Lords Sitting of 12 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

GIBRALTAR
11.6 a.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, of the "five vital points" put forward by the elected members and the I.W.B.P. in Gibraltar (namely,

1. An unbreakable relationship between Gibraltar and Great Britain;

2. Gibraltar should cease to be a Colony and its new political status defined afresh;

3. Exemption from the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962;

4. The transfer of Gibraltar's affairs to the Home Office;

5. An affirmation that nothing should be clone by Britain, in respect of the option clause in the Treaty of Utrecht, without the consent of the people of Gibraltar expressed through a two-thirds majority in a referendum)

which have been accepted and which remain to be discussed during the constitutional talks due to start in Gibraltar on the 16th July.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I am leaving for Gibraltar to-morrow for those discussions and I do not think it would be either helpful or courteous for me to go into details publicly on the eve of my departure.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord is leav-
1214
ing to-morrow for Gibraltar. I can only hope that he does better there than he has done to-day in this Chamber. I think we are—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Withdraw!
LORD MERRIVALE: Is the noble Lord aware that—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Withdraw!
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, what is the matter with saying, "Is the noble Lord aware"? It is a question. Would the noble Lord not agree that it would have been courteous to your Lordships to have answered this Question, because these discussions have been going on for a number of months and either progress has been made or it has not been made? Would the noble Lord answer that point?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is true that discussions have been going on, and discussions will continue. I do not think I have been discourteous to this House. As I am having discussions in Gibraltar shortly it would be wrong for me to say anything on this matter to-day.
Loup RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we rather resent the reflection made upon him? Of all the Ministers in this House there is no question about it, he is the most sincere.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, aware that many of us on this side of the House agree, and find the noble Lord extremely courteous? We wish him the best of success in his discussions.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and to my noble friend Lord Rhodes, but I think he may put in; in some difficulty in saying that I am more sincere than my colleagues.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lord is equally sincere?
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree at least that the points mentioned in the Question are of extreme importance?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly, my Lords.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I then ask two supplementary questions? First, will a communiqué be issued at the end of the talks in Gibraltar? Secondly, will the proposals which are agreed upon in Gibraltar be incorporated in an Act of Parliament, as it is the wish of the great majority of the people of Gibraltar that this should be done?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to be led by the noble Lord's second supplementary question. In regard to the question of a communiqué, surely that is a decision for the Conference.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK My Lords, may I say that it is proposed to adjourn for lunch to-day at around one o'clock, largely to meet the convenience of those who serve us.

SAINT MARY, HORNSEY BILL
11.14 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, that it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider whether:—

(a) the powers proposed by the Bill are in excess of those required to implement the existing proposals for the development of the land described in the Schedule to the Bill; and

(b) the provision made in the Bill is adequate in relation to the existing burial ground and memorial garden on that land, or, alternatively, for the setting aside of parts of that land as open to access by the public equivalent in all respects to the land now so available; and

(c) the requirements of Clause 8 of the Bill with regard to the removal and reinterment of human remains are either necessary or desirable:

1216
That the Committee have power to hear evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters.
The noble Lords said: My Lords I am speaking for the Commons and Open Spaces Preservation Society, of which I am treasurer, and we have the general support in this matter of the National Playing Fields Association, the Metropolitan Gardens Association and the London Society. When we first saw this Bill it appeared to us that the intention was for the Church to acquire power to dispose of the whole of this burial ground and churchyard as a piece of dealing in real property. It is a useful open space about 2½ acres in extent, situated at the corner of Church Lane and High Street in the London Borough of Haringey. The need for provision regarding the maintenance of part of the site for a memorial garden and for access by the public is particularly important in a neighbourhood of this kind. It may well be said that the London Borough of Haringey as a whole has a certain amount of open space, but the new London boroughs are very large and it is of the utmost importance that in a somewhat congested area like Haringey there should be no unnecessary diminution in the amount of open spaces.
When we met the Church authorities we found that, so far from it being their intention to sell this open space for commercial purposes, they had a perfectly excellent scheme for redevelopment. The Victorian church there is in danger of collapsing as a result of subsidence. They propose therefore to demolish this dangerous old Victorian church, to build a new, modern church, close to the old medieval church tower, part of a long-since destroyed earlier church, which is now free-standing as a campanile, to have something in the nature of a small meeting place attached to the church, a garden of rest, and on most of the site where the present church stands, to build a church school. It is their intention to preserve the memorial garden and, if funds make it possible, they may build a small rectory in the corner.
When we came to know what the Church authorities had in mind we regarded it as a model piece of redevelopment. But we then asked why the Bill was drafted in its present very wide terms. The explanation was that the Bill

1217
was drafted before the Church had decided how to redevelop this site. Standard clauses were used which would cover almost any kind of purpose which was intended. It was in fact one of these great omnibus Bills giving very wide powers which are greatly in excess of what the Church authorities intend should be done. They also say—and I shall come to this point again at a later stage—that they want room for negotiation when they are dealing with the Education Committee of the London Borough of Hornsey, who will buy this land, build the school and then lease the school back as a church school to the Church authorities.
For 37 years now I have had experience of Governments and Promoters of Bills drafting their Bills so widely as to include almost all eventualities, and then when legislators say, "But really these powers go too wide", those responsible for the Bill, whether they are private individuals promoting a Private Bill or Governments of all three political Parties, say, "Well, we only want the power to do this and we give an assurance that in fact we will not use it". And the answer that Parliament gives on every occasion, or should give on every occasion and frequently gives, is, "Show what it is that you want to do, justify the powers you are asking for and we will give you those powers".
Less than 72 hours ago, while walking along a corridor upstairs, I had something in the nature of an informal offer of a compromise under which the part of the scheduled land which is going to be retained for Church purposes would be excluded from the Bill. It is quite impossible at this stage to attempt in 72 hours, when my advisers, and indeed the advisers of the Church authorities, are deeply engaged upon other Private Bills, to come to a final conclusion as to exactly what the meaning of this compromise may be. But the very fact that this compromise has, informally and without prejudice, been offered means that there is justification for the Instruction which I am now moving. This may be a satisfactory settlement, but it should certainly be looked at by a Committee of this House in order to understand exactly what is involved.
I come to the second point, that is, what effect the clauses of this Bill freeing
1218
the land from all restrictions will have upon the purchase price of the land. Any of your Lordships who have read Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 will realise that something in the nature of art education in metaphysics is necessary to understand that section of the Act. In simple layman's words it provides that in cases where a local authority proposes compulsorily to acquire land for a purpose which has no marketable value, then the price of that land shall be deemed to be the price that would have been paid if it had not been used for that purpose but for some other suitable purpose. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that section of the Compensation Act. It may be just and it may be inevitable that the compensation or purchase price should be calculated in that way. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that there can be differences of opinion as to what the price in fact will be as a result of that method of valuation.
I must say that certainly my technical advisers are in disagreement with the view of the experts of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government upon this point, and I am strongly of the impression that the ecclesiastical authorities are advised in much the same way as I am and differently from the way in which the Government have been advised. This is a difficult matter, and I am sure that it is desirable that it should be looked into further in order to ascertain exactly what the facts are and what the valuation is likely to be. It is a matter of very great importance.
In the case of the churchyards of St. Mary, Aldermanbury, and St. Dunstan's in the East the compensation that was paid by the Corporation of the City of London was nearly three-quarters of a million pounds. Therefore, this matter of compensation, the basis on which it is made and the effect upon the valuation clauses of this Bill, is certainly a matter which I trust your Lordships will agree should be investigated further by a Committee of this House.
I have said that it is the intention of the Church authorities, which I entirely accept, to preserve the memorial garden which was provided at public expense, is maintained at public expense as a war memorial, and is of great value and

1219
amenity to the local inhabitants. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 4(3)(f) you will find that it reads:
"The provision (if necessary) of a replacement for the existing garden of remembrance, on the scheduled land."
It is clearly wrong that the Bill should be so drafted as to include the words "if necessary", and I hope and believe that that is one of the numerous Amendments to this Bill upon which we can have complete agreement between the Promoters of the Bill and ourselves. Again, it is a matter of redrafting the Bill in order to give effect to what I say again is the admirable scheme of redevelopment which the Church authorities have in mind.
I come to paragraph 3 of my Instruction, which deals with the exhumation and reinterment of bodies. I referred to this matter when we debated the Pastoral Measure, and I am glad now to have from the Home Office confirmation of the reasonableness and accuracy of some of the things that I then said. I have had two letters from the Home Office. The first one gave as the reason for these provisions public health. That reason has been dropped in the second letter; and rightly so, because in this case the burial ground has been closed since 1872. Therefore there can be no question of public health involved.
I have, however, had a useful and helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, giving the Home Office view about this matter, and I read what he wrote:
"The Home Office used to require the removal of all bodies from a disused burial ground, regardless of whether they are likely to be disturbed or not. This was often excessively expensive, as you pointed out with reference to St. James's, Hampstead Hill."
Speaking from memory, I think I gave the figure of £45,000 as the cost of reinterring the bodies.
"This expense was taken into account when we formulated our present practice of requiring removal only of those bodies which are likely to be disturbed in the course of redevelopment. This present requirement is not an administrative whim. It simply seeks to avoid the Common Law misdemeanour of disturbing interred human remains which may otherwise be circumvented only by a faculty from a Bishop or a licence from the Secretary of State under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857. Our present view is that the provisions made in Private Acts since that of St. George's,
1220
Hanover Square 1964, and in the Pastoral Measure have struck the right balance."
It was not, I think, generally realised that there had been a substantial change in the requirements of the Home Office in this matter as a result of the Act dealing with St. George's, Hanover Square in 1964. That Bill was most carefully examined as a result of an Instruction not dissimilar from, though not identical with, that which I am moving to-day. It is obviously desirable that in a matter of this difficulty and complexity the position should be made clear. As I say, it was unknown to me that Bishops had power of dispensation in these cases, and certainly in most cases the power is exercised by the Home Secretary. It is therefore extremely important that we should know, that everyone concerned should know, what will be the way in which the Home Secretary will exercise his discretion in this matter. If this is to be done, it is vital that it should be done now.
Under the Pastoral Measure the power to close churchyards and to deal with all these matters passes for good and all from Parliament to the Church Assembly. I feel confident that the Church Assembly would not want to depart from what has been the accepted practice of Parliament, and I believe that there is a great likelihood that in this year a more liberal and a less restrictive attitude will be taken. A Burial Bill is now in course of being prepared in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and it is extremely desirable that the Government should have some indication of public opinion upon this matter.
I should like also to mention a curious anomaly in the London Burial Act 1884. If an existing place of worship is going to be extended there is no obligation to exhume and reinter any bodies which are under that extension. If, as in the case of this Bill, a new church is going to be built just nearby but cannot be described as an enlargement of the church because this church is being demolished and replaced, then this onerous obligation of disinterring and reinterring arises under the Act of 1884. I cannot believe that that is logical and I cannot believe that it is reasonable. If, as a result of the third part of my Instruction, the Church is spared what I regard as unnecessary expense and this redevelopment

1221
is made more advantageous to them, then I shall regard that as an additional benefit which I am glad that we should confer upon the Church.
My Lords, we have no desire to delay the passing of this Bill when once it has been amended. Provision has been made for this Church school in the programme of 1968/69 and it is of the utmost importance that this Bill shall be on the Statute Book in order that the Church may take advantage of the opportunity that it has of building this church. I have had the most friendly discussions on this matter with the Church authorities. I believe that many of the Amendments which I have said are necessary can be agreed between us, and I hope that your Lordships will accept this Instruction. I hope that a Committee will look at it and amend the Bill, and I hope that the Bill in its amended form will be even more satisfactory to the Church than the present one. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider whether:—

(a) the powers proposed by the Bill are in excess of those required to implement the existing proposals for the development of the land described in the Schedule to the Bill; and

(b) the provision made in the Bill is adequate in relation to the existing burial ground and memorial garden on that land, or, alternatively, for the setting aside of parts of that land as open to access by the public equivalent in all respects to the land now so available; and

(c) the requirements of Clause 8 of the Bill with regard to the removal and reinterment of human remains are either necessary or desirable:

That the Committee have power to hear evidence other thin that tendered by the Promoters.—(Lord Molson.)
11.31 a.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, speaking from the side of the diocese, we are very appreciative of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has discussed these various points with our advisers from time to time, and I welcome especially his concluding remarks about the necessity for speed in order that opportunities may
1222
not be lost. May I, before dealing with his particular points, make a general point which I believe has application to the Bill which your Lordships will be considering shortly in respect of St. Saviour's Paddington? As Bishop of the diocese, I regard it as my primary purpose to see that the best possible provision is made for the pastoral care and life of the parish concerned. To that overriding pastoral requirement, in my own judgment, aesthetic and architectural points, however important, must be regarded as secondary.
The spiritual work of any parish is certainly not helped when the parochial authorities have the responsibility of maintaining a church which is over large for modern conditions and which may need very considerable sums to repair and restore it, and far too much time and energy goes into raising such vast sums of money for these purposes. Our ancestors, in their zeal for church building sometimes erected churches which were too large even for the needs of their own day—in fact they frequently found that they had made a mistake. There is a case in the City of London where a chapel of ease for St. Bartolph's Without, Aldgate, was built in 1860 to meet the needs of an overflowing congregation, and which was closed and demolished, I believe, within twenty years because the congregation WAS no longer over-flowing and, indeed, not present at all.
The Church of St. Mary, Hornsey, is perhaps one of these witnesses to the faith of our Victorian predecessors. There is, indeed, a local legend that it was built in a cathedral manner because there was a hope that there might be a separate diocese of North London, and Hornsey was staking out its claim to be the cathedral area. However that may be, in 1889 it was a dignified but excessively large building, the maintenance of which today, had there not been problems of restoration, would have been a very serious matter for the people of Hornsey now that the whole character of the neighbourhood has changed. But with the virtual collapse of the structure of the 1889 church, clearly something has to be done. At the moment the inside of the church is held up only by scaffolding round five or six piers, and I am told that a considerable sum of money has to

1223
be spent each month in paying for the scaffolding, and the parochial church council is naturally anxious to be spared that expense as soon as possible.
So far, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and I are, I think, speaking with one voice, and I was glad to have his reassurance that in his opinion the scheme put forward by the Church authorities for the use of this site was (I think his phrase was) "an excellent one". It is one which has commended itself to the incumbent and to the parish, as well as to the diocesan authorities. We believe it is the right way forward, and I am glad to know that the noble Lord agrees with us. I hope, however, that I may be allowed to say that I trust that the reference to a Select Committee may not unduly delay some of these decisions. The noble Lord has referred to the necessity for speed, particularly with regard to that part of the scheme which involves the erection of a new school—because it is provisionally in a building programme—and we have some reason to fear what may happen to a school that is not ready to be in a building programme to which it has been allotted. Speed, therefore, is important to us for many reasons. We doubt also whether it is necessary to labour some of the points because we accept the substance of what the noble Lord has suggested as Amendments.
Under his first Instruction which, as he remarked, followed traditional form, the purpose basically was to gain powers to release the land from the consequences and disabilities arising from consecration. Instruction (a) was drawn in the form which was, when the Bill was prepared, the current form, and we have no intention whatsoever of resisting anything which would make it clear what we are intending to do.
On the noble Lord's second Instruction, (b), perhaps there are two points that should be made. We had believed that the planning procedures gave adequate safeguards for all that was needed to preserve the open character, and with regard to the garden of remembrance the Promoters have in mind an Amendment to delete those words to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, took exception, and which would make it an obligation to provide a replacement for the existing garden of remembrance. The Church
1224
authorities are as anxious as the local people to preserve this open space of the Garden of Remembrance.
With regard to the noble Lord's third Instruction, (c), speaking more personally I have every sympathy with his words to simplify the procedures with regard to the reinterment of human remains. We know how expensive it has been for the Church in a number of previous cases, and we are very grateful indeed to the noble Lord for the interest which he has shown in this particular point. But again with speed in mind, and because there is no difference of opinion between us on this point, the Promoters have in mind that, if necessary, there should be Amendments both to meet the points raised by the Attorney General and also to make it clear, if it is not already clear, that the human remains to be removed would be limited to those involved in work connected with the excavations for the intended new church and the erection of any building other than the church. That is virtually what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was saying should be the procedure. Again, as I say, that is an Amendment which the Promoters have in mind to suggest to your Lordships.
Since we believe that we are, in effect, of one mind with the noble Lord on the principles involved, we hope that the House will find the means to enable us to go forward with the maximum of speed and the minimum of cost.
11.42 a.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I think that there is little for me to say on this Bill and on the proposed Instruction. Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I were to clarify as authoritatively as I can what we understand to be the position about planning law in the case of Hornsey. The Bill before the House includes the usual saving clause for town and country planning, so that there is nothing in it which overrides that. No other development proposals are included in the Bill, other than the proposals for which the owners of the site already have planning permission from the London borough. The question of compensation was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell

1225
him how it was that the City Council ran into a compensation liability in respect of those two City graveyards. I am finding out, and I will let the noble Lord know.
To turn now to the case of Hornsey, the liability of a planning authority to pay compensation on refusal of planning permission to do anything depends on the use for which the land in question is zoned. The owners of this site, the Church authorities, want to use it for the church and school purposes about which the House has been hearing. They have applied for planning permission, and they have got it. And that, for the moment, is that. The question in the minds of certain noble Lords may be: might not the provisions in the Bill which free the site from all its ecclesiastical disabilities change the position for the future, so that many years hence the owners would be able to ask planning permission to build on the site something extremely profitable, and, if refused permission, to claim compensation from the borough council? The answer to this is, "No", because the land in question is zoned for planning purposes as open space and cemetery. So long as that zoning remains unchanged, it will not be open to anybody to claim compensation because permission to use it in some other way has been refused.
The only other point I will take up is the question of burials. I confirm that there is in preparation at the moment general consolidation legislation. This is an enormous subject, and I cannot say when it will be introduced. We hope that it will be fairly soon, but it is not very near the top of the queue for impending legislation. It may have been in Lord Molson's mind that discussions in the Select Committee to which your Lordships may refer this Bill would act as a sort of preliminary sounding board for informed opinion on the general question of what burial law ought to be. This is a matter for the Lord Chairman, and quite possibly he will refer to it. Your Lordships will no doubt pay attention to the question of whether or not it is right to have a discussion of principles for future general legislation arising out of the proposed Instruction to the Committee on one particular local Bill referring to one graveyard. I express no opinion on the matter, but merely lay it before your Lordships.
11.46 a.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about some of the procedural aspects of the Motion for an Instruction which is before the House. I would say first that if the Instruction is agreed to by your Lordships I will, acting under the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 92, report to the House that in my opinion this Bill, which is unopposed, should nevertheless be proceeded with as an opposed Bill and referred to a Select Committee. That was the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in his opening speech. My reason is that there can be little doubt that the three points raised by Lord Molson in his Instruction are more suitable for consideration by a Select Committee than by the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
In reply to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who emphasised the need to avoid any unnecessary delay, may I say that the Committee will be appointed as soon as possible; and I see no reason why it should not start its work very soon after we resume after the Recess. I have no doubt that members of the Committee will bear carefully in mind the wish of the right reverend Prelate that the matter should be dealt with expeditiously. I hope that, with the co-operation of your Lordships, the Bill may be passed into law before the end of the year. I would also expect that, as is usually the case when an Instruction to a Select Committee has been passed by the House, the Select Committee would make a Special Report on the Bill to the House and deal in particular with the matters which have been raised in the Instruction.
The House will note that it is also being asked in the noble Lord's Motion to agree that the Committee to which the Bill is referred should have power to hear evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters. I suggest that the House should agree to this part of the Motion, as otherwise the Select Committee may not be in a position to comply adequately with the terms of the Instruction it receives from the House. Your Lordships will appreciate that as there is no Petition against the Bill, the Committee would be limited to hearing witnesses called by the Promoters. They might, however, wish to hear evidence

1227
from someone who is not concerned with the promotion of the Bill, evidence which they regard as relevant to the Instruction given by the House to the Committee. I might remind your Lordships that the House gave similar authority to the Select Committee to which the Brighton Marina Bill was recently referred, and in that case that Committee heard two witnesses in addition to those of the Promoters.
Finally, I should like to make one more observation on the procedure to be followed in the Select Committee. In the proceedings on the Brighton Marina Bill certain of your Lordships proposed that in cases where a Bill, though unopposed, is referred to a Select Committee, the Committee should be able to instruct counsel to assist them in eliciting evidence from witnesses appearing before the Committee. As I said at that time, I regarded this as an interesting and certainly far-reaching proposal. I can see difficulties arising both from a point of view of expense and also to the extent to which the proposal is entirely novel. I think I am right in saying that nowhere else in Parliament at present do Committees instruct counsel to assist them. But I am prepared to undertake that the implications of this proposal will be carefully examined. It might well prove the sort of question that would be suitable for reference to the Procedure Committee.
Meanwhile, I would propose that in the present case the noble Lord, Lord Molson, or any other interested Peer, should avail himself of the provisions of Standing Order 58, which would mean that he would be able to attend the Committee and speak, but not to vote. As a member of the Committee a Peer concerned would be able to ask questions, through the Chair, both of the counsel or agents appearing for the Promoters and of any witnesses appearing before the Committee. If the House agrees to the Instruction, I suggest that the procedure I have outlined would be the most appropriate.
11.50 a.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I think I have a right of reply, but, if not, I ask your Lordships' permission to say one or two words. I should like to express
1228
my deep appreciation of the reasonable and co-operative way in which the right reverend Prelate has accepted my proposals. Also, I think that the procedure which the Lord Chairman of Committees has proposed would be extremely satisfactory. In accordance with the general spirit of friendly co-operation between the interests that I represent and the Church authorities, we should not propose to employ counsel. We think that this matter can perfectly well be worked out under Standing Order 58. It would be possible for me to sit with the Committee and, of course, the right reverend Prelate could also do so if he wished. We are most anxious to keep the expenditure upon this matter to a minimum, and I believe that entirely satisfactory results can be obtained by the procedure which the Lord Chairman of Committees has proposed. I hope, therefore, that this Instruction may go through with general acceptance and good will.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL
11.52 a.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to consider whether there should be provision for the preservation of the tower, having regard to its outstanding group value, and such part of the structure and features of the church as would preserve the present view of the building from the liturgical "West"; and that the Committee have power to hear evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Instruction which I rise to propose is similar in appearance to, but is basically very much smaller and less wide than, the one to which we have just listened, which was so very eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. My Instruction is of a simpler nature. It raises no basic or fundamental principles, and I hope that

1229
your Lordships may be prepared to accept it.
I think I am right in saying that nearly all the Members of your Lordships' House have from time to time been caused anxiety by the way in which Bills of this kind have gone through your Lordships' House. That is because any protestant—though not necessarily anybody as emphatic as a Petitioner, because he always has his rights—who is unable to finance a Petition but who, none the less, has an objection, finds himself in a difficult position. To start with, such people are discouraged, not to put it more strongly, from raising points of this kind at Second Reading, and once the Bill has gone to the Unopposed Bills Committee it is again beyond the functioning of the Parliamentary system—at any rate, it is always very much discouraged in your Lordships' House—for people to raise points on the Report stage or Third Reading of a Bill of this type. When they raise points, they are told, as meets the case, that proper consideration has been given to the Bill in Committee and that, therefore, it should be accepted. That is not always by any means a satisfactory procedure.
I suggest that in Bills of this kind there are three criteria by which we might properly be influenced against a Bill. First, it may be that the church itself is of outstanding architectural and artistic importance; and the right reverend Prelate made some reference to that in which I do not wholly go along with him. But that does not arise in this case. Nor does there arise the case of graveyards which, though very small, are, owing to their situation in a thickly-populated area, of exceptional value as open space and should not, I submit, be built upon. The final criterion is the case where the church has a form and a siting which is exceptional and which is, indeed, essential to the whole appearance and amenity of an area. That is where my present anxieties arise, because St. Saviour's, Paddington, although not a church of great importance, is a church in an extremely important position.
The proposals of the ecclesiastical authorities make for the removal of the church, the building of another church and the destruction of the lay-out in the
1230
neighbourhood owing to the change of character of the church which, from presenting a big, handsome tower enclosing an important vista, will become a spindly little object off-centre, in a case where central siting seems to be essential.
I should like to say here how extremely helpful and co-operative I found the agents for the Promoters. They all but persuaded me—and, indeed, my experience is one of which I suggest the Chairman of the Unopposed Bills Committee might well take note—because after I had heard the case put by the Promoters I was three-quarters won over. It is only subsequently that I have discovered how wrong I should have been to be influenced by this persuasion—and not only persuasion, but perfectly rational explanation as well. Since then I have seen other experts who have put up, at any rate to my mind, a proposition which completely meets the case of the Promoters; that is to say, a development on which they are relying for the financing of the building and maintenance of a new church; and a parish hall and other conveniences will still be retained. The central tower, which is the main feature of the layout, would be preserved, and I am assured that its present poor condition could be repaired for the money which would be needed for the new proposed tower—a tower which to my mind, at any rate, offends against all the principles which ought to guide the construction of a tower on this particular site. It is off-axis; it is a small spindly affair—elegant enough, no doubt, in other circumstances, but quite unsuited to this large space and this rather magnificent layout.
I am suggesting that the Unopposed Bills Committee should call witnesses in order to assure your Lordships that what we want we cannot have; that it is not feasible to maintain the tower and to build a modern church. I have been persuaded that it is possible, and I want the Committee to hear that evidence. I believe that if they do, and if my informants are right, the Committee will find that it is possible to retain the tower and to build on to it an admirable little church as well as the other buildings wanted by the ecclesiastical authorities. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships' House will be pleased to give this

1231
Instruction to the Unopposed Bills Committee, and that in this way we shall be able to decide whether in fact it is possible to maintain the amenity layout which I and many others, and in particular, of course, those who live in the neighbourhood, feel to be so important, so essential. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to consider whether there should be provision for the preservation of the tower, having regard to its outstanding group value, and such part of the structure and features of the church as would preserve the present view of the building from the liturgical "West"; and that the Committee have power to hear evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters.—(Lord Faringdon.)
12.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, I think I should begin by declaring my interest. I have been a resident of "Little Venice" for seven years, and I also have the honour to be president of the local residents' association, which feels very strongly about the proposal which we are discussing this morning. That proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has explained, is to remove the present church and to replace it by a much smaller one, and to put behind the smaller one a block of flats which will bring some much-needed revenue to the church, as well as saving it from the very large outgoings on structural repairs that are at present necessary and from the need to maintain what has become, with a seating capacity of something like 1,700, very much of a white elephant.
I and those of my friends and colleagues who feel the way I do agree entirely that something must be done; that the church is a white elephant and cannot be allowed to remain as such. But we feel extremely strongly about the tower. This tower is situated at one of the most crucially important points, architecturally, in the whole Paddington area. Most of your Lordships probably know it by sight, but any who do not know it I should be delighted to take round and show what I mean. The tower is situated at the convergence of five important roads, one of which, Warwick Avenue, broadening out from the canal
1232
more and more as it approaches the church, ends up in front of the church as what I believe I am right in saying is the broadest thoroughfare in the whole of London. It is broader than The Mall; broader than Waterloo Place. It is a magnificent sight, and at this point some broad, major, strong, vertical feature is vitally needed to close the vista and become, as it were, a focus for the whole of the "Little Venice" area. The present church, St. Saviour's, is not, we know, a work of immense architectural splendour (nobody pretends that it is) but it does serve this particular purpose extremely well; or, rather, the tower and the West Front do, and it is those that we should like to see preserved.
The Promoters of the Bill agree with us—at least, I understand so; I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that, all things being equal, it would be very nice to do this. They have been very sympathetic (and we are very grateful to them for their sympathy) to our views, but they have suggested that there are two important objections—so important, indeed, that if either of them was valid, it would be insuperable. The first of these objections is the structure of the tower, which they believe to be in such a bad state of repair that to restore it as it must be restored, and to keep it in a good state of maintenance, would be prohibitively expensive. The second objection is that in keeping the tower they would lose so much of the vital space at their disposal that if they were also to produce a smaller church behind it there would not be enough room to build a large enough block of fiats to provide the income which they need.
If either of these objections was found, on closer examination, to be justified, our case would fall completely to the ground, almost as quickly as St. Saviour's would. There would be nothing we could do, and I think I am right in saying that we should all withdraw gracefully from the discussion. But it is our view, based on such technical examination as we have been able to carry out, that in fact neither of these objections is valid. We accept the fact that the church is structurally in a very bad state of repair, but we are also advised by our architects, who with the consent of the Promoters have been

1233
allowed to examine the tower, that the tower is in fact in very much better condition than the rest of the church. It is in relatively good condition—only relatively, but still in relatively good condition—and could be repaired at far less cost than would be necessary to build any other vertical feature such as the Promoters themselves agree would be necessary.
The case against the second objection follows logically on from this. We believe that if the existing tower could be preserved, not only would it be considerably cheaper to the Promoters than building another one, but it would also enable them to build a block of flats behind and the new church, more or less on the lines which they have proposed, and would still enable them, by following certain proposals which we should be able to put forward, to make just as much money, possibly even more. In other words, they would in no way be financially the losers.
My Lords, this is not just a "crack-brained" idea by a lot of over-sensitive, agnostic aesthetes, saying, without having any of our collective feet on the ground, how lovely it would be if this beautiful thing could be maintained. This view is agreed to by three independent firms of architects, each of whom has special knowledge of various aspects of the problems involved. One of them is an architect with a life-time's experience of church building behind him; another has been involved with town planning, and in particular the Civic Trust since its inception; and the third is the architect to the Historic Buildings Sub-Committee of the Greater London Council. All of them agree that we are probably—and I say only probably—right. If I may quote the Historic Buildings Council's statement on this proposal, it says:
"In the short time which has been available, sketch plans have been prepared which show prima facie that the fears of the Promoters could well be unfounded, and that whilst retaining the tower a new church of adequate size to meet the present parochial needs could be built without restricting in any way the part of the site now intended by the Promoters for beneficial development".
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that that was a quotation from the Historic Buildings Council. Would he just confirm whether that is right or not?
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, I am sorry. I correct myself. This is a statement made by the Greater London Council, on the advice, I understand, of the Historic Buildings Sub-Committee. I apologise for that inaccuracy.
My Lords, as I say, this is only provisional. We do not yet know for certain, we cannot know for certain, until a great deal mare carefully detailed plans and costings can be made. It looks on the present evidence as if it would be possible, and we should like to have the opportunity to prove that it would be. Our confidence that we can do this is increased by the fact that we have been allowed by the Promoters (and once again we are grateful to them for this) to examine their plans and costings. From these it appears that the scheme, although architecturally it will leave a great deal to be desired, will nevertheless mean that the average rent of each of the individual 45 flats which it is proposed to build will still be somewhere in the region of £1,200 a year, in order to cover the costs. I fully expect that I shall he told that this figure is inaccurate, but I think we can substantiate it.
My Lords, it is only natural in this situation, when we come into the, discussion at such a late stage, that the Promoters should wish to go ahead with the plans as they have drawn them up, and it is only natural that their architect should wish to be allowed to produce a proper plan based on beginning again on a completely clean sheet. Naturally, it cramps their style if they have to make allowance for part of an existing structure which will be of a totally different style and period from that which they have planned. We have every sympathy with this feeling. Also the site is of such importance in itself that it presents a marvellous challenge to any architect; and any architect would long to make the best use of this challenge. But it is because it is such an important site that we cannot afford to take chances if we do not think that they are justified.
If all the drawings had been completed and paid for, if there were nothing to stop the work from going ahead, we should find it difficult to ask the Promoters to stop now. But, fortunately, this is not so. We have a breathing

1235
space; because at present no-one—neither the Promoters nor ourselves, nor the Greater London Council—knows exactly what will be the extent of the site upon which this building can be erected. There are problems involving traffic control, which I understand are at present under consideration by the Westminster City Council; and until those problems have been solved it will be impossible for any of us, the Promoters, ourselves or for anyone else, to draw up the final detailed plans. We have a breathing space; we have an opportunity to think again. This is an opportunity that t hope very much we shall be allowed to seize.
Finally, I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and say how grateful we are to the Promoters of this scheme for their sympathy to us, for the way in which they have allowed us to examine the structure, to see their plans, and to discuss their costings. They have gone out of their way to help us and I am very conscious that we have been an enormous irritant to them. For that I am sorry. But I hope that now, after the Bill has had a Second Reading, as I hope it will, and after Lord Faringdon's Instruction has been accepted, as I trust it will be, we shall be able to pay them back in some way by being able to work with them not only in such a way as to be able to see that they are not financially the losers, but also so that we shall be able to maintain the tower and the amenities, the beauties and the character of which must still make this one of the loveliest and most character-full parts of London.
12.14 p.m.
LORD KINROSS: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time, I ask for your customary indulgence; but I hasten to give the assurance that my intervention will be reasonably brief. My reasons for speaking on this Motion are two-fold. I speak first—declaring an interest, as the noble Viscount has done—as an inhabitant for the past thirty years of this neighbourhood of the Regent's Canal which is now generally known as "Little Venice", a name deriving, I believe, from a chance remark by Lord Byron while on a country walk in those parts. I speak, secondly, as one who values very deeply what remains
1236
of London's heritage, not only in good architecture but in good civic planning.
For many years past, my fellow residents and others have been fighting battles for the preservation and improvement of this unique corner of London. The first major engagement I recall was in 1950. In that year, the former Paddington Borough Council came out with a plan to build a large block of council flats right at the very centre of Little Venice, down by the banks of what is known as Browning's Pool. This would have effectively blocked, once and for all, its development as an open space and a centre of rest and recreation for the people of London. Fortunately, however, the L.C.C., and finally the Minister of Town and Country Planning of that period, decided against the scheme. The result is the tranquil public gardens which the neighbourhood enjoys to-day.
Since then, we have had to contend at intervals with a series of further threats. There was a hideous project to cover up a long stretch of the Canal with blocks of flats built over it. There was another project, equally hideous, to drain away its waters and convert it into a highway for hovercraft. Only a few months ago we were threatened with a scheme for a Marina with a concourse of buildings encroaching on the Pool itself. These first two schemes, I am glad to say, were successively dropped; and it now looks as though the third may be dropped as well, or at least very drastically modified.
All this has happened in response, partly to local and general pressure, partly to the wiser second thoughts of those concerned in the various schemes. But it is due largely, I think, to a growing awareness on the part of the local authorities and the other public bodies of the immense amenity value of this neighbourhood, so unique in the harmony of its compounding elements of water and trees and good architecture right in the centre of London.
There are signs of this awarenesss on every hand and in every direction. To-day, the Ministry of Transport, the Greater London Council and the British Waterways Board are envisaging this Paddington Pool and its surroundings as a focal point in plans for the development of the canals as a whole for public recreation.Lately, views of the Regent's

1237
Canal have been opened up by the substitution of railings for walls and the opening of stretches of towpath to visitors. Above all, I am happy to say that the Westminster City Council has declared this to be a conservation area within the framework of a system laid down by the Civic Trust. Finally, the Church Commissioners, the ground landlords of most of this area, have shown throughout a keen sense of its architectural and aesthetic amenities. This is evident in their development and restoration and improvement of the properties in the avenues and streets which they own.
But now, my Lords, there comes—ironically enough from another arm of the Church, the London Diocesan Fund—a new threat to this area, in its own way as serious as any that has gone before. This time it is an architectural threat, compromising the entire civic plan of the neighbourhood. I refer to the threat to demolish the tower of St. Saviour's Church. As the Pool and the public gardens form the hub of Little Venice, in terms of recreation and amenity, so does, this tower form its pivot in terms of town planning and architecture.
Built in the Gothic style, the tower of St. Saviour is the commanding architectural feature of a radial layout of streets built in a contrasting classical style. It commands, in particular, the great, broad sweep of Warwick Avenue itself, which, as the noble Viscount has remarked, is one of the broadest streets in London. It is certainly broader than The Mall fringed by Carlton House Terrace (because I have paced both of them in order to check the fact) and it just about the same breadth as the foot of Waterloo Place which culminates in the commanding feature of the Duke of York's column.
St. Saviour's Church was designed rather more than a century ago as the axial point of a townscape planned and built on Church property—a kind of Victorian offshoot of the Regency plans of Nash. Remove the pivot of its tower and the whole neighbourhood falls to pieces as a coherent and unified design. Yet the Promoters of this Bill now seek the permission of this House to remove it. No one seriously contests that the church itself, behind the tower, or at least a great part of it, will have to go on account of its precarious structural
1238
condition, but the tower, although in need of perennial repairs to its stonework, is in no such precarious condition as the Promoters at first seemed to fear. An independent architectural survey has recently shown, as the noble Viscount has indicated, that it is structurally sound.
There are those who argue that this tower could be better replace by a vertical feature of similar height and scale. In theory, so it probably could; in practice, I think this unlikely. An architect of the London diocese has produced a preliminary plan, to which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, referred, with this in view. Unfortunately it shows all too little awareness of what this neighbourhood really requires. It incorporates, as he told us, an insubstantial, tapering spire, like a spindle, and this is placed not in the centre of the access but at the side of it, while a blank wall of the church occupies the central position. It thus totally defeats the object of any such vertical feature, which must not only be centralised but must be substantial enough to hold its own and assert its focal position on the skyline in relation to the height and scale of the streets which radiate before and around it.
It is, I repeat, perfectly possible that an adequate modern tower on this scale could still be designed, but the cost, I suggest, would be prohibitive to any development scheme in which the question of cost must be uppermost, as it is in this case. For these reasons, I strongly urge the retention of the present tower of St. Saviour's Church as an integral element in any such development scheme, and the construction of a smaller church attached to and behind it. That this can be done is evident from the various independent plans with which we have been furnished aid to which the noble Viscount has referred.
One of these architects, who is highly experienced in church work, has drawn up a plan for the retention of part of the old church behind the tower instead of the construction of a new one. All these more modest plans than the plan produced by the Promoters make full allowance for the space required for the erection of a large block of flats on the site. There is every indication that when

1239
worked out in detail they will prove less costly than the plan which the Promoters of the Bill have in mind. We are thus asking the Committee to hear evidence concerning them and provide for the tower's retention. That is surely not too much to ask of the London Diocesan Fund.
It so happens, as the noble Viscount has indicated, that the exact extent of the site available is still in doubt for various reasons, and this means that the Promoters will be obliged in any case to draw up new plans for the development of the site. In so doing they should, in my submision, allow for the contingency of preserving the church tower and developing the site in this sense. The Church authorities, my Lords, have always shown themselves responsible to civic interests, especially where the Arts are concerned. In London, in particular, they have shown themselves not only enlightened but adept in the restoration of old churches and the incorporation of parts of old churches into new, always, of course, without prejudice to their overriding pastoral duties.
In this case they have an added interest and responsibility of their own since they are the owners of most of the neighbouring property and, as such, have some responsibility for the original civic layout of the area during the first half of the 19th century. I therefore devoutly hope that they will think again in this case of St. Saviour's, as other Promoters of schemes for Little Venice have thought again before them in the course of the long, slow fight which has been waged over the years for its preservation and embellishment. Speaking, my Lords, as a tenant of 30 years' standing, I can vouch for the fact that the Church are good landlords. I like to hope that in the case of St. Saviour's they will prove also to be good neighbours.
12.26 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I must first congratulate my old acquaintance and fellow journalist, Lord Kinross—and how pleasant it is to do so—on his maiden speech. I hope that his sphere of interest will radiate gradually, like ripples from a pebble in Little Venice, to larger metropolitan, national and international spheres, and that he will
1240
often speak to us again. There is little that I should say from the point of view of the Government about this Bill, either. It is a preservation question—at least it is a conflict between preservation and pastoral interests. The Church of St. Saviour, Paddington, is not a listed building but it is to be included in the revised list for the City of Westminster; that is, it is to be included in the next revision as a building of special architectural interest, mainly, of course, because of its setting rather than because of its intrinsic merit. It is to be put on this list because of its prominent position, harmonising with its surroundings, and the fact that its tower provides a focal point in an area which is of itself of special interest.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us whether the surroundings are also to be put on this list?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I speak subject to correction, but I should think that most of them are already on it. This is a preservation area designated in draft by the City of Westminster. It may be of interest to the House to be reminded that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is advised by a committee of the Historic Buildings Council on these matters of listing and on the attitude he should adopt to particular cases of a preservation nature; and also to be informed that this Committee, which sits under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Holford, was consulted about the proposals in the Bill before the House. Their advice was that if it was at all possible, the church tower should be retained. The Minister accordingly reported to Parliament on this Bill to the effect that he would have wished the tower to be retained, but after discussion with the Promoters he understood that they could not do it on grounds of costs.
Provided the Committee—that is, the Committee of your Lordships' House—was satisfied on this point, the Minister would not wish to object to the demolition of the tower (indeed he has no power to do so, since planning controls do not extend to churches, to places of worship in actual use as such, which this church is) this having for fifty years now been the desire of the Church of England authorities.

1241
My Lords, if I may, I will for a moment cease speaking for the Government and speak personally. If the Bill is left to the Committee, they will have to face the familiar conflict between preserving the building or its complete demolition. Every Londoner knows Warwick Avenue, and so do many other people. It is a famous and beautiful and well-planned area, and this church tower is the focal point of the whole layout. Nobody should say that the 20th century is less good than the mid-19th century, and the very reasonable solution which has commended itself to many people, and might also to the Committee, is that the whole church should be pulled down and another of a similar bulk and height built on the same place in the 20th century idiom, which I think would go as well with the classic buildings around it as the present Gothic structure. But that is going to be expensive, perhaps more expensive than the London Diocesan Fund can at present afford. That is one of the questions which will have to be examined in Committee.
12.31 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, on his maiden speech. Your Lordships have had to wait 29 years for it, and I sincerely hope that you will have to wait far less time for the next speech of the noble Lord.
This Bill deals with the proposed demolition of the existing church and tower of St. Saviour, Paddington. This church is very large and can seat 1,700 people, although at the moment the congregation is not usually in excess of 100. The most striking feature of the church is the tower. The church and tower are not of great aesthetic significance, it is generally agreed, except in so far as they fit in with the fine piece of town planning to which they contribute. So far as the parish is concerned, the church presents a very real problem in terms of upkeep and repair. The repairs which should be applied without delay would come to some £15,000, and the cost of keeping up repair and maintaining the heating and cleaning of this large white elephant would be progressively greater as time went on. Such expense by the parochial church council would
1242
not be justified on the ground of its pastoral usefulness to the neighbourhood.
The parochial church council urgently require a smaller church, the upkeep of which they could support. They have therefore devised a plan whereby the church would be demolished and a smaller church built, the cost of these two projects being paid for by the development of flats on the same site. Noble Lords who have spoken today have paid tribute to the parochial church council for having been sensitive to the feelings and wishes of local residents on this matter. During the whole time this project has been under discussion they have been open to suggestions from anyone who could produce a solution which would preserve the tower and at the same time enable them to pay for its upkeep, for building a new church and for demolishing the rest of the old. For reasons of population density and for aesthetic reasons, this solution has been impossible to find. Indeed, the pro-motors are still convinced that it is impossible to find such a solution. Any plan which could show how the cost could be met would be diligently studied by the council, who have been looking for one for years. Unfortunately, until yesterday nobody had come forward with a plan, and certainly at no stage has anyone come forward with the offer of a grant which would allow this to be done.
I cannot accept some of the remarks which have been made today about the expense of keeping the tower. Of course, we cannot argue in detail, and I may be entirely wrong, but I believe that it can be preserved without a considerable expenditure. The question of the demolition of the tower was referred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who reported to parliament. That report has already been quoted. I agree that if the tower could be maintained it would be a good thing. The Historic Buildings Sub-Committee of the Greater London Council was brought into this in October and the present scheme which has been put forward by them arrived only yesterday. In the meantime, a dangerous structure order was served on the tower and repairs were done at a cost of £600; and I think that more in the same way might have to be done in the near future. The slower

1243
we go on, the more the cost and the less likely will be the finding of a reasonable solution.
I am a little at a loss at the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to my intervention, because I understood that when this matter came up in another place a representative of the Minister said that there were no plans for preserving the surrounding area, and it is to fit in with this area that we wish to keep the tower.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I could clarify the situation. If no plans for keeping the surrounding classical buildings have been made and they are not on the statutory list, that is doubtless because it is only now that the Victorian buildings throughout London are being surveyed for the first time. That does not mean that this will not be altered in a year or two's time when the survey has been completed. One noble Lord has told us that this part of London is among those under consideration by the Westminster City Council for designation as a conservation area.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that, because it would be ironic if we managed to save the tower and the surrounding area fell. Plans have been drawn up for a small church with a verticle feature rising to the same height as the present tower. This has come in for a certain amount of criticism in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. I do not think that this criticism is all well founded, but I should like to emphasise that any proposed church would be subject to the normal planning formalities and that the present church is not going to be demolished until approval has been given for the new one.
As regards the alternative plan which has only just been mooted, the Promoters' experts have loked at it and think that it is open to a number of objections. They do not think it would be as financially viable as the people who prepared it think. It has an unacceptable density of flat development in the area, and they think it is open to aesthetic objection from every point of view except from the view looking down Warwick Avenue. But the parochial church council is willing to look at this.
1244
The Promoters have no objection to the present Instruction which has been moved in your Lordships' House; nor have I. If any solution to this problem can be found, everyone is willing to consider it, but the fact remains that up to yesterday no method had been found of showing how the tower can be preserved. The church is left with the alternative of proceeding with the plan put forward in this Bill, or of letting the church fall down. I am delighted that the alternative is to be looked at again in Committee. I hope that it will be an Unopposed Committee, because this does not seem to me to be a very complex matter. I understand that in an unopposed Committee noble Lords can go in and speak on the matter.
I have one last point (I do not know whether it comes into the area of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet), which is that if we find some way of keeping the tower, perhaps some way could be found of making London Transport put the extremely ugly flue, which spoils the whole view at the moment, inside the tower. That is one possible way of dealing with what I think is an eyesore in a fine piece of town planning, and I hope that this may be done.
12.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I join in the congratulations offered to the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, on his maiden speech. It was not an uncontroversial speech but it was an exceedingly well-argued speech, and one could disagree with a great deal of what the noble Lord said. But I have never accepted the convention that every maiden speech must be non-controversial. My own maiden speech, made a great many years ago now, was exceedingly controversial, and I have never regretted it. I am not sure whether a noble Lord who delivers a controversial maiden speech is really entitled to ask for indulgence, but I am sure that the noble Lord neither needs nor desires any indulgence at all.
But it is not my purpose to controvert what has been said on either side in this controversy. The day before yesterday, I paid my second visit to Warwick Avenue. I stood on the bridge over Regent's Park Canal, and I thought that if I were an inhabitant of Little Venice,

1245
if I were a little Venetian (if that is the right term to be used; or should we follow Disraeli, and speak of "the Venetian oligarchy"?) I should very much object to the destruction of this beautiful tower. On the other hand, the aesthetic arguments are not all on the side of the preservationists. To my mind, it is always most unfortunate when there is a lack of proportion between a church and a tower which is attached to it. I take it that the right proportion between church and tower is about one-to-two. It looks well if that proportion is observed; it looks ill if the tower is either too short or too tall.
When the Diocese of London rebuilds this church they will certainly build a much lower church than that which at present exists. And how right they will be! How often I have sat and shivered in a great Victorian Gothic church, with the pointed arches soaring up to Heaven, and all the heat soaring up to Heaven with the arches and passing out of the clerestory windows: and I have wondered why the contributions which I make to the heating fund go so largely to heating the Angels in Heaven and not myself. I hope, therefore—and I think we may take it for granted—that the new Anglican church will be much lower than the present church, as well as smaller; and in that event we must face a grievous lack of proportion if the tower is preserved. This wail not affect the inhabitants of Little Venice, who will not see the church—or will barely see it, unless they go to the extreme length of attending it. But it will affect the inhabitants of Warwick Gardens, who live very close to the church. They will be offended by this lack of proportion every time they look out of their windows to the North.
I do not want to argue the case. I merely ask your Lordships to believe that on esthetic grounds there are two cases, one to be weighed against the other. No doubt, as things are, both will be considered, along with the financial questions, on which there is so much uncertainty, by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. But I venture to refer to a very powerful and well-argued speech delivered by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on a previous occasion when we discussed one of these ecclesiastical Bills. I am very doubtful
1246
of the arrangement under which any proposals to alter the boundaries of an Anglican parish, any proposals to deal with an Anglican collar consecrated church, must come before Parliament, though the Church authorities can do as they like if the church is not consecrated but merely dedicated. But all these proposals have to come before both Houses. That is the law, and we must submit to it. But I hope very much that the law may be phased, and that the Anglican Order may be saved the great expense of promoting a Private Bill every time they wish, in the exercise of their pastoral responsibilities, to make some changes to their own buildings.
I suppose I shall be told that this is a part of the Establishment, and that it is wholly wrong for me, who am not an Anglican, to interfere with the matter of the Establishment. I can only reply that there are in this United Kingdom two Established Churches. The Established Church of Scotland, I presume, occasionally may want to change their parishes, pull down their churches, and make all the arrangements which changing conditions necessitate. But they do not have to come to Parliament; they do not have to promote Parliamentary Bills when they wish to effect some changes. I belong to a Church which is not Established, and I am not bound by these stringent laws which require the Anglican Church to obtain Parliamentary approval for its ordinary day-to-day administrative actions.
I beg that this matter may be taken into consideration. Your Lordships' House is heavily occupied at the present time. We have devoted enough to the consideration of these matters. Your Lordships' Committees are hard worked. There is not much more time for them to go really fully into this difficult question. I hope that some change in the arrangement may be considered early next Session, and that more appropriate machinery may be set up.
12.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lord, I should like to join other noble Lords in the congratulations they have offered to the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, on his maiden speech. I am not surprised that he, as an old Balliol man, like myself, is appearing in your Lordships' House as a champion of aesthetic

1247
values. I hope we shall hear him again on a subject which is obviously close to his heart and one that always has a sympathetic audience in your Lordships' House.
I will, if I may, again say a few words on the procedural aspects of this Motion for an Instruction on the Bill. If the Instruction is agreed to, I will undertake to study with the utmost care what has been said by noble Lords on both sides of the House in the course of this afternoon, and in the light of that study I will decide whether or not I should report to the House that the Bill, though unopposed, should be dealt with as an opposed Bill and referred to a Select Committee, or, alternatively, should be dealt with by the Unopposed Bills Committee. I should like to assure your Lordships that in either case, to whichever of these Committees the Bill is referred, any noble Lord can avail himself of the procedure under Standing Order 58 which would enable him to attend the Committee and to speak. This procedure may be particularly useful in a case of this kind, in which many noble Lords, by the speeches they have made this afternoon, have shown a very keen interest. I entirely agree with Lord Beaumont of Whitley's interpretation of procedure about the Unopposed Bills Committee. The Motion also asks for power for the Committee to hear evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters, and again, for the same reasons as I gave on the last Instruction, which I will not repeat, I would advise your Lordships to accept this proposal.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
12.52 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: 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 Mitchison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power of Board to acquire shares in certain companies]:
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (1), after "power", to insert:
"(a) to form or promote, or join with any other person in forming or promoting a company;".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I believe that a general word or two might save the time of the Committee. This Bill received its Second Reading on June 27, and I made it quite clear at the time that what I was then speaking to was the Bill as it would be if these Amendments were accepted. They have therefore, in that limited sense, been before the House already. During that debate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said some words with which I entirely agree. He did not think that there ought to be any difficulty in agreeing to the Bill. Indeed, I think it would have been agreed to three years ago if it had not been for those drafting errors which I have mentioned. This is an attempt to correct—I would hardly call them drafting errors, but drafting ambiguities, and to make a slight enlargement of the powers in Sections 6 and 8 of the 1965 Act, which constitutes the Development Board. Section 6 deals with carrying on a business or undertaking; and the other one, Section 8, deals with grants and loans.
There is one other fact I should refer to, and that is that the procedure in another place had a rather unfortunate result in connection with this Bill. A Long Title was spoken to under the Ten-Minute Rule, and once leave has been given under that Rule it becomes impossible to alter the Long Title there. Accordingly, what proved to be too narrow a Long Title resulted in some respects in too narrow a Bill, and that error, which I think everybody perfectly well understood and which could not be met in another place is proposed to be met by these Amendments.
The Amendment I am moving is of the first character; that is to say, it arises out of the powers under the 1965 Bill being not wholly fair and not wholly sufficient. The object of it is to enable the Board not only to form or promote a company, which power they may or may not have had under the existing language of the 1965 Bill, but also to

1249
join with any other person in forming or promoting a company. I happened to mention on Second Reading one particular case of a small enterprise—and this is rather a small enterprise Bill—and it may well be that there will be cases where the Board would wish to have this power. I want to add this, if I may. Everything proposed to be done under this Bill is going to be a matter of agreement between the personal company concerned and the Board, and everything to be done under this Bill has to have the consent not only of the Treasury but of the Scottish Office. Therefore I do not think we shall be oppressing anybody. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Mitchison.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should not wish to be destructive at all, but may I raise a doubt which is in my mind on a procedural point on the Amendment which the noble Lord has asked the Committee to consider. It is a question whether in fact this Amendment comes within the scope and relevance of the Bill. As I understand it, what the noble Lord is trying in this Amendment to do to the Bill is to extend the Highlands and Islands Development Board's powers, not only to acquiring an interest or equity share in an existing company trading in the Highlands and Islands but also to forming and promoting an entirely new company on their own. That may be very desirable, but as a procedural point I would ask the Committee whether it comes within the present Title of the Bill. In fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will agree that it does not come within the present Title of the Bill.
Also, the noble Lord mentioned earlier that this matter arose because of the Ten-Minute Rule in another place. I am not sure that we should necessarily accept that. The noble Lord, I know, is a master of procedural points, and he knows as well as we do that the decision on a procedural point is entirely left to the Committee of this House. There are, of course, certain guide-lines, and these were spelt out during the Committee stage of the Administration of Justice Bill last February. At that time we were told that there were two guide-
1250
lines if we wanted to consider a point of procedure. In the first place, there was the Minute of January, 1931, by Counsel to the Chairman of Committees. There it is said:
"There is no Standing Order regulating the admissibility of Amendments in the House of Lords. The House is master of its own procedure and, unlike the House of Commons, is not subject to rulings on points of Order. The test usually applied in practice to the admissibility of an Amendment is whether or not it is relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. But the decision upon this House and the action taken upon that decision can only be made by the House itself"—
in other words, can only be made by the Committee.
Then we look to Erskine May, page 500 of the 17th Edition. There it is stated:
"The Amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and of the clause to which they are proposed, and they must not be inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee on the same question. The admissibility of an Amendment, however, can only be decided by the House, there being no authority which can in advance rule an Amendment out of Order. The Officers of the House would draw attention to the Amendment which appears to contravene the accepted principles of admissibility and the matter will be discussed in the Committee".
As I have mentioned, there was a precedent for this in the proceedings on the Administration of Justice Bill when, on February 6 this year, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, withdrew an Amendment on these very grounds.
There is one other Amendment on which I think a procedural point may occur, and that is Amendment No. 12. Here (although this is perhaps not quite so strong as Amendment No. 1) I would suggest to the Committee that there is a suggestion that the Board could take an interest in a company based not in Scotland but in London, Burmuda or anywhere else, so long as that company's business contributed in some way to the Highlands and Islands. I would ask the noble Lord and the Committee to consider these points.
LORD MITCHISON: This Bill had its Second Reading, and nothing was said about this matter, although I explained quite clearly what the Amendments were going to be. I can only say to the noble Earl that I should have thought both sides of the House were interested in seeing that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, of which his own

1251
Front-Bench Member spoke so highly on Second Reading, as did everyone else, should be allowed to have these powers. I do not think I am doing anything out of order. We propose to amend the Bill later, but if the noble Earl thinks we ought to block the Highlands and Islands Development Board in getting this minor clarification of their powers because we are bound by some rule to do so, I simply invite him to divide the Committee.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I have no intention of dividing the Committee. I was simply drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that there was a procedural point. We are not at all against this Bill; indeed, I entirely support what my noble friend Lord Dundee said about it on Second Reading.
LORD MITCHISON: I am glad to hear that. May we now take it that this is not pressed, and that accordingly we can proceed to this Amendment on its merits?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment is consequential on the first. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("and (b)") and insert (",(b) and (c)")—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON This Amendment also is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, after ("which") insert ("is formed to carry on or").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "in the Highlands and Islands." The noble Lord said: This is the second type of Amendment to which I have referred. The 1965 Act, which we are seeking to amend, did not itself provide that the business to be helped under either of these two clauses must necessarily be in the Highlands and Islands. It had to be a business for the benefit of the Highlands and Islands, and because the Long Title of the Bill in the other place included the words "in the Highlands and Islands" they had to be put in here. It was solely for that pro-
1252
cedural reason; so far as I know, no-one else wants them in. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("in the Highlands and Islands").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Further powers of Board relating to loans and other financial assistance to certain companies]:
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("company") to ("may") in line 25.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: This also is consequential on the last of the Amendments to Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("company") to ("may") in line 4.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning to insert:
"In accordance with any such arrangements as are mentioned in the said section 8, the Board may hold or dispose of".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a rather minor point. We have agreed that the Board shall have power to help to promote a company, and the Bill provides for helping a company. The intention here is that the arrangements for repayment of a grant or a loan should provide for the Board to have some shares on repayment. If I may say so, I feel there is no difference in principle between that and what has already been agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment is consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("above") insert (",but any shares or stock so acquired").(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("in the Highlands and Islands").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
1.8 p.m.
LORD MITCH1SON LORD MITCH1SON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a small point. It concerns preference capital. If help is to be given to a small company, formed, or existing, for the purpose, as the Bill is at present drafted in accordance with the Long Title it can be only by equity shareholders; that is to say, ordinary shares and not preference shares. There would of course be power under the Bill as it is at present drafted for the Board to take some ordinary shares, and also to take some form of charge under arrangements, which have to be approved both by the Treasury and by the Scottish Office. But I am sure your Lordships will see that the Board might want—as indeed they confirm—not to burden a small business with a charge or a loan but to take some preference shares instead. I should have thought it was very much a matter of practice for the Board, and although I do not think that it would be done very often I suggest that they should have the power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: This and the following Amendment are to make the Title conform to what we have already put into the Bill. I repeat, that as it stands we have the wrong Title to the Bill. It is no doubt somebody's fault, but one does not know whose. We had the wrong Title in another place; it could not be amended, because of the procedural matter I have mentioned,
1254
and it has to be done now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 2, leave out ("acquire equity") and insert ("form and promote, and to acquire").—(Lord Mitchison)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MITCHISON: This is a similar Amendment. May I, in moving it, take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords very much and saying how I apologise, first of all for not being a Scot—I have spent my life doing that—and secondly for moving some Scottish Amendments on a day which I know is inconvenient to a good many Scots, one of whom said to me, "I hope it will not be a precedent". I cannot make any precedents; I am only a private Member. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 3, leave out ("business in") and insert ("or proposing to carry on business or other activities contributing to the economic or social development of").—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.
[The Sitting was suspended at 1.12 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m.]

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS 1968
1.45 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bowles, I should like to move the approval of these Regulations. These Regulations provide for increases and changes in the rates of supplementary benefit to take effect from October 7. The increases form part of the Government's programme for protecting the most vulnerable sections of the community from hardship arising from price increases which must result from the Government's measures to restore the economy of the country—in particular from devaluation and increases in taxation. The main proposals are for an increase of 5s. in the

1255
single householder rate and 8s. for a married couple. This results in new rates of £4 11s. and £7 9s. to which provision for rent is added. For adult non-householders an increase of 3s. on the scale rate and of 1s. on the fixed rent addition is proposed. Increases for children and for the blind are also proposed.
My Lords, beside the increases in the scale rates two other changes are proposed in order to take account of the special needs of special groups. First, the long-term addition which is payable to supplementary pensioners and to all others (excluding the unemployed) who have been getting benefit for two years, is to be raised from 9s. to 10s. a week. Secondly, to help parents with adolescent children, the age-band for children aged 11 to 15 is being replaced by two bands, covering children aged 11 to 12 and 13 to 15, and a proportionately higher increase is being given on this occasion to the latter. This is being done to make some increased allowance for the higher expenditure which is generally incurred at adolescence.
As I have explained to your Lordships, the increases are to compensate for rises in prices. The price changes which have taken place since last October, when supplementary benefit rates were last raised, would call for an increase of about 3s. 11d. in the single householder rate. The basic increase of 5s. now proposed will thus compensate for the rise in prices which has taken place following devaluation and the Budget, and give some margin. And then, of course, there is on top of this increase, the increase in the long-term addition, payable to 80 per cent. of all claimants.
My Lords, the beneficiaries will include the old, the widowed, the sick and the unemployed and their families—people who are unable to support themselves and who need special protection against price rises. All these people will be helped by the supplementary benefit increases at the same time as the lower paid family man will be helped by the higher family allowances—due to come into effect on October 8.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I say a word about what will happen
1256
where a family on supplementary benefit receives an increase in the family allowance. As supplementary benefit is designed to bring a claimant's resources up to the guaranteed levels, family allowances and National Insurance benefits have to be taken into account in working out the supplementary benefit payable. But as supplementary benefit rates are going up, the total increase which the family will receive from all the benefits taken together will normally be an amount equivalent to the increases in the supplementary benefit rates.
I should like to say something also about those families whose supplementary benefit is restricted under the "wage-stop" provisions to the amount which the father could have earned had he been in work. They cannot benefit directly from the increase in the supplementary benefit levels, because the changes proposed do not affect the father's potential level of earnings. They will, however, benefit in full from the higher family allowances because family allowance which is payable whether a man is in work or not is ignored in calculating the level of the wage-stop. It is one of the advantages of increasing family allowances as well as supplementary benefits, that wage-stopped cases on supplementary benefit can be helped too.
In addition to wage-stopped families there are a few small groups of people who will receive amounts differing from those laid down in the Regulations. For example, there are people receiving, under powers exercised by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, an exceptional circumstances addition to cover special expenses over and above their long-term addition which is meant to cover expenses up to 9s. Because they are already getting more than the long-term addition they will not in general benefit from the 1s. increase in it. The amount for these special expenses will remain the same, but 10s. instead of 9s. will be covered by the long-term addition. This is because any increase in the cost of special expenses does not have to wait for any amendment of the Regulations, but can, for the most part, be met as it is found to occur. For example, an addition for extra laundry goes up if laundry charges rise. The only case where this is not true is where a person is receiving an

1257
addition for a special diet at a fixed rate laid down by the Supplementary Benefits Commission on medical advice. In these cases the Supplementary Benefits Commission propose to increase the amount by 1s. so that in these cases there will be an increase of 1s. in the total payable, over and above the increase in the basic scale rate.
Then there is the group of claimants paying an inclusive charge for board and lodging. The requirements of such a claimant are not laid down in the Regulations, but are determined by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Currently, his requirements are taken as the amount he pays for his board and lodging (which of course will rise automatically as costs rise), plus £1 7s. 6d. for personal expenses. This latter amount is now being increased to £1 9s. 6d.
Finally, I should tell your Lordships that the cost of these proposals will be some £44 million on existing cases in a full year. This compares with the estimated net cost of supplementary benefit in the present financial year of some £394 million. My Lords, I beg to move that these Draft Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1968 laid before the House on the 18th of June last be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)
1.53 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long this afternoon. I desire to put only one or two points to the noble Baroness. I do not suppose the noble Baroness would claim that these scale rates do very much more than make good the loss in purchasing power attributable to the increase in the index of retail prices. When I was chairman of the Board, we always found it a convenient course when altering the scale rates to give ourselves a margin over and above what was required to make good the loss of purchasing power. That enabled us, if the index figure caught up on us, to be satisfied that all our applicants were still receiving the scale rate which Parliament had intended they should.
I have been endeavouring to ascertain from such statistics as are available what margin the Government are retaining in these scale rates. According to my cal-
1258
culation the Government have given themselves a margin of something like 5 per cent. Now, my Lords, is a margin of 5 per cent. sufficient or will the Government have to come back again for a higher scale before very long? Five per cent. is not really very much. The index figure rose by nearly five points between October, 1967, and last May. A rise of that magnitude could mean that the Government would have 10 come back for new scale rates before very long. Of course, there is no reason why the Government should not come back and ask for what is required to maintain the standards, but I would remind your Lordships that the alteration of the scale rates is a very considerable administrative operation. These new scale rates involve many hours of overtime work. It will be done by a very devoted staff, because the staff of that department have always shown themselves very conscious of the special public service which they perform. Nevertheless, it will mean that many hours of overtime will have to be worked. That will mean that the expenditure will also be very considerable.
I should not like to make an estimate of what the cost of this alteration of the scale rates would be—my recollection of these matters is fading—but it is a very considerable sum. It is really better, in the interest of economy, that when the scale rates are altered an adequate margin should be provided which will cover the increase in the index figure for as long a time as can be foreseen. I am afraid it reflects no great credit on the economic policy of the Government that the index figure should have risen as much as it has. But there it is, five points is a pretty good rise for the period since last October.
I have one or two matters that I should like to put to the noble Baroness before she replies. I wonder whether she can tell us if there is any real evidence that progress has been made with the problem which confronted me when I was chairman and has confronted the Board even since—that is, the problem of the individual who is entitled to assistance but steadfastly refuses to apply for it. That was a very intractable problem. We set to work in different ways. We sent out a circular letter, and I believe that the Supplementary Benefit Commission has followed that example.

1259
We invoked the assistance of the clergy, the doctors, the district nurses and other persons whose daily calling brought them into close contact with the population.
The Supplementary Benefit Commission has gone a stage further. It has done something which was often pressed upon me, but which I never did—it has altered the name. It was felt that the name "National Assistance" had a disagreeable connotation, and that if it was changed a good deal of the objection to claiming National Assistance would disappear. My Lords, I never believed that that was so. I can look back on a good many changes of name. "Outdoor relief" in 1929, on the break-up of the old Poor Law, was thought to have unpleasant associations, and so it turned itself into "public assistance". "Public assistance" lasted until 1948, when again, and for the same reasons, it was transformed into "National Assistance". I do not know whether the noble Baroness is able to tell us if the change to "supplementary benefit" has produced any tangible results. It is extremely difficult to ascertain whether these new measures which have been taken, changing the name and the additional visit—and the additional visit is not always welcome—have produced any tangible results. There are, of course, many more pensioners now than there were five or ten years ago, and it may be that that is some indication that the reluctance of these old people is being overcome. But there are other perhaps more powerful reasons why the number of pensioners should increase. It is difficult to say whether this problem has been finally overcome.
The magnitude of the problem has been very much overstated. One commonly hears it said that there are 700,000 old people entitled to National Assistance who will not ask for it and who are living below National Assistance standards. That figure is based on a complete misunderstanding of the survey of pensioners which was carried out by the National Assistance Board. That survey found that 700,000 households were apparently entitled to National Assistance but had refrained from asking for it. That represented about 850,000 pensioners. But of the 700,000 households,
1260
400,000 households were in possession of resources which for one reason or another were disregarded by the Board,
Many more lived with relatives who paid the rent or the household expenses or maintained their aged relatives. When all those households were taken into account there remained about 300,000 households. Of those 300,000 it was found that two-thirds had resources of some description. The actual number of persons who had no resources but the retirement pension and were living below assistance standards, but who would have been entitled to assistance had they asked for it, was only 85,000. A figure of 85,000 is considerable and it is a major problem but it is nothing like 700,000. One must get this problem in its right perspective. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us whether it is possible to say that this problem has now been overcome.
One of the other major problems which used to confront the Board when I was Chairman was the problem of what is called the wage stop, the man with low earning capacity. We had to treat him on the basis of his assumed earnings when he was in work. If we had not done that, the scale rates would have given him more than he was able to earn when he was working. There was much comment from the newspapers that we were paying men more on National Assistance than they were able to get when they were working. That was not so. We scaled the man down and he was paid by the Board the wage which we found in all the circumstances of the case was that which he could command when in work.
The Government have attempted to tackle this problem by the use of family allowances. I must not speak disparagingly of family allowances, because probably they are the right solution. Family allowances are taken into account in assessing National Assistance allowance. I notice that the noble Baroness safeguarded herself against all the disagreeable letters she is going to receive from recipients of family allowances who find that the amount of their National Assistance goes down by the amount that their family allowance goes up. I used to have this problem every time the insurance scale rates were

1261
altered. I received a number of disagreeable letters from people who were disappointed that they did not get the new insurance benefit rates which they expected, from reading their newspapers, to get. But one cannot avoid that sort of thing; it is one of the difficulties of the whole system.
As for the wage stop the family allowance is not set off against that. The man receives what he would get if working, not an assistance allowance. In addition, he gets family allowances, and this was the only way the problem could be tackled. Whether or not it is proving adequate I do not know, and no doubt the noble Baroness will be able to tell us.
I was hoping that the noble Baroness would have told us a little about the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I naturally regret the passing of the old National Assistance Board. I think that there were great administrative advantages in a body which enjoyed a substantial measure of independence from other departments, and indeed, from the Government themselves, a body which was devoted solely to the identification of poverty and to its relief. There were great advantages in that system which are not present in the current system. However, I must be careful to say nothing which reflects on the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It is a most ingenious administrative device. And my information is that it is working well. I am delighted to know that that is so. I know something of the people who have to work it, and I am sure that if a success can be made of it, it will be made.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission, which has inherited the legacy of the National Assistance Board, was produced to get over the difficulty in which the Labour Party found themselves when they came into office, that they had committed themselves to many things which, when confronted with the administrative task of carrying them out, proved to be impracticable. The Commission was designed primarily to get over that difficulty. I hope and believe that it has got over that difficulty quite satisfactorily, and nothing that I say to-day is intended to reflect on the work which the Commission is doing. I hope that it will continue to carry on with the great task
1262
with which it has been entrusted and that its work will prove as successful as I hope the old Assistance Board was.
I have put a number of questions to the noble Baroness, of some of which I have given notice and of others I fear that I have not; but I am quite sure that, from her knowledge of the walking of the system, she will be well able to answer.
2.10 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should first like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, for his courtesy in mentioning the two points that he proposed to raise to-day. I am afraid that at this juncture I am not able to give him an outline of the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, though I should have liked to do so. But I should like to thank him for his words: coming from him of all people, they are greatly appreciated. We all know of his own distinguished work in this field, and quite recently I met somebody who referred to him with great affection, remembering him from the period when he laid down so many of the types of benefit which we carry on to-day.
On the question of those entitled to benefit but not yet getting it, we are dealing here with a generation to whom I am only too delighted to pay tribute. I know that the noble Lord will agree with me, that we often pay tribute to youth, but we pay far too little tribute to the people of this other generation, who of course, were taught that independence was the great virtue. I ant sure that we should be the last to deplore that, but it still inhibits many of them from taking something which is rightly theirs, and which they perhaps feel they would rather not claim.
As the noble Lord will know, it is difficult to get precise figures, but between November, 1966, and September, 1967, the number of retired people receiving supplementary benefit went up by about half a million, and since the inquiry into the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, referred, well over 800,000 retired people have claimed rate rebates. So there is some indication that some of this group are coming forward. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government are only too well aware that there are

1263
still a number of people entitled to supplementary benefit who have not yet claimed it. The Ministry feel that considerable progress has been made over the past three years in getting the news over to these people, following on some of the plans which the noble Lord himself originally laid down and carried out. There is, of course, the use of posters, and the fact that letters are sent and invitations are given, even to the newly widowed, to say whether they wish to claim. So we can only hope that as time goes on the number of people who claim will increase, though it is always very difficult to assess figures.
The noble Lord mentioned the increase in the scale rates in relation to the cost-of-living index. I believe that the precise figure is 4·6 per cent., which is perhaps a little different from 5 per cent. But the increase in the scale rates which we are dealing with to-day will be just under 6 per cent. on the basic scales, and rather more than 6 per cent. in many cases where the long-term addition is payable. It is felt that since many of the increases which were forecast, such as in electricity and so on, are already known, this 6 per cent. will well cover the increases when the final introduction comes in October—though, as the noble Lord himself has so truly said, Her Majesty's Government are always watching this point.
LORD ILFORD: Is the figure of 4·6 per cent. the margin which has been allowed in the scale rate?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: No, my Lords. It is not the margin; it is the increase in prices. This is, of course, relevant, as the noble Lord said. So at this point of time it is felt that the 6 per cent. increase in the benefit rates is adequate, though no Minister would be foolish enough to make a very long-term forecast of this changing situation. But the Government will watch this continuously.
The noble Lord asked me about the wage stop. I think I made the point that the family allowances would have been increased whether the man had been working or not. I am well aware of the type of communication which a Minister would receive under the circumstances, but one can only point out that it would be unfair if one section of the com-
1264
munity were to make what one might call a profit, while others did not. One attempts only to keep pace with existing price changes. I hope I have covered the points raised by the noble Lord, and I thank him for welcoming this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLEAN AIR BILL
2.15 p.m.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Raglan, who is unavoidably absent, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Moyle.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, on the Committee stage of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, put down an Amendment to Clause 3 which was designed to clarify the situation about the liability of large mobile furnaces to the controls proposed in the Bill. I said at that time that if he would withdraw it I would make a statement about this on Report. I see that he has not put the Amendment down again, but I shall, all the same, make the statement.
The Minister will be considering in due course, if the Bill is passed, what exemptions he will be making under Clause 4(1), and will invite submissions from interested parties and consult with them as necessary. Clause 3 will not be brought into operation until the appropriate regulations under Clause 4(1) have been made. Among the classes of things into the exemption of which he will be inquiring with interested parties are mobile furnaces.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 [Height of chimneys]:
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of noble Lords if I suggest that the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, be taken en bloc, because they are complementary. The Amendment of substance is No. 3 and the remainder are consequential upon it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may agree—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords the Amendments

1265
will have to be put separately, but the noble Lord can certainly speak to all our at the same time.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, the Amendments have been designed to meet some of the points made by noble Lords during the Committee stage, and to give greater clarity to the purpose of Clause 6. The effect of these Amendments is to provide that the word "capacity", which is somewhat vague and nebulous, is replaced by the phrase "combustion space". Secondly, in the case of any new furnace replacing an existing furnace, which involves a bigger combustion capacity and some alteration to the structure of the, chimney, both alterations will have to receive the approval of the local authority before they are allowed to become operative. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, leave out from ("therein") to ("to") in line 35 and insert ("to which this section applies").—(Lord Moyle.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, I formally beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 45, leave out from ("thereof") to ("to") in line 2 on page 6, and insert ("to which this section applies").—(Lord Moyle.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3:
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("shall not apply to") and insert ("applies to the following furnaces:—

(a) any furnace served by a chimney other than a chimney the construction of which was begun or the plans for which were passed before the commencement of this section;

(b) any furnace tic combustion space of which has been increased since the commencement of this section; and

(c) any furnace the installation of which was begun after the commencement of this section and which replaces a furnace which had a smaller combustion space;

not being a furnace forming part of").—(Lord Moyle.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords. I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 28 to 31.—(Lord, Moyle.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CARAVAN SITES BILL
2.21 p.m.
LORD WADE: 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 Wade.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Prohibition of unauthorised camping in designated areas]:
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "being a gipsy". The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. I wilt be very brief, because I understand that we have to finish by 4 o'clock, and there is the danger that we may lose this Bill. A number of suggestions have been made about various Amendments in a document which I and am sure other noble Lords received this morning. It is a pity that this came a little late, because I think some of the points are pertinent.
To come to these two Amendments, we have already discussed the principle behind them very thoroughly on Second Reading. There was much objection on both sides of the House to the phrase "being a gipsy", which we all felt smacked of some sort of discrimination against a certain section of people. We were assured by the Government spokesman that this was not intended and that it was merely a convenient judicial term. The point was raised that it was not convenient or right that ordinary travelers who were going on holiday towing caravans behind their cars, or who for one reason or another felt it necessary to stop on the roadside for an overnight stop, should be under the same heading

1267
and treated in the same way. These Amendments ought to be taken together, because I think they take account of that, the point being that one recognises that it may be necessary for somebody on holiday or touring round to stop for a short period overnight for one reason or another on a journey between one point and another.
My Amendments, which I. hope your Lordships will find acceptable, equalise the situation as between the travelling people and the ordinary traveller who normally, for 50 weeks of the year, lives in a house and for the other two weeks goes off camping or with a caravan. They provide that both are equal in the sight of the law; that both can stay for 24 hours or for a night, which is in effect what I mean, on the side of the road or on a convenient parking place, and then move on. I cannot conceive of many circumstances in which the ordinary person, the ordinary citizen leaving his home and going on holiday with his family, will want to stay more than one night on the side of a road. He is usually on the move. Therefore the second Amendment takes care of him.
So far as the gipsies are concerned, if the problem is that they stay by the road for longer than 24 hours—which, as I understand it, is the problem now—then this Amendment takes care of that problem as well, because they are forbidden to do it for more than one night. Therefore it helps the travelling people in this sense: that if the sites which are going to be provided for them under this Bill are too far apart and they have to spend a night on the road between one site and another, this Amendment legalises that and allows them to do it.
For all these reasons I think the Amendments are reasonable Amendments. They get rid of this unfortunate phrase "being a gipsy", and they equalise the positions of the ordinary travellers and the travelling people. They get rid of the problem of travelling people camping for longer than 24 hours and overstaying their welcome, and at the same time they allow the ordinary citizen the right to stay for a short period on the side of the road when he is on holiday. I beg to move my first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("being a gipsy").—(Lord Willis.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I am in rather a quandary here, because I should like very much to support the noble Lord on his first Amendment but I am not too happy about his other one. On Second Reading I brought out my objection to the phrase "being a gipsy". It is surely a departure from our established legal principles. I have always imagined that it is the act which constitutes the crime and not the type of person who does it. In this Bill a gipsy is described as a person embarking on a nomadic way of life. It seems to me, somehow, to be bad law. I cannot see why the words "being a gipsy" cannot be omitted. I quite admit that a great many gipsies are very untidy people. They are far more untidy, for instance, than the average businessman going on holiday with a caravan. But, after all, if they are very untidy on a site they can be prosecuted under the Anti-Litter Act. I do not really see that this makes a difference. We are rather dissociating gipsies from the other members of the community and I do not like it myself. I have no doubt we shall be told that there are very good reasons for it, but I still do not like it.
As regards the noble Lord's other Amendment, the one concerning 24 hours, I am rather frightened that you might get gipsies or ordinary members of the public who, true enough, stay only 24 hours by the highway but who may then move on another 100 yards and stay another 24 hours. There could be a sort of general slow procession every 100 yards, and they might be able to put in a great number of hours on the highway in that manner. So while supporting the noble Lord very strongly on his first Amendment, I am not quite happy about his second Amendment, though I appreciate the reasons behind it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: When the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I find ourselves in agreement, what we are talking about on that occasion is probably right. There are two questions involved here with regard to the inclusion of the words "being a gipsy" in the Bill. One of them, as

1269
my noble friend Lord Willis has mentioned, is the question of discrimination. It is surely wrong, if a person is brought before a court, to condemn him in advance by saying that he is a gipsy. The question is not whether he is gipsy: the question, in the eyes of the court, is whether he is guilty or not guilty of a precise offence. But there is another aspect of his matter, and that is that it seems to savour somewhat of guilt by association—you classify a man as being associated with a certain class and therefore he is prejudiced when-ever he comes before a court.
I like the idea (which the noble Viscount does not) behind the "longer than 24 hours" Amendment which comes next. I think it puts the gipsies on the same basis as the ordinary suburban dweller who takes his motor caravan and puts it in a field or on the roadside. Both should be judged on the same basis—not differently, because one of them is Joe Jones, gipsy, and the other is Joseph Jones. Esq. Although we are, strictly discussing the first Amendment, I hope that the second Amendment will also be carried.
The first Amendment which deals with a man being condemned or prejudged because he is a gipsy, raises the question: what is a gipsy? There are various dictionary definitions. Perhaps there is some legalistic definition. Some definitions say that he is descended from the Hindu and that the Romany language is largely based on the Hindu tongue. There were some in the 16th Century who said that he is associated with the Egyptians. But is rather difficult for a court when adjudicating upon a case to take into account considerations of that kind. Gipsies are citizens of this country, and in my view should have rights equivalent to those of other citizens. If they are guilty, punish them; if they are not, let them off. Do not condemn them because they happen to belong to what we are pleased to call a gipsy tribe.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I intervene because it seems to me that, although I support strongly both these Amendments, if we carry them we must also leave out Clause 10(1)(c). Otherwise, people will be able to park on occupied pieces of land for 24 hours without the permission of the owner. This is surely much too
1270
wide. I support these two Amendments. I believe that it is possible, with the permission of the Committee, to move an Amendment without prior notice. If this is so, I should like to move in due course to leave out paragraph (c).
LORD WADE: I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed. I will try to point to some of the practical problems. First, I appreciate the interest in this subject shown by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others and also, if I may say so, the distinction Lord Willis made on Second Reading between the true Romanies and others—although I think this distinction is lessened through inter-marriage. It is a fascinating subject. I am inclined to the view that the true Romany descended from the people who migrated from Northern India between the 10th and 12th Centuries and first reached Britain in the 15th Century. In the following century, to be precise in 1563, Queen Elizabeth I ordered them all to leave Britain within three months. The penalty for failing to do so was death. In spite of that, they remained, and, on the whole, they appear to have been treated with toleration in Britain.
But with the kind of society in which we live to-day, those of a nomadic way of life present some problems. The proposal which I think is basic to this Bill, and to which a great deal of thought has been given, is that sites should be provided by local authorities specifically for those of the nomadic way of life—not that they should always remain on the same site but that, at considerable expense, sites should be provided. The counterpart to that is that those who benefit in that way should suffer certain penalties for remaining more than very temporarily on unauthorised sites. I see the dilemma; but there it is. If you accept that view, then you must face the situation.
The effect of the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, would be to extend the proposed penalty provisions in the Bill to all classes of caravanners. If there are penalties then, under the Amendment, they would have to be applied to everyone. But there are distinctions between those who live a nomadic way of life, take their possessions with them and carry on activities such as dealing in scrap metal and those who

1271
occasionally tour with a holiday caravan and do not take their possessions with them. I am bound to say that I think we must make a distinction, once we decide to undertake the considerable expense involved in providing these local authority sites for those of the nomadic way of life.
I have read the memorandum of the National Council of Civil Liberties. I always read with very great care and interest what they say; but again I think there are practical difficulties. I hope that the new sites will provide the solution. Perhaps it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were to intervene and to give the view of the Ministry on this subject.
2.36 p.m.
LORD KENNET: In the course of this discussion on this Amendment I think that all speakers, with the exception of Lord Wade, have lost sight of the dual nature of the provisions in the Bill about gipsies. By "dual nature" I mean that with one hand we lay a duty on the local authorities to provide a number of camping sites sufficient for the number of gipsies in their area; and, with the other hand, when that is done—and only when that is done; not before—we provide the same local authorities with the power to move on gipsies when they camp on the verge or on unoccupied land or on any other land without the permission of the owner. Of course they can still get the owner's permission. We should not forget that.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland raised the bugbear of a court which might have to decide whether, in defining a gipsy they should adopt the 16th Century belief about India or the 17th Century belief about Egypt, or whatever it was. If my noble friend had taken the trouble to read the Bill he would have seen that a gipsy in law is a person of a nomadic way of life with no regard to his ethnic or national origin. A gipsy is simply a person of a nomadic way of life.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Will my noble friend allow me to interrupt?—I am sorry to do so. But that definition would also cover didekais, tinkers and all those travelling people, apart from the real gipsies.
LORD KENNET: Yes, it would. That being so, you are a gipsy if, in the opinion of the court which is trying your case—if you ever happen to be prosecuted; which is unlikely, and we hope it will not happen—you fit that definition. You may rest your defence on the fact that you are not a person of a nomadic way of life. That will be a question of fact for the court to determine. These provisions are objected to, as we know, by the National Council of Civil Liberties. I think we all received the sheet that they sent round the other day. I think this is a change of position on their part. Earlier they welcomed the Bill in principle, although they hoped to improve it in detail. Now their attitude has hardened against it, for what reason I do not know.
But this dual approach has been accepted by the Gipsy Council. One does not wish to place too much emphasis on this; for if ever there was a class of people which could be said to be not truly represented by any organisation it is the gipsy as legally defined. But there is a Gipsy Council which has their interests very much at heart and which represents those interests with considerable vigour and skill. This Council does not object to the giving of the power to the local authorities once the sites are set up.
The words in the Bill "being a gipsy", bearing in mind all that I have told the Committee, mean no more and no less than being a person for whom the local authorities are bound to provide sites. If we apply the clause to other people—
LORD WILLIS: If the noble Lord will forgive me, this is not so. He has said himself that it applies to people who follow the nomadic way of life.
LORD KENNET: A person who follows a nomadic way of life is a person for whom the local authority is bound to provide sites. Being a gipsy means being a person for whom under this Bill the local authority is bound to provide sites; therefore the local authority is justified in moving him on once the sites are set up, but not before. If we apply that to everybody, persons not being gipsies, we are giving the local authorities the right to move on persons for whom they have no duty to provide sites.

1273
That is absolutely open-ended and would I think, be unacceptable.
LORD WILLIS: Like the noble Lord, Leatherland, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. But there is a provision later—I know that we are not now discussing that Amendment—that they cannot be moved on until they have been 24 hours in your district, which seems to me a perfectly reasonable space of time for anybody on holiday.
LORD KENNET: In point of fact, I think that everybody has 24 hours because of the emergency provisions—if you are ill or have a breakdown and cannot move on. In practice it would be an odd gipsy, and I think it would be an odd holidaymaker, who was not able to find some illness or breakdown to justify an overnight stop. That is really the situation.
In conclusion, I feel bound to say—one should not be too confident about this—that if we take these powers from the local authorities they simply will not provide the sites. Why should they? The local authority interest, the county interest and the borough interest is to reach a sensible conclusion. At the moment, the gipsies are all over the place and give rise to a lot of inconvenience to other people. This is a problem for the county councils. At the moment, there are no sites for them, and this is a problem for the gipsies.
I would remind the Committee once again that we are trying, for the first time, to reach a reconciliation between the nomadic people and the settled people. That has become necessary because there is no longer enough land to enable nomadic people to lead a decent life without annoying other people. They have been living under the present system, harassed to a greater or lesser degree by Queen Elizabeth I and the squire, for about 400 years. The pressure on land is now such that we have to get a new system. The new system, which has been agreed by the local authorities, by the Gipsy Council, by the House of Commons and now, I hope, by this House, is this dual system. The local authorities must provide sites, and the Minister has power to make them if they do not—and he will. On the other hand, the local authorities have power to move the gipsies on if they camp round the place
1274
without permission. All that being so, I hope that my noble friend may agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WILLIS: I am still not happy about the phrase "being a gipsy". Nor am I quite happy that everybody would be quite as diabolically cunning as my noble friend the Minister and plead a breakdown when they want to stay an extra 24 hours. But in view of the pressure on our time, and in view of the explanation which has been made (I hope that the Government will issue a leaflet when this Bill is passed explaining to everybody how they can plead a breakdown) I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: (LORD MERTHYR): The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has asked advice whether he can table an Amendment to this clause to leave out paragraph (c).
LORD MOTTISTONE: The last two Amendments having been withdrawn, my Amendment is now unnecessary.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (3), after "stationed" to insert "temporarily". The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment, aimed at clarifying the extent of the defence, referred to in subsection (2). Without an Amendment of this kind a cart and horses could be driven through the early part of the clause which prohibits unauthorised camping. Every caravanner would be able to allege that he could not move his van because of illness or because there was something wrong with the vehicle; or say that he intended to remove it as soon as was practicable. Hence this suggested Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, after ("stationed") insert ("temporarily").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD WADE: I take the view that it is not necessary to insert the Word "temporarily". If I may refer to Clause 10 and read subsection (2) on page 8 of the Bill it states:
"In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove that the caravan was stationed on the land in consequence of illness, mechanical

1275
breakdown or other immediate emergency and then he removed it (or intended to remove it) as soon as reasonably practicable."
The noble Lord has referred to that subsection, and I should have thought that was the fairest way to deal with the matter. It seems to me unnecessary to require a gipsy to prove that he stationed the caravan temporarily on the land since this clause, as drafted, requires him to prove that he removed it, or intended to remove it "as soon as reasonably practicable." Moreover, I think the whole nature of the defence
"illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency"
implies a temporary situation.
There is one other point which arose under the second of the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, which was not moved. Those of a nomadic way of life do not as a rule have any particular mark on their caravans like the number plate of a car. An ordinary person on holiday with a car and caravan has a distinguishing mark, and it is easy to prove whether they were in a certain place for a long time, or a night, or whatever it may be. In the case of those we call "gipsies" for the purposes of this Bill, that is not so. It would seem to me that the clause as it appears in the Bill is the fairest version for both sides, and the most practicable. I hope that explanation will be regarded as satisfactory, but again I am always willing to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has to say.
LORD SOMERS: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Milverton because, as he says, the wording as it is at present depends on whether a person says that the caravan is there temporarily because of illness or some mechanical failure or for some other reason. Who is to prove this? Unfortunately, it is only too easy to say that one intends to remove one's caravan within a short space of time, but very often that intention is not carried out. Who is to prove that there is definitely a mechanical failure or illness? One would have to probe very deeply into the private affairs of the caravanner to prove that, and I do not think that is a thing one should have to do. It is much simpler to say that they may remain for a short space of time and then they must go.
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I, in three sentences, try to get to the heart of this matter? The Bill, as now drafted, says that it would be a valid defence if the caravan occupier could prove that he was unable to move because of illness or a breakdown. Surely, that excuse will apply only so long as he, or some member of his family, is ill, or so long as the caravan is broken down and cannot be moved.
I think that the clause as drawn is adequate to deal with any possibility that might arise. The bench, if the matter ultimately goes before them, will have to decide whether a case is made out by the prosecuting local authority, or whether the caravan owner can prove that at the time he was reported a member of his family was ill or his wife was expecting a baby, or whatever it might have been, or that mechanically it was impossible to move the caravan. And at the time of reporting, the police will no doubt do the probing that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has mentioned. I think that the Bill is reasonable in its original form, that the insertion of the word "temporary" will only confuse and that it is quite unnecessary.
LORD KENNET: I have little to add to what my noble friend Lord Leatherland has said. The Amendment presupposes who was able to prove that he intended to remove his caravan as soon as reasonably practicable but unable to prove that he was only temporarily on the land—a situation which I think is unlikely to arise.
LORD BROCKWAY: I had asked for an intimation when we were discussing this Bill and I must apologise for being late. On Monday we shall be discussing the Race Relations Bill and what worries me in this clause is that it singles out gipsies—
LORD KENNET: May I advise my noble friend that we had a half-hour debate on this point on the last two Amendments.
LORD BROCKWAY: I apologise, and regret that I was not informed that we had reached that point.
LORD MILVERTON: I am disappointed that the Committee should apparently, on the whole, be in favour of leaving this clause as it is, but if the

1277
Committee are satisfied that it means temporarily without necessarily stating so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Removal of unlawful encampments]
2.53 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
" () The Court may also order the repayment to the local authority by the defendant of the reasonable expenses incurred in executing the said order".
The noble Lord said: This also is a simple Amendment. Its purpose is to enable a local authority to recover the expenses they incur in removing caravans from land other than land owned by the local authority. It seems reasonable for them to ask for such a power of recovery. I beg to move.
Page 8, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD WILLIS: On the surface this Amendment seems reasonable, but it strikes me that the majority of people likely to be so dealt with by a local authority would be poor people, who would not be on that piece of land if they were not ire rather desperate circumstances. We have already been told—and I would emphasise this—that many of the provisions of this Bill will not come into operation for some time. There is likely to be terrible hardship for many travelling people this coming winter, and they may have, in desperation, to take refuge on land which is forbidden to them. It seems to me highly unfair if a local authority has power to expel them from that piece of land and, in addition, has power to heap these costs on to their heads. If a good network of these sites were in operation, I should not feel quite the same way, but in view of the coming winter hardship I oppose this Amendment.
LORD WADE: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for the view he has expressed. May I approach this matter from a different angle? At first sight this would seem to be a reasonable Amendment, but I am advised that the
1278
power of local authorities to recover the expenses of evicting gipsies was intentionally omitted on the ground that in practice is would prove to be somewhat embarrassing to the local authority. In principle, it might be right that a gipsy who parked on land without authority and refused to leave when asked to do so should meet the costs incurred in evicting him. But I am told that once he is put on the road, it would be for the police to see that he goes on and causes no obstruction.
I am advised that if the local authority seek to recover costs against a gipsy it will have to try to discover where he has gone to serve notice of proceedings on him. This clearly raises a number of practical difficulties and may involve wasted effort and expenditure. Again, if a local authority had power to recover expenses in connection with eviction, those who have to deal with the matter would feel that they were under some obligation to do so, and I am advised that, strange as it may seem, on balance those concerned with these matters do not wish to have the power, and would prefer that they should be under no obligation to attempt to recover costs. It is for that reason that I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Willis has said, but I should like to tell your Lordships that I have no evidence at all that any more terrible hardships face gipsies this winter than in any of the recent winters; and there is no reason to suppose that the coming winter will be an exceptionally bad one for them in any way. I would also say that local authorities will have no more power in regard to gipsies this winter than they had last winter.
LORD MILVERTON: I am sorry that this Amendment also has not received the approval of the Committee. It seems to me that it would be better to leave discretion in the hands of the local authority and not always indulge in this habit of placing the expenses of executing the law upon the taxpayer. However, since the views of the Committee are against me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
" () No action taken by a local authority under this section shall render them liable in any way under any other enactment, or at common law, for obstruction of the highway".
The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which concerns local authorities. We are bound to consider what in some circumstances might be the result of action by a local authority under this clause. For instance, what happens as the result of an order for the removal of caravans if a local authority places them on the highway? I understand that under Common Law the highway is for the purpose of passing and repassing, coupled with a reasonable right of stopping. Penalties are contained in certain Statutes for obstructing the highway. Will a local authority be guilty of obstructing the highway if it removes a caravan under this clause? For that reason, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: Although I should have been opposed to Lord Milverton's previous Amendment, I heartily support this one. The noble Lord has envisaged a hypothetical case in which a local authority might be prosecuted for having caused obstruction on the highway by moving some gipsies or nomads from a field on to the road or the roadside. I was informed quite recently, in my county council capacity, that one of the county councils of this country had actually been prosecuted for this particular offence. That county council had caused gipsies to move on from some open land on to a highway, and the police authorities had launched proceedings against that county council for causing an obstruction. I think this most unfair.
Many local authorities, in pursuance of their duties, and following their lawful occasions, have to cause obstructions on the highway from time to time. They dig holes; they fill them up; and they dig holes again. They grapple with affrays that take place on highways; they evict householders and place their furniture out on the public footpath, and sometimes on the street; and they obstruct the highways by their drain-cleaning operations. But we do not prosecute
1280
a local authority for indulging in any of these socially worthy activities. I think it would be very hard on a county council, county borough, or London borough (and these are the authorities involved under this Bill) if they were liable to prosecution because, in pursuance of their action in turning gipsies out of a field on to the road, they temporarily caused some obstruction of that road.
We know that these operations are not always easy to undertake, and sometimes complications technically occur. I think that if we do not protect the local authorities in the manner suggested in this Amendment, it will deter many of these local authorities from undertaking the worthy duties which we seek to place upon them under this Bill. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD WADE: I have endeavoured to obtain the best advice I can on this matter and having looked carefully into the point whether a local authority would be committing an offence, such as obstructing a highway, when it evicts caravans from private lands, I am advised that there would be no liability on the local authority. The advice I have been given is that the local authority would have no further responsibility for towing the caravan from the private land. This does happen, and the police take steps to ensure that the caravanners move along and do not cause obstruction. The local authority will be acting under an order of the court, and I must say it is difficult to see that they will in any way be wilfully obstructing the passage along the highway merely by virtue of the fact that they have carried out an order of the court in moving the caravan on to the highway. I should have thought that this was the caravanners' responsibility. It is not that I have any desire to make things difficult for local authorities, but I can only inform your Lordships of the advice I have received. I am afraid I cannot take it any further.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Perhaps I may intervene once again. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, and I are very sensible men. But a fortnight ago I was personally informed by the clerk of a county council that his county council

1281
had been prosecuted for just such an incident as this. In order to prevent such foolish prosecutions being launched in future, I want to see no obstacle placed in the way of county councils when they seek to carry out their duty under this Bill. I think the Amendment is necessary if only to warn those people who institute prosecutions that they have not a chance of succeeding when they try to prosecute a county council under this clause.
Loan WADE: Perhaps it would be helpful if I had conversations with the noble Lords, Lord Leatherland and Lord Milverton, and any others interested in this point. Clearly, I am acting on the advice given to me. This is rather a technical point. That is as far as I can take the matter to-day.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS moved to add to the clause:
"() in any area to which section 10 of this Act applies, the local authority shall make an annual return to the Minister of the number of cases in which proceedings have been taken under Part II of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple Amendment that speaks for itself. It really asks for an account from local authorities of what is done in this particular field. Again, I think this is a matter where one wants to keep tabs on what is happening and try to get some kind of picture. My noble friend Lord Kennet seems to have taken up rather a contradictory position in the matter, for example (and it relates slightly to what I am now talking about), of this coming winter. He indicated that he agreed that there would be some hardship in the coming winter, and he sent me a number of circulars that had been sent out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government urging that some help should be given. I was therefore surprised to-day to discover that my noble friend feels that the problems will not be any harder this winter than in any other winter.
In a debate earlier to-day he said that land was shrinking and the problem was becoming sharper: and I think we are all agreed about this. There is going to be g cat hardship this winter. I regret that there is no provision in this Bill necessitating local authorities to set up temporary sites, even if they have not
1282
all the amenities that we are asking for. But that is another matter. I am asking in this Amendment that an annual return shall be sent in by the local authority of what evictions, actions and proceedings are taken by them against the travelling people and against what are wrongly called in this Bill "gipsies". I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 8, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Willis.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like very briefly to support this Amendment. Of course, it is true, as the noble Lord said, that if the local authority do not send in this information through an annual return to the Minister, how can the Minister know that enough sites have been made available in the district for the gipsies? It is just as simple as that, and I can see no objection to the Amendment at all.
LORD KENNET: There is absolutely no objection to the purpose of the Amendment, but it is not really necessary to write it into the Bill because we can get this information in any event from the court returns, and shall do so. On the general question, I think there may still be some confusion in some of your Lordships' minds about this matter. These powers do not come into effect this winter. I think, to be perfectly frank, that it is unlikely they will come into effect next winter, either, because the sites will not be set up by then. I do not want to name periods, but they do not come into effect until sites are set up.
As to increased hardship this winter, hardship for travelling people has been increasing certainly for the last twenty-five years, and I should think probably the noble Lord would agree for the last fifty. It has now reached a point where it has become necessary to act. In the Government's view the widest action is contained in the Bill. There is no quantum jump in hardship expected or reasonably foreseeable this winter. Nothing will be different this winter from what it was last winter, except for the fact that we are one year further on, and when the Bill comes into effect things will be much better.
LORD WILLIS: May I say something else before the noble Lord sits down? I do not want to quarrel with him about this matter, because I think our sympathies are both engaged on the same side. But it seems to me contradictory to agree that this Bill is necessary because of great hardship and then to admit that the Bill, or a clause in the Bill, will not come into effect this winter, or even the succeeding winter, and therefore not to see that it is essential, in order to prevent the hardship that existed last winter and the winter before, to encourage or find some way of persuading local authorities to set aside temporary sites, without all the equipment and facilities that we are asking for under this Bill, so that that hardship can be ameliorated this winter. That is really what I am saying. I do not misunderstand the Bill at all. I am merely pleading that hardship could be ameliorated this winter by some action.
LORD KENNET: I think I have sent the noble Lord copies of the two circulars in which the Minister has asked local authorities to do precisely that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Designation of areas]:
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), after the second "borough" to insert "or county district council". The noble Lord said: Under this clause the Minister may, by order made on the application of a county council, county borough council or London borough council, designate the area of that authority as one where unauthorised camping by a stationing of caravans is prohibited. If a county district council—that is, a non-county borough or urban or rural district—can show that sites are not and cannot be made available in their area, that authority should surely be empowered to apply to the Minister for their area so to be designated. Unless such a power is given the county district councils, the prohibition of gipsy encampments will depend on the county council providing an adequate number of sites throughout the county, which may not be done, and this may bring particular trouble in built-up areas. Hence this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, after second ("borough") insert ("or county district council")—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, what this Amendment really means? On reading it I thought it meant that a district council could voluntarily, of its own volition, say to the Minister, "We should like to be designated as an area in which gipsy encampments can be established" but I rather gathered from the noble Lord's words that he wanted the district council to be able to say to the Minister, "We are an area where a gipsy encampment should not be established" Now which is it?—because my view will be somewhat determined by the reply.
LORD MILVERTON: I think the first is the answer which I would return to the noble Lord.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am not particularly opposed to the idea that a district council should be able to make representations that its district should be designated as a place where a gipsy encampment can be established, but my experience on a county council is that the district councils are diametrically opposed to any attempt by the county council to establish a gipsy encampment in their locality. As I said on Second Reading, my county council have made Four unsuccessful attempts to establish gipsy encampments in various parts of the county, and in almost every one of those cases the local council, the district council, raised very serious objections indeed. And, of course, one can understand why the district council should raise objections. The district council is more closely associated with its inhabitants than is the county council, and no district councillor will get up and say, "What a good idea it would be if we were to have a gipsy encampment in our area", because probably that district councillor lives along the edge of the field next to the area which is to be designated. I do not think this proposal will be successful, whichever way we care to look at it.
This question of establishing gipsy encampments will be unpopular—it is the old story of Stansted all over again; we all want a third London Airport but we do not want it in our village. We all

1285
want gipsy encampments so that these people may live a semi-civilised life, but we do not want those encampments near where, we live. Therefore I think the broader view is the proper one to adopt here.
LORD WADE: I think the effect of this Amendment would be to enable the district council to obtain a designation order. Whether they would do so I do not know, but if they were to do so there is the danger that it would lead to patchwork development, and I am inclined to the view that it would be better if it were dealt with by the county council.
LORD KENNET: The problem would be that the poor gipsy would not know whether he was in a place where he could camp on the verge without being pushed on, or not, and this might be a little hard on him.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Multi-unit caravans]:
3.16 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "of" to insert "not more than two". The noble Lord said: The National Caravan Council held a conference last autumn which was attended by all local authorities and all the local authority associations, as well as some Government representatives, to consider what action could appropriately be taken to correct a defect in the definition of a "caravan" in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The definition affected those caravans that are made in two parts for ease of transportation and are assembled into one unit of living accommodation when sited on a caravan park. That conference agreed unanimously that such units should be restricted to two parts. This clause is a direct result of that conference.
Unfortunately, the correction proposed to be made will not now apply to Scotland. The definition is embodied in an entirely new form of wording that was introduced at short notice in the Committee stage in another place. In this new form of wording the restriction of the parts to two was dropped, although it had appeared when the Bill was first
1286
published. The effect of this new definition as it is now contained in the Bill is that any prefabricated hut or structure, made in no matter how many parts, could be deemed to be a caravan. I am sure that that is not intended, and therefore I submit this Amendment, Which I understand has the support of the Government and of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and I hope your Lordships will approve it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, after ("of") insert ("not more than two").—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)
LORD WADE: In replying to this Amendment, may I interpolate a personal note? From time to time I have introduced or helped to sponsor Private Members' Bills but I have never seen such Bills reach the Statute Book. I hope this will be the exception. That being so, I am very pleased to be able to help it along, because this is one occasion where I can recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment. This is a very technical point. We are anxious that the definition should be as accurate as possible, and I think, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal has made out his case. I would recommend to your Lordships that this Amendment be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to rise for one moment to ask for a point of clarification. I do not expect the point to be answered now, but I hope that if I can make it now it may be possible for the Minister on Report stage to give an assurance on what I am seeking. Under an early planning appeal on twin-unit caravans in 1964 a point was raised as to whether or not the assembling of the part, by inserting bolts, clamps, and so on, amounted to "development" under the Planning Act; and it was held to be so. This Bill, of course, cannot be widened to cover amendment of the Planning Act, but I think I am right in saving that both industry and the local authorities would welcome an assurance from the Government that in deciding planning appeals involving this point the Minister will not consider the assembling of the

1287
parts of twin-unit caravans to be development. As I say, I do not expect an answer at this moment, but if we could be told something on Report stage which would help to give an assurance on this point I am sure that it would be very well received both by industry and by local authorities.
LORD KENNET: Would the noble Lord be content if we pursued it by correspondence, in order to save the time of the House?
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Certainly, if that would be for the convenience of the Government. It is only a point of clarification, but I know that it would be in the public interest and advantage if it could be done in that way.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Offences.]:
3.22 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved, in subsection (2), after "under" to insert "Part II of". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment in the names of my noble friends and myself. Part I of this Bill depends upon a contract between two parties, the owner of the caravan park and the occupier of the caravan, both of whom are quite free to take action on their own behalf if they wish to do so. The Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators, who have throughout this Bill (and not only on this clause) co-operated very closely together, see no justification for legislating that the local authority should be empowered to intervene in such a contract, any more than in any other contract freely entered into by individual parties. If either party has a grievance there is nothing whatsoever to prevent its being adjudicated upon through the normal process of the law courts without the intervention of any local authority. Surely there is no need for local authority intervention. Surely it is far better, where there is a contract between two parties, if there is any dispute, to let those two parties, without any third party intervening, go to the court and have it settled freely. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 25, after ("under") insert ("Part II of").—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: So far as Part I of the Bill is concerned, where the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, says there are contractual obligations between a landlord of a field or site and the caravan occupier on that site there may be a great deal to be said for the Amendment he has moved. But I shall listen to my noble friend Lord Kennet before making up my mind on that. With regard to Part II, which deals with gipsies, it is suggested in the Amendment that any local authority should be able to take proceedings. But Part II does not give authority to any local authority: the only local authorities that are given authority under this Part of the Bill are county councils, county boroughs and London boroughs. I wonder whether a county council would feel pleased if, because of some alleged contravention by gipsies in its area, legal proceedings were taken, not by the county council but by an urban or rural district council within the county. I will listen to my noble friend Lord Kennet upon this point, but it seems to me that it would be rather anomalous if, having given one authority power, you allow a subordinate authority to attempt to enforce that power in the courts.
LORD WADE: I think the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, may be under a slight misapprehension. May I read subsection (2)? It reads as follows:
"Proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted by any local authority".
I am not dealing with the point of "any"; I am just dealing with the effect of this subsection. I think that means that proceedings can be instituted for an offence under Part I or Part II; and I think that was the point that was made. This has nothing to do with intervening in a contract. Part I deals with harassment and illegal eviction, which in certain circumstances may be offences, and it is just a question as to who should prosecute if there is an offence. If this Amendment were accepted, I think the effect would be to cast doubt on the power of a local authority to prosecute for offences—that is to say, harassment and illegal eviction—under Part I of the Bill.
Someone has to prosecute, whether it be an individual or the police or a local authority. Local authorities are

1289
empowered by Section 108 of the Rent Act 1968 (which replaces previous provisions for the prosecution of Rent Act offences) to prosecute for the corresponding offences under Section 30 of the Rent Act 1965. I understand that in practice it is normally the local authorities and not the police who investigate and prosecute in regard to these offences; and it is thought probable that local authorities will undertake the same functions in respect of offences under this Bill when it becomes an Act. That is to say, if there is harassment or illegal eviction, then probably the local authority, rather than the police, will prosecute. But the effect of this subsection is merely to make it clear that a local authority could.
As to whether this is any particular significance in the word "any", I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has to say. The point I want to make is that, so far as prosecution is concerned, there must be a case for prosecution and in practice it is really a question of whether it should be undertaken by the police or by the local authority. I cannot see any fundamental point of principle there. It may be more convenient that the local authority rather than the police should prosecute, if there is a case for prosecution.
3.29 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I should like to raise a point of clarification here. Clause 3(3) of the Bill refers to "civil proceedings". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when we last met in Committee on this Bill, went to some trouble to explain to us that under Part I of this Bill all the proceedings will be civil proceedings. This was his main argument, it being a county court affair rather than a magistrates' court affair. I may be ignorant on this point, but if it is a matter of evil proceedings it does not seem to me to be right to talk about prosecutions and the police. Surely it is more a question of the harassed occupants suing the site owners rather than a question of prosecution. I think we are crossing our threads here. Why on earth should the local authority set themselves up as a sort of super policeman on rather dictatorial lines, to supplement this process?
LORD WADE: I do not want to intervene too many times before the noble
1290
Lord, Lord Kennet, replies, but may I just read an earlier subsection. Subsection (3) of Clause 3 says:
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall, without prejudice to any liability or remedy to which he may be subject in civil proceedings, be liable on summary conviction…"
There is nothing in that subsection that I can see to suggest that the local authority will be concerned in any way with this liability or remedy to which a person may be subject in civil proceedings. It is only in regard to an offence that subsection (2) of Clause 14 applies proceedings. I think the answer is that that applies to the offences in Part I and not to the "liability or remedy" which was referred to as a "liability or remedy to which he may be subject in civil proceedings". I hope I have mace my point clear.
LORD KENNET: If I may deal first with the point of my noble friend Lord Leatherland, I should like to be sure that I have understood it aright. The question was what would a county council say if in a designated area they had set up the camp for gipsies and the district councils then started prosecuting the gipsies and moving them on. I take the point, and if your Lordships will allow me I will look into it and have something to say to my noble friend either privately or at a later stage.
On the other point about criminal and civil proceedings, I have nothing to add to the explanation which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Wade (which I think was as lucid as could possibly be devised in a situation of such extreme complexity), and simply confirm that the effect of the Amendment we are now discussing would impinge only on Part I of the Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: I suspect that the answer to Lord Leatherland's point is to be found in the interpretation clause which gives "local authority" a very limited meaning indeed. It has the same meaning as in Section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: In view of what has been said—and I think we have had a very useful discussion on this point—I should like to consider this with my noble friends, as I am

1291
not sure that I appreciate fully all the implications. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and we can come back to it at a later stage if need be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Interpretation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: There is a small point which I found rather confusing. In the first three words of Clause 16 we find "In the Act…" It clearly does not mean the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, and it would not appear to be this Act, because Clause 17, we see, refers to "This Act". This Bill has been through all its stages in another place, so I cannot think that this is a misprint but that this particular wording "In the Act" is deliberate here. I think your Lordships should be told exactly why those words are inserted in this way. What is the Act to which reference here has been made, because I am afraid I just do not understand? It seems as if, having gone through all its stages in another place, it could not be a misprint, there must be some purpose behind it, and perhaps there is an explanation.
LORD KENNET: It is a misprint.
LORD WADE: May I congratulate the noble Lord on finding a misprint? If that were his only objection to the Bill, I should be delighted.
LORD LEATHERLAND: There having been one satisfied customer in the House, may another satisfied customer rise? My noble friend and I disagreed on an earlier stage over the matter of interpretation. With regard to
1292
the paragraph at the bottom of page 10 which attempts to explain what the word "gipsies" means, I wonder whether the interpretation now given in the Bill is sufficiently comprehensive:
"persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin…"
In my younger days one used to have a lot of people coming to this country who were referred to as Irish navvies. To-day, they would be referred to as constructional and civil engineering workers from the Republic of Ireland. But those people have a nomadic way of life. They come and work on trench digging or reservoir digging in a particular place, they live in huts for a month or so, then they move on to another part of the pipeline and live in some temporary accommodation there. Would they be included in the term "nomadic habit of life"? Is this definition of "gipsy" too comprehensive, too widely inclusive for what my noble friend has in mind?
LORD KENNET: I can only say to my noble friend that it must be for the courts to decide. I could not even start to suggest what proportion of the year spent in a hut as opposed to a caravan would constitute "denomadisation" under the Bill; but if he is worried about the matter, perhaps he could approach the sponsors of the Bill about the possibility of a change of wording. I cannot myself think of anything better.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I thank my noble friend for that. As an old newspaperman, I certainly would not permit "denomadisation" to be printed in any paper for which I was responsible.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before four o'clock.