that which would be frustrated by the Bill as it stands.
The Government were good enough to accept my first Amendment in principle, though not in wording, and to help with the correct drafting of this Amendment. It was only the fact that I did not receive the correct drafting in time to get it on to the Marshalled List, that has led me to venture to move it as a manuscript Amendment. I understood that the Government were friendly to it, and I thought that, assuming that the Amendment were to be inserted in the Bill it would be convenient to all concerned if it could be inserted at this stage and not on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 37, leave out ("so that") and insert ("in relation to a local authority includes any development to be undertaken, whether or not by that authority, in order to secure the development or re-development of an area defined by a development plan as an area of comprehensive development.
However—").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am only sorry that in seeking to do a courtesy to the noble Lord by sending him this Amendment rather than put it down myself, I have inadvertently caused him to do an apparent discourtesy to the House by sending it to him too late to put on the Marshalled List. I apologise both to him and to the House and support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Modification of right to possession under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954]:
5.38 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to leave out subsection (1) The noble
668
Lord said: My Lords, I cannot see the point of subsection (1). It seems to undo something which was done by the 1954 Act. In justice to all concerned, I want to submit to your Lordships that that should remain the law. The subsection refers back to Sections 12 and 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which deal with the grounds on which a landlord may apply to the court for a resumption of possession. Some of those grounds are much in line with the circumstances justifying a court making an order for possession under the Rent Acts. But there is in Section 12 of the Act a further ground on which the landlord may apply to the court for possession—that is, if for the purpose of redevelopment after the termination of a tenancy the landlord proposes to demolish or reconstruct the whole or a substantial part of the relevant premises.
If this Bill goes through there will be three possibilities for the leaseholder: he may enfranchise under this Bill; he may seek an extended lease under this Bill; or he may, under the 1954 Act, exercise his existing option to seek a new tenancy on rack-rent terms. It is that last option that we are discussing at the moment, because under Section 1 of the 1954 Act the tenant has given to him a right to a new tenancy, and it is only in circumstances mentioned in Sections 12 and 13 that he may not be able to exercise that right.
Why, because the tenant is being given two new options under this Bill, should any part of the landlord's rights under the 1954 Act be taken away from him? The tenant is not bound to exercise the option under the 1954 Act. He has now made available to him under this Bill two extra options which may well be even more attractive to him. Why should not the 1954 Act be left entirely unchanged in this respect? I am not aware that the Government have offered any explanation, certainly any convincing explanation, why the balance in the 1954 Act should be altered, and my purpose in moving this Amendment is to say to your Lordships that in this respect it appears to me that it would be right that the 1954 Act should remain unamended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 28, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Bill as it is before the House is really a tidying up operation in the general statutory protection given to tenants. The noble Lord said that he does not see why the 1954 Act should not stay as it is. The short answer to that is that the Government do not think the 1954 Act was right in this respect. There was an anomaly in it, in that rack-rent tenants were protected by the 1954 Act in a manner familiar to all noble Lords, and leaseholders at the end of their lease were not. It is as simple as this: that the Government thought this Leasehold Reform Bill the obvious opportunity to correct that anomaly.
The noble Lord said that at the end of his lease the leaseholder had two different options which might be more attractive: presumably, to enfranchise, or to take out the new 50-year lease. But there will be some leaseholders who cannot enfranchise, for one reason or another, particularly those who have not been there long enough, who come in at the fag-end, and it seemed to the Government that they ought to have the same protection as ordinary rack-rent tenants at the end of the arrangements. What we are doing is to take this opportunity of protecting leaseholders in the same way as other tenants are already protected by the 1954 Act.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot understand the noble Lord's argument. He has first of all spoken about the 1954 Act provisions as though they would apply to rack-rent tenants. The 1954 Act provisions apply to cases where a long lease is reaching its termination, and the Act says that at the end of a long lease a tenant may normally obtain a new tenancy on rack-rent terms, save in certain particular cases. One of these cases is the one that is mentioned here. First of all, this is nothing to do with security for the ordinary tenant under the Rent Acts. We are talking about the man who is a leaseholder under a lease.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes too far into the point, perhaps I can save time by saying that I was being completely muddle-headed. I should have not said that the rack-rent tenant is protected by the 1954 Act. He is protected by the Rent Acts in
670
general, and what we are seeking to do in this Bill is to give the leaseholder a protection equivalent to that which rack-rent tenants obtain from the Rent Acts in general. I apologise to your Lordships for the error.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. We appear now to be talking solely about somebody who has acquired the fag-end of a lease—and very much the fag-end, because if he has been in occupation for five years he will be able to take advantage of an extended lease, even if he cannot afford to enfranchise. Is it really right that we should make special new provision in this Bill for somebody who has bought less than five years of the fag-end of a lease? I cannot see that that case is made out. It is wholly different from the normal case we are considering, of the person who has been a leaseholder for a considerable time and remained in occupation. It is to his benefit that this Bill is directed. Now we are coming to somebody of a quite different character. He may have acquired just the very last few months of a lease, and he is to be enabled now to frustrate redevelopment which might otherwise have been imminent. I really think that I must press this Amendment unless the noble Lord has a more convincing reply to make as to why we should go out of our way in this Bill to amend the 1954 Act in this respect.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, since I am to have the pleasure of a discussion with the noble Lord during the Recess, in any case, may I suggest to him that if he would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment on this occasion we could add this subsection to the agenda for that day?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. His previous offer of that kind to another noble Lord was not so successful, but this time it will be. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the one that we have just approved, replacing

671
"shortly" by "in ten years or less". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 41, leave out ("that ground is established") and insert ("the property is so required").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

REDUNDANCY FUND (ADVANCES OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND) ORDER 1967
5.50 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. The effect of the Order is to increase the borrowing powers of the Redundancy Fund under Section 35 of the Redundancy Payments Act from the present limit of £8 million to £12 mllion for a period of twelve months beginning on August 15, 1967.
I would remind your Lordships that the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 provides for lump sum compensation to workers who lose their jobs through redundancy. The compensation is related to earnings, age and length of service, and is designed to make adequate financial provision for the loss of security which redundancy entails, by way, for example, of loss of seniority and promotion prospects, expenses of moving to a new job, and so on. The Redundancy Fund set up under the Act is financed by contributions from employers, the contributions being collected weekly by the Ministry of Social Security as part of employers' social security payments. Thus, in effect, the Fund consists of employers' money and is administered on their behalf by the Minister of Labour. When employment is terminated through redundancy the employer pays to the worker the amount due to him according to the provisions of the Act, and claims what is called a "rebate" from the Redundancy Fund. The amount of this rebate, which is paid to the employer by the Ministry of Labour, is, on average, about three-quarters of the total paid by the employer to the redundant worker. Such, my Lords, in very brief outline, is the redundancy payments scheme.
Since December 6, 1965, when the Act came into force, about £40 million has
672
been paid out of the Redundancy Fund—and, in addition, employers themselves have paid out about £14 million, representing the 25 per cent. of the redundancy payments which they cannot reclaim from the Fund. The Fund's income from employers' contributions has been about £35 million. The deficit has been met, as is provided by the Act, by temporary loans from the Consolidated Fund. I should say, my Lords, that it was deliberately decided when the Fund was set up, in full consultation with industry, that the contributions to be paid by employers should be fixed so as to meet the expected outgoings from the Fund and not to build up a large credit balance.
Because during the second half of 1966 the money in the Fund was becoming exhausted, it was decided, again in full consultation with industry, to increase the employers' contribution from the original figure of 5d. per week for men, and 2d. per week for women. Your Lordships will recall that last November the House was asked to approve an increase to 10d. per week for men, and 5d. per week for women. These higher rates came into operation on February 6 this year.
The Government had originally intended to increase contributions to 1s. for men and 6d. for women, but in the light of views expressed by both sides of industry they decided in favour of the rates of 10d. and 5d., to which I have referred and which were expected to bring in £690,000 per week. It was expected also at that time that outgoings would average £650,000 a week until March of this year, and then decline gradually over the next twelve months during which an average weekly expenditure of £600,000 was expected. Since the new rates were introduced in February, average weekly outgoings have, in fact, reached £740,000, and borrowings from the Consolidated Fund have reached the figure of £5,300,000.
It will be appreciated that we are still in the early stages of a pioneer scheme which has had to operate in a period of abnormal economic conditions. It is therefore not surprising that it is proving difficult to forecast the expenditure of the Fund with any degree of accuracy. The fluctuation of expenditure from week to week is substantial and largely unpredictable.

673
The present Order has two purposes. Because borrowings from the Consolidated Fund are now within £2,700,000 of the total for which the Act at present provides, it is necessary to provide for any unforeseen contingencies which may arise during the next few months. Section 35 of the Act provides that the borrowing limit of £8 million may, with Parliamentary approval, be increased to a maximum of £20 million. While the Government do not expect the £8 million limit to be reached during the Recess, they must in all prudence provide some insurance against the unexpected. The second purpose of this Order is to allow time for the Government to gain more experience of the scheme and to assess more accurately the level of contributions required to meet the Fund's expenditure in the longer term.
It is, of course, by no means certain that an increase in contributions will prove to be necessary, but the money already borrowed has to be paid back within a reasonable period, for, apart from anything else, interest payments on money borrowed are themselves a charge on the Fund, and increase as the deficit increases. With these two considerations in mind, the Government are not asking for the maximum borrowing powers of £20 million permitted under the Act, but instead are limiting their request to £12 million for a period of 12 months only. I must nevertheless make it clear that in order to maintain payments on the scale and of the kind provided for under the scheme, some further increase in contributions may be unavoidable during 1968. It is the Government's intention to review the position with representatives of both sides of industry during the autumn. My Lords, this Order will provide the necessary time for the review of the finances of the Redundancy Fund to be carried out objectively, and in consultation with industry, and I therefore ask your Lordships' House to approve it.
Moved, That the Draft Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the Consolidated Fund) Order 1967, laid before the House on 13th July 1967, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1967
5.56 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON) rose to move, That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved. It might also be convenient to your Lordships if we took with this Scheme the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement)(Grants)(Amendment)Scheme. The rates of subsidy proposed in the Subsidies Scheme are based on the industry's costs and earnings during 1966 and early 1967. The inshore and herring fleet have continued to do reasonably well, so it is proposed that their subsidies be reduced by 7 per cent. The Scottish trawler fleet has also had a good year.
In the second half of 1966, however, the vessels fishing more distant waters from the Humber had hard times, and they are still suffering from the effects of these. The trawler fleet as a whole in England and Wales suffered a marked increase in costs, and a small decline in catches. As there was no corresponding increase in prices during that period, profits naturally declined. The main reason for this, of course, is the general weakness in the world fish market. Stocks of frozen fish have increased, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and this, coupled with increased landings of high quality inshore and near water fish, has weakened the demand for wet fish from farther afield. And then, on top of all this, of course demand has also fallen because of the warm weather we have had recently and are still having.
So, for all these reasons, my Lords, we propose that for the next six months we should pay the special subsidy set out in the Scheme to those classes of vessels which have been hardest hit. In addition, because of generally low profits of the trawler fleet as a whole, the 10 per cent, cut in basic subsidies, which had been announced earlier, will not take place. Instead, there will be a cut of 7½ per cent, for the next 12 months. This, as your Lordships may remember, is the minimum amount permitted by the Act of

675
1962. The net effect of these measures is to maintain for the next six months the existing level of support to the trawling industry. Special subsidies for the following six months will be determined later.
Now may I turn to the Fishing Vessels Scheme. I think there is very little that I need say about this Scheme, because it was mentioned not so long ago, when we had some discussions. This Scheme gives effect to our promise to increase by 5 per per cent. the rates of grant for investment in new fishing vessels and improvements paid for in 1967–68. Power to make this increase was, as your Lordships will remember, taken in the Fishing Vessel Grants Act which removed the previous maximum limits on the rates of grant. The Act was welcomed by your Lordships on both sides of the House, and in fact it became law on June 28. I am quite sure your Lordships will welcome this additional encouragement for the modernisation and improvement of the fishing fleet. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1967 be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for explaining to us the effect of these two Orders, and I apologise for not being in my place when he began. I recollect the Fishing Vessel Grants Act by which the scope for grants was increased by 5 per cent. This Order now implements that increase, and certainly I welcome that from the point of view of the fishing vessel fleets. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has anything further to say about the extremely important point which I raised at the time that Act was going through this House—that is, about the fish stocks themselves, and about the scope for further conservation methods by means of international conservation which might give a better assurance that the fish stocks would be adequate and that the rate of catching, which I suspect is now exceeding the rate of reproduction, would be effectively brought under control. I should like to hear from the noble Lord any statement that he can give to us about the prospects for progress in that field. I am sure that in the long term this is a
676
matter of immense importance, not only to this country but to every country of the world which has fishing fleets.
With regard to the rates of subsidy, to which the noble Lord referred, I took note that the existing level will continue for the first six months, and that for the second six months special measures will be announced later. Will the noble Lord be so good as to tell us when we may expect to hear what these special measures will be, when they will be announced and whether there will be further consultations with the fishing industry before these arrangements are finally settled? With those few observations and two queries I have much pleasure in supporting these Orders.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I briefly repeat a plea that I made on March 9 when a Scheme similar to the two now before your Lordships' House was being discussed? The second of the two Schemes now before the House is laid pursuant to no fewer than four recent Acts of Parliament: the White Fish and Herrings Industry Acts, 1953 and 1957, and the Sea Fish Industry Acts, 1959 and 1962. There would appear to be a need to consolidate into a single Act of Parliament this group of recent Acts dealing with this subject, and I think it is in order for me to say that the Special Orders Committee have twice in the course of their deliberations recently expressed the need for consolidation in this field.
When I raised the matter on March 9 the Minister was extremely sympathetic to the plea that I then made, but he pointed out that there was yet another Statute to be brought before the House dealing with this subject and that it would not be timely to proceed with consolidation until this further Statute had been passed. In due course the Fishing Vessel Grants Bill came before us, and was passed by this House on June 13 last. The event which the Minister on the former occasion foreshadowed now having come to pass, I hope that he will be even more sympathetic to the need for consolidation of this group of Acts into a single Act, and I hope he will now be able to say that he will make strong representations for a consolidating measure to be placed before Parliament.
6.6 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, there are three points for me to answer. First, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, concerning the conservation of fish stocks. I cannot do very much more than to assure him, as I did on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, that I am entirely in agreement with him about the great importance of this matter. There is an enormous need to get international agreement on it, and I assure the noble Lord that we are taking active steps—not, perhaps, with a great deal of publicity, but through the appropriate channels with the other countries concerned—in order to arrive at some effective and realistic measure of conserving fish stocks. I am glad the noble Lord mentioned it, because I am sure that it cannot be mentioned too often, and the more people like the noble Lord and others mention it, the greater impact it will have.
With regard to his second question, about the new arrangements that will be made for special subsidies for the next six months, an Order for that period will be made in January, 1968 (in other words, six months from now) and, of course, all the interested parties—the industry and those connected with the fishing industry—will be consulted in the usual way before that Order is laid and before a decision is taken on the form and amount of the subsidy.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has once again raised a point that he raised on a former occasion; and again I am pleased that he has done so, because I am entirely on his side in this matter. It will certainly be of great administrative convenience, if nothing else, if there can be a consolidation of this disparate group of Orders, Schemes, legislation, and all the rest of it. However, I would point out to him that there is a large mass of fishery legislation of this kind and it is a question of deciding which are the most important measures to deal with first and to consolidate. In fact three consolidation measures have been undertaken in the last year or so. The noble Lord will agree, I think, that this shows we are bearing this matter in mind, and not only thinking about it but acting upon it. I cannot give him any firm promise when the legislation concerning these Schemes will in fact be consolidated, but they have
678
taken their place in the queue and I can assure him that those which are the most urgent will be dealt with first.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1967
LORD WALSTON, My Lords, I beg to move that the last Order be approved.
Moved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1967, be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
Report by the Chairman of Committees, under Standing Order 92, that he is of opinion that the Bill should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill: Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to a Select Committee; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [H.L.] SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (No. 2) BILL PORT OF LONDON BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Fourth Report from the Committee made; to be printed, and ordered to lie on the Table.