Lords Sitting of 8 July 1968

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

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have lost count of the Departmental Committees about which they were asked on May 8.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government do not purport to keep any centralised count of all the Committees appointed by all the Government Departments. It has been explained to my noble friend that the cost of the research involved in providing a precise Answer to his somewhat widely drawn Question could not be justified.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if my noble friend, whom I would thank for his Answer, is referring to another Question on the Order Paper, he might put his Answer to that. On the other hand, do I understand him to be saying that he has never lost count because he has never kept count?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend hay grasped the situation perfectly.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Treasury or some other Department will assume the responsibility of keeping a list of Departmental Committees and keeping it up to date.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, such a list would serve no useful management function.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend again with particular warmth for the Answer he has given. May I ask whether it has occurred to him that it might impress Parliament to know how many Departmental Committees there are and what they are doing? These Departmental Committees cost money, and involve the expenditure of a certain amount of Civil Service time, all matters that Parliament is entitled to inquire into. In order to answer inquiries, would it not be advisable to keep a short list?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that it would be advisable to keep a short list, were that possible. But if the list chat is envisaged were to include all the Committees set up by all Departments it would not be a short one. The P.E.P. did some research on this, I think in 1951, and at that time it was found on their count that there were no fewer than 850 advisory committees alone. The list covered some 50 pages; there were 9,000 members, and, of course, so far as the Departments were concerned, all the Committees were necessary. I would say to my noble friend that if he could define his Question more closely and limit the scope along the lines suggested to him, for example, to committees of inquiry in a limited number of Departments, we should be happy to try to find the answer for him.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I say that I suggested a rather simplified version, and I asked the official I saw to take my suggestion away. He took it away, and I have heard no more since. What is the use of making suggestions if you never get an answer to them?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be even more useful if the Government kept some count of the number of Ministers?

TELEVISION COVERAGE IN THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS
2.40 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans there are for extending television coverage in the Highlands of Scotland, and whether the V.H.F. bands in those mountainous areas will be permanently retained.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I apologise for the length of this Answer. The extension of the population coverage attained by their television transmissions is primarily a matter for the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. The coverage attained by B.B.C. 1, transmitted on V.H.F. and on the 405-line definition standard, has virtually reached its practical limit. For the I.T.A.'s service, also transmitted on V.H.F. and 405 lines there is the prospect of a small extension of coverage.
B.B.C. 2, transmitted on U.H.F.—ultrahigh frequency—and 625 lines, will be brought into the Highlands by low-powered stations relaying the signal from the main stations; and, so far, main stations in the vicinity of the Highlands are in service or planned at Durris, Angus, Craigkelly, Dunbarton and Rosemarkie. It is too soon to say what the pattern of relay stations will be. The duplicate transmission of B.B.C. 1 and Independent Television, also on 625 lines, will use the B.B.C. 2 pattern of stations generally. Again, it is too soon to say what frequencies relay stations bringing the B.B.C. 2 and duplicate services to the Highlands would use. In announcing the decision to authorise the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to undertake the duplication on 625 lines of their 405-line services, the then Postmaster General said on February 15 last year that the 405-line transmissions on V.H.F. would continue to go out for as long as was reasonably necessary, and that might mean a number of years.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for his extensive Answer, which I much appreciate. At the same time, I should like to ask whether he is
640
aware that there is great worry among some people living in the very remote parts of the Highlands that when B.B.C. 1 is converted from V.H.F. 405 lines to U.H.F. 605 lines, they may no longer be able to receive it, as the U.H.F. lines will not bend to the same extent as the V.H.F. lines? Can the noble Lord give an assurance that the 405 lines service on V.H.F. will be kept going until the 625 lines service U.H.F. covers every single homestead which at the moment is able to receive the V.H.F. service.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Duke's question is that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are, of course, well aware that in general U.H.F. transmissions do not attain the same coverage as comparable V.H.F. transmissions. As I have said, it is too soon to say what relay stations will be needed and what frequencies will be used. Regarding the second part of the question, perhaps the noble Duke and I could have a word together afterwards with one of my advisers, because this matter is rather above my head.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, appreciate that, in common with him, it is rather above my head, too, and that I had to have a little tuition on this before I asked the Question?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Duke would meet me immediately after Questions.

NIGERIA: UNITED NATIONS AND AID TO BIAFRA
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what extent the United Nations and the World Health Organisation are co-operating in the bringing of food and medical aid to the Ibo region of Nigeria.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Nigeria is a member of the United Nations and any approaches the Nigerian Government may have made to the United Nations and

641
World Health Organisation on the question of relief is entirely a matter for them. The extent to which these and other organisations may take part in relief operations will, of course, be taken into account by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he reports to the British Government about the whole relief situation and the best way we ourselves can help.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the statement made last week by Mr. Heinrich Jaggi, the chief delegate of the International Red Cross, that unless a massive airlift of foodstuffs and drugs was carried to Biafra within the next two months perhaps two million people, mostly women and children, might die of starvation, should not the United Nations organise an international relief operation? If so, would Her Majesty's Government indicate to the General Secretary, Mr. U Thant, that if this operation were organised within the framework of the United Nations Charter Her Majesty's Government would give the United Nations their fullest co-operation in the matter, so as to avert what might well be a holocaust of deaths and human suffering?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, Nigeria is a member of the United Nations, and in the first instance it would be for them to approach the United Nations. I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that, if such an approach were mooted, the United Nations would be ready to respond.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend: is it not desirable that we should get above these legalistic considerations when 3,000 people are dying every day and one million people are expected to die in the next month? Is this not a world calamity and ought not the Security Council of the United Nations to be using both the World Health Organisation and the World Food Organisation to relieve it?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend intends to ask a Question later in the day. I beg him to remember that Nigeria is a sovereign country and we have to be very careful about attempting to impose a colonialistic approach on an independent country. It is for the Government of
642
Nigeria to approach the United Nations and then, as I said, I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that the United Nations would respond.
LORD BROCKWAY: And let all the people die in the meantime.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while appreciating the legalistic position, is there any reason why the United Nations, through their Secretary-General, should not offer to the Government of Nigeria to organise this great airlift, which would not be inconsistent with the independence recognised in Article 2(7) of the Charter?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, certainly it would be open to the United Nations, as to any other country, to make offers of assistance to the Government of Nigeria. If such an offer were to be made by the United Nations organisations I am sure it would be considered with the greatest sympathy and urgency by the Federal Government.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as we are a powerful member of the World Health Organisation and as from time to time that organisation have offered their services to different nations, either to prevent certain diseases or to help the fight against them why cannot they offer their services in this case and why cannot we take the initiative?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is another Question coming later and it might be easier to answer that supplementary then. But in the end it is the responsibility of the United Nations, if they should so wish, to make an approach, or the responsibility of the Federal Government, if they so wish, to approach the United Nations for assistance.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why cannot we take the initiative, as we have before?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suggest that there is some difference between taking the initiative in asking the United Nations to intervene when a catastrophe has arisen as the result of plague or disease and asking the United Nations to intervene in what is unfortunately a civil war in a sovereign State.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Disease and starvation!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, these have arisen by an act of civil war.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there has not been a number of similar situations, in which the World Health Organisation and UNICEF did exactly, and very effectively, what we are now asking?
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree, in view of the fact that the Belgian Government has decided to suspend the sale of arms to Nigeria, that this country should do the same and should concentrate on making an advance to the United Nations along the lines suggested?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is abusing the rules of this House, because that is definitely another question.
LORD REA: My Lords, referring to the noble Lord's reference to the airlift, would he bear in mind—I am sure he will, because he bears everything in mind—that during the last war every occupied territory was supplied by parachute with thousands of tons of supplies. I believe that he said recently that it would be only scratching the surface to send in parachute supplies. Might I ask him to give this matter careful consideration?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that that is another question. It does not directly arise from the Question on the Order Paper. My noble friend Lord Brockway is asking a Question later and perhaps a reply to the last supplementary should go with the answer to that.

BUSINESS
2.50 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them Private Notice: namely, what action is being taken to meet the refusal of the Nigerian Federal Government to allow relief by airlift to the hungry thousands in Biafra?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be answering this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. I shall also be making a Statement on the Central Banks meeting at Basle; and after that there will be a Statement on fisheries policy.
My Lords, I have been provided with a number of rather conflicting estimates as to the time which will be taken by the Town and Country Planning Bill this afternoon. If the Bill finishes before six o'clock, it will leave us in a somewhat difficult situation, since a number of noble Lords involved in the Theatres Bill are now sitting in another room on the Gaming Bill; and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who is sponsoring the Theatres Bill, cannot be here until six o'clock. In view of this, I hope your Lordships will agree that if we finish the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill before six o'clock, we should then proceed to the Committee stage of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, and take the Committee stage of the Theatres Bill after that.
I am aware that this alteration infringes Standing Order No. 34, which provides that the House shall proceed with business in the order in which it stands on the Order Paper. But I hope that, in view of all the circumstances, your Lordships will accept that this alteration is not intended for the convenience of the Government, but to meet with the convenience of all noble Lords involved in their respective Private Members' Bills.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that statement. I agree that it is contrary to the Standing Order, but I should have thought that it would definitely be for the convenience of the House that the noble Lord's suggestion should be followed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on the Business of the House—and I do not know whether this is in order. I am informed that it is possible that the Sunday Entertainments Bill and the Divorce Bill will not go through Parliament in this Session, and the reports are that it is

645
because the House of Lords is unable to give time to these small, but very important measures. Is it not possible for this House to consider altering its time of rising, in order that we can assure the Commons that if they pass these Bills and give them time, we can give them time here? Otherwise, they will be lost for this Session, and perhaps for a long time afterwards.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House dealt last week with one aspect of what the noble Lord has asked—namely, referring to the Divorce Bill—and I have nothing to add to what he told your Lordships.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, while we are speaking on the Business of the House, may I ask my noble friend whether he has seen reported in the Press this morning a statement by a Member of the other House to the effect that owing to the lethargy of the House of Lords, which he says is only sitting three days a week, a number of Bills are being held up? Can my noble friend arrange for a statement to be made on behalf of this House to indicate the extent to which we are sitting?
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I also saw the statement. Accustomed as we are to slightly off-colour remarks about your Lordships' House from time to time, I tend rather to note these things, and make a mental note to speak to the individual in question and tell him how wholly wrong ha is. I do not think this is a matter on which it would be very profitable for us to go into a debate. It may well be that if noble Lords wish to discuss the Business of the House arrangements could be made; but we have not had any notice of this. Perhaps my noble friend may also wish to correct the remarks of the Member in question.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, bearing in mind that this House is sitting one week longer than another place, some of us might perhaps think it rather unreasonable that the House of Commons should debate all their measures at their convenience, and that we should sit through the rest of the summer debating them here.

PRICES AND INCOMES BILL
2.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. We have had on Second Reading, and again in Committee, a careful and informed scrutiny of this Bill. We have had speeches from a former Chairman of the Trade Union Congress; there has been a contribution from a former General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, and from my noble friend Lord Blyton, whose roots go deep into the history of one of the most troubled of all our great industries, the mining industry. Then there was the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, who himself and his family know the Labour movement as few families in this country know it. All these noble Lords, with their experience and their connections with the great Labour movement, have shown a sympathy and an understanding of the purposes of the Fill that I have had the privilege of moving before your Lordships' House. I am grateful to those noble Lords, and to noble Lords opposite, for the way in which they have enabled the House to take this Bill through the various stages in this House.
The fact is that the powers in this Bill are an essential part of the post-devaluation economic policy, and with the Finance Bill, which has just received its Third Reading in another place, the passage of this Bill will complete the Budget strategy. The Government have never hidden the fact that this Bill has more stringent powers than existing legislation, which the Bill also renews; but these more stringent powers are warranted by exceptional circumstances. Important as it is, it would be a mistake to assume that the measures in the Bill are everything. It essentially requests fall-back powers for a policy which is designed to encourage and promote cost effectiveness and productivity. I think I can claim that Britain today is more cost and productivity conscious than ever before in its history. At the same time, we have also wanted to ensure fair play, and to spread what rigours there are fairly and with consistency. For this reason, we are asking for certain powers to control rent increases and dividend distributions.

647
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to emphasise once again that these powers are a buttress to the voluntary system. They are not a substitute for the general voluntary acceptance by those of our people (who constitute the majority) who recognise the need for restraint. I ask noble Lords to give a Third Reading to the Bill as one that is necessary as an insurance to the progressive economic recovery of the country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I do not propose to re-open the arguments on Third Reading about the merits or otherwise of the Bill, although what the noble Lord has just said, including some extraordinary jargon about cost effectiveness or cost and productivity consciousness, was a great temptation to me. We will let that pass. We were delighted to hear the vote of thanks which he gave to noble Lords on his side, but he gave very perfunctory thanks to noble Lords on my side of the House, who have cooperated with him in circumstances of great inconvenience in a procedure which we were assured last year would never be repeated, but which was repeated. We hope that, in giving a Third Reading to this Bill, we can even at this late stage have an assurance that your Lordships' House will not be treated ever again by this Government in such a cavalier way.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I just say that the noble Lord will find when he reads Hansard that I specifically referred to noble Lords opposite. I apologise that I did not say, "the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn."
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I do not propose to make a Third Reading speech on this Bill, but I cannot let the Third Reading go by without saying how entirely out of sympathy I am with this Bill. The compulsory powers in the Bill are, in my opinion, totally incompatible with a free society. I was deeply saddened to hear the views expressed by so many old stalwarts of the Labour movement, who seem to have convinced themselves that compulsion is necessary. I myself believe that we are drifting into very dangerous waters, and those who
648
believe in freedom may, I think, very well live to regret the day that this Bill was passed.
3.0 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. I had tabled an Amendment to this Bill during the Committee stage. For physical reasons I was unable to be here, and I hope the House will therefore permit me to put the considerations which were then in my mind. The principal purpose of that Amendment was to delete the penal section of the 1966 Act, but it would also have deleted other sections relating to the compulsory wage restrictions. I am not against an incomes policy. I should like to see a minimum living standard applied in this country to the aged, the sick, the unemployed and the injured. I should like to see in this country a minimum wage of £15 for all workers. I should like to see a limit to the maximum income of the citizens of this country. Away in the 1920's I stood for these principles. But I am opposed to the actual proposals in this Bill for income limitation.
The Government say that prices will rise by 5 per cent. Mr. George Woodcock, the Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has said that they will rise by 7 per cent. Under this Bill wage increases are limited to 3½ per cent., except where they are attached to productivity agreements. About the need for greater production there is no difference of opinion, but thousands of workers in this country are unaffected by any possible productivity agreements. In this situation it is inevitable that industrial unrest will grow, with prices increasing more than wages, and my great fear is that the cleavage between the trade unions in this country and the Government will grow.
I will now speak for a moment to the members of my own Party. I am deeply concerned by the present rift in the Labour movement. Sixty-one years ago, on the same day, I joined the Labour Party, my trade union and the Co-operative Movement, and I have always regarded them as a tripartite unity. As one who has mostly been engaged on the political side I want to pay my tribute to the Trades Union Congress and to trade union leaders for their attitude to the particular problem which we are now

649
discussing. The Trades Union Congress and the Trade Union Conference of Executives agreed to give voluntary cooperation to the Government in preventing unreasonable increases in wages. They also put forward a constructive policy of economic advance. As one who has had a life-time in the Labour movement, I regard it as most unfortunate that the Government did not accept these approaches which the Trades Union Congress put forward. I have not the least doubt that the actual results would have been better, industrial tensions would have lessened, and certainly there would have been a better spirit of co-operation between the trade unions and the Government.
I am particularly concerned about the penal clause in the Prices and Incomes Bill. Section 16(4) of the 1966 Act applies to any Made union or other person taking, or threatening to take, any action by way of taking part, or persuading others to take part, in a strike in pursuance of demands not authorised by the Act. The union or the individual concerned is made liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of £100, or on conviction on indictment to a fine (if the offender is not a body corporate) of £500. I acknowledge that this section does not directly provide for imprisonment, but if the fine was not paid, distraint on the offender's goods or imprisonment would inevitably follow. One can imagine the indignation and indeed the resistance from trade unionists which the application of this section would arouse.
I appreciate that this provision, although included in the 1966 Act, has never been applied. I am confident that the Minister for Employment and Productivity, for whom I have the greatest admiration, would never wish to apply it. But the action is made more likely under the wage restrictions of the Bill which we are now considering, and trade unions have made their resentment clear. Not only the Trades Union Congress but the Conference of the Trade Union Executives—and not only these, but every trade union conference which has met since the White Paper was published—the shop workers, the clerical workers, the engineers, the draughtsmen, even the local government officers, conservative as they are—have condemned this penal clause.
650
On this matter the precedents are not encouraging. I remember the circumstances during the war in reference to Order 1305 which prohibited strikes. The Kentish miners at Betteshanger went on strike. The Government decided to prosecute them; there were 4,000 on strike, and the Miners' Union co-operatively agreed that there should be a few test cases. The chairman and the secretary of the Betteshanger branch of the Union were imprisoned. They were close friends of mine, and I was intimately concerned in this issue. When they were imprisoned the consequence was that the minors continued the strike with more determination than ever, the Ministers of the Crown had to negotiate with the imprisoned officers for the men to return to work. There were still difficulties in the judicial field. The Minister of Mines had to consult with the Home Secretary as to how to get the chairman and the secretary out of prison in order that the strike might end, a humilitating experience for any Government.
After the war there was a great campaign against Order 1305. My friends on these Benches will remember the mass strike by the dockers, and again when their leaders were in prison the strike continued with greater determination than ever. I would respectfully warn the Government that if this penal clause is applied the resistance of the rank-and-file workers will become more intense if their leaders are imprisoned.
I want to give one other instance, which is fantastically Irish. The Government of Eire recently passed legislation outlawing strikes in the electricity services. They fined strikers and when they did not pay imprisoned the leaders. The whole electricity industry then threatened to go on strike. A situation developed where the Electricity Board paid the strikers' fines in order to free the leaders from prison. They saw the leaders in prison and the men said, "We do not want to leave now; we have no means of travelling home at night". The Electricity Board representatives then said, "For heaven's sake! you must go back. You must be at the power plant to-morrow morning". The Board actually paid for the taxicabs to take the imprisoned leaders home.
All this is utterly humiliating to any Government. It has happened in this

651
country; it has happened in Ireland. It will happen whenever any Government attempts to imprison trade union leaders against the determination of the rank and file. I have no doubt that if a similar situation arose in Britain the Minister, with her persuasiveness and her ingenuity, would settle the matter by measures equally unorthodox as those to which I have referred. But would it not be much better that the situation should never arise?
I want to conclude with a philosophic point. This Party stands for democratic socialism, combining personal liberty with a co-operative social order. We stand for that in distinction from the totalitarianism of communism or the corporate state of fascism. The compulsion of workers with the sanctions of fines and imprisonment is alien to the whole concept of libertarian socialism. It is too late to alter this Bill, but I hope that the Government will not renew it after 12 months and that they will reconsider this policy, which is detrimental not only to our relations with the trade unions but to the principles on which our Party is founded.
3.15 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, my noble friend has just made a very moving speech, and I suppose with most that he has said I should be in almost complete agreement. The theories which he has mentioned have been the basis of our socialist faith and our socialist understanding for many years. My membership of the Labour Party does not go back as long as that of my noble friend, but now it is more than forty years, and I want to assure him that other people on these Benches are just as worried as he is, although we have taken a very different line. I have not uttered a word during the passage of this Bill until now, but it has been with a very heavy heart indeed that I voted for it, and I would not have done so had it not been for the feeling that this "long-stop" of penalties was a necessity in present circumstances. As I have sat through the debates here and read the debates in another place, obviously I. with many noble Lords on this side of the House, have been very worried indeed.
But this seems to be a necessity of this particular day and these present economic circumstances. I agree with my noble
652
friend that one of the terrible things of life in this country to-day is the growth in inequality, and there seems to be a great deal of concentration on setting back and freezing or maintaining where the wages and incomes are the lowest. With him, I should like to see more activity so far as the upper reaches of income are concerned.
The only other thing I want to say is this. In the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place the concentration all the time seems to have been on incomes. This is the Prices and Incomes Bill. We have heard too little about prices. I recognise the difficulties in maintaining low prices, preventing price rises, but it seems to me that income is the main thought and not the prices. The British housewife has not time to go round from shop to shop finding out where prices are the lowest. There should be a greater concentration on the control of prices. The problems would be nothing like so serious, and we should not be so much worried on the incomes side, if a stronger line were taken with prices.
I finish where I began. It is with a very heavy heart that most of us, or all of us, on this side have accepted the terms of this Bill, particularly the penal clauses. We would not have done so had we not felt that the necessity was there, and our great hope is that ere long these clauses can be removed from the legislation.
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I should like to strike a more cheerful note. It was a matter of great regret to me that owing to long-standing and unavoidable engagements I was not able to take part in the earlier debates on this Bill. Perhaps in those circumstances your Lordships will not complain if, with due respect to my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lord Royle, and now that the Bill is about to be well and truly launched, I spill a little verbal champagne over it. This Bill is essentially a temporary measure—temporary because it fixes the present structure of incomes with only very moderate scope for variation. I very much hope that the principle which it embodies, together with the Prices and Incomes Board, will become a permanent feature of our economy, and I would say in passing how much I admire the work of the Prices and

653
Incomes Board, and particularly the speed and efficiency of its investigations, which I have followed fairly closely.
The pattern of incomes in any community is of vital importance, both socially and economically. It is of social importance because it is the main determinant of the class structure of society and because it sets limits to the scope of individuals in social intercourse; and it is of economic importance because incomes are at once rewards and incentives. For my part, I have never been able to understand why issues of such importance should be left to the private smash-and-grab of the interests most directly concerned. I have never been able to share the prevailing faith in the divine right of collective bargaining, or, more precisely, in the divine rightness of every collective bargain. Still less can I understand how that faith can be reconciled with the principles of Socialism which lay down that communal action and the economic system should be controlled in the interests of all.
Thirteen years ago I published a book which was most unfavourably received, in the course of which I asked why it was that in this field, and in this field alone, we are expected to believe that public issues are best left to organised private interests to determine. It seems extraordinary that in this world and in this day and age, in which we cannot put up a garage in our backyard without planning permission, designed to safeguard our neighbours' amenities, we are allowed, if I may put it this way, to help ourselves to the contents of our neighbours' pockets without let or hindrance.
Since I first broached this subject 13 years ago there has been a great and welcome change of climate. When I appealed that the question of income determination should be part of the substance of politics I got a quite dusty answer in a great many quarters. But I think to-day we can confidently hope that this Bill will guarantee that hereafter in any negotiations affecting wages, salaries or other incomes determination, a seat will be permanently reserved at the bargaining table for the unknown consumer.
3.22 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I shall detain the House for but short time. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, made one slip in his short and moving speech. I think he said he had voted for this Bill with a very sad heart. I believe he will find that he has not voted for the Bill, because there has never been a Division throughout the course of our proceedings. I greatly welcome that, not because I think it is a good Bill but because I thought that this House was quite right, whatever it thought of the Bill, to allow the Government to have a Bill which they regarded as essential for their economic policy; and I think their responsibility for this Bill and its results should be crystal clear.
The only matter on which I wish to comment is the actual timing of the Bill in its final stages. The Bill has hitherto been commended to us as essential to the Government's policy, including their policy on productivity. It goes through its final stages in this House on the morrow of a settlement in the railway industry commended by the Minister concerned, a settlement that pays no regard whatsoever to the Government's incomes policy or to the Government's policy on productivity.
In view of what has happened, I do not know how the noble Lady, who always commands the interest of this House when she speaks on economic subjects, can have framed the conclusion of the speech which she has just delivered, that the public interest and the Government's policy would always be considered in wage settlements.
I should have thought there might be a good deal to be said for reaching this settlement, if it was to be reached, in order to prevent the public suffering, as it did suffer, from the go-slow. There would have been something to be said for the Government's insisting on sticking to their principles of productivity, and not yielding to a demand which they had long described as unjustifiable. But we had both evils. The public suffered by the go-slow, and in the settlement the Government's policy on productivity was utterly abandoned. What is illustrated, and I think that it is worth pointing out, is this. Every Government, from time to time, has to

655
choose between two evils. What is unique about this Government is that, whenever they have to choose between two evils, they invariably choose both.
3.26 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be fascinating to speculate how the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would have handled the difficulties we have just seen on the railways. His speech was not entirely up to his usual standards of punctilious accuracy. He said that my noble friend Lord Royle had not voted. I distinctly recall my noble friend saying "Content" when the Question was put. The noble Lord said that the railway settlement was not in accordance with the principles of the prices and incomes policy of the Government. A little later on in another place a Statement will be made about the railway settlement. It is not my business to repeat it in this House, but it is interesting to see that, of the three principles which the Government and the Railways Board have followed in the matter, the third is that any settlement must be in accordance with the productivity, prices and incomes policy, and they are satisfied that the settlement in fact accords with that policy.
I was particularly grateful that my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger should have put this matter in its perspective. There are philosophical issues concerned. There are deep feelings aroused by this Bill. But I would say to my noble friend Lord Brockway that all the philosophy is not on his side. There is another point of view to this, and we have tried to put it. As my noble friend Lord Brockway recounted his memories of the past, I felt that he was tending to look at this matter, as Wordsworth might have said, in terms of
"Old unhappy things,
Of battles long ago."
Times have changed. My memory went back, too, when as a boy I followed behind the miners marching, to hear A. J. Cook urge that they stand firm on the slogan:
"Not a penny off the pay,
Not a minute on the day!"
No nil norms in those days.
Those were days when I could understand the line taken by my noble friend. But the coal-owners have gone; Alf
656
Robens has replaced them. A miner's son is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A grammar school girl has brought in this Bill. We are faced with other problems than old slogans. We have questions of the balance of payments. We have demand management. We have all the financial problems of paying the bills which Imperial Britain has left behind as it has pulled out of different parts of the world. We are no longer able to shout defiant slogans and feed our people. We have a much more complicated economic task before us.
I should like to think that all trade unions behaved in the way in which my noble friend Lord Brockway suggested they do. But the fact of the matter is that they do not. The overwhelming majority of them are socially responsible. The overwhelming majority of them know the problems we have to deal with. But as his mind went back, mine also went back to a meeting of a few weeks' ago, when the Prime Minister was trying to convince one general secretary of the merits of concentrating on productivity, and trying to get him to give up the opposition that he had to this prices and incomes policy.
This particular general secretary said, "Prime Minister, I understand; but let me tell you a story"—probably it ought to be called a parable. He said: "There was one general secretary who was instructed by his executive to go out and conclude a fresh agreement with a firm on which his union had a stranglehold. He was told to get an increase in pay; if possible a reduction in hours." The story went on to relate how, after protracted negotiations, the general secretary came back and he told his executive, "Yes", he had got an agreement. Pay had been increased much more than the figure they had hoped for. Fringe benefits had been improved. Hours had been reduced. They now worked only on Thursday afternoons. The executive considered this report very carefully, and then turned round to the general secretary and said, "It is not too bad, but what is this about working on Thursday afternoons?" This story was told as a parable to illustrate what some trade union leaders are confronted with.
As I say, this is not by any means typical. But this Bill is designed to try to ensure that there is fairness between

657
one group of organised workers and another; between one group of organised workers, as producers, and their wives, as consumers; between organised workers and those who are too old to work or too young to work or too sick to work. It is an endeavour to ensure that as we have increased material wealth, due to technological advance, it is shared as reasonably as possible. The noble Lord himself said that not all people in this country can benefit from productivity agreements. That is quite true. That is one reason why in those capital intensive industries, where it is possible to increase productivity, a part of the increased wealth should be given to other sections of the community. That is why we want to get some idea of controlling the distribution of our increasing wealth production.
My Lords, it is not for me to delay business in this House. I have certain other responsibilities. I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords opposite and those on this side have listened to the arguments, have put a point of view on this Bill, and I hope that they will now agree to give it a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
OVERSEAS AID BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SWAZILAND INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

NIGERIA: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND BIAFRA RELIEF
3.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would now reply to the Private Notice Question asked by my noble friend Lord Brockway earlier this afternoon. Perhaps the House would wish to be reminded of the Question. It is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to meet the refusal of the Nigerian Federal Government to allow relief by airlift to the hungry thousands in Biafra."
The position is not that the Federal Government of Nigeria have refused to allow relief supplies by air. The truth is that this is an extremely difficult and delicate problem which is at present under discussion between the International Red Cross and the Federal Government and also between the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his relief advisory team and the Federal Government. I do not want to say anything this afternoon that could be an obstacle to a successful outcome of those discussions, and I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press me. I can, however, say that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already been in communication with us about certain standby precautions which may be helpful in saving time when specific recommendations from him have been received.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, I must assure him that I do not want to say anything which will make the situation more difficult. May I ask him whether it would not be possible to propose to both the Biafran authorities and the Nigerian Federal Government that inspection of relief, either by air or by road, should be given to the International Red Cross in order to prevent any diversion of supplies from food and medicine to arms? Is he aware that I have written to both Colonel Ojukwu of Biafra and General Gowon making that proposal? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware that I based my Question on the Press reports of what the Nigerian Federal Government have said, and I understand that since then they have indicated that authorised flights would be

659
allowed. May I submit to him that if we are to secure the co-operation of the Biafran authorities in this matter, Her Majesty's Government should cease sending arms to the Nigerian Government? While it sends those arms is there any hope that we shall secure the co-operation of the Biafran Government which may relieve this tragic situation of thousands, and it may be millions, dying.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have made our position, our policy on arms, perfectly clear to the Federal Government of Nigeria on many occasions, and I have nothing further to add. In regard to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary, I understand that the Federal Government are willing, and have always been willing, to co-operate with the International Red Cross in the matter of emergency supplies of food and medicine into the troubled areas of Nigeria.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, are the Government aware that until relief is reaching these starving people the whole British people will continue to feel a certain sense of guilt? This is a country which until a few years ago was under the control of this Parliament. Now it is ravaged by civil war and children are starving. There must be no Party differences between us, because compassion for starving children should override all Party divisions and all legalistic arguments.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I should like to associate our-serves very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has just said. I think that what he has said represents our view in this matter entirely. While we appreciate that on this subject of a possible airlift the Government must be very largely dependent on the advice which they will receive from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his team, may I ask this question? Would it not be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to arrange for a representative of the Nigerian Government to be associated directly on the spot with any despatch of food or medical supplies that may be organised and, therefore, for them to be in a position to verify directly that nothing else is being delivered?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I think he is right that we all share a sense of guilt—I am not sure whether "guilt" is quite the right word, but any rate a sense of disappointment that the foundations which we sought to lay in Nigeria did not hold firm so that we could see a happy Nigeria. I recognise that my noble friend Lord Brockway's persistence is due to the fact that this is something in which he passionately believes. I only hope that he will accept that I and my other colleagues in the Commonwealth feel just as passionately, and perhaps even with a greater sense of burden, in that it falls to us to seek, by negotiations, not only immediate relief in this area but, what is more important, a long-term solution in that territory.
One must be careful what one says. One does not wish to appear to be partisan on one side or the other. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on the question of the International Red Cross and the supply and inspection of relief, I would say that this is something which is very much in our minds, particularly if we can get a daylight airlift as an interim measure until we are able to get the corridors of mercy open.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I accept and very much welcome what the noble Lord has said. I know nobody whose sympathies are more engaged in this matter than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I very much respect the efforts which he is making. Compassion is not a monopoly of any one person or any one side in this matter. Of course I understand the difficulties, but it occurs to me that we are getting a little bogged down by red tape and by protocol. Is there not some new and fresh initiative that we can take—because the lives of children do not wait upon red tape or protocol—perhaps through the United Nations, to break this deadlock rather than to engage in continued negotiations which every moment are costing lives?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has put his supplementary in that tone, which is different from the atmosphere which prevailed earlier on the oral question. I hope that my noble friend will accept that we are considering all possible means

661
of bringing about a long-term settlement, and also short-term relief, to this unhappy country. But, as I said in my original reply, at this stage I would ask your Lordships not to press us, while giving you the firm assurance that we are doing all that is humanly possible to find a solution.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, although I do not want to press any course that would he embarrassing, in view of the urgency of the situation, the deaths which are occurring every minute and which will mount, can we not approach this matter as though it were a great natural calamity, such as an earthquake? In those circumstances would not the whole world go to the rescue of these hungry, starving and dying people? Is it not possible now to secure a massive airlift by all the sympathetic voluntary organisations, the Governments and the Agencies of the United Nations, which may be able to save thousands, and indeed millions, from death?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fully accept what the noble Lord has said, but he must recognise that there are two parties to this unhappy dispute. We have been able to accept an agreement by one party, but there has been a complete and utter rejection by the other party. Therefore this has created severe difficulties, difficulties which at present we are trying to resolve.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord give an assurance that the Royal Air Force Air Support Command remains available to undertake a massive airlift, when and if such an airlift is approved by the Nigerian authorities?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Royal Air Force Support Command is willing and ready to give what help and assistance it is required to give, provided that we have the necessary agreement of the Federal Government. I do not have any doubt about that.
LORD REA: My Lords, is it expected that there will be a local base for this Command, or will they operate from this country—and if it is a local base, which?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, one supplementary mentioned air support from this country in terms of an airlift
662
of food and medicine. Clearly there would need to be a base at the other end to receive the goods, but I am sure that in the end it will be better, when we deliver supplies, to do so through the International Red Cross, who are trying to co-ordinate the activities of a number of organisations which are in the field to give help.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
3.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 65 [Modification of transitory exemptions based on pre-1948 use]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the commencement of this section" and insert "1st July 1969". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, to which Amendments Nos. 69 and 71 are related. It is a small point, and I hope that the Government will be able to offer a satisfactory solution. Clause 65 deals with certain rights of long standing deriving from use before the appointed day of July 1, 1948. It is proposed to bring those rights to an end, which I agree is a sensible action to take at this stage. It seems to be most important that we should make clear in good time to all concerned that these rights are coming to an end unless they are exercised in one way or another very quickly. In another place an Amendment was moved which would have had the effect of continuing the rights for a further five years. I consider that that is too long, but I think that a specific date should he put into the Bill. One must look at the practical side of the matter. People are in the habit of getting advice from solicitors and professional men, and one can hardly expect those advisers to watch progress on

663
every Bill as it passes through Parliament, though it is unquestionably their duty to acquaint themselves with its provisions as soon as the Bill reaches the Statute Book so that they can inform their clients accordingly.
The phrase "The commencement of this section" is uncertain. In a later clause the Minister has power, by order, to fix a date for the commencement of this section and of other sections, but nobody can yet tell what that is. The bringing to an end of these long standing rights should in no sense be a "hole and corner" business. It should be stated on the face of the Bill when they will act. I suggest that the uncertain phrase, "The commencement of this section", should be replaced by the certain date "1st July 1969". I agree that I put down this Amendment at a time when I hoped, as indeed the Government hoped, that this Bill would reach the Statute Book before the Summer Recess. It now looks as though it will not do so and will not reach the Statute Book until October. However, my concern is not so much with the precise date as with the fact that precision should be given by the writing of a date into the Bill. In this way when the Bill reaches the Statute Book solicitors and professional advisers will be able to advise clients who retain these longstanding rights that unless they take action before a certain date which is publicly known, they will lose those rights. In moving this Amendment, I seek to remove that kind of uncertainty.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 20, leave out ("the commencement of this section") and insert ("1st July, 1969").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: Those who do not know as well as the noble Lord and I do what we are talking about may like to be reminded what these rights are. When the first comprehensive planning legislation was introduced by my noble friend Lord Silkin in 1947, people had rights to use land in certain ways, which was the product of custom and chance, very slightly—but only very slightly—mitigated by preceding planning legislation. People who have since 1947 been using their land in way x have had the right to revert to using it in certain ways only, which I may describe as X, if they were using it in those ways before 1947.
664
But all that was 20 years ago, and I should think most people have by now long since forgotten how they were using their land before 1948. It would be rather difficult, in certain cases, if there were any dispute about it, to find how they were using land. But I cannot imagine that anybody, who has refrained for 20 years from using his right to revert to what he was doing before 1948, is going to suffer very much by being deprived of that right either now or in 1969.
I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, on the ground that the Government are unaware of any cases which would justify it. Of course, the fact that this shadowy right to revert was going to be taken away became public knowledge when the Bill was introduced in December of last year. All you have to do to exercise your right is to commence something which counts as "works", and I think that if anybody wants to do it he should have had plenty of opportunity between then and the time when the Bill is likely to come into effect, without including the set date of July, 1969.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am disappointed with the Government's reply. I know that I am not at liberty to quote speeches by private Members in another place, but examples were given to the Government in Standing Committee in another place of cases where there was likelihood of some of these 20-year old rights being revived. I cannot see any reason why the Government should not state a definite date when these rights will lapse. The phrase, "the commencement of this section" is entirely vague, because the Government have not yet given any indication as to when they will, by order, cause this section, or any other section of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to come into operation.
It seems to me unreasonable towards professional advisers, as well as to their clients, if this is left in a state of uncertainty. I stress again, that we cannot expect solicitors to be following all the proceedings on a Bill while it is going through Parliament simply in order to safeguard a client against something that may happen the moment a Bill passes through your Lordships' House and receives the Royal Assent. I should have thought that, from every point of

665
view, it was far better, when a right of long standing was being terminated, to give well in advance a date when that right will lapse so that everybody shall know where he stands. If the noble Lord will not accept my Amendment, will he at least give an indication as to the date on which the Minister will announce that this section shall commence, because we expect the Government to take some action to remove the uncertainty to which I have drawn attention?
LORD KENNET: I cannot do so at the moment, but I will try to do so at a later stage. I think that the discussion now and the discussion in the House of Commons should serve the purpose desired by the noble Lord, of bringing to the attention of people the fact that there is this provision in the Bill. Of course, in so far as our words are heard outside this place, it is obvious that those who have these rights and are intending to exercise them would be well advised to do so before the Bill goes through, just as they would be well advised to do so before July, 1969, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am sure the noble Lord is trying to be helpful, but, with respect, it is unlikely that the proceedings on this Amendment will be widely reported in the national Press, and, to the best of my knowledge, the proceedings in Standing Committee in another place on what was then Clause 57 of the Bill and is now Clause 65 were not reported at all. Just as it is impossible to expect solicitors to follow everything that happens on a Bill while it is going through Parliament, so it is impossible to expect them to read the proceedings in Standing Committee and the detailed proceedings in your Lordships' House. However, if the noble Lord will make a statement, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, as to the date when this section is likely to be brought into operation, that will go some way to meet my request. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD GRENFELL): May I point out to the Committee that, if
666
Amendment No. 70 is agreed to, cannot call Amendment No. 71?
LORD KENNET: This Amendment substitutes a revised subsection (3) of Clause 65 for the subsection at present in the Bill. The existing subsection was complained about in Commons Committee as being difficult to understand. I hope that the present one is easier to understand, and that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the Committee will agree with me that it should be carried in. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) In applying section 13(5), 6) and (8) of the principal Act (factors relevant for determining whether planning permission is required for resumption of use following the expiration of a limited planning permission) no account shall be taken of any contravention of previous planning control other than contravention of the provisions of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947; and accordingly—

(a) in both section 13(6) and 13(8), for the words 'or in contravention of previous planning control' there shall be sutstituted the words 'or in contravention of the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1947'; and

(b) section 13(10) shall cease to have effect.")—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
3.58 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved, after Clause 66, to insert the following new clause:
Notification to parish councils to applications
".—(1) (a) Without prejudice to sections 15 and 16 of the principal Act, a local planning authority shall not entertain any application for planning permission, unless either—

(i) it is accompanied by a certificate signed by or on behalf of the applicant stating that he has given the requisite notice to the parish council (if any) of the parish in which the land is situated; or

(ii) the parish council has notified the local planning authority in writing that for the time being no such notice is required and has not withdrawn such notification:

Provided that the local planning authority may notwithstanding the absence of such a certificate or notification entertain an application for planning permission if an authorised officer of the parish council or local planning

667
authority certifies in writing under his hand that the requisite notice has been given to the parish council.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) above an authorised officer is an officer authorised specially or generally to give the certificate by the council or authority which employs him.
(c) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 16 of the principal Act shall apply to a certificate issued under this section as if it were issued for the purposes of the said section 16.
(2) (a) A local planning authority may make a scheme for defining the types or classes of applications for which no such notice as is mentioned in subsection (1) above is required.
(b) A parish council which accedes in writing to a scheme drawn up under the preceding paragraph shall be deemed in relation to the types or classes of applications defined therein to have made a notification in accordance with subsection (1)(a)(ii) above.
(c) Where a majority of parish councils in an area to which a scheme applies has acceded thereto in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the scheme shall become compulsory and the local planning authority shall inform the remainder of the parish councils in the same area in writing, and thereupon each parish council so informed shall be deemed to have acceded to the scheme on the day when such information would have been received by it in the ordinary course of post.
(d)(i) A local planning authority may revoke a scheme made under this subsection, and
(ii) if a majority of the parish councils concerned in a compulsory scheme notify the local planning authority in writing of their intention to leave it, those parish councils shall no longer be deemed to have acceded thereto:
Provided that—

(i) no scheme shall be revoked within three years of the date when it was first made, and

(ii) no parish council concerned in a compulsory scheme shall notify its intention to leave it within three years of the day when it became compulsory.

(3)(a) Where a certificate has been issued by an applicant or authorised officer under subsection (1), a local planning authority shall take into account any representations made by a parish council named therein and received within fourteen days of the date upon which it was given to the authority and may, if they think fit, consider any representations received thereafter.

(b) This subsection shall not prejudice any rights which a parish council may have by virtue of any other enactment.

(4) In the case of an application accompanied by a certificate or certified in accordance with subsection (1) above, a local plan-
668
ning authority shall within a reasonable time give to the parish council a copy of—

(a) their notice to the applicant of their decision on the application, or

(b) their notice to him that the application has been referred to the Minister in accordance with directions given under section 22 of principal Act.

(5)(a) Subject to the following paragraph of this subsection, this section shall come into operation on 1st July 1969.
(b) Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the Minister may at any time after the passing of this Act make development orders prescribing notices and certificates required for the purposes of this section, but no such order shall be made so as to come into operation before 1st July 1969.
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, is to try to ensure that parish councils are notified when planning applications are sent in. I should like to stress that there is no demand here for consultation. What is required is notification, in order that a parish council may be aware of any planning application in its parish in order that it may, if it wishes, comment on that application to the planning authority. It is felt that there need be no delay here, because there would be perfectly simple mechanics whereby a question could be added to the planning application form, asking simply whether notification had been given to the parish council. On the answer, "Yes" being given, it would then be up to the parish council to communicate with the planning authority. The purpose of this new clause is an attempt to bring the parish councils to a position where they can of right give their views on planning applications. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 66, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Grimston of Westbury.)
LORD SANDYS: I should like to support this Amendment most warmly. We have already witnessed the debate on Second Reading, and have already read the details of the discussion which took place in Standing Committee C. Although we may be under a certain restriction about quoting speeches of private Members in another place, I hope that at a later stage of my remarks the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will permit me to quote the remarks of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Arthur Skeffington. On

669
June 19, in Standing Committee C, column 8, line 33, reference was made to,
"the additional burden placed upon the applicant".
This is a very important matter, because in fact there is very little additional burden placed upon the applicant when it comes to notification: it is merely a case of the architect or those responsible for preparing the plan providing an additional copy, be it a Xerox copy or any other, of the plan under consideration. I feel that very heavy weather has been made of this when referring to local authorities, and especially to the fact that there is difficulty in locating where the parish council is. Of course, immediate reference to the local authority concerned would divulge this information.
The Government's second argument for opposing this Amendment relates to the structure of local government and to the Royal Commission's recommendations for reorganisation. If I may now quote Mr. Arthur Skeffington's words in column 9, line 23, of Standing Committee C on June 19, he said:
"I do not know what those recommendations will be, nor whether the Government will accept them; but it is likely that within the next few years there will be very radical changes in the structure of local government. It may be that there will be an extended place for the parish council".
Although there is the possibility of an extended place for the parish council, the idea of a nationwide voluntary scheme of notification has very little appeal among local authorities. The Rural District Councils Association has given it a very limited welcome, but by and large I would say it is true that local government as a whole is firmly against it. They look upon the parish council as something of a poor relation in this matter; and, moreover, it is looked upon as an amateur organisation from the standpoint of an entrenched bureaucracy.
Perhaps I may quote from my own experience in this matter. If I may be permitted, with the indulgence of your Lordships, I should like to quote as an example a case when this scheme would have been particularly useful. To save the blushes of the local authority, let me give it the fictitional name of "Caster-bridge". In this particular case I saw details of the town development scheme, which extended into several country parishes. The reply I received was:
670
"Our final proposals are with the Ministry for approval and are not available for public inspection".
So not until a short period before the local inquiry was due to be held was any map available, despite the fact that the proposals involved an increase in the size of Casterbridge from 9,000 to 30,000 over a period of 15 years. There was no model or map, no publicity and no exhibit in Casterbridge Town Hall, and I was unable to obtain a copy of the town map giving details of the scheme since only one was available. It was a deliberate act on the part of the local authority, and I have very little doubt that there are many instances of a precisely similar nature which are taking place and which have taken place over and over again.
Coming on to the nature of this Amendment, it will be noted that it is split into four separate sections. It is, of course, the longest Amendment of all those listed. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (2), which relates to a local planning authority making a scheme for defining the type or classes of applications for which no notice such as is mentioned in subsection (1) is required. This is a highly desirable suggestion, that schemes for defining applications where no such notice is required should be devised, and I think that this subsection should meet wit h very little opposition.
Subsection (3), which relates to representations by parish councils, says:
"Where a certificate has been issued by an applicant or authorised officer under subsection (1), a local planning authority shall take into account any representations made by a parish council named therein and received within fourteen days of the date upon which it was given to the authority and may, if they think fit, consider any representations received thereafter".
The nub of the Government's case has rested upon the factor of delay which notification both of applications and of the results of applications will have upon the planning mechanism, and great stress has been laid upon the fact that the whole essence of the Bill is to simplify the planning procedures. I feel here that the case put forward by the Parish Councils' Association is a very strong one, in that only 14 days' notification is mentioned; and it is surely no matter that the Parish Councils' Association should feel any

671
sympathy for any parish which has failed to do so. After all, four months is the average time in which planning may be applied for and a reply may be received and a fortnight's delay or possible delay is very little in comparison.
Subsection (4) of this Amendment deals with notification of decisions, and in this case the question of notification is slightly different from consultation. In this matter great stress was laid by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Standing Committee, in his very reasonable reply to this question, on the difference between consultation and notification. What is being sought under this Amendment is a notification. One would hope that as time goes on the relationship between the planning authorities and the parish councils will mean that such notification will lead to a type of consultation. However, at this stage, in this Amendment as drafted, all that is sought is a notification. It was mentioned on Second Reading that many local authorities have very long and satisfactory voluntary arrangements with parish councils. This statutory notification has been sought by the Parish Councils' Association for eight years to my certain knowledge, and I feel there are strong reasons why this Amendment should be included in the Bill.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move that the House do now resume to hear a Statement from my noble friend Lord Beswick.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

STERLING BALANCES: INTERNATIONAL BANK'S SCHEME
4.8 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission I would repeat a Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware that discussions have been taking place this week-end at the Bank for International Settlements in Basle amongst the representatives of the central banks of
672
certain countries about a new facility for sterling. The proposals which were considered were to provide new means for offsetting fluctuations in the sterling balances of sterling area countries. I should make it clear that the facility under discussion is not one which would provide finance to meet any deficit in the balance of payments of the United Kingdom. It is not a loan. It is not an arrangement which could or will lead to any increase in our total of overseas indebtedness. The object would be to strengthen the position of sterling and thus of the international monetary system as a whole.
"I am glad to be able to tell the House that considerable progress has been made in these discussions. As a result, the Bank for International Settlements and twelve Central Banks, speaking where appropriate with the authority of their Governments, have given firm assurances of willingness to participate in the arrangements which are to be completed as soon as satisfactory consultations have taken place with sterling area countries. These proposals are of great importance to all sterling area countries, and it is therefore right that consultations should take place with them all. These will be pursued urgently, but until they have been completed it would be wrong for me to make any further public statement.
"I should like to express my warm appreciation of the constructive attitude of the countries with which these discussions in Basle have been conducted. I believe that the arrangements now contemplated, and the firm assurances we have had from these countries, offer the prospect of greater stability in the functioning of the international monetary system. While they in no way lessen the need to bring our own policies for restoring the balance of payments of the United Kingdom to a successful conclusion, they make it possible to pursue these policies without being adversely affected by fluctuations in the sterling balances. They are a major step forward in dealing with this long-standing problem."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this important Statement, although I

673
must say that I should have hoped that we might have been permitted a rather earlier sight of it through the usual channels, especially in view of the fact that a Statement very much along these lines was issued by the Bank of England shortly after luncheon. It is clear that a lot of consultation and much negotiation has still to take place, and I am sure that none of us would wish to say anything at this stage which might in any way prejudice the outcome of those negotiations. I shall therefore confine my questions to a number of relatively simple points.
In the first place, can the noble Lord tell us anything more about the type of financial operation which is involved here? We are told that this animal is not a loan. What, in fact, is it? Secondly, can the noble Lord tell us anything more about the position of France? For example, were the French representatives at Basle this week-end able to subscribe to this firm assurance reportedly given by the representatives of the other central banks? Thirdly, what is the time scale involved? When is it hoped to conclude these negotiations? Fourthly, and finally, can the noble Lord tell us—and I think this is important in view of the great volume of Press speculation that there has been on this subject—anything more about the magnitude of the sum involved and about the interest rate?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his general remarks. I share his views about the advantage of an earlier sight of the Statement. As to the type of operation, as I said in the Statement, it not a loan; it is a type of funding operation. It is really an exchange of a short-term sterling indebtedness for a longer-term indebtedness. As to the question about the position of France, I can do no better than to read what was said in the communiqué:
"The Bank of France, while in present circumstances it must reserve its position, has expressed itself as sympathetic."
France, therefore, has not made any contribution to this arrangement. The noble Earl also asked about the time scale. Consultations will start urgently; in fact in a matter of days, and I hope that they will be completed within a few weeks. I was asked also about the magnitude of the loan. It will be for 2 billion dollars.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I and my noble friends on these Benches greatly welcome the principle of the Statement made by the noble Lord. It seems to us, in principle, an extremely healthy phenomenon and is much to be welcomed. If it goes through it will ease the difficulties on the international monetary front to a great extent. I have only two questions to put to the noble Lord. The first one relates to France. From what the noble Lord has said, the Bank of France are sympathetic, as I understand, to this operation. It does not mean that they will therefore, necessarily, come into it, I gather, although they may contemplate doing so. If they do not come in, is it the intention to proceed with the scheme? I imagine that it is; since twelve central banks have already agreed. I imagine that if the French do not come in it will be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go ahead without them. I should like the noble Lord to give us confirmation of that. Secondly, is it considered, as a result of the measures contemplated, that some portion of the sterling balances will be funded in the long run?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his welcome to this Statement. I do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said about France's position. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government and of the other Governments concerned to proceed with this arrangement, even though the French Government are not able to do more than to express sympathy. The question of future funding is a separate matter. I cannot say anything on that.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? I may not have fully understood him, and he may have mentioned it in the Statement. He said that this would not mean an increase in our total indebtedness. Does this mean that this is really a funding operation, a move from the short-term to the medium-term, and nothing else?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, it is not a loan. As I said in answer to a question, it is a type of funding operation and a question of exchanging one debt for another.

DEEP-SEA FISHING INDUSTRY
4.17 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, may I repeat a Statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place:
"As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced on May 15, we are satisfied that the deep-sea fishing industry can make an increasing contribution to import saving, given the assurance of adequate support and a continuing improvement in efficiency.
"We propose to give an assurance of continued support to the deep-sea fleet for a minimum period of five years. If the industry is to justify this support it is essential that it should take all possible steps to improve its efficiency both through technological development and through changes in structure and organisation which will promote better management and training. We intend, therefore, to operate the support that is being provided, so that the benefit will go to those companies which can make the most productive use of these resources. In addition, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, which has been studying the industry, has informed me that it is willing to help the industry to find the best means of improving its efficiency. The industry for its part has assured me of its readiness to co-operate to this end.
"On this basis and on the assumption that the industry will make satisfactory progress towards the objectives I have described (a matter which I shall be reviewing from time to time with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation) we propose to introduce for the three years beginning August 1, 1968, a new form of operating subsidy. This will take account both of fluctuations in the industry's profitability and of the need to preserve an incentive to efficiency. This will be done by adjusting a basic subsidy of £2 million by reference to operating profits in the preceding year. If these are less than £4 million, the basic subsidy of £2 million will be increased by half the shortfall; if they are more than £4 million, the basic subsidy of
676
£2 million will be reduced by half the excess. The total annual subsidy, however, will be limited to £4 million and will not be allowed to result in an annual level of profit plus subsidy exceeding £7 million. The distribution of the subsidy will be related to the operating efficiency of vessels and not as at present to their classification. The detailed arrangements will be worked out with the industry. The method of support after the first three years will be subject to a review in 1970 with the objective of maintaining a corresponding level of return in the two years commencing August 1, 1971.
"Legislation will be introduced early next Session to give effect to the proposals I have announced. Meanwhile, a scheme will be laid before Parliament providing for the maximum basic and special subsidies payable under existing legislation for the subsidy year beginning August 1, 1968. These subsidies will in due course be set against the total sum due to the industry for that year under the new policy."
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for this Statement about the deep sea fishery industry? May I put to him one general point first? This I suppose, is the most hazardous and difficulty industry in the world. Profitability is still the ultimate criterion which determines whether a vessel goes to sea or not. As success depends to an exceptional degree on a mixture of skill, courage and enterprise, inevitably the pressure at the economic margin of the industry is acute. A subsidy cannot relieve the acuteness of the pressure, it can only move the position at which the pressure falls, and may blunt the incentive in the process. In the unique circumstances of the industry, have the Government considered the alternative approach of securing the home market for our own fishermen by suitable import controls and removing the whole subsidy structure?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord's remarks about the hazardous character of this industry. I think that he will agree, that in so far as one can encourage efficient units within the industry, a

677
formula of this kind is to be desired. The noble Lord asked whether the possibility of restricting imports had been considered. The answer is, that it has been considered. There are, of course, difficulties, especially those connected with our obligations to the EFTA countries, but my right honourable friend is proposing to have discussions about imports with our EFTA partners.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that answer and say that I hope the discussions may be fruitful because I believe that this would be a better approach in the long run? In the meantime, may I ask the noble Lord to confirm my impression that the new subsidy structure proposed is putting emphasis on efficiency of operation in order that in every way possible incentives may be given to the enterprise and adventure on which the whole success of the industry depends?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, My Lords, that is the intention of the formula. As the noble Lord will see when he reads my Statement, this is something I have emphasised. The details of the formula will be worked out with the industry within this principle.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I welcome the Statement and thank the noble Lord for making it? It seems particularly satisfactory that the subsidy will be actuated with regard to classification and therefore the smaller vessels and the efficient vessels will have a better and fairer share than in the past. There are two small questions I should like to ask as subsidiaries, and perhaps they are a little off the mark. One is, will this have any connection with the new 12-mile limit and how has that been working for the past four years? Secondly, suppose this scheme is extremely successful, is there a danger of over-fishing so that there will be such a shortage of fish that there will not be as many fish in the sea as there used to be?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his welcome for this Statement. I am afraid I cannot answer his question about the 12-mile-limit: it is not, of course, related to this Statement; but I will find out what has been done recently and I will let the noble
678
Lord know. I understand his fears about over-fishing, but he will recall that I did say that there will be a limit to the subsidy, and I should have thought that would take care to some extent of his doubts on that.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? How is this subsidy going to affect the present price of fish? Is it going to be maintained, or will this subsidy reduce the price so that really, the fishing industry will be no better off?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, I do not think that it will necessarily work in that way. In so far as this proposed new formula will encourage efficiency, I would have thought it would tend to result in the most economic industry possible. What will in fact happen to the price of fish over the years is, of course, another matter, but what we hope is that it will be as low as is economically possible.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, not to pass too lightheartedly over what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about over-fishing? The ever-increasing efficiency of the industry really means that the distant water trawlers are fish destroyers and the stocks of fish in the oceans have been very seriously reduced. If we are going to take measures to increase the efficiency of the industry still further, we must at the same time increase our efforts to ensure the conservation of fish stocks.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies, may I support what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Inglewood? The beneficial effects of these subsidies will be nullified if over-fishing is allowed to take place again on the scale on which it has occurred on two or three occasions in this present century, particularly in the North Sea. Will the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that it is far more important to get some international agreement to limit fishing, and to prevent over-fishing, than it is to protect the home market?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I say that I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, should suggest that I was taking the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, lightheartedly.

679
That was certainly not my intention and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did not take my answer in that way. I was pointing out, on the basis of the information I have, that this is not an open-ended subsidy and to that extent, therefore, it would not necessarily encourage over-fishing. However, my Lords, there is a separate problem which will be present, irrespective of the type of subsidy, and if I can add usefully to the information about that problem I will certainly write to the noble Lords.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
4.28 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD PARGITER: I hope that this Amendment will be resisted. The primary object of this Bill is to try to tidy up the present position with regard to outstanding planning matters and to shorten the period taken to complete planning procedure. The procedure proposed in the Amendment, however skilfully it may be argued, would undoubtedly result, if accepted, in an increase in the amount of time taken to deal with planning applications. It would, incidentally, place a parish council in a stronger position with regard to planning than a district council is at the present time. Surely that would be a little topsy-turvy, to say the least.
At present the law requires that a county council or planning authority (which may be a county council or a county borough council) shall consult with a rural council or an urban district council—at any rate, a county district council—with regard to these matters. In many cases, as your Lordships will be aware, there are schemes of delegation by which the district council itself deals with a number of planning applications. Where there is no delegation the planning authority must consult the council in connection with these matters. This system, by and large, works fairly well, but it still takes up a great deal of time. Let us take the position with regard to planning and see exactly what happens.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: If the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, would permit me to intervene, may I say that I think he is missing the point of the Amendment
680
completely? He keeps on talking about consulting but if he looks at the Amendment he will see it is a question of notification, which is entirely different.
LORD PARGITER: I have read the Amendment, and what I see is that it places on planning authorities an obligation to take certain action with regard to parish councils which they are not required to take with district councils. The effect would be to lengthen the proceedings. What happens with regard to planning applications is complicated. After the plan is put in, and the comments of those concerned have been obtained, there is often a general requirement for the applicant to agree to an extended time limit, because two months, or in certain cases three months, is the limit and after that the applicant has the right to deem his application to have been refused and to go to the Minister. That is the last thing that planning committees want to happen. They want to get decisions without going to the Minister. The application is subject to considerable negotiation between the planning authority, the district council and the applicant, who is perhaps asked to modify his application to make it more acceptable.
Again, the difference between an outline consent and a detailed planning consent causes a considerable amount of discussion and takes time. There is no short cut. We are trying to take cogs out of the planning wheel, and this Amendment would put another one in.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I wonder whether the noble Lord would explain how. Under this Amendment the applicant would have the duty to inform the parish council, and if the council commented upon his application, it would be the duty of the county council, as planning authority, to take account of their representations. The only delay can be five minutes, or more perhaps in the county planning committee, to take account of the representations received from the man on the spot.
LORD PARGITER: I hardly share the noble Lord's optimism that it will take place so quickly, or that the parish council would be treated so cavalierly by the planning committee that their representations would be disposed of in five

681
minutes. It would take more time than that. The applicant already makes three or four copies, but he would now have to submit additional copies and see that the parish council is notified. It is not a simple question. In the majority of cases, these applications are considered by the parish council and in some cases there would be a parish meeting. No doubt in many cases, there is dual membership between parish councils and rural districts councils. Altogether it cannot be said that machinery by which the parish council can make their views known is lacking.
But the Amendment places a definite statutory responsibility, in the last analysis, on the county planning authority. Surely it would be much better to leave a system that is operating satisfactorily. I recognise that probably parish councils desire to have more responsibility, but this is not the right place to give them greater statutory responsibility, because here it can be done by consultation. Planning authorities know that it is as well to have as wide a consultation as possible with everybody interested, and they do this almost automatically. There is no sense in their not doing so, because they know that if they do not the matter will catch up with them at a subsequent stage, and it will then take considerably longer than if there had been consultation at the beginning. I hope that your Lordships will not accent this Amendment, which can only add a further period to the time already consumed in dealing with planning consents.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am all for parish councils knowing everything that is likely to affect their interests, whether they originate within the district or outside it. I am of the opinion that the present arrangements for consultation with, and for hearing the views of, parish councils are not everywhere what they should be, although I recognise that in some places they work in a satisfactory way. I also think that if those authorities where the arrangements are not good can be persuaded to adopt the methods that prevail satisfactorily elsewhere, that would be better than going in for some new form of procedure.
I have three objection to the proposals in the Amendment for formal notification. In spite of what has been said—and I appreciate that there are safeguards
682
against delay—I think that there be delays. I can only say, after being for 20 years chairman of a county planning committee, that I have attended a number of rather stormy parish council meetings. The reason for their stormy nature was not because they had not heard of the applications but, every time, because they had heard of them and did nit like them. If we say that the planning authority must take account of what the parish council says, there may well be a good deal of difficulty about what that means. Does it mean registering the parish council's opinion or "steamrollering" it. I do not think that that would be accepted. I think that this will tend to delay proceedings, and it must be remembered that parish councils have no particular interest in getting these questions settled quickly. It will also tend to increase the number of appeals.
My second objection is on an entirely different line. The procedure proposed in the Amendment is not a very efficient way of informing parish councils. In my own county we have 109 parish councils, and that means 109 parish boundaries. I can imagine something happening outside one of those parish boundaries— perhaps an industrial chimney will be put up—and the parish council ought to know about it; but, sticking strictly to this Amendment, they may not hear about it because it is; not within their area. The third point is simply that this moment, just before the whole of our local planning structure is likely to be thrown into the melting pot, is a bad time to introduce this innovation.
What then can one suggest should be done? It is difficult to generalise, having regard to the fact that there arm so many different schemes of delegation of planning powers throughout the country. I believe that where rural district councils have schemes delegated to them every councillor should have knowledge of any proposition likely to affect his area, irrespective of whether he is a member of the planning committee, and, further, that he should have at his discretion complete power to discuss such matters with the parish councils in his area.
Equally, I think that this ought to be a two-way process. Parish councils should be encouraged to have a closer

683
liaison than they do with their rural district council representatives. I would not mind guaranteeing that in the whole range of parish councillors quite a proportion would not even know the names of their district council representatives, and that a far larger number would have no idea of the names of their county council representatives. The one individual they do know about is the Member of Parliament, and disgruntled people, whether parish councillors or not, usually write to him. A Conservative Member told me only the other day that about half of his correspondence with constituents concerned planning matters. I think this is all wrong, and I suggested that he should refer them to local representatives. But it is difficult, perhaps, for a Member of Parliament to disregard any request from any of his constituents.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to interrupt. He has referred to Members of Parliament. Many of the letters that a Member gets in reference to planning decisions are not sent to members of the county council because people think that the county councillors are too much influenced by their officials.
VISCOUNT GAGE: This is an argument that I do not think it is easy to carry on, because one might easily say that Members of Parliament are affected by other things, such as Party considerations, or something of that sort. I hope my noble friend will agree that fundamentally these are wrong questions to be addressed to Members of Parliament, who have many other things to think about.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I entirely agree. They should be passed back.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My suggestion is that, with the aid of the good services of the Rural District Councils Association, where you have these delegated powers a circular should be devised to try to encourage all rural districts possessing these powers to adopt the same methods, which work satisfactorily in some cases and, where there is no scheme of delegation, perhaps to consult with the County Councils Association to see whether something like the Oxford principle could be introduced. For myself, I think it
684
would be better to have that system, although I can see that some of the enthusiastic parish councillors, who want the semblance of power besides what they ask for here—who want parish council power, like student power—may not be satisfied. But, on the whole, I think they would get a better deal in the way I suggest.
LORD ILFORD: I have no wish to discourage my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has made the cause of parish councils his own. I am bound to say that I hope your Lordships will not adopt this Amendment. One of the purposes which the Minister has in view in promoting this new legislation is speeding up, if he can, the making of decisions in regard to town planning applications. I am bound to say to my noble friend—I have studied this procedure carefully—that it seems to me to be almost inevitable that the notice which will have to be given to the parish council, and the subsequent proceedings, will lengthen the process of obtaining a town planning decision.
I do not know how much we should gain by adopting the procedure which this clause proposes. There is no reason why the parish council should not submit their observations to the planning authority as they stand. If their feelings were strong about it, it might well be that if their views were communicated direct to the planning authority they would receive more attention than they would if they reached the planning authority through the process of compulsion which this Amendment proposes. In the authorities which I know most we have no parish councils, and so perhaps I am not the right person to assure my noble friend that they are not held in the degree of contempt to which he referred in his speech. Indeed, my experience of county councils and district councils has been that they welcome the co-operation of the parish councils. So far as policy is concerned, we have no dealings with parish councils, and perhaps I should be going too far if I were to assure my noble friend that in the boroughs there is certainly no feeling of criticism against them. Indeed, I think everybody wishes to see them succeed. They are really local government, and, after all, local government is the purpose that we all have in view.
LORD HOLFORD: I should like to intervene briefly to say a word on behalf of the applicant for planning permission and in support of what Lord Gage and Lord Ilford have just said. One can, I think, see the intention of this Amendment, but I believe that it is not workable. The planning application is made on forms, and the local planning authority can ask on the form for what information they wish. One has to give information (I am speaking as a planning applicant now) on a number of points, and if the local planning authority wish to ask on the form that you should state whether the parish council is aware of the proposal, or whether any discussions have taken place, they can do so.
I cannot support the Amendment for two reasons. First, the application is accompanied by a certificate, which is yet another piece of paper, possibly in triplicate or quadruplicate, that has to be produced. Secondly, it places the onus on the planning authority that they shall not entertain are application. That is a delicious word "entertain", but it means that it puts in the Bill that they cannon look at it without a certificate. It seems to me too formal and too time consuming. I suggest that the same result would be gained by the local planning authority simply asking for this on the form.
4.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to support the Amendment. I apologise to the Committee for not being in my place when the Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Grimston, to whom I am grateful. To the one speaker who has spoken against this Amendment on the question of delay in planning I would point out that it is not consultation, but notification. The parish councils have only 14 days to consider, and it is then up to them to advise the planning authority whether or not they wish to make a comment on the application.
There are two other points in the clause to which I should like to draw attention. The first is under subsection (1)(a)(ii) where it says that any parish council may opt out of this scheme if they wish. This, I suggest, answers the criticism of those who may say: "What about parish councils who have not the facilities to consider the scheme?" They
686
may opt out of it. Secondly, the local planning authorities themselves, under subsection (2) may prepare a scheme defining what type or class of application should be notified to the parish council. In other words, it would limit the number of applications that would necessarily be referred to the parish council only to those which the local planning authority really feel the parish councils should know about. I do not think this has been mentioned, but it is important.
The principle behind the clause is to keep the parish council informed of what is going on in their area. I suggest that this clause would strengthen the first fundamental of the Bill—namely, the quality of the decision making—without weakening the secondary aim of obtaining quick planning decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said that a certain number of enlightening planning authorities have already introduced a volunary system of notification based very much on the principle of this Amendment. There are, I think, 7 county councils out of 59, and 50 rural district councils out of 350, such as those with delegated powers, who practise a system of notification to parish councils. In other words, one-sixth of all the planning authorities practise this system voluntarily.
Because of the honest criticism that has been voiced, that such notification to parish councils would cause delays in planning, I took the opportunity last week of talking to one of those who operate this voluntary system. The clerk of the council concerned has devised a simple application form—which I would advise the noble Lord, Lord Ward, is not in triplicate—needing only the name of the applicant, the date of the application, the address and location a id the description. There are only four simple questions to be answered. In my professional capacity I have had to fill in many such forms, and I have found that it takes just two minutes. The clerk of this council was kind enough to write to me, and he said:
"I am writing to let you know t tat the operation of the scheme of consultation with parish councils on planning applications does not delay the reaching of planning decisions by my council's area planning sub-committees or the issue of decision documents, except in the very rare case where an applicant refuses to send brief particulars of his proposal to the parish council concerned."

687
He went on:
"Partly as a result of this scheme, by and large our relations with parish councils have developed on most friendly and helpful lines."
One might ask: if this voluntary scheme works so well, what is the purpose of introducing a compulsory scheme? The reply is simple. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will know that for the past seven years planning authorities throughout the country have been urged by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to introduce a voluntary system, and nothing has happened, apart from these seven county councils and 50 rural district councils—in other words, only a sixth of the total have taken note of it. I think it was in 1961 that the Ministry sent round a circular, urging local authorities to adopt the system. I am sure we all know cases where, through a lack of local knowledge, planning committees sometimes come to what might be termed difficult and awkward decisions on amenity in certain areas. Without wishing, to cast any aspersions on area planning officers, on whom planning committees rely so much, I am sure they would agree that, due to lack of time and pressure of work, they themselves sometimes come to wrong planning conclusions. I have evidence of a number of examples of planning decisions which all stem from a lack of knowledge of the area and which would have been prevented if parish councils had been notified.
I have in mind one particular case in the village of Long Marton in Westmorland. Here stands an old Norman church, on a 4th Century Romano-British site, and it contains two Saxon arches and a Saxon nave. It is one of the few churches in the country built with an outward sloping chancel wall, said to represent Our Lord's head hanging on the Cross. But its most remarkable feature are two Tympana, which are certainly pre-Conquest and possibly Scandinavian. It is undoubtedly a most important Christian monument, standing on a site of great antiquity in most charming unspoilt countyside beneath the Pennine fells of North Westmorland. A planning application by a neighbouring farmer was made to erect two 80 ft. tower silos 150 yards away from the church, and it was granted before any effective local opposition could be marshalled. A complaint
688
was made to the Minister. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, knows about this case. The Minister took the view that he could not interfere, so to-day in Long Marton we have this beautiful old Norman church, which has stood proudly for over 1,500 years, now overshadowed by hideous, large, although no doubt economic, 20th century grain silos—a monument for all to see for years to come of a travesty of good planning. This would not have happened if the parish council had been notified of the application.
The Committee will already have read that a Private Member's Bill was moved in another place in similar terms to this new clause, and, in fact, received its Second Reading there on March 1. The Bill was unopposed, and went to Committee on June 19. It passed through the Committee stage with one or two minor drafting Amendments, but I understand that, due to pressure of time, it has no chance of making further progress this Session. Therefore I suggest it is most important that this clause, even if the drafting is a little wrong, should be incorporated in this Bill. The grounds of objections raised against compulsory notification, as I understand it, are those of time and of cost: that the parish council could not easily partake in such a procedure; that all the local authority associations are opposed to it; that the Management Study Report is against it, and, finally, that the Skeffington Committee are at this very moment considering the question of public participation.
I should like briefly to deal with these points. The first, with regard to time and cost, I personally cannot accept, because I do not think that a mere notification made to the parish council wastes any time or money. I think it is valuable because, as the clause states, from that moment on it is entirely up to the parish council, which has 14 days in which to submit its views to the local planning committee. No consultations take place, no delays are incurred. Yet for the sake of this little extra effort certain important information and views may be made available to the planning committee. It was said in another place that this may be a burden, but I think the size of the burden on parish councils could be described as follows. Of the approximate total of 450,000 planning applications made every year, 90,000 of

689
them, on average, affect villages; and there are 7,600 parish councils. So if we divide the number of parish councils into the number of applications, it comes to only twelve a year. That is not a great burden.
We then look at the local authority associations, who oppose it. We know already that the County Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association are against it, but the Urban District Councils Association are for it, as also are the Civic Trust, some ratepayers' associations and the Women's Institutes—the latter being an important body. The Report on Management Study on Development Control came down against parish councils' being consulted. On page 36, under subsection (8) ("Consultation with Parish Councils"), it is stated:
"There is no statutory need to consult parish councils and it is considered that any advantages in consultations on general development control applications are more than outweighed by the delays that can occur. It seems that the right time to consult parish councils is at the development plan stage or before non-statutory maps are produced.
"We therefore recommend that in the interests of efficient management, parish councils should not be extensively consulted on development control applications."
I am not saying that I disagree with that statement, but in this Amendment it is a question not of consultation but of notification.
We then come to the Skeffington Committee. The setting up of this Committee was announced last January, at the time of the Second Reading of this Bill in another place. As I understand the position this Committee are looking into ways and means of achieving more public participation during the formation of the structure and local plans. These structure plans, will, of course, designate land use generally, but there will still be a necessity for specific land use, such details of specific applications as siting and amenity and design. These matters will still require to be discussed, and the notification of parish councils could be very important. I believe there is a real need for this statutory obligation to notify parish councils. It is said that one of the real problems that faced the architects of this Bill was deciding on the delicate balance between the speed of decision and the breadth of consultation, and I believe that this Amendment
690
would achieve yet another vital factor in the balance of good planning legislation; namely, that of improving communications. I hope that my noble friend Lord Grimston will not withdraw this Amendment because I believe that it is of vital interest and value to planning.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: I should like to support this Amendment from a different angle; and I declare my interest as chairman of a parish council in Kent. I am slightly surprised to hear some of the criticisms from noble Lords on this side about parish councils. We have grown since those days. The parish clerk has a telephone, and if there is a neighbouring parish council which has in a planning application which is likely to affect us the clerks get together and I, as chairman, am told about it that very night. We are one of those lucky areas which are informed, but not consulted, which gives us a chance to put in an objection if we feel strongly about it, and at least two parish councillors will go and see the site the day we hear of the application coming in. It at least takes some of the frustration away from the people on the ground, that is, the parish itself, the last remnants of democracy in this country, the grass roots. Before we turn down this Amendment let us have some faith n our parish councillors.
LORD INGLEWOOD: When I saw this Amendment down on the Marshalled List I read it carefully because I am always attracted by any proposals to help and encourage parish councils, for the reasons we have heard. It must be admitted that they vary greatly in their tradition, their interest in affairs generally, the experience of their members and in particular of their chairmen. If some parish councils have not taken advantage of all the powers they possess, that does not mean that we should treat them lightly. Having read the clause, I had some misgivings on the lines of those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Holford. I was wondering whether the interests of the applicant were perhaps not going to be encumbered by this procedure, but even though the drafting of this clause might not be as good as it could be, that does not mean we ought not to do something. I am sure we ought not to leave things as they are, and after hearing the two speeches in the interests

691
of the county councils by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, I became convinced that this House ought to do something in the interests of the parish councils. I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting as I did, but it is in fact the case, as any Member of Parliament would confirm, that after—not necessarily before, but after—decisions have been given the disappointed people write to their Member of Parliament, because they feel that the planning committee of their local authority will say, "We have looked into this carefully and we have come to what we believe is the right decision".
I am not going to be drawn into another discussion about something that happened at one time in what was my constituency. I believe the case which has been quoted is a difficult one, and I doubt whether the key to the whole solution would have rested with the parish council. On the other hand, that does not mean that there is not considerable merit in this clause and the idea that lies behind it, and I am sure we should do what we can to encourage parish councils to take a greater interest in this very important part of what ought to be their work.
LORD CHORLEY: I find myself very much in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. This clause seems to me altogether too complicated. It seems that there is great value in the parish council being seized of these matters. At the Council for the Preservation of Rural England we have frequently found parish councils bringing this sort of matter to our attention, and it has quite often enabled us really to take hold of a matter which was of very great importance from the point of view of safeguarding of the English countryside. I should have thought this could have been secured by a mere notification, making it necessary that a copy of the application be sent to the parish council interested without all the complications provided by this particular proposal. I should have thought that this would get rid of a great deal of the objections very properly put forward by a number of noble Lords who are very experienced in these planning matters. Obviously, as Lord Gage said, the whole object, or one of the basic objects, of this Bill is to simplify the planning
692
arrangements, and this obviously adds a cog there; and I should have thought it could have been got rid of, and that the sponsors of this Amendment might withdraw it and put down something simpler to secure the object without adding to these complications. I should have thought this would provide a solution.
LORD SILKIN: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. I feel that the introduction of the parish councils in these matters is really the fifth wheel to the coach. I have no doubt that has already been said. The fact is that an application goes to the county council; it then goes to the district council who are their agents and already the county council are obliged to hear the comments of the district council. If now you add the parish council as well it is really going to complicate things. In fact anybody can object to a planning application; there is no difficulty about making representations to the county council or the district council if a planning application is regarded as being one which will adversely affect an individual or a community. And there is no difficulty about it becoming known. I hope very much that this Amendment will not be accepted either in principle or in any other way. Apart from the fact that the whole question of administration is in the melting pot, it would he much more difficult if there were three local authorities to deal with rather than two.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: There is a genuine problem here, as my noble friend Lord Gage clearly realised. I feel that I must speak up for him. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that these things will get known in good time. The truth is that they do not. Some years after he retired from active membership of your Lordships' House, I remember going to stay with a greatly respected former Member of this House, Lord Woolton, at the village to which he retired. I found him and all the inhabitants of the village furious at a decision having been taken above their heads which was going materially to alter the character of the village and on which the parish council had neither been consulted nor even informed. These things happen, and it is desirable that there should be a safeguard against them. Nobody wants to over-burden the whole system, but so

693
far as I can see the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Grimston is very closely modelled on what is working smoothly and satisfactorily on a non-statutory basis in Oxfordshire and not causing difficulty to the applicant (whom the noble Lord, Lord Holford, very rightly reminded us we should consider) or to the county council as the planning authority.
I was a parish councillor once. I have not been one for nearly forty years, so I do not think I need declare an interest there. I live in a small village, and having moved from a great city to a small village I am so conscious of the extent to which the character of a village can be drastically altered by a decision, which may be taken without the local people having had any opportunity to express a view on it. Maybe the decision was a right one which had to be taken for overriding reasons. But that is no ground for arguing that there should have been no public participation in this locally.
The reason why I hope so much that the Government will be able to offer some constructive solution to this problem is that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill in another place on January 31 of this year (I quote from column 1362 of Hansard) said:
"Above all, I am determined that there should be more real public participation in planning. I want people to have a much better chance of being involved in the planning of the area they live in, and of influencing it."
I commend the Bill for what it does to that end in Clauses 3 and 7. But those clauses are concerned with development plans and local plans; whereas what is overwhelmingly important to many a village is the individual planning application on which the planning authority has to take a decision. It is just as important that the people in that village who are going to live with the development, should have the opportunity of expressing a view before a decision is reached, as that the people in great cities and smaller towns shall be able to express views on the structure plans and local plans. There is a genuine problem here, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate that, despite one or two opposing speeches, the majority view in this debate is that a constructive solution should be found by the Government.
LORD SILKIN: May I ask the noble Lord this question? Does he not think that the district councils, to whom planning is delegated in the vast majority, if not all, cases, are in a position to deal with the very thing that this Amendment seeks to do? After all, the district council consists of people from all parts of the district or area, including the village which may be affected. Surely they are in a position to know what is going on.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I would entirely agree, if we were all perfect in this world. But there are many district councillors who have not all the time in the world to go round to each village in the area they represent, to look at what is going to be the effect of proposed developments, and to consult the people in the village. I agree entirely that in an ideal world this would happen. I am sure that the noble Lord, with his experience of local government and planning, will agree that we cannot count on all district councillors being universally wise and universally energetic.
LORD ILFORD: Surely anybody who objects to a proposal writes readily to his district councillor and tells him what his objections are.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Yes. But you cannot write and object if you have not heard what the proposal is.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: May I say just one word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said and in contradiction of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said? District councils often do not consult parish councils before a decision is taken. That is the trouble. I have been on a parish council, a county council and a town planning committee for several years; and I know that often there is a lack of communication between the district council and the parish council, in spite of the fact that there might be a representative from the village concerned on the district council. Things sometimes happen so quickly that a decision is taken before the parish has a change of seeing a proposal, or of objecting to it, or of suggesting alterations. I am sure it is this lack of communication that needs to be put right.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to add one word in reply to my noble friend Lord Silkin. In England, local conditions differ enormously from one part of the country to another. I know parts of the North of England where villages are small, and the idea of having a district councillor living in each village, or, as is frequently the case, a hamlet, is just unrealistic. In other parts of England the villages are large, and no doubt there are district councillors in a great many of them. But what we need is an arrangement that satisfies the requirements of the whole country and is not applicable just to those parts in which the villages are large and there are local district councillors.
5.16 p.m.
LORD KENNET: As in every Amendment and clause of this Bill, we find ourselves in a situation where I think all sides of the Committee are agreed on what ought to happen. I do not suppose any noble Lord present would dissent from the proposition that every citizen ought to be able to know of any planning proposal which is going sensibly to affect the quality of his life.
It is our purpose to reach this situation. What we are in disagreement about—and I must say at once that I disagree with the noble Earl and his Amendment —is whether this situation can most expeditiously and justly be reached by writing certain statutory obligations into the Town and Country Planning Bill. I think it cannot, for various reasons. First of all, there is the question of whether or not there is an extra cog in the machine if the Committee adopt this Amendment. No noble Lord has mentioned that although all the district council have to do, apparently, is to sit back and receive the observations of the parish council if the parish council wishes to send any (if you put it like that, it sounds quite simple and something which is not going to add to anybody's burden) as the new clause is drafted, first of all, it makes it obligatory for notification to be given by the applicant to the parish council. That is a burden of the applicant: Lord Holford's point.
It then enables planning authorities to make a scheme for defining types of application for which notification would not be needed. These schemes would only become compulsory when the majority
696
of the parish councils in an area have acceded to them. That is to say, first of all, all applicants have to tell the parish councils about everything. Then, because that is going to be too much (and the noble Earl admits it is too much) the planning authority have to sit down and say, "We do not think that the following sorts of cases need be communicated to parish councils". They have then to present a draft list of the sorts of cases to the parish councils. They have to wait until 80 per cent. of the parish councils have agreed with the draft list. They can then compel the other 20 per cent. to agree not to receive applications on these. I ask your Lordships, is this or is this not a cog in a machine? I think it is certainly adding a big cog to the machine. As it is seen by the planning authorities it is quite a big cog.
Then there is the question of the Report of the Management Study on development control. I do not think this is of the highest relevance, because although they talked about the possibility of consulting parish councils, they did not talk of the possibility of informing the parish councils. They said that that would be a bad plan because it would "gum up the works". It is only common sense to say that if that would "gum up the works" to a certain extent, then a duty to inform them would also "gum up the works", to a lesser extent. If you bring them in at all the extent will be less, but it is still adding a complication.
Now let us turn to the position of the applicant. It is said that all he has to do is to fill in one more copy of his application and send it off to the parish council.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Not one more copy of the application. It is a separate, small application, asking four questions: it is not the huge application in triplicate.
LORD KENNET: A separate small application, the form for which I think he would get from the planning authority. That is one more thing for the planning authority to do: they must have a separate form. Then he will have to find out where the parish council is, and whether there is one. That is going to be more work for him—unless indeed the planning

697
authority were to adopt the wise precedent set by the Oxfordshire County Council and have on the back of this application form a list of all the parish councils, in which case it would he more work for the planning authority again to get that list and keep it up to date.
That is all very well. The applicant has sent his special small form to the parish council, but what happens in the very common case where he gets into a negotiation with the planning authority? The planning authority say, "No, you cannot do that, but if you change it this way and that way, it will be O.K."; and he puts in an amended application. He then has to go back and tell the parish council again. But supposing the parish council liked his first one and did not like his second one, then the planning authority would have to wait for their observations. They would realise that they had run into the objections of the parish council simply because of what they had said to the applicant about his amending his plan, and possibly the county councillor, or district councillor who represents the parish concerned would urge the case of the parish council against the amended plan, and so on. I think it is difficult to sustain the argument that this procedure would not complicate the machinery.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I apologise for interrupting. What we are talking about is a 14-day period, and I believe I am right in saying that most local planning authorities require 14 days before an application can be considered by their sub-committee. During that 14-day period you have plotting and registratiton, the necessary consultations with the county surveyor on the highway problems, and so on. It is during this period of their own consultations that the parish council have the opportunity of making their comments.
LORD KENNET: That is no doubt so, but I think it does not affect what I was saying about the complications of letting the parish council know again if there is a negotiation between the applicant and the planning authority. Such is the view not only of the noble Lord, Lord Holford, who has a good deal of experience of these matters, but also of the two institutions in the country which are per-
698
haps best qualified to speak for applicants as a class, because their members have to submit so many applications—I refer to the Confederation of British Industry and the National Federation of Building Trade Employers. They know what it is to apply for planning permission, and how much work it is. And they are of the opinion that this Amendment would add to it and are therefore against it. Given the diversity of the parish council system it seems to the Government better to leave it to voluntary notification. However, I am coming in a minute to something constructive.
As the noble Earl said, there are something over 10,000 parishes in the country. They vary in population from a handful, or two handfuls, at one extreme, up to tens of thousands, in the case of the very biggest parishes. They vary in area from a few acres to, in some cases, nearly 100 square miles. Of that total of 10,000-plus parishes, about 3,000 have no parish council at all, and parish councils are not required by law to meet more than four times a year. Now this gives a patchwork of very different sorts of parish councils, or of absence of parish councils, as part of the wealth of local government in England; and we have the highly variegated grass roots of this country. It seems to me that, given this enormous variety and given the added work, it would be better to leave this notification on the voluntary footing that obtains at present, rather than to seek to apply a statutory duty which, I submit, would be notable as much by the exceptions that would have to be made to it as by the degree to which it could be observed.
Several noble Lords have said that it is the policy of the present Minister, and has been the policy of several preceding Ministers, to favour voluntary information of planning applications to parish councils. I confirm that this is still the policy, and that it will be the business of the Government to make this clear in an appropriate way after the Bill is through. The noble Earl rather brushed the point aside, but I think there also a point about the right kind of consultation with parish councils being a t the stage when the development plan is being produced.
Virtually all the discussion this afternoon I think has been about villages.

699
Nobody has talked about the large urban parish, and I do not imagine many people would hold that with an urban parish with a population of 10,000 or 20,000 that it is important that the parish council should be consulted over every single proposed development in it. But consider the development plan for a village which will say whether or not the village is to be increased in size. It will say whether or not there is to be in-filling in the village. It will say whether or not there are to be extensions behind that village street, or in one corner, or out into the fields in one direction. It will say whether or not new development in the village is to use local stone or to observe any special style of architecture in accordance with the tradition there. It will say all these things. The people who live in the village will have the opportunity of saying through their parish council, if they have one, "We don't like this", or "We do like that". They will be able to talk it out and the decision will be reached. After that they will know that applications for single developments will be allowed or disallowed in accordance with their policy. They will not be surprised to see in-filling in local stone going on, or to see no in-filling going on because there is a marsh there, or a nice duck pond, but a housing estate going out in this direction. They will not be surprised about this because they will know all about it under the new style development plan.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Could the noble Lord clarify one thing. He has been speaking about development plans. The development plans are disappearing and under this new Bill we are to have structure plans and local plans. Surely a structure plan will not go into such detail as to the type of facing to be used in a particular village. As to local plans, we have no assurance that there will be local plans extending over all the villages in every county.
LORD KENNET: I apologise. It is due to my neo-classical education; I was speaking a nearly dead language. I should have said structure plans and local plans. As a matter of fact, the new language is coming in by degree and the old style development plans will continue for a time, possibly for a longer time in rural areas than in cities. Even under
700
the new plans we certainly hope that planning authorities will produce local plans which will show precisely this sort of point; or, if they do not, they will even show up on the structure plan. There is no reason why they should not. But parish councillors will be on firm ground in demanding that there is some plan in operation which will show this.
May I come now to what ought to be done. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that the right answer to this is to make the district councils real. District councillors ought to be doing this job. If they do not, their electors ought to insist that they do. Where planning is not delegated by the county council to the district council in the countryside, this is of course a more difficult problem, but where a county council chooses not to delegate, it must accept the duty of seeing, through it own councillors, that people are informed by their councillors of the kind of things which are going to interest them.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, objected to this and said that that would be all very well if all men were perfect, and that district councillors were not perfect, at any rate not more perfect than other men. To this I would answer nor are parish councillors. It is conceivable that the parish councillor himself would not get round to telling everybody in the village. It would he easier for him to do so, but in a very large parish he might find it difficult. He might find it as difficult as a district councillor in a rather small district council with delegated planning powers. It all fits together in such diverse ways in different parts of the country that it would be really wrong to put down this blanket statutory obligation. There will be a circular of advice from the Minister to all planning authorities about how this new system should be worked when the Bill is through. The best solution to this problem, which is a real one, is that there should be words in the circular to bring home to planning authorities the desirability of keeping parish councils aware of planning applications which affect the look of their parishes. I can assure the Committee that that will be done.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: As I originally introduced this clause on behalf of my noble friend, may I say that

701
although we have had an interesting discussion on this matter, in the back of my mind is the thought that in matters of planning it is important that people who are to be most affected by what is going to happen should at least know about it. That was the underlying object of this new clause. I was interested to hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Holford. I have great sympathy with him, since he speaks with considerable knowledge as somebody who makes planning applications. He seemed to think that this was a comparatively simple problem and that all one had to do was to see that it was on the form that the parish council should be informed.
It may be said that this new clause is a cumbersome and tiresome way of covering this matter, but I must confess that a great many of the arguments put by the Minister in attempting to destroy this new clause were almost to the effect that the parish council should not be brought in at all. But I know that that was not his object. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but it has emerged from this discussion that there is a problem in this respect. I therefore suggest that, if my noble friend agrees, the Amendment might now be withdrawn on the understanding that further thought is given to this matter and that if we cannot find an agreeable solution we may return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 69, to insert the following new clause:
Procedure in connection with making and confirmation of tree preservation orders
(".—(1) The provisions which may by virtue of subsection (1)(c) of section 29 of the principal Act (tree preservation orders) be applied by such in order in relation to any consent thereunder shall include section 69 of this Act.
(2) Regulations made by virtue of section 29(5) of the principal Act may (without prejudice to the generality of that subsection) make provision as follows:—

(a) that, before a tree preservation order is submitted to the Minister for confirmation, notice of the making of the order shall be given to the owners and occupiers of land affected by the order and to such
702
other persons, if any, as may be specified in the regulations;

(b) that objections and representations with respect to the order, if duly made in accordance with the regulations, shall be considered before the order is confirmed by the Minister;

(c) that, if no objections or representations are so made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the order may, instead of being confirmed by the Minister (as required by section 29(4) of the principal Act) be confirmed (but without any modification), as an unopposed order, by the authority who made it; and

(d) that copies of the order, when confirmed by the Minister or the authority, shall be served on such persons as may be specified in the regulations.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 73. At the moment all tree preservation orders made by local authorities have to be confirmed by the Minister before they can have permanent effect. Local authorities are now making about 1,000 tree preservation orders each year, and of these about three-quarters attract no objections or representations of any sort. Accordingly, this new clause provides that those orders to which there are no objections or representations may be confirmed by the local authority who made them. No change at all is proposed in the rights of those who wish to object. They will continue to make their objections to the Minister as before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 69 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Partial abrogation of dual control of office development]:
LORD KENNET: Amendment No. 74 is a procedural Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 8, after ("application") insert ("a copy of").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: The object of subsection (2) of Clause 71 is to make it unnecessary to obtain an office development permit for industrial offices for which an industrial development certificate containing a condition limiting

703
office space has been issued. But it is an undesirable consequence of that subsection, as it now stands, that such development might in certain circumstances become what is called related development and so have to be taken into account if the same user or developer later made a planning application for a nearby development which was itself below the exemption limit. This Amendment rectifies that undesirable situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 24, at end insert:—
("(5) Development in respect of which there has been issued by the Board of Trade an industrial development certificate with conditions attached thereto by virtue of subsection (1) of this section shall be treated as not included in any reference to 'related development' in section 2 of the Act of 1965 (which makes an office development permit unnecessary if the amount of office floor space to be created is below the prescribed exemption limit, but for this purpose requires that space to he aggregated with office floor space created or to be created in the course of other development affecting the same building or site).")— (Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 76 agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved, after Clause 76, to insert the following new clause:
Transfer of Ministerial functions as to stopping up etc. footpaths and bridleways
(".—(1) Section 153 of the principal Act (power of Minister of Transport to make orders authorising the stopping up or diversion of highways in order to enable development to be carried out) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) The Minister with power under that section by order to authorise the stopping up or diversion of a footpath or bridleway shall, instead of being the Minister of Transport, be the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
(3) Subsection (2) of the said section shall not apply to an order made thereunder by the Minister of Housing and Local Government; but an order so made may make such provision as appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the creation of an alternative footpath or bridleway for use as a replacement for the one authorised by the order to be stopped up or diverted, or for the improvement of an existing path or way for such use.
(4) In relation to an order made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under section 153 of the principal Act, subsection (3) of that section and section 154 of
704
the Act (procedure and publicity for orders under section 153) shall apply with the substitution of references to that Minister for references to the Minister of Transport; and in subsections (4) and (5) of section 153 references to the latter shall be construed as including references to the former.
(5) In this section and in sections 78, (Powers for local authorities analogous to s.153 of the principal Act), (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) and (Confirmation, validity etc, of orders under two preceding sections) below, "footpath" and "bridleway" have the same meanings as in the Highways Act 1959.
(6) Nothing in this section applies to or affects an order made by the Minister of Transport before the commencement of this section or an order with respect to which he has, before that commencement, published in the London Gazette the notice required by section 154(1) of the principal Act.
(7) This section shall not apply to Wales.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this new clause is to transfer from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of Housing and Local Government the power to make orders under Section 153 of the 1962 Act, authorising the stopping up or diversion of a footpath or bridle-way in order to enable this development to be carried out. The power to make orders stopping up or diverting other highways will remain with the Minister of Transport. I think that the new clause is self-explanatory, but in relation to subsection (7) should the Committee wonder why the clause does not apply to Wales, the reason is that the jurisdiction under Section 153 of the 1962 Act is already with the Minister responsible for planning; namely, the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 76, to insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Procedure for making orders for stopping-up and diverting highways]:
BARONESS SEROTA: Amendments 77 and 79A hang together, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with them together. Amendment 77 is a paving Amendment to expand the reference to subsection (2) of the present clause in order to accommodate the two new subsections which form the subject of Amendment No. 79A. This was foreshadowed in the Standing Committee, and I hope that it will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 34, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) to (4)")— (Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: The effect of this Amendment, No. 78, is to extend the categories of authorities in respect of whose applications these provisions apply to include the National Coal Board. The National Coal Board are not statutory undertakers and are therefore not included within the terms of the provisions at present. But the Board enjoy the status of a statutory undertaker for some purposes by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (National Coal Board) Regulations 1963. It is therefore felt that they should be included in the list of persons whose applications may be the subject of concurrent procedures with respect to the application to develop and the related draft order for stopping up a highway. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 41, after ("undertakers") insert ("or the National Coal Board")—(Baroness Scrota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 79A.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("() The responsible Minister may publish such a notice as aforesaid where—

(a) the relevant development is to be carried out by a local authority, statutory undertakers or the a National Coal Board and requires, by virtue of an enactment, the authorisation of a government department;

(b) the developers have made application to the department for that authorisation and also requested a direction under section 41 of the principal Act or, in the case of the National Coal Board, under section 2 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958, that planning permission be deemed to be granted for that development.

() The responsible Minister may publish such a notice as aforesaid where the council of a county or county borough, the Greater London Council, tie council of a London borough, a joint planning board, or the Inner London Education Authority certify that they have begun to take such steps in accordance with regulations made by virtue of section 42 of the principal Act (application of planning control to local planning authorities) as are requisite in order to enable them to obtain
706
planning permission for the relevant development.")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I wonder whether I may ask your Lordships once again to consider two Amendments together—namely, Nos. 80 and 82. These two Amendments are concerned with the definition of the "responsible Minister", which has to be redrafted as a consequence of the introduction of tile new clause after Clause 76 which I have just moved, transferring jurisdiction from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in respect of Section 153 Orders dealing with footpaths and bridleways. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) In this section 'the responsible Minister' means, except in relation to Wales,—

(a) in relation to an order authorising the stopping up or diversion of a foot path or bridleway, the Minister of Housing and Local Government: and

(b) in relation to an order authorising the stopping up or diversion of any other highway, the Minister of Transport;

and in relation to Wales means the Secretary of State.")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [New powers to authorise stopping-up and diversion of highways]:
5.41 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to aid to subsection (1):
"Provided that in determining to make an order under this subsection the Minister shall have regard to the interest of the users of the subsidiary highway".
The noble Lord said: We now come to an important clause which confers new powers on the Minister in connection with the stopping-up and diversion of highways. Of course, there has been considerable movement in the post-war period in connection with this problem. When I was a young lawyer, it was very difficult indeed to get anything of that sort done, but in the modern community this is obviously very important, and I am sure everybody will agree that these new and considerably wider powers are needed.
This clause is a very valuable one, and your Lordships will see that the Minister is now given very substantial powers in connection with the construction and improving of highways. But in this connection he is, in effect, mandated to look at two matters set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1). He has to look at whether what he is doing is in the interests of the safety of users of the main highway or is to facilitate movement of traffic on the main highway. Of course, that is very important and very useful, but it seems to those of us concerned with the problem of the walker, the cross-country hiker, and those of us who use footpaths and bridleways, that our interests are also very much at stake.
We consider that the clause is too narrow as it stands at the present time and, in effect, confines the matters which the Minister has in mind to the questions of safety of those on the highway or of facilitating movement of traffic upon the highway. Surely the Minister ought also to take into account those who are using the bridleways or footpaths, or even byroads leading into the main road with which the Minister is obviously principally concerned. I imagine that, in practice, the Minister will probably consider these other matters as well, but it seems to us only right that this should, in fact, be provided for in the Bill itself. Therefore, this Amendment has been drafted and I hope that the Minister can see his way to accepting it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cliorley.)
BARONESS SEROTA: The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, may be aware that an identical Amendment to this was moved in another place at Report stage, and I believe it was withdrawn after discussion on the assurance that it was unnecessary. I hasten to assure him that it is still unnecessary. As I understood his remarks, his concern was in relation to Orders under subsection (1) of Clause 78. Under that subsection the responsible Minister (as defined in Clause 77) has power in certain circumstances to stop up or divert any highway which enters or crosses the route of a highway which is being constructed or improved. The Amendment is designed to secure that, in making an Order under the subsection,
708
the responsible Minister shall have regard to the interests of users of the subsidiary highway.
Clause 78(5) applies to these Orders the provisions of Section 154 of the principal Act, and the procedure laid down in that section enables the responsible Minister to take account of the interests of any person affected by the Order and to hold a public inquiry if necessary. I hope that in view of those remarks the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will agree that there is no need for a specific protection for the "users of the subsidiary highway" or their interests, as they are already covered in legislation.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of that, although I am quite well aware of it. I am not really surprised that the Government should take this view. However, I suggest it is desirable that this specific direction to the Minister to have regard to this matter should, in fact, be in this clause. It is quite true, of course, that Clause 78(5) of this Bill and Section 154 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 contain the terms to which the Minister has referred. None the less, decisions on issues of this nature surely depend on the Minister balancing, so to speak, a number of conflicting interests. As the clause now stands it is quite clear that it is the interests of the users of the main highway which are made paramount, and the interests of the users of the subsidiary highway—the hikers and even the equestrians using the bridlepaths and people of that sort—who really are deserving of consideration are, so to speak, put on one side.
I suggest it should be remembered that, if a stopping-up Order is made, the users of the main highway are simply being enabled to travel faster without very much attention being paid to the interests of the pedestrians and those who like to take their exercise on horses. The result of this over-emphasis, as I suggest, on the traffic aspect on the main highway will undoubtedly be that the interests of the pedestrians and the other people, on whose behalf I am moving this Amendment, will be neglected. In these circumstances, I suggest again to the Government that they should accept this Amendment because it would provide a more balanced situation. I hope

709
they will be able to see their way to do so.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am sorry that I have been unable to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I speak as a hardened pedestrian and one who is therefore very much biased in favour of the users of subsidiary highways, as opposed to those who wish to speed along motorways. I am sure my right honourable friend will take due note of the noble Lord's remarks, and will exercise his powers bearing in mind the interests of all affected by any change, be they on the major or the subsidiary highway. But I can only repeat what I said at the outset: namely, that there is no need to embody the principle in this legislation as it already exists. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very disappointed. This is a very simple Amendment which the Government could quite easily have accepted, but I do not wish to push it against that decision. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 82.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 30, at end insert—
("(2) In this section and section 79 below, `the responsible Minister' means, except in relation to Wales, the Minister of Transport and, in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State.")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
LORD ILFORDmoved in subsection (2), after "authority" where that word occurs a first time, to insert "or a highway authority". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss Nos. 84 and 85 at the same time. The noble Lord was pointing out a moment ago that Clause 78 gives the local authorities very important new powers to close or stop up highways.
The Bill provides that upon the application of the local planning authority the Minister may change to a footpath or a bridleway a highway over which the public has the right to pass with vehicles.
710
That means the Minister will be able to form what are called pedestrian precincts and to restrict the use of the highway to pedestrians. I believe that process is sometimes called "pedestrianisation"— I do not know what my noble friend Lord Conesford would say to that expression, but it is a very convenient way of explaining what is being done. Local authorities have been pressing for these powers for a long time. Indeed, a number of local authorities have promoted private Bills in order to obtain them. But a difficulty arises as to whether the power to make representations to the Minister should be restricted to the local planning authority or whether the highway authority should have the same powers, so that representations may be made either by the local planning authority or by the highway authority.
Of course, in a county borough where the authority is the same it makes no difference. But in the counties, the position is quite different. There, the county council are the planning authority and the district council the highway authority. The Amendment seeks to bring in highway authorities as well as local planning authorities so that either would be entitled to approach the Minister and set the machinery in motion.
The rather anomalous situation the Bill creates is this. The highway authorities already have very similar powers under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967. They can exercise those powers as the traffic management authorities in the interests of controlling the traffic. They cannot exercise them to secure or form amenities in their areas. What the highway authorities desire to do is to be able to exercise these powers for amenity purposes, as they do now under the Road Traffic Regulation Act for road management purposes. They desire to be able to exercise these powers for planning purposes in improving the amenities of their neighbourhood. It is altogether anomalous that they should have substantially the same powers for one purpose and not be able to use them for another. This is really the sort of legislation which makes local government law look so very obscure and which pm events the public from understanding it. People just do not understand why the county planning authority should be able only

711
to exercise these powers in the interests of planning and that the highway authority, who have very similar powers, should be restricted to exercising them only for traffic management. I hope your Lordships will take that view and that the power to make representations to the Minister on amenity grounds to close a highway will be extended to the highway authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 31, after ("authority") insert ("or a highway authority")—(Lord Ilford.)
BARONESS SEROTA: As the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has pointed out, these three Amendments really hang together. As I understand him, he is making a plea in these Amendments for either the local planning authority or the highway authority to be enabled to initiate action and to apply to the responsible Minister to change a highway into a footpath or bridleway. As noble Lords are aware, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has pointed out, in many cases highway authorities and planning authorities are in fact the same body and this problem does not arise except in terms of inter-departmental consultation.
Quite irrespective of this, it is the Government's view that it would be wrong to place the initiative in the hands of the highway authority, in view of the purposes which this provision is intended to serve. The proposal giving rise to changing highways into pedestrian-ways—the word I should use in preference to "pedestrianisation"— must surely be one to improve the amenities of the local authority area, including highway questions, and it is surely, in its widest aspects, a planning decision.
Clearly, the proposal affects traffic matters. The highway authority must be consulted, but it is their responsibility to take the initiative where the decision depends upon the appraisal of the full range of planning matters, and it will be the responsibility of the planning authority alone to adopt the proposal for improving amenities of the area. In these circumstances it must surely be for them to pursue the necessary action flowing from that proposal.
712
For the reasons I have given, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will not press this Amendment. I appreciate his concern and I think I know what he is aiming at. I think we have the same objects at heart; namely, that there shall be the closest possible consultation between the highway authority and the planning authority in matters of this kind. But it is our view that the local planning authority should be responsible for taking the initiative in the development and improvement of amenities in the areas.
LORD ILFORD: The noble Baroness has not given me very much. I am bound to say that I cannot follow her in regard to these two functions of the exercise of planning powers and the exercise of highway powers and I cannot believe they are as different as she seems to think. I have no wish to press the amendment on the Committee, and in those circumstances I ask for leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SEROTA: The effect of this Amendment is to replace the provision for regulations on this point under the Bill and to substitute a reference to regulations made under the 1962 Act. The intention is that the arrangements and procedure for claiming compensation should be identical with those under the 1962 Act; and it will be a convenience to claimants and their advisers if the matter is dealt with in the same body of regulations made under the 1962 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 6, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 7 and insert ("within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under the principal Act").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
6.0 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved, after Clause 78, to insert the following new Clause:
Powers for local authorities analogous to section 153 of principal Act
" —(1) Subject to section (Confirmation, validity etc. of orders under two preceding sections) below, a competent authority for the purposes of this section may by order authorise the stopping up or diversion of any footpath or bridleway if they are satisfied that it is

713
necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out—

(a) in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III of the principal Act or the enactments replaced by that Part of the Act; or

(b) by a government department.

(2) The competent authorities for the purposes of this section are—

(a) the local planning authority; and

(b) in relation to development for which planning permission was granted by another authority to whom had been delegated the power of granting it, that other authority.

(3) An order under this section may, if the competent authority are satisfied that it should do so, provide—

(a) for the creation of an alternative footpath or bridleway for use as a replacement for the one authorised by the order to be stopped up or diverted, or for the improvement of an existing path or way for such use;

(b) for authorising or requiring works to be carried out in relation to any footpath or bridleway for whose stopping up or diversion, creation or improvement, provision is made by the order;

(c) for requiring any person named in the order to pay, or make contributions in respect of, the cost of carrying out any such works.

(4) The powers of a competent authority under this section shall include power to make an order authorising the stopping up or diversion of a footpath or bridleway which is temporarily stopped up or diverted under any other enactment.
The noble Baroness said: This new clause and the next following new clause give effect to undertakings given in another place on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill and the Report stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill. I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that they connect with Amendment No. 90 and with the new schedule set out as Amendment No. 103. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 78, insert the said new clause. —(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: This new clause empowers a local authority holding land for planning purposes to extinguish a footpath or bridleway over that land subject to a provision for an alternative right of way where that is thought necessary. I should perhaps add that Section 155 of the 1962 Act confers an identical power on the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes
—(1) Subject to section (Confirmation, validity etc. of orders under two preceding sections) below, where any land has been acquired or appropriated for planning purposes and is for the time being held by a local authority for the purposes for which it was acquired or appropriated, the authority may by order extinguish any public right of way over the land, being a footpath or bridleway, if they are satisfied that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or that the provision of an alternative right of way is not required.
(2) Any reference in subsection (1) above to the acquisition of land for planning purposes is a reference to the acquisition thereof under section 68 or 71 of the principal Act or section 26 of this Act; and any reference to the appropriation of land for planning purposes is a reference to the appropriation thereof for purposes for which land can, or could have been, acquired under those sections. —(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, and in moving it I should like to point out that your Lordships may wish to consider this clause in association with the new Schedule set out in Amendment N D. 103. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
Confirmation, validity, etc., of orders under two preceding sections
—(1) An order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) or (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) of this Act shall not take effect unless confirmed by the Minister, or unless confirmed, as an unopposed order, by the authority who made it.
(2) The Minister shall not confirm any such order unless satisfied as to every matter of which the authority making the order are required under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) or (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) (as the case may be) to be satisfied.
(3) The time specified—

(a) in an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) above as the time from which a footpath or bridleway is to be sopped up or diverted; or

715

(b) in an order under section (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) above as the time from which a right of way is to be extinguished,

shall not be earlier than confirmation of the order.
(4) Schedule (Procedure in connection with orders relating to footpaths and bridleways) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the confirmation of orders under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) or (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) of this Act and the publicity for such orders after they are confirmed."—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Miscellaneous amendments of Part IX of principal Act]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (1):
"and shall include provisions requiring the applicant to erect at his own expense a direction post on any length of highway diverted by virtue of such an Order".
The noble Lord said: Clause 79 is directed to making a number of amendments to Part IX of the principal Act. This Amendment is intended to make a small improvement. It may be argued—I expect the noble Baroness will argue—that it does not follow on very logically at the end of the first subsection of Clause 79 that it is not concerned with what is in that subsection, and deals with a different matter. I suppose that it might have been better to put it in as a new subsection, but I am afraid I had placed it on the Paper before I quite appreciated that this was so.
The point arises in this way. When land is developed, very often what one might call the footpath pattern has to be altered, and in the principal Act arrangements are provided under which new routes of paths can be set out and the footpath pattern altered in that sort of way. I understand that in this situation the Minister frequently makes a request to a planning applicant to erect signposts, which obviously will be very useful. I am informed that these requests by the Minister are generally agreed to by developers. It is very much in the developer's interest, I suppose, to do so. To erect signposts at this stage will very often save him £4 or £5 each signpost, rather than wasting time and indeed money when he possibly has to do it later on.
But the important point is that at the moment the Minister seems to have no power to direct a developer to do this. The Minister merely makes a request, and I gather that from time to time these requests are not met. It may well be that it is just carelessness by the developer, but there clearly ought to be a power of this kind. At present, the Minister may make an order containing—and this is a quotation from the existing law—
"such incidental and consequential provisions as appear … necessary or expedient"
to him. That is in subsection (3) of Section 153 of the principal Act. But it is very doubtful whether this includes the power to order the erection of a signpost, and the object of this Amendment is a very simple one. It is to provide the Minister with the necessary power to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved․
Page 66, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
BARONESS SEROTA: May I once again hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the point he is anxious to establish has already been provided for. I must confess that I myself should have had difficulty in sorting out how and where, but I am advised that Section 153 of the principal Act, which applies to orders under Section 153 and, by virtue of subsection (5) of Clause 78 of the Bill, to orders under Clause 78, provides that orders may include such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister of Transport to be necessary or expedient. In these circumstances, both the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and your Lordships' Committee can be assured that the Minister is advised that there is no reasonable doubt whatever that an order can require the erection of a direction post on a diverted highway at the expense of the applicant. I hope that, with that assurance, and having disentangled the sections and subsections of the various clauses, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very glad to know that the Minister's advisers have no doubt whatever that they have these powers. As a lawyer, and having been in consultation with other lawyers, I should not have taken that view. But

717
if the Minister's advisers are quite satisfied about it we can only hope that if the matter ever comes before a court of law the Minister's view will be taken to be correct and not the view which we feel might easily be accepted by a judge. However, in the circumstances I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.8 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"() An order made under section 153 of the principal Act or section 78 of this Act shall cease to have effect if the relevant planning permission is terminated by operation of section 57 or section 60 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is another attempt to give the Minister something which he will no doubt say he does not want. This Amendment is really consequential on Clauses 57 and 60. An order made under Section 153 of the principal Act has the object of creating a new highway network or pattern to serve the proposed development in connection with which the planning application is put forward. It often happens that for one reason or another the development does not take place and the planning permission is terminated by operation of the Statute. In that case it follows that the Section 153 order should also cease to have effect, but it does not seem to he provided very clearly that that should be so.
Indeed, it would appear to be important that this should be done, not only as a matter of filling in what one might call a gap in the drafting but because it might be very important physically, since often the route of a path is diverted in such a way as to be tied to the proposed development. For example, a path might he made to run between the backs of houses, to provide a way down between two rows of houses. That having been done, suppose hat the development is given up and the two rows of houses are not built. It would then seem very important, from a physical point of view, that there should be power in the Act to bring the whole thing to an end. So it is not just a question of drafting tidiness; it might be a matter of practical importance. I hope the Minister will
718
feel that we are offering some help. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 28, at end insert—
("() An order made under section 153 of the principal Act or section 78 of this Act shall cease to have effect if the relevant planning permission is terminated by operation of section 57 or section 60 of this Act.")—(Lord Chorley.)
BARONESS SEROTA: I listened with great interest to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. There are, I understand, practical difficulties in writing into the Bill this particular kind of provision. Because of the technical complexities and the rather late hour, perhaps the Committee will not wish me to go into them. We see the possibility of considering the point that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has made in relation to footpaths and bridleways where 'we feel the circumstances might be different. Footpaths and bridleways are more often diverted for reasons of smaller-scale development, which may more often fail to come to fruition than the typical large urban project for which a town street is closed.
I suggest that we look at this point between now and the Report stage. But I suggest that this matter would fall rather under Clause 57 than Clause 60. I hope, with that undertaking, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that assurance. Certainly it is the footpaths and bridle-ways aspect of this matter that prompts me to put forward this proposal. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clauses 80 and 81 agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved, after Clause 81, to insert the following new clause:
Miscellaneous amendments of principal Act.
".—(1) Section 187 of the principal Act (power of Public Works Loan Commissioners to make loans to local authorities for the purpose of the discharge of their function; under provisions of the Act specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 thereto) shall cease lo have effect.
(2) An agreement made by the Crown Estate Commissioners under section 200 of the principal Act (whereby a government department may agree with local planning authorities to secure the use of Crown land in conformity with the development plan) shall not require the approval of the Treasury; and accordingly in subsection (2) of that section the words 'the Crown Estate Commissioners or by' shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment, which hangs with Amendments 114A and 114B provides for miscellaneous amendments of the 1962 Act in two separate repeals. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 81, insert the said new clause. —(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to.
6.14 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, after Clause 83, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of existing provisions for appropriation of open space land
"—(1) Any appropriation of land held by a local authority which is or forms part of an open space either

(a) under section 163 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which deals with the power of a local authority to appropriate land) or

(b) by order made and confirmed under subsection (2) of section 73 of the principal Act (appropriation of land for planning purposes)

shall be effective notwithstanding any beneficial interest which, by rule of law or otherwise, the public may have in such land.
(2) Subsection (3) of section 73 of the principal Act shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to overcome a difficulty which has caused local authorities a good deal of concern and trouble during the past few years. This appears to be a convenient opportunity to put right something which is in urgent need of putting right. The position is a little complicated, but I will endeavour to make it as clear as I can.
Under Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1963 a local authority which owned open space land in excess of their requirements were able to appropriate it to another purpose. That was done, and things went on merrily, and everybody was quite happy, until 1961 when the courts gave a decision. I am
720
not going to enter into the details of that decision to-night; but the effect of it was that the Minister felt that he was bound to interpret it as meaning that where public rights were enjoyed they could not be overridden by an Act of Parliament which dealt primarily with other matters not directly concerned with modifications of the right of access.
Accordingly, the Minister felt he could not continue with the procedure under which these applications for appropriations were submitted to him by the local authority and to which he gave his consent and under which appropriation could be made. The result is that since 1961 that form of procedure has been impossible and the local authorities have had to find other means of disposing of open space land in excess of their requirements. Normally, they would have to get a modification of the development plan and they would then have to follow special Parliamentary procedure. The whole process was very long, very clumsy and very inappropriate. We hope by this Amendment to put that right.
I should like to give the Committee one or two examples of the sort of difficulties to which this situation has given rise. They illustrate very well what has happened. My first case is of a local authority who wished to appropriate open space which adjoined a public path on a housing estate for housing purposes. The open space afforded ample open space for the housing estate, but the Minister would not agree to the appropriation unless further open land was provided. In another case a similar attitude was adopted in attempting appropriation of allotments where the need for allotments proved to be non-existent—as indeed it is non-existent in many places to-day. In that case the Minister felt unable to follow the old procedure and Special Parliamentary Procedure had to be adopted. Again, any appropriation of open-space land for car parks, or for similar town centre purposes has to go through Special Parliamentary Procedure, if suitable open-space land cannot otherwise be provided.
These cases illustrate the sort of difficulties encountered as a result of the interpretation placed, rightly or wrongly, upon the decision of the courts I hope the Committee will feel that this is a

721
convenient opportunity to put this right and to revert to the procedure which will be the procedure of the Local Government Act 1933. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 83, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ilford.)
BARONESS SEROTA: The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has explained that the object of this clause was, broadly, to put the position back to whore it was before the Blake v. Hendon decision. That, I think, is the burden of his argument to-day and the reason he has submitted the new clause for consideration. I think I should be right in saying that this decision altered what had been understood to be the law, because the court decided that the open-space land held in that case was dedicated to the public without the need of a formal act of dedication, so that the local authority's power to dispose of it was subordinate to the public's overriding rights. The construction put upon this decision is that if land is held under any of the Public General open space Acts, and the public have free and unrestricted access to it, then the land cannot, under the 1933 Act powers, be sold, let, exchanged or appropriated for any purpose detrimental to the public's rights.
The only way of effecting a change of use is therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has just pointed out, by means of a compulsory purchase order or appropriation order, which brings into play the machinery of the 1946 Act. Many noble Lords may be aware that the local authority associations do find difficulties on occasions, with the restrictions on their powers, when they wish to dispose of open-space land. But it is the view of the Government that the safeguards for amenity which the 1948 provisions entail should be retained.
On the other hand, it is recognised that the present situation imposes certain constraints on local authorities, and two changes are being made in the Bill to ease the position of local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is probably aware of them. The first is in Schedule 6, paragraph 24, and the second change, which we have already made, is embodied in the new clause to follow Clause 28. This assists the position which is at present concerning local
722
authorities, in that it will amend the ministerial certificate procedure of the 1946 Act so that the Minister may give a certificate and thereby exempt the local authority from going through the Special Parliamentary Procedure for a widened category of cases.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the Committee will take the view that these changes, taken together, will ease the position of local authorities which concerns the noble Lord, while reserving the very necessary defence of amenity interests. I also hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Mold, will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: I am not sure how far the noble Baroness has gone to meet my case, but I will withdraw my Amendment now, and examine what the noble Baroness has said. I hope I shun find that it gives us the 1933 procedure, which is what the local authorities really want. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
Loan ILFORD Loan ILFORD moved, after Clause 83, to insert the following new clause:
Parking of vehicles
".—(1) Where planning permission for development of land in the area of a highway authority has been given, the authority may by notice served on the applicant require the payment of such sums as in the opinion of the authority would be the cost per parking space which would be incurred by them if they were to provide a suitable parking space for vehicles, multiplied by such number as does not exceed the number of parking spaces which would otherwise have to he provided to comply with the conditions imposed on the planning permission under which the development is being carried out.
(2) In calculating the cost of prodding a suitable parking place for vehicles the market value of the land needed for such purpose shall be included.
(3) Any person served with notice under subsection (1) may, not later than one month from the date of service of the notice, appeal to the Minister who may confirm the notice with or without modification or determine that the notice shall be of no effect.
(4) On any appeal as aforesaid the Minister shall give the appellant an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a much simpler matter the question of the provision of parking space in new buildings. It often

723
happens that when a planning authority is asked to give consent for a new building, one of the conditions is that garage space should be provided in the building. That is commonly done, but there are cases where the local authority is in a position itself to provide parking space outside the new building in a public car park. If that can be arranged, obviously it is to the advantage of the developer, because he gets the whole of the area of his building available for the purposes of the building and does not have to devote any part to the provision of un-remunerative garage space. It is also to the advantage of the local authority, because it enables the authority to maintain a public parking place perhaps at a lower cost than might otherwise be the case, in a place where it might have been thought to be too expensive in other circumstances.
When a local authority can do that and arrange for a parking space to be provided in a public open space, it goes to the owner of the building to require him to make a contribution to the cost of providing a parking place outside the building. There is no legal sanction for that. Local authorities have no power even to make an agreement of that sort, and the purpose of the Amendment is to give them the necessary power to carry out what they are doing, very reasonably, now, and to provide parking space in their own area, having come to some arrangement with the owner of a building about the contribution which he will make. It seems a sensible and business-like arrangement. I hope that the Committee will say that it should be properly clothed with law and that the local authorities should have power to do this voluntarily if they so desire. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 83, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Ilford.)
LORD SOMERS: I hesitate to disagree with any point raised by my noble friend, Lord Ilford, but one thing occurs to me. On the face of it his suggestion is entirely reasonable, but one must remember that once a house is built with- out a garage one can never be added, because the house is probably too close to the next-door building. Suppose some-
724
thing happens to the covered garage space or it is taken over for other purposes? There are a variety of things which might happen. All the houses built without garages would be permanently without them, as is unfortunately the case with houses in many parts of London to-day. I wonder, therefore, whether this is an altogether entirely safe proposal.
BARONESS SEROTA: I gather that this new clause is an attempt on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, to enable highway authorities to oblige developers to make a contribution to the cost of public car parks in lieu of the provision of parking space on a development site or, alternatively, on land adjacent which is in the ownership or under the control of the developer. The noble Lord is probably aware that one of the Ministry's planning bulletins, Bulletin No. 7, recommended that, as a voluntary arrangement, it might sometimes be to the advantage of a developer and the public that an increased demand for car-parking engendered by the development should be met in a public car park rather than in a privately-owned one. I understand that occasionally the application of this policy has given rise to difficulties, and a circular issued in August of last year drew the attention of local authorities to the limited scope of this recommendation. The Amendment would remove the voluntary nature of these arrangements.
While we recognise that provision for planning control would be met by the imposition of a condition which it is within the power of the developer to meet, it would enable a highway authority to substitute an obligation to discharge this condition by a money payment, and this, we feel, would be wrong in principle. Also, if this new clause were added to the Bill it would create a new class of appeals to be determined by the Minister. This would run counter to the policy on which the Bill has been drafted, and indeed to the intention of my right honourable friend as expressed in the Bill, which is to reduce the involvement of the Minister in matters of only local significance. If the Amendment were accepted, the Minister would become involved in adjudicating on car park standards which, as I think all noble Lords would agree, is a very local matter.

725
We are all concerned with the problem of car-parking in our cities and it might interest the Committee to know that the parking policy, including the financing of public car parking, has recently been jointly reviewed. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will shortly be considering, in the light of the points made in debate on these matters here and in another place, what further action may be taken and what may be necessary to enable local authorities to provide parking facilities commensurate with the capacity of their road system. We feel that the substance of the Amendment is not really a matter for a planning Bill, and I hope, in the light of the explanation I have given of the consequential problems which the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind would cause, and also in the light of the fact that the parking policy as a whole is being reviewed, the noble Lord will feel that his Amendment has served its purpose by initiating a debate on the matter, and that he will be prepared to withdraw it.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am glad that my noble friend raised this matter, because the Guildford Corporation included a clause of this character in their Private Bill in the last Session of Parliament. That clause was disallowed by the Committee in another place, but only on the understanding that the matter should be pursued and dealt with as a matter of urgency. That was more than a year ago and, with respect to the noble Baroness, she seems to have been asked by the Minister of Transport to make a delaying speech on a matter which a Committee of Parliament said more than a year ago should be pursued and dealt with as an urgent matter. I think that my noble friend is right to press the urgency of it. It may be that this is not the right place to deal with it, but I do not think that its importance should be lost sight of, and it would greatly help us if the noble Baroness can say that the Government accept that the point underlying this new clause is an urgent matter which must be dealt with.
BARONESS SEROTA: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that several authorities have sought Private Act powers, usually to give effect to an agreement entered into between developer and
726
local planning authority as contemplated in the voluntary arrangements to which I have referred. The noble Lord is again right. The review promised in another place has been carried out and the recommendations resulting from it are shortly coming before the Minister. It is clear that local planning authorities will need to work out plans both for off-street and on-street parking. We feel that it would be better for a conscious policy to be adopted, including a financial policy, for the provision of public car parks rather than to apply a piecemeal policy if and when development takes place. I think that noble Lords with experience in planning and especially in dealing with this very difficult question of car parking, particularly in congested city centres, would agree that it is better dealt with in a general policy review rather than by adopting an Amendment of this kind which provides merely for a payment of money by a developer to the highway authority.
LORD ILFORD: I think that the noble Baroness intends to convey that this matter is being treated as one of urgency, and in the light of that I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
6.32 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved, after Clause 85, to insert the following new clause:
Commencement
".—(1) This Act shall come into operation on a day appointed by an order made by statutory instrument by the Minister, and different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes and, in particular, different days may be so appointed for the coming into operation of the same provision in different areas.
(2) Any reference in this Act to the commencement of any provision thereof shall he construed as a reference to the day appointed for the coming into operation of that provision or, in the case of a provision which comes into operation on different lays in different areas, shall, in relation to any area, be construed as a reference to the day appointed for the coming into operation of that provision in that area.
(3) An order under this section may make such transitional provision as appears to the Minister to he necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into force, including such adaptation of those provisions or any provision of this Act then in force as appear to him to be necessary or

727
expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act (whether before or after the day appointed by the order).
(4) The Minister of Housing and Local Government shall, for England, and the Secretary of State shall, for Wales, each maintain and keep up to date a register showing the effect of orders made under this section in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves—

(a) as to the provisions of this Act which have come, or are to be brought, into operation, and on which dates and in relation to which areas; and

(b) as to whether, in the case of a particular area, any transitional provision has been made by such an order.

(5) The register maintained by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under this section shall be kept at his principal offices in London, and the register so maintained by the Secretary of State shall be kept at his principal offices in Cardiff; and both registers shall be available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours."
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain Amendments Nos. 93A and 93B together. They both consist partly of material already in the Bill and partly of new material. The first three subsections at present appear as subsections (3) to (5) of Clause 89. The last two are new, and are introduced into the Bill to implement an undertaking given at Report stage in another place. Amendment No. 93B is consequential, following the incorporation of this new clause in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 85, insert the said new clause. —(Baroness Scrota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 86 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5).—(Baroness Scrota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"() Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) above, the day appointed for the coming into operation of sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this Act shall be not earlier than 31st December 1970."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 94. This Amendment follows up the thought I expounded, in connection with Clause 9 in regard to local plans, on June 18 last. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, replied:
"I do not think there would be any case for singling out Clause 9 of this Bill for special review in that context,ߪ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/6/68, col. 635.]
The context he referred to was the repeal of the modifying clauses of this Bill in the light of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government. I am hoping that since June 18 Her Majesty's Government and the noble Lord have had second thoughts on this matter. I expect that the wording will probably be faulty, but the Amendment is designed to draw from the Government a statement on whether local planning procedure will be modified in the light of the probable reconstruction of local government.
The effect of this new subsection would be to prohibit the Minister from bringing into operation, under Clause 89, those clauses which deal with local plans until the date when it might be expected that the recommendations of the Royal Commission would have been implemented. The date given is of necessity a cockshy, but as it has been announced that the Commission will probably report in the autumn of 1968 this Amendment allows two years for the system to be changed.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, used words in his speech which mean precisely the same as the words in the Amendment. He said that this would delay, or give an opportunity for delaying, the operation of this clause until after the local government reorganisation scheme had been implemented. Had he said, "Until the time of the Report of the Royal Commission," we could have visualised some action in the next six or nine months. We have been told from time to time that the implementation of this scheme might take five, six or seven years, and to postpone the beneficent features of this Bill for five, six or seven years would, I think, be going beyond what most of us would like to see.
LORD KENNET: I have little to add to what my noble friend has said. There is unfortunately no guarantee that action can be taken on the Report of the Royal Commission by the end of 1970. In an ideal world, one would like to say that two years would be enough. But we know from experience that when a Royal Commission turns in a Report on a matter like this (and we must not forget that this is a survey of the entire system of local government, which has been in operation for nearly a hundred years), its recommendations are not discussed by Government, public and Parliament, or public opinion farmed on them and legislation drafted, passed and brought into effect, in less than two years. It is because the Government know full well that this is not possible that they have introduced this Bill quite a while before a general reform of the local government system can be expected as a result of the Royal Commission's Report.
I would remand the Committee that the Ministers intend to bring the new planning drill contained in this Bill into operation in suitable areas; that is, where the authorities have staff, skill, size,et cetera to do it, and where they are in the right place in the development plan cycle to do it. They plan to bring it into operation before any possible reform of local government, and are convinced that this is a good thing to do. The Government would be reluctant to see those measures postponed until the end of 1970. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord may see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I can well understand the attitude of the Government on this Amendment. As I said, two years was just a random period, and has no particular merit. If this would delay the adoption of this for a number of years, I agree that it would be most undesirable. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Special Provisions as to Development Plans in Greater London]:
LORD KENNET: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 34, after ("area") insert ("or is to be treated as an action area") —(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 41, after ("area") insert ("or for an area which is to be treated as au action area").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [General Vesting Declarations for Land Compulsorily Acquired]:
6.43 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, after paragraph 9, to insert:
". At any time after a general vesting declaration has been executed in respect of any land a person entitled to compensation arising out of the acquisition by the acquiring authority of his interest in that land may require that authority within fourteen days to pay to him on account of compensation a sum not exceeding nine-tenths of the amount which the District Valuer certifies to be props r compensation in respect of that interest."
The noble Lord said: I attach great importance to the purpose underlying this Amendment, but I have no wish to initiate a lengthy debate on it now for reasons which I will explain. Schedule 2 is linked with Clause 28. They both deal with the general vesting declaration and its effects. When we were debating the Question, That Clause 28 stand fart of the Bill, I expressed grave anxieties about certain people, and particularly owner-occupiers, who might find that they had lost their title to their land under a general vesting declaration, and lost thereby their power to raise money on that title, and remained unpaid by the acquiring authority. That may not matter to some people, but it will normally matter a great deal to owner-occupiers, because they need the money they get by way of compensation for the house they are losing in order to acquire or, at any rate, to pay a deposit on a house elsewhere to which they have to move,.
I raised this point in general terms on the Question, That Clause 28 stand part, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough to say:
"I should just like to say that I will study the noble Lord's remarks with care, and We can

731
revert to this point at a later stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/6/68; col 1427.]
I should be quite content if the noble Lord replied briefly in some such terms as those. I think he will recognise that the Amendment I have tabled here, giving a person entitled to compensation the right to claim a payment of nine-tenths of the sum certified by the district valuer on account, is very much in line with the practice which I understand the Ministry of Transport adopt when there is likely to be hardship through quick acquisition of land for road-making purposes. They are prepared to make a nine-tenths payment on account.
This Bill has valuable provisions to which we have already agreed that will empower the public authority which has over-paid compensation to recover the amount that has been overpaid. So it matters less whether you get the exact amount right quickly. I have tabled this Amendment so as to indicate the kind of solution which is passing through my mind, and to fill out in some detail the general proposition to which the noble Lord was good enough to say that he would give consideration at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 31, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: I do not wish in any way to unsay what I said on the clause stand part discussion earlier, but the solution which the noble Lord has put forward is a rather extreme one. It goes wider than what he said, in that it covers all those with an interest in land, and not simply owner-occupiers about whom I thought he was worried. The Amendment is very abrupt and extreme in its effect, in that it requires the 90 per cent. payment to be made 14 days after the execution of the vesting declaration, and that is before the land actually vests in the local authority, which it cannot do under the Bill for a minimum of 28 days. There are many other things about the Amendment which would make it difficult to accept but, as I said a moment ago, I am not going back on anything that I said earlier, and we can refer to this again on the Report stage.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am sure the noble Lord will have appreciated
732
that I did not attempt to tailor this Amendment precisely to the words that I used on an earlier stage. I remain convinced that there is liable to be hardship unless we insert some provision of this kind in the Bill, and I hope that it may be possible to find a solution before the next stage of our proceedings on the Bill along the lines of the practice which I understand the Ministry of Transport have adopted with satisfaction to all concerned. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Application for listed building consent]:
LORD KENNET: Paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 is the paragraph dealing with appeals to the Minister against refusals of listed building consent. This Amendment would enable the Minister to prescribe the manner in which, and the period within which, such appeals are to be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 43, leave out ("under this paragraph") and insert ("served in the prescribed manner within such period as may be prescribed, not less than 28 days from the receipt by him of notification of the decision"). —(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: This is consequential upon Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 4, after ("so") insert ("in the case of a listed building purchase notice served on account of listed building consent being refused or granted subject to conditions").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: This, too, is consequential on Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 11, at end insert—
("(4) If it appears to the Minister to be expedient to do so in the case of a listed building purchase notice served on account of listed building consent being revoked or modified by an order under Part II of this Schedule, he may, in lieu of confirming the notice, cancel the order revoking the consent, or where the order modified the consent by the imposition of conditions, revoke or amend those conditions so far as appears to him to be required in order to enable the land to be

733
rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the works in respect of which the consent was granted ").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 41, at end insert—
(". Where in consequence of listed building consent being revoked or modified by an order under Part 11 of this Schedule, compensation is payable in respect of expenditure incurred in carrying out any works to the building in respect of which the consent was granted, then if a listed building purchase notice is served in respect of an interest in the land, any compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of that interest in pursuance of the purchase notice shall be reduced by an amount equal to the value of the works in respect of which compensation is payable by virtue of that paragraph.")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 45, leave out ("43(2)") and insert ("43(3) ").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I do not need to explain it any more than to say that the words, "and with it", were criticised as obscure and possibly excessively modish in the House of Commons. We have, therefore, improved on them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 7, leave out from ("and") to end of line 8 and insert ("any listed building consent granted with respect to the building, while the notice was in force, shall also lapse"). —(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as, amended agreed to.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved, after Schedule 4, to insert the following new schedule:
("PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH ORDERS RELATING TO FOOTPATHS AND RIDLEWAYS

PART I

  CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS
  1.—(1) Before an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s.153 of
  734
  principal Act) or (Extinguishment or footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) of this Act is submitted to the Minister for confirmation or confirmed as an unopposed order, the authority by whom the order was made shall give notice in the prescribed form—

  (a) stating the general effect of the order and that it has been made and is bout to be submitted for confirmation or to be confirmed as an unopposed order;

  (b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated where a copy of the order may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

  (c) specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the late of the first publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to tie order may be made.

  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the notice to he given under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be given—

  (a) by publication in the London Gazette and in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated; and

  (b) by serving a like notice on—

  (i) every owner, occupier and lessee (except tenants for a month or a period less than a month and statutory tenants within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968) of any of that land,

  (ii) every council, the council of every rural parish and the parish meeting of every rural parish not having a separate parish council, being a council or parish whose area includes any of that lard; and

  (c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of so much of any footpath or bridleway as is to be stopped up, diverted of extinguished by virtue of the order.

  (3) Except in the case of an owner, occupier or lessee being a local authority or statutory undertakers, the Minister may in any particular case direct that it shall not be necessary to comply with sub-paragraph (2)(b)(i) above; but if he so directs in the case of any land, then in addition to publication the notice shall be addressed to the owners and any occupiers of the land (describing it) and a copy or copies of the notice shall be affixed to some conspicuous object or objects on the land
  (4) Where under this paragraph a notice is required to be served on an owner of land and the land belongs to an ecclesiastical benefice, a like notice shall be served on the Church Commissioners.
  2. If no representations or objections are duly made, or if any so made are withdrawn, the authority by whom the order was made may, instead of submitting the order to the Minister, themselves confirm the order (but without any modification).
  3.—(1) If any representation duly made is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, before confirming the order, if the objection is made

  735
  by a local authority cause a local inquiry to be held, and in any other case either—

  (a) cause a local inquiry to be held; or

  (b) afford to any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose,

  and, after considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections, may confirm the order, with or without modifications:
  Provided that in the case of an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) of this Act, if objection is made by statutory undertakers on the ground that the order provides for the creation of a public right of way over land covered by works used for the purpose of their undertaking, or the curtilage of such land, and the objection is not withdrawn, the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
  (2) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the Minister shall not confirm an order so as to affect land not affected by the order as submitted to him, except after—

  (a) giving such notice as appears to him requisite of his proposal so to modify the order, specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the proposal may be made;

  (b) holding a local inquiry or affording to any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose; and

  (c) considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections as the case may be;

  and, in the case of an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) of this Act, if objection is made by statutory undertakers on the ground that the order as modified would provide for the creation of a public right of way over land covered by works used for the purposes of their undertaking, or the curtilage of such land, and the objection is not withdrawn, the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
  4. Regulations under this Act may, subject to this Part of this Schedule, make such provision as the Minister thinks expedient as to the procedure on the making, submission and confirmation of orders under sections (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) and (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. for land help for planning purposes) of this Act.

PART II

  PUBLICITY FOR ORDERS AFTER CONFIRMATION.
  5. As soon as may be after an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous
  736
  to s. 153 of principal Act) or (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) of this Act has been confirmed by the Minister or confirmed as an unopposed order, the authority by whom the order was made shall publish, in the manner required by paragraph 1(2) of this Schedule, a notice in the prescribed form, describing the general effect of the order, stating that it has been confirmed, and naming a place where a copy thereof as confirmed may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours, and shall—

  (a) serve a like notice and a copy of the order as confirmed on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under the said paragraph 1(2) or under paragraph 1(4); and

  (b) cause a like notice to be displayed in the like manner as the notice required to be displayed under the said paragraph 1(2):

  Provided that no such notice or copy need be served on a person unless he has sent to the authority a request in that behalf, specifying an address for service."
  The noble Baroness said: The Committee will recall that I mentioned we were tabling this new Schedule when we had our discussion on Amendment No. 90. This Amendment brings in a whole new Schedule in connection with bridle-ways and footpaths Orders and it is closely based on the Seventh Schedule to the Highways Act 1959, which set out the procedure for such Orders. In the Countryside Bill the House has recently been dealing with Amendments to that Schedule to the Highways Act in order to deal with the local confirmation of such Orders when they are unopposed, and that is the provision now required in the planning Bill. The Government thought it would be unsatisfactory in a planning Bill to legislate by reference to another Statute as amended by another Bill in the present Session, so despite the present length of the Bill, which we all agree is terribly long—but happily we are reaching the end of this stage to-night —the Government thought it right to explain the position in extenso, and this is done in the interests of clarity in this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Schedule 4, insert the said new Schedule.—(Baroness Scrota.)
  LORD CHORLEY: May I congratulate the Government on having taken this line. It has been a constant criticism that there has been too much legislation by reference. I hope this will be the progenitor of many attempts of this kind to clarify the position.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. This new Schedule looks a most formidable addition to the Bill, but I think it is to everybody's convenience that it should be set out here, in order to save people having to look it up in two separate Acts of Parliament.
  On Question, .Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Adaptation and Interpretation of Enactments, etc.]:
  BARONESS SEROTA: This Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 92, line 2, at end insert—
  ("The Highways Act 1959 (c.25)
  In section 38(2) (specification of highways which are to be maintainable at the public expense), in paragraph (e), after the words 'public path diversion order' there shall be inserted the words 'or in consequence of an order made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 or by a competent authority under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s.153 of principal Act) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968'").—(Baroness Scrota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved to add to paragraph 9
  " .In section 14(8)(6) after "1959" there shall be inserted the words 'except section 72, 73 and 74 thereof'."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to deal with a situation explained in a case, Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Beverley Borough Council, reported in The Times on May 31. An appeal is pending in the case and therefore it would not be right that I should discuss the facts, but I propose to deal with the general situation which the case explains.
  We are here dealing with road-widening schemes and the like. These are dealt with in the Highways Act 1959, in particular in Sections 72, 73 and 74. Section 72 deals with the prescribing of improvement lines for widening streets. Section 73 deals with the prescribing of building lines, and Section 74 deals with a kindred matter. The Highways Act says that in these cases when the street widen-
  738
  ing scheme is prescribed immediate compensation shall be paid to the landowner whose land is injuriously affected by the road widening proposal. No doubt all local authorities would faithfully have followed that procedure laid down in the Highways Act were it not for the existence of a Ministry of Transport Circular, No. 696 of 1954, paragraph 8 of which says:
  "In view of the powers now available to local authorities as planning authorities for the control of development it is no longer necessary for councils to safeguard future road improvement schemes by using their powers … to prescribe building and improvement lines."
  It then cites two earlier enactments which have bean reproduced in t1 e Sections of the Highways Act 1959 to which I have just referred.
  The purpose of this paragraph of the circular is to put local authorities wise to the fact that there appears to be some conflict as between the intention of Parliament as expressed in the Highways Act on one hand and in planning legislation on the other, because, as your Lordships will have guessed, if the planning legislation procedure is followed, the land-owner whose land is injuriously affected does not get immediate compensation, as he would if the Highways Act procedure were followed. Having regard to the time it takes to effect these road improvement schemes it must, in many cases, be that the land-owner for the time being will never in his lifetime receive the compensation to which he ought to be entitled.
  The time has come to resolve this apparent conflict between the intention of Parliament as expressed in two different Statutes, and I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that surely the Highways Act procedure ought to be adopted. Parliament was concentrating upon such matters as road improvement schemes when it passed the Highways Act, whereas when Parliament was dealing with planning legislation it was dealing with all sorts of topics and not particularly with such matters as road-widening schemes.
  What would seem to be quite unfair, and almost intolerable, is that one local authority, feeling, perhaps, generous and law-abiding, should follow the Highways Act procedure and pay the

  739
  landowner immediate compensation, whereas some other local authority, feeling perhaps less generous and taking the hint in the Ministry of Transport's circular to which I have referred, should proceed by the planning legislation procedure and deny the landowner his compensation, perhaps for the whole of his lifetime. What one must surely achieve in matters of this kind is uniformity as between one citizen and another. The treatment he receives should not be allowed to be affected by the whim of the particular local authority with which he has to deal.
  I will not weary your Lordships with the machinery whereby this Amendment seeks to achieve its purpose. Its purpose is to ensure that the will of Parliament as laid down in the Highways Act shall be followed in all cases and that the landowner injuriously affected shall have immediate compensation, which the Highways Act said that he should have. I dare say I shall be told that my Amendment is defective from a drafting point of view. This is not an easy matter to deal with. I shall not be discouraged if I am told that the Amendment is defective, provided that what I seek to achieve can be achieved by a satisfactory Amendment at the next stage of this Bill. I trust I have sufficiently explained the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 92, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Airedale.)
  7.0 p.m.
  BARONESS SEROTA: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, explained at the outset that the effect of his Amendment would be to take away the power to make orders removing or restricting the effect of sections 72, 73, and 74 of the Highways Act, 1959, and that his concern arose following the recent court case he mentioned. I am advised that, in spite of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has made so cogently, the Government regard the situation left as a result of this case as satisfactory, in that it leaves with the local planning authorities and the Minister powers which it was always assumed they had and which they must have if development control is to be exercised satisfactorily. In these days the planning of development cannot
  740
  be regarded as something separate from the planning of roads—a point which I have noted has occurred time and time again, as this Bill has proceeded through its stages—and we cannot regard them as separate activities to be conducted by a separate authority under separate powers. For many years now local planning authorities have used their powers to control development which would conflict with the construction of new roads and the widening of existing ones, and it is clearly right that they should be able to do so.
  The Highways Act provisions go back to the time before the universal planning powers of the 1947 Act were available to local planning authorities, and are now moribund. Local authorities were in fact advised by the Ministry of Transport, in a circular dated as long ago as 1954, not to use them. The Ministry of Transport are about to consult the local authority associations concerning the repeal of these sections in an early Highways Amendment Bill. Meanwhile, these Highways Act powers are still on the Statute Book, and it seems right that, until they are repealed, the Minister should retain the power to modify their effect by means of a development order if it should so happen that they were to hold up proper development; though it must be conceded that the power has not so far been used and, indeed, is not likely to be used in practice.
  It is felt that the Amendment about which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, feels so strongly is not necessary to the Bill at this stage. We should like to make it clear that as a matter of principle the Government cannot accept the argument that planning powers are not properly used in those cases where it is necessary to control development which would interfere with road improvements or road construction. As I said, this point has been mentioned at various stages of our discussions. I hope the noble Lord will have second thoughts. We have taken full note of the points he has made, and we shall have time, between now and the next stage of our deliberations, to consider them carefully and calmly in the light of what he has said.
  LORD AIREDALE: If that answer means that there is a likelihood that the Government may consider accepting an

  741
  Amendment at the next stage to achieve what I seek to achieve now, I will of course withdraw this Amendment. I would only say this to the noble Baroness. Am I not right in saying that at the present time it is quite open to a local authority to decide whether to carry out its road widening scheme under one Act and pay immediate compensation; or, if it does not feel very rich, not to pay immediate compensation but to proceed under a different procedure and deny the landowner his compensation indefinitely? Does the noble Baroness think that where different procedures are followed in different local authority areas this is fair as between one citizen and the other? Surely this is a matter which must be resolved so as to have universal and fair treatment as between one citizen and another. If I may have an assurance that this matter will be gone into with a view to an Amendment at the next stage, I shall be very pleased to withdraw this Amendment. But I do seek that assurance.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I do not wish to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I should not like him to think that I have given an undertaking that the Government will consider acceptance of an Amendment at the next stage. What I said was that we would read his comments and try to follow his arguments and, if necessary, would come back to this at the next stage. These are highly technical and complicated matters, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree. I would not mislead the noble Lord. I can assure him that we will take careful note of the points made and see what we can do at the next stage.
  LORD AIREDALE: I am very much obliged. I think I have sufficiently ventilated this matter for the time being and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  BARONESS SEROTA: This Amendment and subsequent Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 23, which we accepted earlier. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 45, at end insert—
  ("In section 159(1) (determination of applications etc. by statutory undertakers in respect of operational land) after the words 'such an application' there shall be inserted the words or such an application is deemed
  742
  to be made under section 16(7) of the Act of 1968 on an appeal under that section by statutory undertakers'").—(Baroness Scrota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 hang together. They deal with a challenge to the validity of footpath and bridleway orders by bringing them under Part II of the Act of 1962. I beg to move Amendment No. 106.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 11, after ("153") insert ("or 155").—(Baroness Serota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 107.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() The said provisions shall apply to an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) or (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) of the Act of 1968 as they apply to a structure plan as if, in subsection (1) of this section, for the reference to the date on which the notice therein mentioned is first published there were substituted a reference to the date on which the notice required by paragraph 5 of Schedule (Procedure in connection with orders relating to footpaths and bridleways) to that Act is first published in accordance with that paragraph").—(Baroness Serota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: This Amendment goes with No. 107B. These two Amendments together round off the process of applying sections of the 1962 Act as necessary to the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 98, line 47, at end insert—
  (" In section 205 (ecclesiastical poperty)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words 'specified in paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule thereto' shall be omitted; and

  (b) in subsection (3), after the words 'under Part VII of this Act' there shall be inserted the words 'or under section 18, 44 or 78 of the Act of 1968'").—(Baroness Serota.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 107B.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 4, at end insert—
  (" In section 215(1) (power to require information as to interests in land), the words

  743
  'specified in paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule thereto' shall be omitted.
  In section 217 (regulations and orders)—

  (a) in subsection (1)(a) the words 'specified in paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule thereto' shall be omitted; and

  (b) in subsection (3), the words 'specified in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Eighth Schedule thereto' shall be omitted.")—(Baroness Serota.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: This is merely a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 19, at end insert:—
  (" In Schedule 8 (provisions of principal Act listed for the purposes of sections of the Act referred to in the Schedule heading), the following amendments shall be made:
  (a) in paragraph 1(1)—
  for the words 'sections 1 to 12' there shall be substituted the words 'Sections 1 to 3; section 12';
  for the words 'sections 27 to 39; sections 41 to 87' there shall be substituted the words 'sections 27 to 29; section 32; sections 34 to 39; sections 41 to 44; sections 47 to 51; sections 56 to 66: sections 70 to 73; sections 77 to 87'; and
  the words 'section 210' shall be omitted; and
  for the words 'the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Schedules'; there shall be substituted the words 'the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Schedules';
  (b) in paragraph 3(1) for the words 'sections 138 to 151 'there shall be substituted the words 'sections 138 to 142; sections 144 to 151'")—(Baroness Serota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: Paragraph 54 of Schedule 6 gives the Greater London Council certain functions of a planning authority concurrently with the planning authorities themselves—that is to say, the London boroughs and the City. As drafted, it does not give the Greater London Council the functions of a planning authority under Clause 44 of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 101, line 14, leave out ("43, 45 to").—(Baroness Serota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 109.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 102, line 20, at end insert—
  ("In section 16 (interpretation of Part I), in subsection (7), for the words from 'section
  744
  64(2)' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'section 16(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 is deemed to have been made for such planning permission as is mentioned in that subsection'.").—(Baroness Scrota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 102, line 21, at end insert—
  (". In section 22 (requirement of industrial development certificate in certain cases), in subsection (4) for the words from 'section 64(2)' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'section 16(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 is deemed to have been made for such planning permission as is mentioned in that subsection'").—(Baroness Serota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause after Clause 69. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 39, at end insert—
  ". In section 16 (power of local planning authority to make tree preservation order with immediate effect)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words 'by the Minister" shall be omitted; and

  (b) for subsections (2) and (3) there shall be substituted the following subsections:—

  '(2) Notwithstanding section 29(4) of the Planning Act, an order which contains such a direction shall take effect provisionally on such date as may be specified therein and shall continue in force by virtue of this section until—

  (a) the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date on which the order was made; or

  (b) the date on which the order is confirmed or, in the case of an order which can be confirmed only by the Minister, on which he notifies the authority who made the order that he does not propose to confirm it;

  whichever first occurs.
  (3) Provision shall be made by regulations under the Planning Act for securing—

  (a) that the notices to be given of the making of a tree preservation order containing a direction under this section shall include a statement of the effect of the direction; and

  (b) that where the Minister, in the case of an order which can be confirmed only by him, within the period of six months referred to in subsection (2) above, notifies the authority that he does not propose to confirm the order, copies of that notice shall be

  745
  served on the owners and occupiers of the land to which the order related.'").—(Baroness Serum.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to. Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
  7.9 p.m.
  LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "not without the approval of the Minister be submitted to him", and insert "be submitted to the Minister". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 112 which stands in my name. I think I am right in saying that when the new planning system first comes into operation only a very few local planning authorities will be empowered to operate it. Other local planning authorities will not be able to propose alterations to their development plans without the permission of the Minister. That is under paragraph 1 of Schedule 7. It is not at all clear at the moment what the Government intend these authorities who are not empowered to operate the new system should do in the interim period.
  I feel that the need to obtain the Minister's permission would seem to be a disincentive to do any further work on the development plan until they in turn are empowered to operate a new system, which might not happen for a number of years. I should have thought that this could mean a gap during which to some extent, planning could stagnate. The Amendment suggests that local planning authorities still operating under the old system shall submit to the Minister proposals for alterations and additions to their development plans. However, the main object behind this Amendment is to draw a statement from the noble Baroness, or from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as to the Government's intentions during this interim period. Accordingly, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 104, line 9, leave out from ("shall") to ("under") in line 10, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
  LORD KENNET: I will give the noble Lord a statement forthwith. Where it is necessary during this transitional period that plans should be submitted and approved under the existing provisions of
  746
  the 1962 Act, the Minister will not withhold his consent to their submission. There will be cases, for example, where comprehensive re-development plans is have come to maturity and it is urgently desirable that they should be got of with. In such cases, authorities which are not planning under the new system will certainly be permitted to submit their comprehensive development area proposals as an amendment to the development plan under the 1962 provisions. I hope that this meets the noble Lord's point and will enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD MERRIVALE: It is my intention to withdraw my Amendment. I thank the noble Lord for his statement, brief as it is.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 7 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Enactments repealed]:
  LORD KENNET: This Amendment is consequential on No. 70. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 108, line 5, column 3, leave out from second ("and") to ("subsection") in line 10. —(Lord Kennet.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KENNET: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause carried into the Bill after Clause 69. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 108, line 12, column 3 at end insert—("In section 29(5), the words 'and, subject to' onwards").—(Lord Kennet.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 114A.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 109, line 22, column 3, at end insert—("Section 187").—(Baroness Scrota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move Amendment No. 114B.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 109, line 27, column 3, at end ilsert—

  ("In section 200(2), the words 'the Crown Estate Commissioners or by'").

  —(Baroness Serota)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 are the last of the Amendments that are consequential to the Amendments we made to Clause 16. I beg to move the first of these Amendments.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 109, leave out lines 51 to 53.—(Baroness Serota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I beg to move No. 116.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 109, leave out lines 56 and 57.—(Baroness Scrota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KENNET: This Amendment also is consequential on the new clause moved into the Bill after Clause 69. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 110, line 16, column 3 at end insert—("In section 16(1), the words 'by the Minister'").—(Lord Kennet.)
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have no desire to oppose this Amendment. It is the last on the Marshalled List, and I should like to seize the opportunity, at the end of some 15 hours of debate on the Committee stage of this complicated Bill, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Baroness, for their unfailing courtesy, and to congratulate them on having carried the Bill through this Committee stage without hazarding a line of it in a Division. What will happen in later stages I cannot predict.
  LORD KENNET: Perhaps I may thank and congratulate the noble Lord on his unfailing courtesy, reasonableness and persuasiveness, which I have sometimes found a personal embarrassment, because there have been occasions when he has convinced me—or nearly—when he should not have done. May I also, improper as it is, thank my noble adjutant for her part in this Bill, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the elucidation, if not actually to the amendment, of this Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

  THEATRES BILL
  7.17 p.m.
  LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD CHAMPION in the Chair.]
  Clause 14 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
  LORD MILVERTONmoved, in subsection (2), to leave out "in respect of which a licence under this Act is in force", and insert "whether licensed or not". The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I rise to propose this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ilford, who regrets his inability to remain this evening as he has an important engagement. With the permission of the Committee, I should like at the same time to speak upon Amendment No. 9, as they are so closely allied.
  These Amendments deal with the circumstances in which the officer of the licensing authority may enter premises to see whether the conditions of the Bill or of the licence are being complied with. In the case of licensed premises this officer may enter without a warrant, but in the case of unlicensed premises the Bill as at present drafted requires the officer first to obtain a warrant from a magistrate. The delay involved in seeking authority from a magistrate and obtaining a warrant may, in some circumstances, defeat the purpose of the inspection. The licensing authorities themselves desire that both classes of premises should be placed upon the same footing, and that their officer should be entitled to enter unlicensed premises without first obtaining a warrant. The time that would be lost in laying an information on oath and obtaining a warrant is a very important consideration, and inspection is more necessary in the case of unlicensed premises than in the case of licensed premises, while licensed premises are

  749
  more likely to comply with the requirements of safety than are unlicensed premises.
  If I may enlarge slightly on that, whatever may be the position in London, much valuable time will be wasted in many provincial towns while an authorised officer of the licensing authority is seeking out a justice of the peace for the purpose of laying an information on oath with a view to obtaining a warrant under subsection (1) to enter unlicensed premises where he has grounds for suspecting that an offence against the licensing provisions is being or will be committed. If one looks at it in the case of licensed premises, the authority is dealing with people who, at least have a knowledge of the law, and by reason of having applied for a licence have shown a willingness to comply with the requirements of the local authority. Surely that authority would not normally issue a licence unless the premises concerned were at least initially satisfactory. The position in regard to unlicensed premises, however, may be altogether different and their use at all for the presentation of stage plays may be wholly unsatisfactory. That is a very brief statement of the case for both these Amendments, but I hope that the noble Lord will consider it adequate for his favourable consideration.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 36, leave out from ("premises") to ("at") in line 37 and insert ("whether licensed or not").—(Lord Milverton.)
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONILAM): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for moving this Amendment in the place of his noble friend, but I hope he will agree that this is an Amendment which it is not desirable to make to the Bill. The noble Lord is of course aware that under the Bill inspectors will have authority to enter without warrant when the premises are licensed. By his Amendment, he wants the inspector to have power to enter without warrant any premises which are not licensed when they suspect that something is going wrong.
  With respect, it seems to me that the noble Lord based his whole case on the time which he alleged would be lost while they were looking around for a justice before whom they could lay an information on oath, and he thinks that this might
  750
  be fatal. Subsection (1) of the clause permits an officer to apply for a warrant and I would point out to the noble Lord that it is only when the premises are unlicensed, and it is only on the grounds of his suspicion, that an officer of the licensing authority would ever need to enter unlicensed premises.
  The Government consider that existing powers are sufficient for all reasonable purposes. As the noble Lord is probably aware, this subsection of Clause 14 is modelled on the parallel provisions of subsection (2) of paragraph 12 of the Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963, which has worked extremely well. I am also sure the noble Lord will agree with me that among associations of local authorities it is only the Association of Municipal Corporations which has persistently advocated that this power which is almost, but not quite, unprecedented should be given.
  Against the single argument of time that might be lost we must weigh the consideration that these are very wide powers which are asked for which will enable the local authority officer to enter any premises whatever, including private houses, if he has reason to suspect the public performance of a play is being held. These are not powers which your Lordships' Committee, 11 am sure, would lightly agree to give. Nor has it been the practice in licensing legislation generally that local authority officers should have such powers except in respect of premises that have been licensed and where the matter in question is the enforcement of statutory requirements in premises to which it has been recognised they should apply.
  So far as I am aware, the only precedent that exists for the powers for which the noble Lord asks in his Amendment are in the Cinematograph Act 1909. Those powers were granted in those days largely because the films made then were highly inflammable and likely to constitute a danger. Therefore it was thought then, nearly sixty years ago, that these powers of immediate inspection, as it were, without warrant were justified. I beg leave to doubt that if we were enacting similar legislation to-day, or it was proposed that we should enact it with the safer films that we have to-day, these powers would be granted. I

  751
  feel very strongly that we should not confer these unlimited powers on local authorities, and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment. Failing that, I hope my noble friend will not accept it.
  BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like very strongly to oppose this Amendment of Lord Milverton in one sentence only; that is, that it would make it absolutely impossible for any family to have a harmless game of charades in their sitting room if this Amendment were accepted by the Government, and I hope that we shall utterly reject it.
  LORD SOMERS: I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us some instance of where he thinks this would do some harm. With regard to what the noble Baroness has just said, surely in his interests the inspector will not go round from house to house entering wherever he will to see whether something is going wrong. He will do that only where he has definite ground for suspecting it, and I cannot see that there is any likelihood of a responsible man who is doing responsible work going round from house to house and entering without the slightest reason.
  LORD STOW HILL: I hesitate to add to what has been said so convincingly by my two noble friends who have spoken from this side of the House, and I only venture to rise because my noble friend Lord Stonham appealed to me to advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment. I readily accept that advice. With great respect to both noble Lords, the Bill at the moment, I should have thought, is framed exactly right. Where there are premises in respect of which there is a doubt as to whether there is any licence at all, and where it may be thought that there is a play in unlicensed premises being produced, the Bill requires, in accordance with many precedents in our legislation, that there should be an information before a justice of the peace. That is provided for by Clause 14, subsection (1).
  Clause 14, subsection (2), applies to the case where there is a licence but where it may be the case that that licence is being infringed; that the terms of it have not been complied with. I should have thought that, apart from the
  752
  fact that it is the almost universal practice in our legislation which is being followed (with the sole exception, I think I am right in saying, of the Cinematograph Act to which my noble friend Lord Stonham referred), it is surely the right balance.
  The powers given to an officer of a local authority in relation to the Amendment are extremely wide-ranging. If the Amendment were carried, an officer of the local authority could enter private premises or, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell pointed out, a private house, and would also be empowered to inquire whether there was a breach of Clauses 2, 5 and 6. Under the terms of the Amendment, an officer of a local authority is to be allowed to enter any premises for the purpose of seeing whether the terms, conditions or restrictions of the licence are being complied with, and is also to be empowered to enter any premises, including a private house, for the purpose of inquiring whether "the provisions of this Act" that means all the provisions of the Act —are being observed. This would include Clause 2, which deals with obscenity; Clause 5, which deals with race incitement; and Clause 6, which deals with incitement to breach of the peace. It would be intolerable for somebody who has not had the training of a police officer to be allowed to enter any premises at all without the authority of a justice of the peace, just because he takes it into his head to suppose that an obscene play may be being performed even in a private house. That is the effect of the Amendment, and I cannot help wondering if noble Lords who have supported this Amendment have considered its full implications. They are most far-reaching and are unacceptable to our thinking in general in respect of entry into premises.
  Noble Lords have justified the Amendment by urging that there would be delay. That is tantamount to saying that in every case where it is required that premises should not be entered except with the authorisation of a justice of the peace, those provisions should be cancelled because they involve delay and the person whom it is sought to apprehend may have mended his ways before the office: gets authority to enter the premises. That is very wide-reaching.

  753
  Our Legislature has decreed time and again that before premises are entered in order to be searched to see whether serious crime has been committed, there must be an authorisation by a justice of the peace. That is what is being done in this case. If it is wrong in this case, it is wrong in all the other cases in which, in a far more serious context, it is being used. I hope therefore that when the implications of the Amendment are considered, it will not be pressed. The delay is not so great. Experience has shown that a warrant can be obtained very quickly. It is not as if a person who seeks entry has to search through a telephone book or search half London before he can find a justice of the peace. It is known where a justice of the peace can be found, and it does not take long to put an information before him and for action to be taken in an appropriate case. Experience has shown that it is a short procedure. This has worked well in many other cases, and I can see no reason why it should not work equally well in this case. I hope that the committee will reject the Amendment.
  EARL BATHURST: Could the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, tell me for how many days a warrant would be available once it has been obtained?
  LORD STONHAM: I should have thought that a warrant would be available for the normal period. I do not know whether there would be a special restriction on this type of warrant.
  EARL BATHURST: For how many evening performances would it be available: would it be a week, a fortnight, or for only one performance?
  LORD STONHAM: We are not thinking of performances. We are thinking of a warrant on a sworn statement granted by a magistrate for entry into premises. It is not a question of performance, but a matter of a period of time. It will be for a magistrate to say for how long the warrant endures.
  LORD MILVERTON: I am sorry that this Amendment has met with such a lack of enthusiasm. The idea at the back of it was no: the matter of obscene performances or family charades, but the safety of the buildings concerned. It is easy to assume that officers of licensing authorities will behave with a lack of
  754
  balance or sense, but that is certainly not my experience of them. To speak of interfering with family charades is really throwing a ridiculous light on a serious suggestion. Let us take an amateur performance which sometimes takes place in a schoolroom after school. In such instances there is a danger in relation to the structure of the building, the danger of fire, the danger of inflammable dresses being used, and the changer of an electrical fault. These are serious things which must be attended to. One of the main responsibilities of a licensing authority is that of safety. The legislation was not originally framed to look after morals, nor was it framed to interfere with innocent family games. It was framed to look after situations which might be a matter of life and death to people in the buildings. I regret that this suggestion has not been welcomed. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Offences by bodies corporate]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD SEGAL: Could my noble friend clarify the position of a director of a university theatre? This might be in a somewhat different category from an ordinary licensed playhouse, since plays of a purely experimental nature often are produced in such a theatre. They are often plays of considerable artistic merit, but they are invariably produce, 'by undergraduates who have had little experience of play production. Some degree of irresponsibility may be allowed to creep in, not only in the text, but in the acting of a play. In such a situation could my noble friend say whether the director of such a theatre would be liable to be proceeded against and punished in the same way as the director of a fully licensed theatre?
  LORD STOW HILL: First, one has to find that there is a body corporate and that it is the body corporate, a limited company or any other incorporated entity recognised by law as such, which through its officers has presented or directed or put on a play in premises licensed or unlicensed in respect of which a licence is requisite.

  755
  Once there is that situation, whether it is at the university or whether it is in any other context, one then has to ask, looking at the particular person—whether he is, say, a don at a university, a director of a company, or any other person who has responsibility in the company as a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the company or body corporate, whatever it may be—can it be predicated of him, and established affirmatively in evidence against him, that it was with his consent that the offending performance was put on? I should have thought it was not sufficient—though it is not for me to lay down what the Bill means; I simply offer an opinion which subsequently may be confirmed or rejected by the courts—to say that he was in the vicinity. He has in some way to be shown to have been a positively consenting party. He must know that the play is put on. I should have thought he must know that there must be some factual situation present which constitutes the commission of an offence, and he must in a general sense be said to be involved in it.
  Many people may be connected, as patrons or otherwise, with a legal entity which is used for the purpose of putting on plays. But I should have thought it could not be said of them in any ordinary probable context of fact that they consented in the sense in which Clause 15 uses that word. Their minds, I should have thought, must be shown to have gone to and with the performance, and to have been cognisant of the features and characteristics of the performance, or of the other circumstances which give rise to the commission of an offence.
  While I perfectly understand that there is apprehension on the part of some parties as to whether they could be unwittingly involved, the interpretation which I offer to the Committee is one which could not possibly lead to a person who is, in a general sense, wholly innocent and unwitting of what is going on being involved in criminal proceedings. The words "with the consent" have to be read together with the words "or connivance". There has to be some actual participation—I do not say in an active sense, but in the sense that there must
  756
  be knowledge of what is going on and an acquiescence in it, in circumstances where it was perfectly open to the individual concerned, having that knowledge, to refuse to be associated with it or to use his influence to prevent it. Nothing less, I should have thought, could possibly suffice for the involvement in criminal liability of any of the persons here listed—directors, managers, secretaries or other similar officers of a body corporate. I should have thought that that was just as true of a university body as it was of an ordinary limited company. I hope that answer will be thought adequate by my noble friend.
  LORD SEGAL: I should like to thank my noble friend for clarifying this point to a large extent. I do not wish to press the matter at this stage, but I think he fully realises that a great deal more latitude ought often to be allowed to young undergraduates and minors, who are often quite inexperienced in the production of plays. The purpose of a university theatre is to educate the students not only in play writing but in play production, and in acting itself. Therefore, in those cases I hope that this clause will be interpreted with a great deal more latitude than would ordinarily be allowable in the case of a licensed theatre.
  LORD STONHAM: While entirely agreeing with what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill said in answer to my noble friend, may I ask this question, in order that there should be no misunderstanding arising out of what my noble friend Lord Segal has just said? Is it not the case that under this Bill the position of the presenter of a play in a university would be precisely similar to the presenter of a play by an amateur dramatic society somewhere else?
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  7.45 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:
  Copy of each new play to be delivered to British Museum
  ".—(1) This section applies to the first performance of every new play, based on a script, and "new play" includes every new act, scene or other part added to any old play, and every new prologue or epilogue, and

  757
  every new part added to an old prologue or epilogue:
  Provided that this section shall not apply to a performance of a play falling within the exceptions contained in section 7 of this Act.
  (2) The person or persons who presented a performance to which this section applies shall within one month of the date of that performance deliver at his or their own expense a copy of the actual script on which that performance was based to the Trustees of the British Museum who shall give a written receipt for it.
  (3) If the person or persons who presented the performance fail to comply with this section, he or they shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20, and the fine shall be paid to the said Trustees.
  (4) In this section "script" has the same meaning as in section 9(2) of this Act."
  The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment for which I have received a great many expressions of sympathy from noble Lords in all parts of the House, and that seems natural in view of the circumstances which give rise to it. The Amendment arises because of the terms of the first Act setting up censorship, which was passed by Walpole in 1737 and contains the provision that, when distributing licences, the Lord Chamberlain should demand the deposit with him of the scripts of all new plays. The result—a quite unexpected result, I suspect—has been the formulation of a fantastic library of theatrical documents —not all, I regret to say, in England. I also regret to say that, on an earlier occasion, I quite unintentionally misled your Lordships, because I said that the documents which are not in England are in the Library of the University of Harvard. I am informed that they are not, and that they are, in fact, in the Huntington Library, at San Merino, in California.
  Since 1824 this accumulation of documents has been in the care of the Lord Chamberlain, and I believe it is only recently that they have been, for the most part, transferred to the British Museum. Here I may say that the British Museum is most anxious to have the rest of the documents, and to be made the beneficiaries of an arrangement which would ensure the continuing collection of theatrical documents in the future. I am told that there are difficulties about this, but I have had discussions with my noble friend Lord Stow Hill and I hope that we shall be able to find some method by which it will be possible to make a reasonable and workable provision for
  758
  the accumulation in the future, as in the past, of these immensely interesting theatrical and human documents.
  I am hopeful about this, because, although it is fairly easy to anticipate difficulty about this collection, in fact very little difficulty has been experienced. This is also true of the Copyright Act which has somewhat similar terms, and which has been found in practice to work very simply and easily. I hope that my noble friend and I will be able before the Report stage to evolve a satisfactory method of preserving this unique library, and ensuring its future for all time. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Faringdon.)
  LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support most strongly what my noble friend Lord Faringdon has said. As he has made clear, the Lord Chamberlain's Office amassed the most valuable, interesting and historic are hive of all the plays performed during the period when the Lord Chamberlain was responsible for censorship, and I am most concerned that this should be continued and that scripts of plays should be lodged in the British Museum. If a play is published by a publisher, the printed work will, under the Copyright Act, go to the Museum, but this will not be so if the play is not published, in the sense that we have known it.
  I was interested to note that my noble friend did not include the other copyright libraries—I am sure he left them out for a good reason. I welcome the information he has given the House, that he and my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill will be going into this matter more closely before the Report stage, and I hope that some acceptable Amendment will be evolved by then so that this very important question can be included in the Bill.
  LORD STOW HILL: I think the Committee would be very sympathetic with the motive which prompted my noble friend to put this Amendment down on the Order Paper. We all desire that any play of any merit, even of doubtful merit, should be preserved for posterity instead of perhaps being wholly lost if it is not deposited in some place of safety such as the British Museum.

  759
  If I thought that this Amendment formulated a practical scheme for the purpose, I would certainly support it. I had the great advantage of having conversations with my noble friend Lord Faring-don, and I pointed out to him the anxieties I felt over the wording he had chosen and his reasons. Perhaps I might shortly state them to the Committee. The clause as drafted applies in effect to all plays. It is true that in the case of public performance of plays there was a similar provision applicable in the case of the Lord Chamberlain. Scripts were deposited with him and, as my noble friend said, a very valuable collection or library was accumulated over the decades, indeed centuries, during which this was done. The difficulty is that my noble friend's Amendment would apply not only to what I might call a recognised West End or provincial theatre, or something of that sort, but in its present wording it will apply to every play, for example, that is performed in a school hall, in a village, or in any local building in which there is an amateur theatrical performance put on.
  Hitherto, it has not been the practice for scripts used for these sorts of purposes to be sent to the Lord Chamberlain. It may be that under the law of 1843 this practice should have been carried out. When I say that, I have in mind the prosecution before a learned magistrate concerning the Royal Court Theatre, in which there was a theatre club; and it was held that a performance by a theatre club fell within the scope of the Theatres Act 1843. If that decision was right—and it was never tested in the higher courts—it would follow that scripts of the sort I have described, in country village performances and so on, should have been deposited with the Lord Chamberlain. In fact, this was never done over the decades during which the Act was operative.
  This Amendment, under its wording, would certainly require that to be done. It would be almost impossible to enforce. I know noble Lords will agree with me when I say that we must not put upon the Statute Book a criminal injunction unless it is reasonably possible to enforce it. One of the worst things that can be done is to enact that something should be a crime, when one knows per
  760
  fectly well that it is almost impossible to see that the law is observed. That brings the law into disrepute and disrespect, and it must be avoided by the Legislature, as I hope noble Lords will agree. That is just what is being done here. How on earth is there to be an organisation to ensure that the script of a school hall performance, somewhere in the country, will be sent to the British Museum? Not only is there that difficulty, but subsection (1) of the Amendment provides that the script is to include any new act, every other part added to any old play, every new epilogue or prologue, every new part added to an old prologue or epilogue.
  I know these words came from the Theatres Act 1843, but would not this sort of thing arise in a local hall? A script is used and if the performance goes on for two or three nights it is perhaps changed over and over again—an actor cannot remember his part or the part does not seem to suit him, and so it is altered. The effect of this subsection would be that every single alteration, every amended script, every change in the script, would have to be sent to the British Museum, under pain of a fine or other penalty as prescribed by the Bill. Clearly, that could not be enforced, and clearly if we enacted a law in those terms we would be enacting a law which would have not the slightest effect. I would very strongly counsel the Committee not to give their assent to the enactment of laws in those terms.
  Those are the sort of difficulties I have explained to my noble friend, which caused me to feel that I could not assent to his proposal. But as I said to him, and as I say again to the Committee, I am very sympathetic with the desire to preserve plays of the least merit and I should be very willing to consider, between now and Report stage, any proposal which might be viable.
  My noble friend handed to me just before I came into the Chamber the draft of a new Amendment he was contemplating, which was considerably changed from that which the Committee is now considering. I would say to him that I should like to study it very carefully between now and the Report stage. I would not like to commit myself to saying it is a feasible scheme which is embodied in the draft. I should like to think about it,

  761
  but I hope that as we are now considering the Amendment before the Committee, the Committee will feel that the advice I am giving is well-founded and that they ought not to give their assent to this scheme.
  LORD GOODMAN: In view of what has been said, it would be quite wrong to burden your Lordships for any length of time on this matter, except to say that one earnestly hopes that some clause will be evolved before the Report stage that will serve to preserve this most important fund of documents, which is important from a social and historical point of view and from the point of view of the drama. I wonder whether one might throw out a suggestion: one way of dealing with the matter might be to give the British Museum the right to call for copies; instead of making it mandatory for copies to be sent to the British Museum, to require persons who are performing a play in public to notify the British Museum by a postcard that such a performance is taking place, so that the British Museum might be given the right, if they want it, to call for a copy of a play in certain circumstances. I make that as one possible suggestion, because the Committee would feel that even if the net does not catch every work, as it seems clear it could not, it would be very unfortunate indeed if, because of drafting difficulties, we totally excluded the possibility of having a large proportion of the plays presented.
  7.58 p.m.
  LORD STONHAM: I am sure that everyone wants to be helpful about this, and everyone is sympathetic to the objective which my noble friend Lord Faring-don has in mind. I think that during the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that all that had to be done would be to readdress the envelope that would have been sent to the Lord Chamberlain. If we could do that in a Bill, it would be all quite simple. But when we start to put these things into a Statute, it is not so easy.
  I support my noble friend Lord Stow Hill in what he has said about the difficulties inherent in this Amendment. I think it is accepted by all noble Lords who have spoken that Lord Faringdon's Amendment is impossibly wide and quite unacceptable on those grounds, and in
  762
  any event would not achieve what he wants. I am bound to say, however, that the Government are very doubtful whether the collection of this material justifies a statutory provision; End if there is to be such provision then the obligations imposed must not be greater in character or extent than are necessary to fulfil the objectives.
  As my noble friend Lord Stow Hill put it, it is almost impossible to enforce, and we must not put on the Statute Book a criminal injunction unless it is possible to enforce it. There is no point in dilating on the difference between the position of books, which is comparatively simple, as compared with plays but these things must be taken into account, as must also the question of which script is to be presented. It is possible that a script might be very different at the end of a month—certainly at the end of 500 performances—from what it was at the beginning. There is also the difficulty in relation to minors, although this might be got over.
  My noble friend Lord Stow Hill said he would be pleased to look at any suggestions put forward which would have the desired effect—without, I hope, criminal sanctions—and certainly we should be prepared to help in that way if we possibly could. But out of a desire to be helpful I would mention one or two basic criteria which would have to be satisfied if an Amendment under this Bill were to be accepted. Any obligation which this Bill imposes in this field must make it clear just what has to be presented. There must not be any uncertainty in the mind of the person responsible for complying with this obligation. Then, the obligation must not impose unreasonable burdens on the whole world of the theatre. The third requirement, of course, is that the scheme must be enforceable. I very much doubt whether a solution satisfying all those three requirements will be found, and I believe that it would be much better to consider what can be done in a voluntary way to achieve what we have in mind.
  I understand that the Society for Theatre Research would be willing to operate a voluntary system, and to be responsible for collecting worthwhile

  763
  material and sending it to the British Museum. This is a very hopeful offer, particularly as my noble friend assured us that the British Museum is most anxious to have it. My noble friend referred to "the preservation of this unique library of interesting human documents." I think I must say that hereafter, when there is no censorship, the documents are likely to be far less interesting than they have been in the past, because I understand that the main interest arose from the correspondence which ensued between the authors and presenters of plays and the Lord Chamberlain. Certainly I think there are some outstanding examples from George Bernard Shaw and others of his time.
  But it seems to me that if an acceptable statutory requirement cannot be found then the best way to proceed would be to substitute some voluntary arrangement. It might be appropriate, therefore, for me to mention that we are considering the issue to associations connected with the theatre of an explanatory pamphlet setting out the main changes in the law brought about by the Bill when it becomes an Act. I say "connected with the theatre", but of course it would be a Stationery Office pamphlet and would be available to everyone. We should be prepared to mention in this pamphlet the desirability of sending scripts of plays to the British Museum; and, of course, if by that time any voluntary machinery had been set up to help people, it could set out what that was. This might eventually be the best solution. But certainly I hope the pamphlet I have mentioned will be a great help in making the basic facts of the change in the law brought about by this Bill known to as wide a circle as possible.
  LORD GOODMAN: May I ask the noble Lord, before he sits down, whether, if this does come about (as indeed may have to be the case, so long as this system is the best), the Government will consider incorporating in the Bill some very modest provision for providing funds for a voluntary organisation to do this? I think the major problem will be the wherewithal to carry this into effect.
  LORD STONHAM: This is a very difficult subject, and not my province, but I will note what the noble Lord has said.
  LORD SEGAL: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but this suggestion by my noble friend Lord Stonham that an explanatory pamphlet should be made available through the Stationery Office is of such interest and of such value that I am wondering whether there could be included in it the section of the Copyright Act which requires that copies of books should be deposited not only with the British Museum but also with the Bodleian Library and the Cambridge University Library—a point which my noble friend Lord Strabolgi raised in his remarks, though it was not fully answered, I think, by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill in his reply. The reason I suggest that it should be included in this explanatory pamphlet is that I believe far more interest in these plays will be taken in these other libraries than possibly even in the British Museum.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Amendment does not seem to have had a very successful reception. I was, if I may say so, very disappointed in what my noble friend Lord Stonham said because, frankly (I may have a very poor opinion of human nature), I know how lazy I am myself and I do not believe that this library will continue to be formed if it has to depend upon voluntary effort or upon any scheme which has no sanctions behind it. In that connection, I would again come back to the copyright arrangements of which my noble friend Lord Strabolgi spoke. The interesting thing to us in the present circumstances, discussing the present subject, is the way in which books are supplied to copyright libraries. I think I am right in saying that it is only the British Museum which gets the books automatically: the other statutory libraries are, I think, entitled to ask for them; but when they ask they must receive.
  I believe that if we are to continue to keep this theatrical record in the future as in the past some form of compulsion will be necessary. It may well be—indeed, I should expect—that in fact compulsion would be no more painful than has been the compulsion in connection with copyright. I am told by friends of mine in the book trade that they have in fact occasionally omitted to send in their books. When that has happened, they have got a polite little note from the British Museum saying,

  765
  "We think this must have escaped your notice, as you will realise that under such-and-such a section of the Copyright Act you should have sent us a copy of your recent publications, 'so-and-so' and 'so-and-so'". On those amicable terms the copyright system has worked without ever, I believe, the enforcement of the sanctions which are available.
  But I will not detain your Lordships. I thank those who have supported me; and I hope that: the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Stow Hill, will be more amenable when I produce another Amendment on Report stage. Incidentally, I have one in my pocket which I think covers most of Lord Stonham's points. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
  8.10 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD moved, in subsection (2)(b). to leave out "and" and to insert instead:
  "Provided that if the director or his representative shall raise no objection to a variation of performance carried out for not less than three performances, the director shall be regarded as having approved and accepted responsibility for such variation and the performer shall not thereafter be regarded as the director of the performance and provided further that the directional responsibility of the performer shall be limited to the variation of performance for which he is alleged to be responsible;".
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Willis, who unfortunately is prevented from attending your Lordships' Committee. Clause 17(2) of the Bill starts with the laudable intention of ensuring that an actor, merely because he is taking part in a performance, is not to be held responsible for that performance and therefore not to be made liable for an offence under the Bill when it becomes an Act. But it goes on, in paragraph (b) to make what seems the rather remarkable proposal that if the actor does something which is not in accordance with the directions that he should receive from the person directing or presenting the play, if he should "ad lib." a line, or something like that, he is to be responsible not just for this line which he has "ad libbed." but for the whole
  766
  performance. This, I venture to submit, is quite an extraordinary proposal. One can understand that the actor should be liable for that which he has inserted. But why this should make him automatically the offender in relation to the whole performance I find difficult to follow.
  The form of the Amendment seeks to mitigate the effect in two ways. First, it says that if the director has adopted or ratified this variation for three performances then he assumes responsibility, so to speak, takes over and the actor drops out. Secondly, it adds the proviso that in any event the responsibility of the actor should be limited to the particular variation that he has introduced. I should have thought that there might be a case for saying that this whole provision of Clause 17(2)(b) is really rather absurd and could quite well be chopped out of the Bill. But the Amendment does not go as far as that. It seeks simply to modify it in the way I have indicated. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 39, leave out ("and") and insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lloyd of Hampstead.)
  LORD STOW HILL: I would advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment, for the following reasons. We are no doubt all united in the des re to produce a result that is fair to the actor, on one side, and fair to the person whom I may generically call the producer, on the other. In those circumstances this is how the situation might work out. One begins with this. A play is obscene only if, taken as a whole—and I emphasise "taken as a whole"—it tends to corrupt and deprave. It is not the single line, as my noble friends say, but the general effect of the play as a whole that brings it within, or leaves it outside, the scope of Clause 2.
  Take the case of an actor who "ad libs". If he introduces merely one or two lines I do not suppose that that would have the effect of causing the play to cross the Rubicon into the scope of Clause 2. But a play is not far from the boundary, and supposing that the producer has strictly forbidden the actors to depart from the text because there might he the risk of any additional borderline matter bringing the play within the scope of Clause 2 as a whole; and

  767
  supposing that he has tried all he can to stop the actors from doing it and they nevertheless do it, it seems unfair to him that, because he has not actually watched like a lynx every performance and spotted where it had transgressed his instructions, he may be held to be liable in terms of this Amendment.
  I think that is all the more the case when one looks at Clause 17(2)(c), which provides that:
  "a person shall be taken to have directed a performance of a play …notwithstanding that he was not present during the performance;"
  I suppose that you might have over and over again a producer who does his best to see that the play is not objectionable from the point of view of Clause 2. He then perhaps goes abroad, or is absent from the performance because he was perhaps presenting elsewhere some quite different play which he has also produced. If, behind his back, the actors depart from his instructions and use language or gestures which have the result of causing the play to cross over the limit, the result under the terms of this Amendment is that he is made responsible. It seems to me that that is very unfair. It is not right in the circumstances that a producer who has done all he can to keep within the prescribed limits, because something of which he was wholly ignorant was done behind his back and was not picked up by those who were there to watch on his behalf; because in those circumstances there has been "ad libbing" which has brought the play within the scope of Clause 2, should be held to have criminal liability.
  It seems to me very unfair that that should be the case. But that would be the result, I put it to the Committee, of the Amendment as drafted. From the point of view of the actor, one could ask: "Is he adequately protected under the terms of paragraph (b)? I should have thought that he was. The words there are:
  "…if without reasonable excuse he performs otherwise than in accordance with that person's direction …"
  Supposing that he does "ad lib."; that he does not follow strictly the text; that he indulges in gestures or something like that; if he was in a general sense not culpable he can rely upon the words that
  768
  give him a "get-out" if he can show that he had reasonable excuse for so doing.
  But if we put in the proviso it might be that those words of wide ambit in the clause as drafted might be held to have a rather narrower scope if read side by side with the proviso. I should have thought, therefore, that if one looks at the matter from the point of view of the actor he is better protected with the clause as it is at present than if the proviso is inserted. In its present form, I should have thought that he had ample protection. If he "ad libs." with a reasonable excuse there is nothing to fear. It is only if he does so without reasonable excuse that he may find himself joined in criminal responsibility.
  Therefore I put it to the Committee that as the clause is at present drafted it does give protection. If it is changed in the way that my noble friend wishes to change it, then in the first place the protection given to the actor may be rather less than at present, and, in the second place, it would undoubtedly, in my submission, produce extremely unfair results from the point of view of the producer. Therefore I hope that the Committee will come to a conclusion, weighing the arguments on both sides, that the clause is very much better as it stands and that the Amendment would produce unfair results, both for the actor and for the producer.
  LORD GOODMAN: This is a small point, but I venture to express the view that it illustrates the sort of Parliamentary drafting that gets us into trouble. It is an illustration of what I would call "completomania" in drafting. The original clause should not have been in at all. The original clause produces a weird effect; if we add the Amendment, we get a weird effect squared. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that he should reconsider, before the Report stage, whether he has done justice to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who, I think has a valid point. If the noble Lord will not think it an impertinence, I would venture to explain it as I see it.
  What the paragraph says is that if an actor without reasonable excuse has forgotten his lines and "ad libs." a single line he then becomes responsible for the

  769
  whole performance as I understand it. The normal reason for an actor "ad libbing." is that: he has forgotten his lines; and that, I gather, will not be regarded as a reasonable excuse, for a conscientious actor would know his lines. In any event I think it arguable whether it is a reasonable excuse, though it may well not be. It is not a question of considering the performance as a whole. It is not necessary for that line to have the little additional weight which converts the play into an obscene play. It may have been an obscene play without that line at all. It is the addition of that line which, under this drafting, makes him responsible for the play as a whole. That produces a total absurdity. I do not think that the situation would be improved by adopting the Amendment, which suggests that the actor, having become responsible for the play because he has "ad libbed." a line—for example because he has forgotten his lines—should cease to be responsible if the director, shall we say, is absent from the theatre for three nights and does not see what he has done; and the actor goes on repeating it for three nights. Then the matter is perpetuated and the director again becomes responsible. There is not an element of sanity in either proposition. I therefore venture to suggest, quite seriously, that the whole matter be reconsidered; and I think that a simple solution would be to leave out the subsection entirely.
  8.21 p.m.
  LORD STOW HILL: If I may venture to reply to the interesting and cogent speech to which we have just listened, I would think that if an actor departs from the text because he cannot remember what the text is, he might be said to have a rather good and reasonable excuse for the departure. If one pictures the actual situation, the question being whether the play is obscene as a whole and not a particular part of it, it would be an odd situation if the actor forgets his text for the lime being and then plunges into a volt. me of obscenity such as, by itself, by its individual lone force, divorced from al the rest, has the effect of pushing the play across the margin as a whole from non-obscenity into obscenity. Everything is possible in this most remarkable world, but I find it not altogether easy to conceive of a play which is not obscene, but then
  770
  an actor forgets his words and, because he does so, possibly in a moment of irritation plunges into a volume of obscenity of such intensity and volume that the play as whole becomes obscene. It may happen—
  LORD GOODMAN: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, from that point it is not necessary. The actor forgets his lines, and he has to "ad lib." He does not have to plunge into a torrent of obscenity. He can utter words of the greatest propriety, and if the play is otherwise obscene, under this clause he is then liable for it. This is the point. My understanding of this is that he becomes Liable whatever he says, provided the "ad fibbing.", the change, is a departure from the author's instruction, and one which is made without reasonable excuse. It does not have to be one which involves any obscenities at all.
  LORD STOW HILL: I do not think that the Committee would wish me to prolong the controversy, but the joint made is interesting. You start off, therefore, with a play which is obscene, produced in circumstances which are such that the law is already being transgressed and the producer is liable to be prosecuted because he is putting on an obscene play. The actor taking part in that obscene play unhappily forgets his lines, and so he introduces, instead of the obscene lines he was to have used, lines which are no longer obscene, and is anxious lest he should be prosecuted. I should have thought that if an actor, charged to voice obscenity, in a moment of forgetfulness changes himself to non-obscenity, the departure from the text could be excused as being owing to reasonable excuse.
  LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I do not propose to press this Amendment which I am conscious is not altogether in the most apt and satisfactory form. I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, that it would be better (as indeed I suggested myself) if the whole subsection were omitted. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is feeling so terribly unsympathetic towards this proposal, because it seems to me that here there is a serious point. One could easily find a situation where an actor might find himself saddled with the responsibility

  771
  for a whole play simply because, without reasonable excuse, he has injected some line which may be in itself obscene, or improper, or whatever it may be; and this is, I should have thought, a thoroughly irrational result. I urge my noble and learned friend to give this matter consideration, which I am sure he will be ready to do—at least I hope he will—between now and the next stage, in order to see whether this position might not be ameliorated either by omitting paragraph (b) or by making some modification to it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Consequential amendments, repeals and transitional provisions]:
  LORD STONHAMmoved, in subsection (6), to leave out "three" and insert "two". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12 and I should like to take with it Amendment No. 13, which is a similar Amendment. The effect of these Amendments is to bring forward by one month the date of the commencement in Clause 19 of the main provisions of the Bill, that is, all the provisions except those listed in Clause 14(2) which, of course, would come into operation immediately. If the Amendment is accepted the other provisions of the Bill will come into operation two months instead of three months after the Royal Assent and they make consequential provisions to the transitional provisions in Clause 18 which are, in part, linked to the commencing date.
  The Government are proposing this reduction in the period between the passing of the Act and its coming into effect on the suggestion of, and in the interests of, the Lord Chamberlain. He has pointed out that whereas in this case the law is being relaxed, there must be an element of artificiality in its continued enforcement after the Royal Assent, and he would welcome any reduction in the period during which he would be in this somewhat invidious position. Of course, the Government have considerable sympathy with this view. On the other hand, some interval between the passing of the Act and its coming into operation is essential where new criminal offences are
  772
  created, because time must be allowed for those concerned to acquaint themselves with the effect and implications of the new law before it begins to apply. For that reason we could not agree that the Act could, or should, be brought into effect immediately. But the Government consider that some reduction in the interval before the Act comes into operation could properly be made, and the two-month period of grace for which the Amendment provides is a fair compromise which would materially ease the pressure to which the Lord Chamberlain is likely to be subjected after the passing of the Act without unreasonably curtailing the time which those who have to operate the new Act will need for preparation for the assumption of their new obligations.
  When these Amendments were originally tabled in my name the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, the Lord Chamberlain, had hoped to be present. As your Lordships are aware, the Committee stage could not be completed when the Committee first met and tonight, because of other engagements, he is unable to be present. But he has written to me authorising me to say that he welcomes the fact that if this Amendment is accepted, these parts of the Bill will come into operation two months after it receives the Royal Assent and I confirm on his authority, that in that period of two months he will continue to discharge his present responsibilities until the new Act becomes operative. That is entirely in accordance with the Government's wishes in this matter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Stonham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Short title, commencement, extent and application to Isles of Scilly]:
  LORD STONHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 5, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Stonham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to
  Schedule 1 [Provisions with respect to licences]:
  LORD STOW HILL: This is purely a drafting Amendment, designed to bring the wording of sub-paragraph (2) into line with the slightly different position in sub-paragraph (1). This produces no effect except to tidy up a slight lapse of language. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 32, after ("authority") insert ("not less than").— (Lord Stow Hill.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Consequential Amendments]:
  LORD STOW HILL: This Amendment is again, broadly speaking, drafting. It substitutes a reference to this Bill for the reference to the Theatres Act 1843 in Section 11 of the Theatrical Employers Registration Act 1925. Section 11 exempts persons to whom a theatre licence has been issued from the need to register with the local authority and this change simply preserves the status quo by substituting reference to the present Bill for the reference to the Act of 1943. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 5, at end insert—

  ("The Theatrical Employers Registration Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 51).

  In section 11, for the words section seven of the Theatres Act 1843' there shall be substituted the words the Theatres Act 1968'.")

  —(Lord Stow Hill.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STOW HILL: Will your Lordships allow me to deploy the reasons in support of the remaining Amendments together, because they all hinge on the same point. Amendment No. 16 and the Amendment to Schedule 3 are consequential on Amendment No. 17, which seeks to insert certain new words which appear on the Marshalled List. The reason for this insertion is to be found in the Finance Act 1957 under which, subject to qualifications, justices' licences for retail sale of intoxicating liquor were abolished. That necessitated a change in Section 199(c) of the Licensing Act 1964, because that Act was written so as to
  774
  apply to the then existing legislation. The new subsection which I seek to write in by this Amendment refers to the present Bill. This group of Amendments makes no change in principle but simply preserves the existing situation by substituting a reference to this Bill for references to previous legislation which covers the same ground. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, column 2, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert—

  ("In section 162(4) (as amended by the Finance Act 1967) in its application to England and Wales, for the words in any theatre' there shall be substituted the words' on any premises', and the words' at that theatre ' shall be omitted.) — (Lord Stow Hill.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STOW HILL: I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 31, at end insert—

  ("The Licensing Act 1964(1964 c. 26).

  In section 199, as amended by the Finance Act 1967, the following shall be substituted for paragraph (c)—

  (c) make unlawful the sale or exposure for sale by retail without a justices' licence of any intoxicating liquor at any premises in respect of which a licence under the Theatres Act 1968 is for the time being in force, or which by virtue of any letters patent of the Crown may lawfully be used for the public performance of plays without a licence under that Act being held in respect thereof, if the proprietor of those, premises has given to the clerk to the licensing justices notice in writing of the intention to sell such liquor by retail at those premises and that notice has not been withdrawn;'.

  In section 200(1), as amended by the Finance Act 1967, for the word 'theatre' there shall be substituted the word 'premises'.")

  —(Lord Stow Hill.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
  LORD STOW HILL: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 45, at end add—

  ("1967 c. 54.

  I The Finance Act 1967.

  In Schedule7, paragraph 19.")

  —(Lord Stow Hill.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

  FRIENDLY AND INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL
  8.36 p.m.
  LORD PEDDLE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD CHAMPION in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Consequential amendments of rules by societies]:
  LORD PEDDIE: I will explain Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. They refer to a subsection which deals with a once-for-all period, so that the definite article is more appropriate than the indefinite one. That is the sole justification for these two Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 30, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PEDDIE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 32, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Meaning of "subsidiary"]:
  8.38 p.m.
  LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (5), after the second "if", to insert:
  "the first-mentioned society transacts at least one half in value of its business with that other society or the members of that other society, and".
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself and suggest that we should take No. 4 at the same time. I had intended to go into the merits of these Amendments in some detail but, owing to the late hour and to the limited number of noble Lords present, this will probably be unnecessary. Your Lordships will be aware from Second Reading and subsequent proceedings that this matter has already been ventilated.
  We are dealing with Amendments drafted by the Co-operative Insurance Society. I am now informed that owing to changes in the composition of the Committee of the Co-operative Insurance Society a majority of the Committee does not wish these Amendments to be pressed since, I understand, they are satisfied with the discussions and correspondence they have had on the subject with the Chief Registrar. There remains the minority who took a different view and as we are always jealous in Parliament of protecting the rights of minorities, I would have gone into this in more detail but for the present circumstances.
  The core of this matter is simply that the Co-operative Insurance Society did not wish to be treated for the purposes of this Bill, or indeed of any Act, as a subsidiary of its members, or, in particular, a subsidiary of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which holds four-fifths of the shareholding, the comparatively small amount of £52,500, in this very large enterprise, the Co-operative Insurance Society, which has assets of £450 million and over. They took this view because they hold that the Co-operative Insurance Society is not comparable with a company, and therefore that the criteria for a company to be a subsidiary—namely, membership and control—do not apply to the Co-operative Insurance

  777
  Society, on the ground that the Co-operative Insurance Society is really independent. They put it in this way in the circular that they issued on June 6:
  "A company operates for the benefit of its ordinary shareholders, who are entitled to its disposable profits in proportion to the size of their shareholdings and control of its assets.
  "The position in a co-operative society is quite different. The basis of the co-operative philosophy and trading on which the whole of the Industrial and Provident Societies' legislation is founded is that a society should operate its business for the benefit of those making use of facilities it provides. It must pay no more than a strictly limited rate of interest on share capital and its disposable surplus should be returned to those making use of its facilities not to its shareholders as such."
  And then it goes on:
  "It is therefore a contradiction in terms to describe an Industrial and Provident Society as a subsidiary of another society even if the latter owns sufficient shares to give it majority voting power. The term 'subsidiary can only be properly applied to a proprietary organisation in which the shareholders are the proprietors. To apply the term 'subsidiary' to an I. and P. Society is to undermine the basic cooperative principle that an I. and P. Society cannot be a proprietary organisation and must be operated in the interests of the persons using the facilities of the Society regardless of how the shares are held."
  To some extent, in this Bill which deals primarily with accounts and also quin-quennial valuations—these are the principal subjects—it is possibly a rather academic matter in view of the discussions to which I have already referred and the assurances that have so far been given.
  The points at issue are simple enough. The first is: Does the fact that the Co-operative Wholesale Society control the management of the Co-operative Insurance Society mean that they control the assets? It has been established, I think, with reasonable certainty, that so far as the assets are concerned, except in the event of a winding-up, the assets are not available to the Co-operative Wholesale Society; they are to be used for the purposes of the policy holders. The Co-operative Insurance Society, I believe, have asked for an assurance in writing that the Co-operative Wholesale Society have no intention of winding up the Co-operative Insurance Society, nor any intention of manipulating the assets of the Co-operative Insurance Society in any way other than just to receive the
  778
  fixed dividend, which they have themselves fixed in accordance with the constitution of the Co-operative Insurance Society.
  The second point on which they have asked for an assurance is that the Cooperative Wholesale Society will avail themselves of Clause 14(2)(b), and not include this subsidiary, the Co-operative Insurance Society, in their accounts on the ground that the result would be:
  "misleading, or harmful to the business of the Society or any of its subsidiaries";
  or, indeed, on the ground of paragraph (c) of that subsection, that
  "the business of the Society and that of the subsidiary are so different that they cannot reasonably be treated as a single undertaking."
  The difficulty that arose here arose from the way in which the Co-operative Wholesale Society referred to their subsidiary, the Co-operative Insurance Society, in their accounts for the past year. It was feared by the Co-operative Insurance Society that the way in which this was done would reflect upon the position of independence of the Co-operative Insurance Society in the management of their affairs, and might prejudice the, business of the Society, and indeed the interests of their policy holders. They have, therefore, also sought an assurance: as to the way in which this reference would be carried in any accounts made in future under this Bill.
  I do not know what the noble Lord can tell us about this to-night, but I do not think there has yet been time for the Co-operative Wholesale Society to reply to the invitation for written assurances. But in view of the fact that the assurances have been obtained verbally I do not propose to press these Amendments to-night. It is a matter of judgment, of course, as to whether in defining a subsidiary for the purposes of co-operative societies it should be defined in the same way as a company. I think it is very doubtful.
  I should have preferred that the matter had been put beyond all doubt by finding a definition of a "subsidiary" for the purposes of a co-operative society similar to the Amendment that I have put down, if not in exactly those terms: because under my Amendment the present clause reads as follows:
  "For the purposes of this Act, an industrial and provident society shall be deemed to be a

  779
  subsidiary of another society if, but only if, the first-mentioned society transacts at least one half in value of its business with that other society or the members of that other society, and
  "(a) is a member of the first-mentioned society and controls the composition of its committee; or"—
  and this is not particularly relevant—
  "(b) can exercise a majority of the votes to which members of the first-mentioned society are entitled under its rules."
  Then it would continue, with Amendment No. 4:
  "For the purposes of this subsection, the first-mentioned Society shall be deemed to transact at least one half in value of its business with that other society or the members of that other society, unless the Chief Registrar is satisfied that this is not the case."
  The effect of this would, of course, have been to exclude the Co-operative Insurance Society, and probably no other co-operative society, because the Co-operative Insurance Society transacts very much less than half the value of its business with the Co-operative Wholesale Society or its members. So it would have been excluded automatically, and this would probably have been desirable, in view of the special position of an insurance society. After all, the Cooperative Insurance Society is in effect a mutual insurance society except for the fact that there is a shareholding held by the Co-operative Wholesale Society through which they are able to control the management of the Cooperative Insurance Society. But I take it that it would be open to the Co-operative Insurance Society at any time to do what other insurance companies have done; namely, to turn themselves completely into an independent co-operative insurance society, or, for that matter, into a mutual insurance company where the control would not lie with anybody else but would lie with the policy holders.
  However, that is not a matter that we are discussing this evening. The matter is a very much mere restricted one. It is purely and simply whether we should have a definition of a subsidiary so far as the Co-operative Society is concerned, which will exclude the Co-operative Insurance Society, or whether we should leave the words in the clause as they are. In view of the fact that the Co-operative Insurance Society itself seems to have received verbal assurances that are satis
  780
  factory to it, and is only awaiting the written assurances, I do not intend to press this Amendment, but I thought it was as well that the matter should have been ventilated. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 43, after second ("if") insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
  8.53 p.m.
  LORD PEDDIE: In moving this Amendment, the noble Lord stated that in view of the lateness of the hour he would curtail the range of his argument in support of the Amendment, but he has made a number of statements which I think justify some reply. He has quoted extensively from the documentation circulated by the C.I.S. to Members of this House some time ago, but I would remind the Committee—
  LORD DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for one moment? I did not actually quote from the document addressed to this House; I quoted from the Press release which came, he will remember, on the 6th of the month, whereas the other document was issued, I think, on the 14th.
  LORD PEDDIE: That, of course, supplemented the original document and dealt with it in even greater detail. So I think it is necessary that a detailed reply should be given, because this is a matter that has aroused a considerable amount of interest and attention in the Co-operative Movement.
  This Bill is quite innocuous, calculated to do some good to co-operative and friendly societies, and it has been discussed between the Registrar and representatives of the leading co-operative organisations and the friendly societies for three years. There is complete agreement and no objection at all to this Bill. In his Amendment, the noble Lord introduces an entirely new element in the definition of a subsidiary. I can assure the Committee that after full and detailed consideration of all aspects of this point by the C.I.S., the objection of the C.I.S. Board has been withdrawn. As the noble Lord has stated, Clause 13 provides for group accounts where societies are registered under the Acts and have as their subsidiaries other societies or companies, and Clause 15 defines subsidiary. I know that a co-operative

  781
  society is not a company, but where a company is a subsidiary under this Bill the clause applies the test laid down in Section 154 of the Companies Act 1948; namely, the control of the board of directors, or the majority holding of equity share capital.
  When we come to a co-operative society the situation is a little different because there is no equity share capital. But the same basic principle is employed in determining whether one industrial and provident society is a subsidiary of another. The test is the exercise of voting powers, and subsection (5) applies two tests as to whether one society is the subsidiary of another: the control of the committee of management, and the control of votes. Both are tests of the power of one society to control the management of the other, and the subsidiaries are defined by reference to that power. It is important that the Committee should realise that in this Amendment an entirely new element and new test is being introduced as to whether or not one is a subsidiary of the other. In this particular case—and I would urge this upon the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—it is to be based upon a judgment of the circumstances of a particular society's business. Accordingly, this Amendment would enable one society to approach the Registrar if it does not conduct at least one half in value (and I emphasise that) of its business with the society, or members of the society of which it would otherwise be a subsidiary. In so doing it would cease to fall within the definition of a subsidiary, in spite of the fact that control of management rests with the other society.
  This Amendment stems from attempts of the C.I.S. to devise a formula to avoid falling within the definition of a subsidiary. Nevertheless the rules of the C.I.S. empower the C.W.S. to appoint eight out of ten of the directors and to exercise four-fifths of the members' votes. Thus clearly the C.I.S. comes within the definition of subsidiary on both present tests.
  I should like to emphasise to the Committee and to place on record that these Amendments are wholly unnecessary and would indeed create serious complications. The Bill already, in Clause 14(2), provides for exemption from the requirement of group accounts if the result is
  782
  misleading or harmful, or the two businesses are so different that they cannot be treated as a single undertaking.
  The noble Lord asked me to make a positive statement in regard to this. I can, and I will. The C.W.S., as the parent organisation, recognised that the two classes of business were so different that they could not be regarded as a single undertaking. Therefore there is no suggestion of the incorporation of the accounts of the C.I.S. into those of the C.W.S., and assurances have already been given. I might also point out that even in spite of that there is within the Bill a clear indication of the necessary for accounts to be presented in such a way that they must avoid anything misleading that may result from the consolidation of accounts. Therefore I suggest that the exemption provided by Clause 14(2)(c) would enable independent accounts as before.
  It was suggested also by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that it might be considered wrong to apply the present test to societies run on co-operative principles, but as a matter of fact there are several co-operative societies which control other co-operative societies. In most cases where such control exists, the relationship is such as to justify group accounts covering the affairs of both societies. I might refer to co-operative chemist societies, of which there are about 75 in Britain, and the Co-operative Tea Society, which is a big national society, is a further example. The present test in the Bill looks simply at the power of control and defines subsidiaries by reference to that power. I would also make quite clear that this Bill simply acknowledges a situation which has long existed. The relationship between the C.I S. and the C.W.S. has existed for many years and nothing in this Bill will alter that relationship.
  I suggest also that the Amendment would complicate and distort the accepted meaning of "subsidiary". It would also create very serious practical difficulties. I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has not appreciated the difficulties that could arise in this practical form. The first arises from the use of his word "value" in referring to the business of the society. Depending on the nature of the society's business, "value" may vary according to the way it is

  783
  approached. It might be simple for the C.I.S. to establish "value", actuarily or otherwise, but societies carrying on mixed business, agriculture societies or others which supply services as well as goods, could find difficulty in deciding which yardstick to apply. Is the value of the services the cost to the member or the profit to the society, or the actual value to the member, which may be considerably in excess of any of these figures? The Amendment gives no guidance at all on how to determine value.
  There is a further really serious difficulty. We must not relate this Amendment solely to the C.I.S.: it would apply to all societies that could be considered subsidiaries within the definition, and the difficulty would arise that they would have the problem of establishing the status of persons with whom they do business. The Amendment would require that an inquiry be made of every customer as to his membership of another society. With the C.I.S. again this would present no difficulty, but the majority of co-operatives deal with individuals who do their trade across the counter, and there would be considerable difficulty. And it is quite clear that this Amendment, which arose out of the original attitude of the C.I.S. and met the needs of the C.I.S., takes no account of the position of other societies.
  I must wind up by pointing out another serious difficulty. The use of the word "subsidiary" is not confined to Clause 15. Clause 8 of the Bill prohibits any officer of a society from acting as the auditor of a subsidiary under the present definition of subsidiary as in Clause 15. So that it follows that an officer of a society which controls another cannot act as the auditor of that other, and that is quite clearly a desirable restriction. The Amendment would cut across this and enable an officer of the C.W.S. to audit the accounts of the C.I.S. notwithstanding the element of control involved. Therefore I feel that on a rational consideration of the full impact of these Amendments there is really no justification for them at all. But I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has no intention of pursing this matter. I welcome the opportunity of clarifying a situation which has been
  784
  something of a problem over the past few days.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response to this Amendment. He perhaps went into a little more detail than necessary, even to reply to my Amendments, but I do not complain about that in the slightest. He says that this Amendment would introduce an entirely new test of what a subsidiary is, but one has to have regard to the words here. In any case, this is only a definition of "subsidiary" for the purposes of this Bill, to decide how accounts are to be grouped and in what circumstances they are to be grouped by the parent company. So I do not think that would be a serious objection at all.
  I did not myself go into the other kinds of co-operative society, and of course there would not be any difficulty at all as far as the Co-operative Tea Society is concerned. In each case it would be a matter for the subsidiary to make their case to the Registrar if they wanted not to be counted as a subsidiary, and it would be a matter for the Registrar to be satisfied, and he could decide for himself how he would treat "value" for this purpose. My information is, and I may be right or not, that in most cases there would not be a very great deal of difficulty. I say that, however, merely in defence of the Co-operative Insurance Society, who, I am sure, did not think of this definition lightly and went into it with some care; they must be presumed to know quite a lot about the co-operative movement, and I do not think they would have put this down if it was going to be so very difficult to operate. I think we are probably now at one on this. I need not pursue the Amendment further, and, thanking the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 21 agreed to.
  LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  "—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide—

  (a) that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall extend to any of the Channel Islands, or

  785

  (b) that all or any of the provisions of this Act, in so far as those provisions relate to societies registered under the Act of 1896, shall extend to the Isle of Man,

  with in either case such exceptions, adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be specified in the Order.
  (2) Any Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council so made.
  (3) Any Order in Council revoking an Order in Council made under this section may contain such transitional or other incidental or supplemental provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the revocation."
  The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple Amendment. The present Bill does not extend to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, and the purpose of this clause is to bring the Bill into line with the principal Act so far as the Dependencies are concerned. The clause provides for an extension by Order in Council, rather than the direct application to be found in the principal Act, and this change is due to the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Islands which requires that the application of United Kingdom legislation is made only in agreement with the island Governments. Consultations between the two parties have only just been completed, which is the reason why the clause did not appear in the Bill when originally introduced. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 21, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  LORD PEDDIE: With your Lordships' permission I would speak to Amendments 6, 7 and 8 in Schedule 1. These Amendments revise the wording of certain provisions of the Friendly Societies Act 1896 and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. They are simply consequential upon the provisions of the Bill abolishing approved auditors and providing for the valuation of part or parts of the business carried on by a society. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 5, leave out from ("of") to ("balance") in line 7 and insert ("copy of
  786
  last balance sheet and valuation report at registered office)—

  (a) for the words 'of the last quinquennial valuation' there shall be substituted the words a copy of the last report under section 28 of this Act on the condition of the society or branch or, where a report or reports are required under that section in respect of a particular business or particular businesses conducted by the society or branch, a copy of the last report under that section in respect of that business or in respect of each of those businesses, as the case may require'; and

  (b) for the words 'any special report of the auditors' there shall be substituted the words 'the report of the auditors or the'"). —(Lord Peddie.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PEDDIE: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 39, at end insert—
  ("In Schedule 1, in paragraph 11 (rules of certain societies registered under the Act to provide for valuations of assets and liabilities), for the words from 'a valuation' to the end of the paragraph, there shall he substituted the words 'such periodic valuation or valuations (if any) of the assets and I abilities of the society as a whole, or of the assets and liabilities of the society in respect of any particular business or businesses conducted by the society, as may from time to time he required by law in the case of that society '.")— (Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PEDDIE: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 28, at end insert—
  ("In Schedule 1, in paragraph 10 (rules of societies to provide for audit of accounts), for the words 'approved auditors' there shall be substituted the words auditors appointed by the society in accordance with the requirements of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968'.").—(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
  LORD PEDDIE: This Amendment is to provide consistency with Clause 16 of the Bill. It disposes of the need for Treasury approval. Clause 16(3), allows the Chief Registrar to dispense with the valuation in respect of any particular business conducted by a society. Treasury approval is not needed for the exercising of this power and the Amendment, by deleting the requirement that

  787
  Treasury approval be obtained, brings Section 28(5) of the Friendly Societies Act 1896 into line with Clause 16. This is, in point of fact, a Treasury Amendment—at least, the Treasury have agreed to the Amendment and I am given to understand they did, in fact, suggest it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 41, leave out ("and subsection (3)") and insert ("subsection (3), and the words 'with the approval of the Treasury' in subsection (5).").—(Lord Peddie.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PEDDIE: Again with your Lordships' permission, I would take Nos. 10 and 11 together. They are simple Amendments. In view of the abolition of the approved auditor, these are simply consequential Amendments to the principal Act. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 42, at end insert—
  ("In section 80(1) the word 'approved'.").— (Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PEDDIE: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 4, at end insert—
  ("In section 72(2) the words 'or approved auditor'.".—(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Transitional provisions]:
  LORD PEDDIE: Again with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move Amendments 12 and 13 together. These Amendments delay the effect of the repeal of the words "approved auditor" in Section 100 of the 1896 Act and Section 72(c) of the I. and P. Act, 1965. This is to cater for the transitional period when the approved auditor will be passing out of existence. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert ("in respect of any year of account,
  788
  nothing in section 20(1) of this Act shall affect the operation—

  (a) of section 100 of the Act of 1896, in the case of a society registered under that Act, or

  (b) of section 72(2) of the Act of 1965, in the case of a society registered under that Act,

  in relation to documents purporting to be signed by the approved auditor to whom the accounts of that society for that year of account are submitted for audit under section 26(1) of the Act of 1896 or under section 37(1) of the Act of 1965, as the case may be.").—(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PEDDIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 37, after ("1896") insert ("or section 72(2) of the Act of 1965.").—(Lord Peddle.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

  LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on June 12 last discharged, the Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
  OVERSEAS AID BILL

    SWAZILAND INDEPENDENCE BILL
    Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
    House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.