Lords Sitting of 18 June 1968

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Viscount Kemsley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

OVERSEA CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS AND DEVALUATION
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assistance is being given to pensioners of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service living in countries like South Africa, which has not devalued, and whose pensions are now reduced owing to devaluation by some 14·3 per cent.]
LORD BOWLES: None, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government have not felt able to make good the loss in oversea currency value of pensions paid to their own pensioners resident abroad in countries which have not devalued, and they could not treat Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service pensioners whose pensions are paid by the oversea countries by whom they were employed more generously.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him why it is that Her Majesty's Government are treating pensioners of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service differently from their own employees? Is it not a fact that Embassy staff are receiving compensation in countries overseas which have not devalued, and did not the Prime Minister say in his broadcast in respect of devaluation that the pound would not be devalued in our pockets?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble
514
Lord's supplementary question is that the Prime Minister did say that the suffering would be as little as possible but that obviously there would be some all round because of devaluation. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, he knows as well as I do—probably better, because he is associated with these ladies and gentlemen—that they were never really legally, constitutionally, employed by Her Majesty's Government at all. In view of that fact, I think his supplementary question does not arise.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me which are the "countries like South Africa"?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think my noble friend had better ask the noble Lord opposite that question.

NUCLEAR ARMS AND NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
2.7 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the approval of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the United Nations General Assembly, it is their policy to collaborate with President Johnson in his proposals to end the nuclear arms race an3 to reduce the existing nuclear stockpiles.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): Yes, my Lords, As my right honourable friend the Minister of State with special responsibility for disarmament matters made clear in his statement in the First Committee of the United Nations on May 28, we regard the Non-Proliferation Treaty as an essential first step in achieving the ending of the nuclear arms race and making progress towards general and complete disarmament. We are pledged, under the Treaty, to work for progress in this direction. We intend to do all in our power to carry out our commitments.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, following up the speech of President Johnson, may I ask my noble friend whether it is intended that Her Majesty's Government

515
should enter into diplomatic discussions with the United States Government and the Soviet Government with a view to the achievement of an agreed plan for nuclear disarmament to be placed before the Geneva Disarmament Conference?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we are always engaged in diplomatic consultations with the Soviet Government, the United States Government and other Governments about these problems. We very much hope that, first of all, it will be possible for the United States and the Soviet Union to get together and move towards an understanding about nuclear weapons, and especially about things like ballistic missile defence, which seems to me to be an integral part of the arms race; and we, of course, shall be ready to take part in any talks if it appears to be valuable for us to do so.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is hoped to make substantial progress on the Town and Country Planning Bill tonight, and your Lordships' Committee will sit until about 11 o'clock. Dinner will be available between 7 and 8.30 p.m.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS) ORDER 1968
2.10 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor, That the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968, laid before the House under Standing Order No. 62 on Monday, June 10, be approved.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, we had a long debate yesterday, and in view, too, of lengthy business in your Lordships' House this afternoon, clearly we should like to have an early Division if a Division is called to-night. For that reason, therefore, I will so far as possible make a short speech, and I will limit my remarks in the main to the speech that was delivered yesterday afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I think I should say in passing that the debate
516
showed little new thinking, but I must say that some of the speeches deliverd indicated that some noble Lords do not now realise that they are living in the latter part of the 20th century. But the new element was the declaration by the noble Earl of the intention of the Opposition to divide.
I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that I thought his speech very strange. Certainly he selected his words carefully; but I am bound to say that they lacked the conviction to which we are normally accustomed from the noble Earl. We had from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, one of those performances of a polished professional advocate, but even in his case conviction came out only when he was talking about the constitutional crisis. I do not intend to follow the noble Viscount and to discuss the constitutional issue, for to me the importance of the fate of this Rhodesian Order transcends the constitutional conflict. If there is to be a constitutional confrontation, that can be solved: but if there is an adverse vote to-night on this Order there will be far-reaching effects in Rhodesia, in the Commonwealth and, in fact, throughout the world.
In our decision tonight I hope that the House will bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in 1965, when he said that no action of ours should give comfort to the illegal régime; and also the words of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, yesterday, that whatever we do we should not expose the nerves of racial conflict. My Lords, this is a matter in which race and colour are very much involved. Therefore let there be no doubt about the consequences of the act which the Conservative Party are contemplating to-day.
As it has been since 1965, the challenge that confronts us is the illegal seizure of independence by the representatives of a white minority in Rhodesia. It is not the illegality that arouses world opinion; it is the determination of these people to hold in political bondage some four-and-a-half million who are of a different colour and race from the minority. It is this, more than anything, that arouses world opinion. But for us in the British Parliament the issue has greater consequences. It is the British Parliament that

517
bears the ultimate responsibility for all Rhodesians. It is only the British Parliament that can change the Constitution of Rhodesia. It is only the British Parliament that can grant independence—and neither the Conservative Administration nor the Labour Government were prepared to grant independence under the 1961 Constitution.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, speaking yesterday, described the history of this affair. He reminded the House of the very clear warning given to the Rhodesian authorities by Mr. Sandys—a warning that went unheeded. If there is a choice to-day, if there is a decision to be made, it is the same as it was some three years ago. The passing of time has not changed the issue or the principles that are at stake. We were confronted with I.D.I.; and Parliament therefore had to make up its mind what action it should take. Should it condone? Should it wash its hands of its responsibilities? Should it abdicate to the white Rhodesians or should it take steps to return Rhodesia to constitutional rule?
The vast majority of both Houses, by their votes and by their speeches, have said that Parliament must retain and assert its authority in Rhodesia. That, I believe, is still the feeling in most quarters of this House. But what steps should then be taken? The vast majority believed in peaceful action and the rejection of force. Talks by both the Conservative Administration and the Labour Government to prevent I.D.I. failed. Therefore, if negotiations were to be possible it was clear that some measures, some sanctions, would need to be applied on those in Rhodesia if they were to come back to the negotiation table.
It is agreed on all sides in both Houses of Parliament that economic sanctions should be applied. The Conservatives supported sanctions and, until now, have never in this House challenged their imposition. By the term "Conservatives", I mean the official Opposition. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, speaking with the authority of the Front Bench opposite and with his long experience (having been Lord Chancellor during the period of the Conservative Administration at the time of their talks with Mr. Smith) was concerned about how effective those measures were.
518
The original sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom were selective, but in the end they did not bring meaningful talks. With the passage of time, despite every effort by the Government, it is still not possible to find a solution. Should we now capitulate, as some noble Lords suggested yesterday afternoon? Or should we make our chosen instrument more effective? As we sought so make sanctions more effective by asking others to share in bearing the burden the Opposition became more restive. I think this raises the question whether the Conservatives, in order to achieve Party unity after the three-way split in the House of Commons, were prepared to accept sanctions only so long as they were ineffective. If this is so, it would be an act condoning the seizure of independence in Rhodesia. I do not believe that that was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; but it may be a factor which has forced him, in order to maintain his own Party unity, to agree to a Division to-night.
Noble Lords opposite are opposed to international co-operation in this matter. They object to our going to the United Nations. If they still support sanctions, but not of an international character, it follows that it is the British industrialists and traders who must bear the entire burden, leaving their competitors free to develop their trade in Rhodesia. It makes it possible for overseas buyers to buy at much lower rates because of the effect of the United Kingdom sanctions on the economy of Rhodesia. Without international co-operation the burden would be entirely ours and sanctions would be less effective than they could be. Is that the intention of the Opposition? If the intention is to bring Rhodesia back to constitutional rule, why deliberately seek to make sanctions ineffective and so prolong the period of illegality? Is that the intention of the Opposition?
In any case, although we have direct responsibility the Commonwealth is concerned. It is no good thinking that this is a little local problem; it trains the very heart of the Commonwealth. Sanctions hurt Rhodesia and affect our trade, but few realise what could be the consequences to our international trade if we appeared to be condoning I.D.I. Noble Lords opposite never cease to express their fears over our trade with

519
Spain and South Africa. There would be a great risk not only to our trade but also to our private invested assets overseas if we took a course which gave great affront to world opinion by appearing to wash our hands of Rhodesia and default on our responsibilities. We could not survive trading only with white countries.
We do not pursue this policy for this reason: that we have a moral responsibility that Parliament so far is not prepared to give up. We must pursue this policy. We must be ready to negotiate at the first sign of meaningful negotiatiations. The door is not closed. In passing, if I may say so, we had a difficult time at the United Nations to keep this approach open and we got no praise from the other side. In the meantime we must continue sanctions, not in a punitive sense but solely to bring home to those in Rhodesia that there is no future in their present state. Sanctions hurt, often indiscriminately, but this must be so if they are to be effective. Noble Lords opposite have their doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions but no one has yet suggested an alternative other than force.
My Lords, why should the Opposition decide to divide on this Order? Articles 1 to 9 are broadly similar to Orders already passed and never challenged by the official Opposition in this House. Articles 10 and 11 affect airlines but have little practical effect in this country because there is no British air services to Rhodesia. I know that Article 12 caused disquiet. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained yesterday the reasons for action and the form it would take. I hope that what he said has gone a long way to allay the doubts and anxieties which have arisen. I want to make three points clear regarding this Article. First, although this part of the Security Council resolution picks up the wording of our own draft, that wording was put forward against the background of a demand in New York for a much wider range of measures under Article 41 of the Charter. Secondly, it is quite wrong to say that all persons now holding Rhodesian passports will be denied entry into this country. A large number of Rhodesians can claim United Kingdom citizenship and these will be allowed in.
520
So will people qualifying on humanitarian grounds; so will those Rhodesians who will be eligible to receive British passports in accordance with what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his statement yesterday. Third, the categories of people to whom Article 12(1)(b) will apply have now been publicly defined and, as was announced by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, an advisory committee has been set up to review this small and limited class.
I do not believe it is this Order which has caused the threat of a Division. I think that threat is striking at the United Nations resolution from which this Order springs. The burden of the noble Earl's complaint was that we had taken the Rhodesian issue to the United Nations. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said yesterday, with his long experience as a Minister of State, it was a Conservative Administration who took the question of our dependent territories to the United Nations and the Committee of 24. Whether or not noble Lords opposite recognise that Rhodesia is an international problem, it is. We made it clear to Mr. Smith that if we could not get agreement we should have to go to the United Nations. I want to make this clear. If we had not taken this matter to the United Nations, others would have done so. By having taken it we are able to effect control over the proceedings. Had it been taken by another country the control would have been infinitely less. Perhaps in the end it would have been a question only of veto.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the negotiations at the Security Council. Let us be under no illusion. The illegal executions in Salisbury raised bitterness and hatred, but by patient skill and diplomacy my noble friend Lord Caradon was able to get an agreed result. Even France was prepared to accept it. There may be some aspects which we should have preferred to be without, but we agreed, and by that agreement we were able to get rid of the worst features of the original draft.
I should like to say something now about Paragraph 13 of the resolution which refers to moral and material assistance to the people of Southern Rhodesia in their struggle to achieve their independence. A lot of fuss has been made

521
about this paragraph, and it has been described as an incitement to terrorism. It can be interpreted as an incitement to terrorism only it we assume that the people of Southern Rhodesia as a whole are terrorists. That is not the position of Her Majesty's Government and I do not believe it is the position of noble Lords opposite. No delegate speaking in the Security Council in his explanation of vote suggested that this paragraph condoned or encouraged violence. I am told that the Guinean representative at the United Nations to whom the noble Earl referred hold this view, but there is another African representative from Tanzania who is reported to have taken a completely opposite view. For our part we have made our opposition to violence quite clear. It would be absurd to suggest that any Government that is not already encouraging terrorism will now begin to do so as a result of this non-mandatory paragraph. If there is any risk of this it would be increased by the interpretation, a totally unnecessary and distorted interpretation, placed on the paragraph by noble Lords opposite.
At the United Nations we still have control of Rhodesia. Rhodesia is a British responsibility and we have not handed it over to the United Nations. But, my Lords, events are not controlled by flouting world opinion but by containing it by negotiation. If we could have had half the sense of realism from Mr. Smith as was displayed at the United Nations I believe that we should not only be at the conference table but could well have our solution. Every noble Lord has spoken about the need for new negotiations. It seemed to me that many noble Lords were totally ignorant of the past events. We have had twelve special missions to Rhodesia to find a solution. We have never failed to react to any glimmer of light. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, expressed confidence in the Home proposals. He admitted he did not know what they were. I suppose there are only three who know—the Government, Mr. Smith and Sir Alec; and Sir Alec will not disclose them, nor will Mr. Smith and therefore the Government cannot. But one fact is known, that the Home proposals fall far short of one of the five principles of the Conservative Administration which the Opposition still continue to support; that is, the second
522
principle, that there should be no retrogressive amendment to the Constitution.
My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor quoted speeches which have been made by Mr. Smith when he made quite clear that be would change the Constitution, that his children might wish to change the Constitution. If that is the view now held in Rhodesia, then quite clearly the proposals of Sir Alec, while they may be helpful, do not meet what Parliament has laid down. This is the view that Mr. Smith has held consistently. I do not see how the Opposition can agree to a settlement that did not provide for the second principle. What is the position of Her Majesty's Government? The Prime Minister and other spokesmen for the Government have repeatedly emphasised that the Government are anxious to reach an honourable settlement by negotiation. On March 27 the Prime Minister said this:
"The Governor, to whose courage and steadfastness all of us in the House pay tribute, especially in these past weeks, know that we shall always be ready to consider the possibility of a settlement on the basis of our agreed principles.… The House will insist that a settlement which is based ultimately on trust can be made only with people who can be trusted to make it effective. The Governor is there and is authorised to pursue any meaningful development which satisfies these principles and the necessary requirements of trust. If and when, at any time, soon or late, he should so report, that will be the time for decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1570, 27/3/68.]
That is the position of Her Majesty's Government.
As I see it, Mr. Smith is subject to conflicting influences. In the first place, while he does not himself regard majority rule within a foreseeable future as a really desirable goal for Rhodesia, he realises that there can be no settlement on any other basis and that without a settlement Rhodesia cannot prosper. He has said, and I have no reason to doubt his word on this, that for this reason it might be necessary to agree to a settlement which would involve unimpeded progress to majority rule. What he has not yet been prepared to do is to agree to the measures that would in fact provide for unimpeded progress. The other influence is the pull of Right-Wing extremists inside the Rhodesian Front and outside it. They see the future in terms

523
of unrelieved White domination, possibly disguised under the doctrines of South Africa. Mr. Smith is also sensitive to their pressures.
If noble Lords to-day reject this Order the Government will take the necessary steps to discharge their obligations to the United Nations and to implement the policies which it has decided upon. But that action by this House would have the effect of weakening the incentive for Mr. Smith to come to a just and honourable settlement and would strengthen the influences of those who urge him to reject all thought of a settlement and to follow their own Right-Wing extremist policies. Rejection of this Order, with the resulting polarisation of the whole situation, would greatly damage the prospects of the Governor being able to report, as indicated in the quotation I have just given, that there could be meaningful developments.
That is the seriousness of the position this afternoon. I would stress that what is vital, if negotiations are to succeed, is that Mr. Smith must never be permitted to believe that he can succeed, that this country will weaken in its resolve to bring back constitutional rule to Rhodesia. There will be no conference, there will be no solution, if Mr. Smith feels that he can succeed. Does the House seriously believe that if sanctions were lifted Mr. Smith would change his position? Why should he?
In view of the fact that yesterday's debate was wide-ranging and that no doubt it will be so again this afternoon, there is a danger that the real issue before the House will not be recognised. What is the issue? It is in essence to continue seeking to restore constitutional rule in Rhodesia through peaceful means. If the Order in Council we are debating is not approved, the House will be rejecting an Order designed to give effect to a recent Security Council resolution. What possible construction could be placed on such a defeat? It could only be said—and let there be no illusion about this—that this House was prepared to acquiesce in 'illegality in Rhodesia. There is no use saying that this is not the intention, that this House is simply voting against an extension of the Government's policy on sanctions. The stark fact is that if this Order is
524
not approved, the action of this House can only be an encouragement to the illegal régime in Salisbury. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has any doubt on the point, I hope that he will read the article in the Evening Standard.
If we reject this Order, it would betray those in Rhodesia who have loyally stood by the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, and the legal Constitution there. It would betray the future of the 4½ million coloured people in Rhodesia for whom we are responsible. It would also be a betrayal of a principle to which all fair-minded people in this country, irrespective of Party, have subscribed to since the war in respect of our dependent territories—the principle of majority rule. What a terrible step that would be. It would be an indelible mark on the liberal record of this country which could never be erased.
Some three months ago in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, expressed concern for the future of some 2,000 Falkland Islanders. He spoke with feeling and carried with him the sympathy of the whole House. Is there any reason why such concern should not now be extended to the 4½ million black Rhodesians?—unless there is to be one principle for the whites and another for those of another colour. What would be our standing internationally if this Order to implement a United Nations' resolution, which had been reached by patience and skill, give and take, were to be rejected? Equally, what would be our standing within the Commonwealth? I known that there are some who regard the Commonwealth as the old Commonwealth, but they are few in number. The reality is the new Commonwealth, which has grown up from the end of the Second World War from our former Colonial territories. The Commonwealth is far from a united or perfect organisation. There may be no common policy and on many issues there may be distinct division of thought, but the important feature is that it is a family of nations of many colours and many religions that remain in touch with each other, and as such it is a force for good. Would not the world be weaker and more dangerous, if the Commonwealth, nebulous though it may seem, were fragmented?
Let there be no shirking the fact that if in the face of international opinion this House frustrates the implementation of

525
the United Nations' resolution, the joy of 200,000 White Rhodesians would have to be balanced against the betrayal of the 4½ million Rhodesians of another colour for whom we are responsible. It would do irrevocable damage to our international prestige and might lead to the possible break-up of the Commonwealth. I cannot think of a more sombre fact. I say bluntly to noble Lords opposite that if this Order should be defeated tonight by an unrepresentative House, composed of many Peers who like myself are here merely by birth, that action could have only one construction and end. It is not use saying that this is an expression of view, an expression of disagreement over Government policy and that a new Order can be laid. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows as well as I do that if he wishes to censure the Government, there are procedures for doing it. He may have considered this course but he has decided for direct confrontation.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that an adverse vote to-night could be construed in only one way throughout the world—the vindication of all those who have opposed sanctions and supported the illegal régime in Rhodesia. Some of us are deeply involved in Party politics, and there is nothing dishonourable in that. Many of us have been through the heat of battle on many important issues and have suffered defeat in good humour, conscious of a battle well fought. But to-day the importance of the issue transcends all other considerations. If a narrow Party line is taken on this issue, the House will forfeit the right ever to talk of honour and principle. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whose liberal views were made abundantly clear in the Rhodesian debate of 1965, when he said: "All of us feel there must be majority rule", and others whose honour and integrity are undoubted are to be seen voting in the same Lobby with those who have consistently supported the illegal régime and are opposed to sanctions, the clock of progress will be put back, and our claim as a nation to be in the van of civilisation will have no substance.
My Lords, it is my earnest plea that this House should stand by the principles which it has always upheld; the principles which always govern our relations with the peoples of dependent terri-
526
tories; the principles on which independence has always been granted. I would ask the House to mark these words, which I quote:
"We have regarded it as our sacred trust to protect the poor and the weak, to provide for the defences of the country against foreign aggression, and to promote the general prosperity in the Indian communities. That was our duty, which we have performed, I think everyone will agree, to the best of our ability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/7/47; col. 860.]
I repeat, "our sacred trust to the poor and the weak, and our duty." My Lords, those words were spoken in this House 21 years ago by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; and perhaps he will remember them.
There comes a time in public life when one may be required to stand apart from one's friends. There comes a time when principle requires one to say: "This I cannot support, despite my loyalty to my Party." To-day that moment has come. I appeal to this House, I appeal, if necessary, over the head of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his Chief Whip, to those on the Conservative Benches, not to treat this as a Party issue. What is at stake to-night is something more vital than that. It is that we should fulfil our obligations to all Rhodesians, but particularly to those whose only hope is their faith in the Crown and the British Parliament.
2.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with a feeling of great diffidence for it must seem, I think, to many of your Lordships that every point that can be made on this difficult subject has already been made by other speakers and that all the House really wants this afternoon is to come to a vote. I can promise your Lordships that I will try to he as brief as I can. Arid yet I feel that I must say a few words, my Lords, for the very simple reason that I believe profoundly that your Lordships are being asked by the Government to come to your conclusions on entirely wrong premises. The picture that has been drawn of Rhodesia, and which is held to justify these new I and severe measures, is, I believe, however sincerely put forward—and I am not questioning that—an entirely false one; and I say this even after hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.

527
We had descriptions last night by some speakers that seemed to depict a state of conditions in that country which appeared to me to bear no relation to reality: a picture of a Police State based on terror and oppression; of the grinding down of the African inhabitants to a condition of abject poverty and misery and of holding them back from any social advance Even the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who spoke just now, painted a picture rather of that character. Every effort, it seems to me, has been made to stoke up bias against the white people of Rhodesia. And, my Lords, these things are simply not true.
I am not going to suggest that things are perfect in Rhodesia, any more than they are anywhere else—even here. But the lot of the average Rhodesian African is far better than he would find in any of the neighbouring black controlled States. The liberty he enjoys is far greater; his standard of life, at any rate until the imposition of sanctions, was steadily rising. And, my Lords, the average African appreciates this. There is, indeed, remarkable evidence of it. I would only mention, because I do not want to take up the time of the House, two examples. First, in Rhodesia alone in Central Africa, among all the States there, the police go about unarmed. Secondly, the tracking down of the terrorists, who lately invaded the country from the North, has been very largely done not by Europeans, but by Africans. Surely, facts such as those do not accord with the grim picture which has been painted by so many opponents of white rule in Rhodesia.
I do not ask your Lordships to accept what I have said on my own evidence alone; I recognise that I am regarded as a very biased person. But, if I may say so in his presence, those who heard, or have read, the recent remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, after his visit there, will, I am sure, agree that what he said confirms everything that I myself have said this afternoon. I do not want—it is a bad thing to do in a situation such as this—in the graphic modern phrase, to "over-egg my pudding". No doubt it may be argued that there might be more rapid advance in various directions than there has been. But I still maintain—and I hope that the
528
noble Lord, Lord Silkin, still shares that view—that the sombre picture which is being painted to many people in this country is so dark as to be almost unrecognisable, and certainly does not justify the new Draconian measures which your Lordships are being asked to approve this afternoon.
But I may be asked: In that case, why did the United Nations take so strongly a different view? Why did they feel so violently that, as we have been told, Lord Caradon had to fight very hard to get even this compromise? I hope that supporters of the Government are not so naïve as to think (and I say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd) that it is the legality or illegality of Mr. Smith's Government that is really worrying the United Nations. What they (and by "they" I mean, in particular, the Afro-Asian States and the members of the Eastern bloc; and I should say that most of them themselves started as illegal Governments: they may be legalised now, but they were very much in the position of Rhodesia when they started) are after is much bigger game than that. What they want—and make no mistake about this, my Lords—is the expulsion of all Western influence from Central and South Africa. That is the aim and object of all their African policy, and they will stick at nothing to achieve it. To them, if I may use a famous old saying by Mr. Philip Guedalla:
"Any stigma is good enough to beat a dogma."
I simply cannot understand why the Government, with all the information they have, do not understand this.
I may be asked: But was not the Security Council unanimous? What about that? Well, my Lords, I am afraid that I have not been so impressed by the unanimity of the Security Council as the Prime Minister, judging by his statement of May 30, apparently is. No doubt it is open to him to view with more enthusiasm than some of us the singularly unconvincing spectacle of such nations as Russia and Hungary, of all nations, appearing as leading champions of legality and free institutions. But, after all, this unanimity is not really so surprising, for we have it on the authority of the Lord Chancellor himself that the decisions of the Security Council need not be based on the principles of equity

529
and justice; that it is a purely political body. If he would like me to quote the passage, I shall be happy to do so, because I have it here; but I am sure that it will be fresh in his memory and probably in the memory of most noble Lords who are here to-day.
If that interpretation holds the field—and it may well do in the United Nations at the present time—it surely is not necessary at all that the Security Council should take into any account the rights or wrongs of any question that is brought before it. All it has to consider is what is the most convenient course to take from the purely political point of view. And very often, my Lords, it may be extremely convenient for great nations and great international bodies to bully a small country so long as it is too small to hit back. And there is another point, I think, which follows from this. If the Lord Chancellor's view, that the Security Council is merely a political body untrammelled by any moral considerations, actuated by only political considerations, be accepted, the attitude of those of its members who belong, broadly, to the Eastern bloc becomes very comprehensible indeed; for to them the passing of this resolution may very naturally be regarded as a very considerable triumph.
So, though I be told that these steps that have been taken have the approval of the Security Council itself, I still maintain, with Mr. Dean Acheson, that the action enshrined in the resolution of the Security Council, to give effect to which this Order in Council is being introduced, constitutes, by any true interpretation of the principles governing the United Nations' Charter, an act of naked aggression against a small peaceful country, with no moral or legal justification; and that for the Security Council to lend itself to such a thing makes it still worse. It is like a criminal putting on a policeman's uniform to make it easier for him to commit his crime.
That is the international position, as I see it. What they want is to drive Western influence out of Africa. That is their reason for all the actions that they have taken in the Security Council. If they wish to do that; if they want, in Mr. Tom Mboya's vivid phrase, to "make the white man scram out of Africa", they cannot but regard this resolution as a notable step in the right direction. After all, my Lords, they have
530
not done so badly in Africa. Tanganyika and Zanzibar themselves are largely now controlled by the Chinese. Russia, so we read in the papers, is contemplating a base in Aden, and we are at present making room for them in the Persian Gulf. And now there is this additional prod at Rhodesia. They have not, I repeat, done so badly.
But even if it is natural that the opponents of Western civilisation are happy to see the passing of this resolution, is that any reason why we in this country should equally rejoice over it? Our policy towards Rhodesia is calculated, as I understand, to have cost us already upwards of £200 million; and if we continue it now it is going to cost us a great deal more, and it is losing us, all the time, valuable customers and valuable friends. Nor is it, in any case, likely to be successful in its purpose of bringing Rhodesia, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wishes to do, to her knees. South Africa and Portugal are not likely to be very enthusiastic about a policy which is, in effect, aimed by the Afro-Asians as much at them as at Rhodesia. And now there have been clear indications, both from Malawi and from Zambia, that they would regard the application of this policy as likely to constitute a real economic disaster for them. If, then, we approve these new measures this afternoon, it is we only who will suffer; and we shall suffer more and more.
Lastly, my Lords, I would say this. I know that your Lordships haw already been subjected to horrific threats, both by members of the Government and by others belonging to the Party of noble Lords opposite, as to what will happen to us if we reject this Order. No doubt we shall have more of this—perhaps when the Leader of the House comes to reply to this debate. We have had one example already of what can only call this môt d'ordre a particularly revealing one, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech which he made on Saturday last and which we may all well ponder. He spoke of a threat to an elected House by an unrepresentative one.
This remark, my Lords, seems to be based on an assumption that an elected body, an elected House, must be taken as always continuing fully to represent

531
the views of those who elected it, however long the period since the preceding Election and whatever it may have done, good or bad, in the meantime. But that is, of course, by no means true. An elected House, as we all know, may entirely cease to represent its electors. That is, of course, one of the main reasons why countries—not only our own but other countries, too—have included Second Chambers in their Constitutions. It is just because the Governments of democratic countries which were representative at the time they were elected sometimes become entirely unrepresentative of those who elected them that it is felt that there must be some check on such Governments if the will of the people is to prevail.
But, my Lords, such checks, however salutary, are perhaps never very popular with the Governments to whom they are applied. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no doubt many of his supporters, really seem to want now is that there should be single-Chamber government and that if the House of Lords is to continue at all it should be merely on the basis of a smoke screen behind which a single-Chamber Government can operate. Indeed, some of the supporters of the Government, I understand, have already gone even further, judging by a Motion which, I gather from the wireless this morning, has been tabled in another place, to the effect that unless we always and immediately agree to accept everything that comes to us from the House of Commons, the House of Lords should be abolished altogether. But that is not, in my view at any rate, a threat which should break our hearts or shake our courage.
If that is the Labour Party's real view, it is surely better that the British people should know it. It is valuable that we, too, should know it, for it indicates clearly that even if a clash be avoided on this occasion the issue will not have been permanently solved. The flashpoint happens to have been reached over Rhodesia, but if we give way over Rhodesia there is likely soon to be another exactly similar crisis on some other issue.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is the Transport Bill, which your
532
Lordships will possibly wish to amend pretty drastically on one or another important point. If we do that then, according to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, we shall have exactly the same speeches as to-day, the same threats hurled, the same fists brandished at us.
This seems to be almost a classic case of a situation in which the functions of a Second Chamber ought to be brought into operation. It is a situation involving vitally important issues of policy on which the views of the British people are not yet known. We on this side of the House believe that the great majority of the British electorate are in favour of an immediate resumption of negotiations between Great Britain and Rhodesia to bring this miserable quarrel between them to an end; and we believe, too, that on the lines of the proposals that have been brought back to this country by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, after his recent visit to Rhodesia, that result could be achieved.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, correctly, he seemed to indicate—and I very much regretted to hear it—that he thought Sir Alec was seeking a settlement which did not accord with principles to which he had already declared his adherence. I do not believe that that is true. It is quite out of character with Sir Alec, and I do not believe anybody in this country would think he would do such a thing. Noble Lords on the other side of the House, on the contrary, if I understand them correctly, think the British people would favour a further tightening of the screw of sanctions so as to bring Rhodesia to her knees. Only the British people themselves can finally decide which of us is right. That being the case I would, if I may, in all seriousness urge this House to throw out this Order and by so doing give an opportunity to the Government, by going to the country—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Noble Lords may laugh at that. The only reason they will not do it is because they know what will happen; but perhaps I may finish what I was saying—by going to the country to give practical application to that great principle of majority rule to which their lip service has so long and so powerfully been paid.
3.3 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I will be very brief. The noble Marquess started his speech by telling us that everything has already been said, but he went on to say quite a lot. But then the noble Marquess has a great advantage over me in that he knows his subject and he has a much greater experience of your Lordships' House than I have. If I may borrow an analogy from a field of activity with which I am much more familiar than I yet feel in your Lordships' House, I agree that it would be hard indeed to find any route leading towards the summit of this exceedingly difficult mountain which has not been thoroughly explored and every crevice and every crack worn smooth by the passage of numerous feet.
In my short stay in your Lordships' House I have learned the wisdom of silence on both these counts, but I have also observed that there are occasions, and last night and this afternoon may provide more of them, when even an inexperienced tyro without particular knowledge—and my knowledge of Rhodesia is limited to some very good friends, white Rhodesians, who were comrades in arms in the war—can make a contribution towards reaching a decision, and for such a person to stand up and be counted ahead of a Division; and, greatly presuming though I may be, I am so presuming now.
I have listened with the deepest interest to the numerous speeches, and I have read the ones to which I could not listen personally. All of them, so far as I could judge, were spoken with sincerity, diametrically and irreconcilably opposed as they must be, by people sitting uncomfortably on either horn of such a decision as this. I recognise that whatever decision we, as a majority, reach in this House this afternoon, it will carry serious snags in its train. But having said that, I have no hesitation in declaring that for my own part I am completely persuaded to support the Government on this issue.
Whatever might have been the possibilities of another policy so long as Rhodesia was held to be still an internal matter for the British Parliament, that situation no longer obtains. That is a simple fact and, as I have understood it, that is the crux of the matter. Rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, the Government accepted the view of other countries that this was a problem affecting
534
the human rights and impinging on the liberties not only of the black Rhodesians in their own country but of other people beyond the frontiers of Rhodesia. I am convinced that that is a basic truth.
It has been claimed by several noble Lords—the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble and learned Viscount Lord Dilhorne (incidentally I am disappointed that he is not in his place, no doubt for an excellent reason, but he said yesterday after his speech that he remained to be convinced by subsequent speakers) the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, and others to whom I have listened—that Rhodesia presents no threat to any, other State. We have just heard the noble Marquess say the same thing. Indeed, in the physical sense that is true at the moment, but the persistence of racial injustice there as an act of deliberate policy is deeply disturbing to human relations far and wide, and, above all, to race relations. We have seen this effect on other issues which trouble the conscience of every community, simply because the seeds of injustice exist everywhere and they can be germinated into the thorns of hate and violence, despite distance and natural obstacles, by actions which go unchallenged and undeterred by people who ought to know better.
No one has disputed the examples of flagrant wrongs given by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Southwark, and the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, and maybe one of two other noble Lords. They have not been disputed, simply because these and other actions are known and recorded and could be seen, and because they are true. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, said, that injustice as between man and man is practised elsewhere around the world, and he instance I particularly black Africa. There is no doubt about that. But the fact that it is not possible to act everywhere simultaneously to remove injustice a id to right wrongs has never yet been a justification for doing nothing, especially in a particular case where, as in Rhodesia, we still have a responsibility.
But, my Lords, I return to what I see as the crux of the matter: the simple fact that the Government, with the mandate of its majority, accepted the proposition about 18 months ago that Rhodesia is a problem of international con-

535
cern, and with that mandate the Government have taken the problem to the United Nations. The consequences and the sequel to that mandate were a Security Council resolution for which the Government representative voted and which was unanimous, and whatever the noble Marquess may say about the unanimity of that resolution I think it is highly significant. It was not simply a majority with some abstentions. It was not a resolution reached by the pressure of the black African vote, as has been suggested. Every member State supported it in their own right including France. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in, if I may beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, what I thought was a quite outstanding speech, traced the Opposition's defection from sanctions, from a bipartisan policy, an all-important decision, to that decision of Parliament, but so far as my information and recollection goes his Party did not register any effective dissent at that time. But whatever views may be held about that now by noble Lords, with the wisdom of hindsight, it is a very grave matter indeed to act against the Government of the country now.
There may be rare and exceptional occasions when the Parliament of a nation may be right to refuse to ratify its Government's support for a Security Council resolution, even though, as we are reminded here, in this country it would set a precedent; it has never happened before. But this is surely not such an occasion. Leaving completely aside the internal political consequences and considering only our position in the world, to do so would not simply be folly, as Mr. Jenkins said in a speech over the weekend, in the former context of internal consequences. It would lay this House open to a charge of hypocrisy on our previous stands for human rights, a charge of prejudice in favour of white Rhodesians and their policies which would reverberate around the world. What is even more serious is that those charges would rub off on the name of Britain. Our standing as a nation may not be particularly exalted in the world at the present time. We should certainly forfeit any remaining respect that we may hold, particularly among our coloured friends around the
536
world, if we were to shrink back from the consequences of this resolution now.
I recognise that there is a deep and sincere division of convictions about this Order. I applaud noble Lords opposite for their rejecting completely out of hand the threat to the future of your Lordships' House. If I may say so, I was surprised that the noble Marquess spent so much time lecturing your Lordships on this subject. I do not think it deserves a second thought. I respect the right of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his Party to dissociate themselves from a course of action which, as he pointed out, is not theirs to take, it is the Government's. But what I cannot respect is a decision to vote against this Order. Some very hard words have been used in the course of this debate, and I will use some hard words now, and I use them advisedly. I would say that if a vote is to be taken against this Order with the full weight that the Opposition Party commands it would be an act smacking of sheer sabotage.
When all this started three and a half years ago, all Parties agreed that there was no incompatibility between the imposition of sanctions on the one hand and the search for a basis for an honourable settlement on the other. And presumably in accepting sanctions at that time all Parties concerned wished those sanctions to have their effect. Sanctions have continued, they have grown, and they have grown stronger simply because they need to be made more effective. But discussion has decreased to a trickle and now it has dried up. There is no justification whatever, short of war, for ceasing to talk.
I do not accept the contention of my noble friend Lord Wedgwood that the Government do not want a solution by negotiation. It is all too easy to forget and ignore the Herculean efforts made by the Prime Minister only a year or two ago, and the much more recent diplomacy of George Thomson in the same sense. We need to remember that they have made these efforts. But I still can find no excuse, despite what we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for not following the lead in the pack ice spied by Sir Alec Douglas-Home only a month or so ago. There may still be open water there. No fair-minded person can doubt that if a statesman as wise and

537
experienced and of such integrity as Sir Alec Douglas-Home thought that there was a basis for a settlement, and thinks it now, it is very probably the case. And let us remember that he said he thought that then, and he thinks that now, against the background of continuing sanctions. Negotiations in a matter such as this can be undertaken with any prospect of success only from a position of strength. All the member States of the United Nations Security Council voted for the resolution; they are providing us with that strength. Can it be that this House would wish to influence our country to break ranks with them? I urge that we stand firm. Twelve previous occasions or not, I urge that talks begin again.
3.17 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, it makes me sad to discern, as I think I do, having listened to most of this debate and read the rest of it, that many Members opposite in this House and, as I have read, in another place are much more concerned with politics in Britain than they are with the wellbeing of millions of Africans. It seems to me that those most concerned in a heartfelt way for millions of Africans are those who have been there, not those who know so little about it. And then we are told by one speaker after another that we on this side, or some of us, are wanting to hand over—that is the word—the Africans to these Rhodesians or to these South Africans, the minority of white men, as if the white men in those countries were bad men. My Lords, they are not bad men; they are as good men as any of us, and very much wiser and better rulers than are to be found elsewhere from Cape to Cairo.
These criticisms of Rhodesia and South Africa in the governmental and managerial spheres do not help the millions of Africans to eat more or to get better education or to learn how to take their place as equals; they hinder them. Sanctions will not help. In Southern Africa the black men are better off than in any other place in Africa, though I am afraid that the situation is deteriorating in Rhodesia. I promise to be extremely brief. I will be almost so brief that I hope I may not be misunderstood and thought to be rather arbitrary. I shall vote against the Government, but
538
for slightly different reasons from those which are moving so many of my colleagues. The main reason is their whole misunderstanding of the position in Southern Africa. I do not think they understand it.
My second reason is that "settlement" is now out. It is not a word that means anything in the context of to-day. In my judgment, for what it is worth, Smith does not have to settle. We, on the other hand, have lost the battle of Rhodesia. It is not dishonourable to lose a battle. I have been in battle, as other noble Lords have been, too, and many of us have lost battles—in life, in war, in politics. Politics is a business of winning and losing battles. It is not dishonourable to lose a battle, but it is extremly silly not to recognise when you have done so. I would not call Mr. Wilson a wise General; I would not go so far as that. But I do affirm that a wise General knows when he has lost a battle and that he has in fact lost the battle of Rhodesia. There may be a war going on between Southern Africa and what might be called some parts of world opinion, a cold war supported by Goebbels-like transmissions from Botswana, aided and abetted, and paid for, by the B.B.C. and Her Majesty's Government. There could be that. And this cold war may end one way or another in decades to come. Which way it ends is immaterial to my argument; but the battle of Rhodesia is lost.
My Lords, when you lose a battle, if you are a wise General what do you do? You withdraw, perhaps to fight again another day on the same battlefield, or perhaps to fight in another battle or in another place. But you are not such a fool as to go on fighting a battle you have lost. So I say to Britain, "Call it a day". I say the same to U.N.O. I assert that there is nothing dishonourable about this, but only real wisdom.
One may say that by calling up reserves—that is a thing that megalomaniac generals do ad nauseam. But who are the reserves? There is U.N.O.—vou think you can still win the battle. But no; I do not think so. By calling up our reserves in the shape of further and better sanctions? I do not think so, either. To my mind, there is no evidence whatever that they will be effective. By engaging in sanctions against South Africa and Portugal? It is quite

539
certain to me that South Africa and Portgual will not obey this ruling from the United Nations. They will break the blockade; I am quite sure they will do that.
There are perhaps only four honest people in the world just now. They are the Rhodesians, who know where they stand; the British Government, who think they know where they stand, or at any rate honestly seem to believe it; Portgual and South Africa, who are quite determined to know where they stand. The rest of the world, including the United States, will cheat more or less. They have done it already, and I am quite sure that they will do it again. So calling up the reserves will do no good. The only way to bring about a settlement by bringing Southern Rhodesia to her knees is by force, or by applying sanctions to the whole of Southern Africa, which means a shooting war. There is no force in the world capable of or willing to undertake it. So victory is out, and therefore I repeat that we had better call it a day.
I have only one last thing to say, my Lords. I have said, "call it a day". This much is certain. The Europeans in Rhodesia will continue to govern and manage Rhodesia, whatever we do. That is only an opinion but it is one that I firmly hold, and it is one that we had better heed. Maybe I am a little before my time and it will take Her Majesty's Government a little longer to find out. But I am quite certain that that is what they will find out. Lastly, I am going to vote against the Government because I do not like being bullied and dictated to and threatened.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I have listened to a number of debates on this subject in this House over the last two and a half years, all of them curiously emotional by the standard of your Lordships' House. I have sat here listening, and this is the first time that I have said a word, for the simple and sufficient reason that I thought any word I said, or indeed any word that anyone else said, was much more likely to do finite harm rather than finite good. I believe that still to be true. I have no doubt whatever that a great deal which has been said already in this debate has done
540
appreciable harm round the world. The House had serious warnings of that yesterday from many noble Lords who are experienced in international affairs and aware of the international communications which come about as a result of speeches here. Too frequently noble Lords give me the impression that they are talking only to themselves, or perhaps to Rhodesia. In fact they are talking to a much larger world—a world which is listening most carefully, a world which is judging us, I must say, without much mercy. So, since the harm is done, perhaps I shall not do any further harm if I join in now.
I have listened here, as I have said, for two and a half years, and with increasing despondency. The despondency comes chiefly for two reasons. First of all, I was sure—in fact I was sure before I came to this House at all, and certainly before November, 1965—that both Government and Opposition, and succeeding Governments and Oppositions, have been far too optimistic about Rhodesia. The Governments and Oppositions in this country seem only to believe that many white Rhodesians genuinely wanted to accept the Six Principles. I could not believe that for an instant. Let me be clear: I am not making moral accusations—they are all too easy to make and they do no good. We are all caught in historical traps, and our morality largely comes from that.
I was thinking of this as a purely historical matter. I cannot think of any single case in history where a white community, living alongside a black community and having power over it, has ever voluntarily relinquished that power. I should be most interested if noble Lords could produce an encouraging example. All the evidence seems to point the other way. White communities have always tended not to decrease their power over their black neighbours, but to increase it. To think otherwise is to fall for one of the liberal illusions. Societies do not automatically get more just and as a matter of course. There are many examples where, over hundreds of years, groups or classes of people have had their liberties and rights progressively reduced. I might also remind your Lordships that it took a major war to abolish Negro slavery in the United States, only a hundred years ago. Sometimes, when

541
I travel in the Deep South I feel that if that war had not been fought Negro slavery would still be in existence there.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord recall the case of India and this country?
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I certainly recall the case of India, but that was not where communities were living side by side. It was an ephemeral and entirely superposed rule. These are people living on the same soil. Incidentally, I have had the curiosity to look up some of the debates in your Lordships' House about the American Civil War, and I recommend that study to noble Lords. They are curiously interesting. Your Lordships' predecessors were, as you probably know, absolutely and fanatically pro the Southern States, and some of the speeches could have been made in this debate, though I suspect that one or two of the speeches that have been made in this debate might have seemed rather old-fashioned, even at the time of the American Civil War.
But the most relevant example of all, when one thinks of the behaviour of a white community to a black one, is South Africa. Here, again, we come to a beautiful example of the liberal illusions in practice. After the South African War, a Liberal Government here made what is probably the most generous peace settlement ever made by victors in war. It was made with the ultimate in good will. There was no attempt to obtain any guarantees for the behaviour of the whites towards the black community. It was assumed that, with generosity on our side and good intentions, things would get better. That was quite natural in the climate of sixty years ago. Men were not exactly born free, but they were bound to get freer. Political liberties and personal liberties for the black people of South Africa must ultimately arrive. Many people here made cheering speeches, very much like the cheering speeches with which we have been entertained during the course of this debate. General Smuts made cheering speeches to us about how all this would in due course happen. I heard many of them because I knew him quite well.
Well, we know what has happened in South Africa. Once again I am not
542
making a moral statement; I am just reminding your Lordships of what exactly happens, not only in wish-fulfilment but in actual fact, in such societies. I have little doubt that a similar process has been taking place in Rhodesia for years past. White politician after white politician has fallen, and they have fallen because there is a tendency, which appears to be inevitable, to turn towards the ultra. Right, meaning, of course, white power for ever.
Now, if Rhodesia and South Africa lived in a universe of their own, then that might easily happen, at least for a very long time. But they do not live in a universe of their own. They live in a much larger world, a world which is scrutinising both them and us, since by a piece of what I must say I think to be bad luck we are saddled with some of the responsibility. All other considerations apart, that obliged us, and still obliges us, to take what action we could. I shall come back a little later to our part in the present division of the world. If we had not taken action, even with very slight hopes of a good end, then such influence as we still have would have gone, and in many respects gone for good. Abdication here would have been the worst of disasters, which is a passive disaster.
The real condition and direction of Rhodesia have been one of my reasons for despondency. The next, I am afraid, has been the attitude—sometimes the words but more usually the tone underlying the words of noble Lords directly opposite. I am thinking of them in the first place, although I believe their particular passions have gradually infected the rest of their Party. I should say that this includes many noble Lords for whom I feel respect and, if I may say so, in many cases affection, but your Lordships' House is usually a fairly reasonable and certainly not an overemotional one.
The degree of emotion on this issue has surprised me, and what has surprised me even more is the degree of emotional identification with the Rhodesian Front that noble Lords opposite have managed to achieve. I do not think that anyone of average detachment could have listened to these debates for two-and-a-half years

543
without feeling that emotional identification every time this issue has been raised. There has always been something irrational about it, and that is distressing when experienced and intelligent men show themselves blown about by gusts of irrationality which, if they were demonstrated by student protestors they would not be slow to deplore. In fact, there is much unreason blowing dangerously round the world, perhaps from the same cause or set of causes, and it has now reached your Lordships' House and is triumphantly producing an extremely irrational political action—probably the most irrational political action of recent years. Your Lordships' House has done some very odd things in its time, but I doubt whether it has done anything more irrational than this.
For what are the real consequences of what noble Lords appear to contemplate doing? First of all, in the immediate practical terms of which noble Lords have spoken, precisely nothing. It will not affect by one day the kind of measures which the Government are obliged to take. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who usually speaks so moderately and sensibly on international affairs, said yesterday that it would give the Government time to think. In cold blood, does he really think that any Government, this Government or any other, would alter a major step in foreign policy simply through being refused an Order in this House, particularly as this Order can be reproduced time and time again in—I must say—a manner which will make our Parliamentary procedure look more than usually foolish?
No, the consequences are not practical except for those the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us about in terms of human relations, but they are deeply psychological. This action will give great pleasure to much of the white population of Rhodesia; it will give great pleasure to much of the white population of South Africa, though not quite all, because there are some wise and farsighted people there; it will give great pleasure to some Portuguese and to the supporters of Governor Wallace in the United States of America. I am quite sure that if your Lordships do what you appear to be thinking of doing, then there will be mild celebrations in Montgomery, Alabama,
544
and in Memphis, Tennessee, where the citizens had wild celebrations for the deaths of both Kennedy brothers. And I have here to remind your Lordships that this was not done carelessly, for already they have made Mr. Ian Smith a folk hero.
On the other hand, this step will produce nothing but distrust and dismay in almost all other quarters of the world, particularly in America where men of goodwill are confronted with a coloured problem of great difficulty which persons on both sides of politics are trying with enormous effort to attempt to conquer. This step to them will be a real handicap; a real rebuff for Nelson Rockefeller, Senator McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey. Any one of them will feel that this country has shown a complete lack of faith. For—and here I am in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, with whom I disagreed a moment ago—there is no doubt that Rhodesia has touched one of the exposed nerves of the contemporary world, perhaps the most exposed. That is why Rhodesia has taken on a significance far greater than in itself it would justify. If it were not for this particular complication it would not have occupied anything like so much of our time in this House. And that is why no responsible Government here, even if it wanted to, could just push the problem under the carpet.
For Rhodesia has become the symbol and emblem of the greatest divide in our world. That divide is not between East and West, it is not between capitalism and communism, it is between North and South, black and white—or, it you like it better, between the rich and the poor. About 1,000 million of our fellow human beings, what the Americans call a "billion", live in reasonable comfort. By that I mean that they have enough to eat, they have roofs over their heads, they are usually literate and they live into their sixties, all things which were unimaginable in any large group of people until quite recently.
These fortunate people all, or almost all, live in the northern hemisphere in a belt from North America to Europe to the Soviet Union, then including Japan. All of them, except the Japanese, are white. The rest of the human race, twice as many, have none of these advantages. Their lives have always been nasty, brutish, toilsome and short; and they are

545
nearly all coloured. That is the great threat and horror of the social condition of our world. Do you wonder, my Lords, that when white and black live together in the same country that country becomes an emblem and a symbol of this threat? Do you wonder that Rhodesia has become to all the coloured people of the world a token of the white man's good faith and in particular, since we have the legal responsibility, of this country's good faith?
That is why, if Her Majesty's Government had not taken action, or the sequence of action it has done, we should have lost whatever hope we had of playing a mediating part in this confrontation, the ultimate confrontation of the rest of this century and beyond. As one of the major secondary Powers in the world, as probably still the stablest country in the West, as one with a direct African and Asian experience behind us, it is our plain duty to play what part we can—however slim the hopes—in taking some of the horrors out of that confrontation. No responsible person wants to say a word which will, even vestigially, bring racial conflict nearer. We can all imagine it. Unless we are very lucky, or produce more foresight than we have yet shown, the last years of this century may be a dreadful time. We have to do our best.
For purely selfish reasons, we have to do our best. I admit that noble Lords opposite have not in general talked about the economic cost of our Rhodesian policy. To those, like the noble Marquess, who have harped on it, I will say this. The economic cost of doing nothing, of quietly abdicating to the Rhodesian Front, would have been much greater. To the whole of Africa and Asia, that would have been the final bad faith, and it would have been our trade that would have paid part of the bill.
But the real point is our plain duty. It is very hard to carry out a thankless duty with slender hopes. I do not pretend to your Lordships that this issue of black and white is going to disappear in two generations. What I am afraid of is that, almost without knowing it, people in fortunate countries are letting themselves get into a state of siege. They are becoming hypnotised by the pressure of the unfortunate all around them. I believe this to be very true in America,
546
both internally and externally. I believe that it is true of many of us here, including noble Lords opposite. It may be a prime cause of the malaise of the West. We can do so much: technologically we can do almost anything, yet we cannot do enough. We have not the political skills or the human concern really to cope with the world social conditions.
We feel impotent. And it may be that that impotence is the cause of these gusts of irrationality that are blowing round so strongly. People react to this particular impotence in various ways. Students demonstrate vigorously against all structures of society. Noble Lords opposite identify themselves with persons who are nearer to an actual state of siege the white populations of Rhodesia and South Africa. I am sure that they are not calculating. If they were calculating, I should be much happier. It would be very much less dangerous if they were calculating, instead of letting their emotions run away.
What they are doing—I admit this quite freely—is not egocentric. In effect, it is helping to destroy what hops there are, and as a minor consequence it is helping to destroy this House. I do not want to say much about that. I am speaking as a private citizen, and I know no more than I read in the newspapers. But I feel rather sad about it. On this matter I disagree with a good many of my friends. I believe that a society like ours, which is going through violent changes without revolution, is probably unwise to change its institutions too causually, even in the name of logic. Often, as with the Monarchy, a style that the country is used to brings its own comfort long after the original function has departed. So I had hoped that we could produce an acceptable Second Chamber which would keep some of the style of this House as we now know it.
Further—and I suppose that on this matter I am like most people in this Chamber—I have sometimes toyed with the thought of how your Lordships' House would meet or bring about its end. But I confess that, if this is to be the end, I never for one single instant thought of anything so fantastically improbable. I imagined that perhaps noble Lords opposite might turn down a Government Bill which there was reason to think had

547
pretty wide electoral unpopularity. I should not have thought that specially noble, but it would be all in the game, and at least it would be completely rational. Or I fancied that your Lordships might conceivably act as the guardians of public amenity if some peculiarly crass, non-political administrative decision came before this House—as, for instance, Stansted. If that had been the case, as I have already said here, you would have had my support. But this, my Lords! After all the good sense that has been talked in this Chamber for years—this! A subject which can be made electorally interesting only if there is a deliberate attempt to poke into the ugliest side of race conflict in this country. A subject on which, so far as we know public opinion there is overwhelming pressure for the Government to be more and not less active.
I commend to your Lordships' attention the result of a Gallup Poll on Rhodesia which appears in a rather inconspicuous place in to-day's Daily Telegraph. It shows that 41 per cent. of persons tested wished to criticise the Government for not being active enough; 15 per cent. thought it had been about right; 12 per cent. thought the Government had been too active; and the rest neither knew nor cared. Noble Lords sometimes speak as if they have special knowledge of the wishes of the British people about Rhodesia, as though by talking to themselves and vilifying the Prime Minister enough they come away with a sense of public opinion. I would commend this particular Gallup Poll, which I confess surprised me, to their close attention this afternoon. It is also a subject which can only degrade us in the opinions of those people of the world whose opinions we ought to respect; a subject which can only make our world more hopeless. It is so irrational that even now I can scarcely believe it. It seems that, after all the civilisation and sophistication of the last decades, your Lordships have suddenly had a brainstorm, as though you had learnt nothing and forgotten everything. To be driven by some passionate return to an atavistic impulse which would have been slightly old-fashioned a hundred years ago. Good God, my Lords, what a way to go
That, though, is a small matter by the side of the world issues which hang over
548
us all this afternoon. I should like to end with one final word to my noble friends on this side. I have said that noble Lords opposite have identified themselves emotionally with the white Rhodesians. That has led them into sheer unreason. It is no good our falling into the same mistake. We cannot identify with the black and unfortunate of the world. That kind of emotion never wears well. If we try, they will not think we are genuine. They will trust us less than they do now—and that is little enough. Whatever we do, we shall not get much thanks. We are in the classical position of the intermediary. So, I think, are all people in the privileged world who try to find some resolution, or at least some fragment of hopeful action, during the next ominous twenty years. We shall not be thanked. We shall probably come out of it badly. All we can do is our duty: persevere over Rhodesia as toughly as we can, and think as hard. That is a bleak and stoical doctrine. But I believe it is the only one which may avoid the worst and give us a little hope.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I am not going to interrupt the noble Lord who has just spoken, but would he consider whether it might be a good idea to circulate to a highly intellectual magazine his next speech on these affairs?
3.51 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Snow, whose maiden speech on the subject of Rhodesia I think that was, your Lordships have listened to me on this subject with fortitude on many occasions during the last three years. I must therefore start by acknowledging your generosity which enables me this afternoon to address you once again. I realise that the case which I shall submit to your Lordships may appear complicated and the trend of my argument may conflict with deep and sincerely held views in all parts of the House. But the great strength and virtue of this House is that its Members are always prepared to listen and to judge the arguments put forward in debate on their merits. I believe that the case which I shall attempt to deploy is conclusive. If I fail to persuade your Lordships to consider it, it will not be because of the weakness of

549
that case, but because of my own poor powers of advocacy.
I think your Lordships would be mistaken to allow either what has happened during the last three years in the relations between Britain and Rhodesia, or what might have happened had the personalities involved and the political positions of the Parties been different, or indeed what should have happened if everyone associated with the problem had been wiser from the start, to obscure the reality of the situation as it exists on June 18, 1968. Up till now we have hoped that it might be possible, by negotiation and agreement between Britain and Rhodesia, to resume a more or less orthodox process of political evolution from the 1961 Constitution to a state of independence within the Commonwealth. I do not believe any more that this is possible with the Smith régime in Rhodesia. We must face the fact that Mr. Smith, in the political situation in which he finds himself in Rhodesia, dominated as it is by the Rhodesian Front hierarchy, has no power to negotiate an agreement which would be acceptable politically by the present Government in Britain or by any British Government. Equally, it is no longer possible to envisage a settlement with Mr. Smith which would be politically viable in the circumstances in which Mr. Wilson and the Labour Party find themselves in Britain to-day.
It is no good saying that reasonable people should find an escape from the present dilemma. It is no good believing that in Africa, or indeed in any part of the world, things are bound to come right in the end. It is no good pretending that negotiations, as we have envisaged them up till now, will get any easier, when Mr. Smith months ago said that they were becoming increasingly difficult. No amount of negotiation will produce agreement between the Government of Britain and the Smith régime in Rhodesia, and it is a disservice to pretend that at this stage there is any value in starting negotiations again.
Let us examine the evidence. Right from November 11, 1965, I doubted whether any negotiated settlement between any British Government and the Rhodesian Front Government was pos-
550
sible, and I said so in your Lordships' House. I hoped that I might be wrong. When, therefore, the Prime Minister invited me to undertake a mission to Salisbury almost exactly a year ago to-day, I applied such knowledge as I possessed of the personalities, the politics and the problems of Britain and Rhodesia to the situation which I found there. During the month I spent in Rhodesia I think I had a better opportunity of getting into the heart and mind of Rhodesia than any political emissary has done before or since. On my return, I recommended that ground should be prepared for the start of a negotiated settlement 'with the Smith régime. I said that any settlement would involve concessions on both sides. I advised that the longer negotiations were delayed the more difficult they would become. I set out in the verbal report, which I gave to the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government, the considerations which brought me to that conclusion.
The outcome of that advice, which I think was accepted by Her Majesty's Government, was the visit which was paid by the Commonwealth Secretary to Salisbury in November of last year. I know of no reason to doubt the good faith with which Mr. Thomson entered into the discussions which he had with Mr. Smith on that occasion. Your Lordships will recollect that on his return the Commonwealth Secretary informed Parliament that Mr. Smith had added new conditions to the basic terms of "Tiger", which were at variance with the Six Principles and which widened the division already existing between Britain and Rhodesia. That view and that conclusion were, I think, shared equally by all Parties in Britain after they had heard Mr. Thomson's report.
I hope I shall not lead your Lordships to suppose that I pay any particular attention to, or lay emphasis on, any actions which I may have taken in relation to this matter, but in January I felt there might be some value in trying to get a further round of negotiations started, and it seemed to me that those could most easily originate from a nonofficial quarter. I, therefore, in your Lordships' House—and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred to this in his speech yesterday—put forward some proposals which might, I thought, lead at

551
any rate to a start of negotiations, if not to any constructive result from them.
Those ideas produced a favourable reaction both here and in South Africa. I believe that they provided an opportunity for the Portuguese Government to make representations in Salisbury. Although they were censored in Rhodesia itself, with the B.B.C. and the S.A.B.C. there was plenty of knowledge of what they were about. Indeed, I sent copies to Colonel Knox the Chairman of the Rhodesian Front organisation, who informed me subsequently that he had circulated them to his six powerful area chairmen. Although the proposals were not necessarily acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, I think it was clear, and certainly it seemed to me, that I received every encouragement in taking my initiative on my own private responsibility. There was no reaction of any sort from Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Rhodesian régime.
Then came the visit of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. After his talks with Mr. Smith he had talks with Mr. Wilson and indicated publicly that he thought he had made progress. I think we must have some reservations as to whether the proposals concerned constitute a basis for a politically viable settlement until we know what they are. But, in any case, they gave an opening for the creation of favourable conditions for the start of a negotiation, an opportunity which any Government or régime which wished to start negotiations in good faith would have been quick to seize.
Instead, and in conscious defiance of the constitutional position of Her Majesty the Queen, the three terrorists, after the Supreme Court judgment, were executed in Salisbury. It is immaterial for the sake of my argument whether Her Majesty's Government in Britain gave the right advice to Her Majesty to reprieve those three men. It is equally immaterial whether they were, as indeed they were, guilty of grave crimes. If there had been any willingness on the part of the authorities in Salisbury to create an atmosphere conducive to a successful negotiation, every reasonable person in this country, and far beyond, knows that they would have had no difficulty whatever in exercising the power of reprieve through Mr. Dupont. Clemency on this
552
occasion would have won to the régime a great deal of sympathy outside Rhodesia: and, my Lords, we know that symbolism is part of the stuff of politics and diplomacy everywhere and at all times.
Then came the interview with Mr. Ian Waller of the Sunday Telegraph, referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech yesterday. Mr. Smith on that occasion went out of his way, so it seemed, to make it clear that he and his colleagues could never enter, in good faith, into an agreement with Britain which would result in practice in eventual majority rule in Rhodesia—the principle to which the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are equally committed.
My Lords, if this evidence is insufficient to convince your Lordships that in negotiations with Mr. Smith Britain has passed the point of no return, there is something which is, I think, even more conclusive. I have here the Report of the Whaley Commission presented to His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government in Salisbury on April 5, 1968. This Report, the publication of which Mr. Smith has many times threatened would mark the point of no return in the political relations of his country with Britain, proposed not majority rule but, as a compromise for the consumption of the Rhodesians and, as they believed, no doubt sincerely, a reasonable constitutional solution to their problems, parity between the two races. Your Lordships will recognise that this goes back to a position, so far as the Africans are concerned, which is in fact less advantageous, less liberal, than the Constitution which Mr. Duncan Sandys negotiated in 1961. That Constitution was intended to lead, and, as was widely acknowledged at the time, would eventually have led in the course of years, to majority rule. But, my Lords, the Whaley Commission Report has now been abandoned because the Rhodesian Front will not accept even eventual parity as a political possibility.
I therefore submit this question to your Lordships: How can Mr. Smith contemplate a successful negotiation with either a Conservative or a Labour Government committed to eventual majority rule in Rhodesia when he cannot even get the acquiescence of his colleagues and

553
supporters in Rhodesia itself to the Report of a Southern Rhodesian Constitutional Commission, composed mainly of strong Rhodesian Front men, which proposes the modified solution of parity? My Lords, how could the British Government, knowing this, enter now into such a negotiation in good faith? I believe firmly now, my Lords, that as long as the present régime is in control in Rhodesia no successful negotiation is possible. And this despite the fact that, as I know from the evidence of my own contacts there, a majority—the moderate, non-political Europeans and Africans—want a settlement and are prepared to pay the price for it. And this is true however many of these folk queue up outside Government House in Salisbury to sign Sir Humphrey Gibbs's book.
No one in your Lordships' House, I think, has given more wholehearted support to Sir Humphrey Gibbs than I have. It was his hope over the last two-and-a half years that he would be able to bring Rhodesia back into full allegiance to the Crown. He has been instrumental personally in creating a series of opportunities from which fruitful negotiations could have been pursued. His behaviour, and that of Lady Gibbs, has won the admiration of people everywhere. But, my Lords, I think that a new situation has now arisen. I believe now that his continued presence in Salisbury—not in Rhodesia, but in Salisbury—raises false hopes in the minds of the general public in Rhodesia which can act positively against a solution to the Rhodesian problem. They feel—and I think they are justified in feeling—that things cannot really be so desperate, or appear so desperate, while Sir Humphrey is at Government House. It is much the same point as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made yesterday, when he referred to talks about talks. People believed that things would work out for the best while the talks were proceeding; and it is the same while there is still somebody of Sir Humphrey's calibre and courage at Government House to keep the contact going.
My Lords, if I were concerned with this—and I am not—I would advise Sir Humphrey to move now to his farm at Bulawayo. I would suggest to him that for the time being, during these next few months, although he would still re-
554
main the Governor, his most effective place in Rhodesia is not at the centre of affairs but in the wings. Further, I would disband the existing Diplomatic Mission, the so-called residual mission, and replace it by two small non-diplomatic information groups stationed both in Salisbury and in Bulawayo. Other countries are to give up their consular missions in accordance with this resolution of the United Nations. We shall have difficulty in persuading then that we are not in the position to do the same.
I frankly do not think that Her Majesty's Government would find this any particular handicap. There are many ways in which contact can still be maintained. An information group would be able to help with welfare cases but would have no political content. The presence of a residual mission tends to persuade people there who see the dangers ahead that, somehow, Britain will be able to find a way out by some comforting diplomatic expedient. Moreover, the personnel of this mission tend to become implicated in and identified with the anti-Rhodesian Front elements of the population. If Rhodesia is to be saved, it must be by the action of Rhodesians in Rhodesia, and in my view the British presence can at this present stage only hamper the process.
For our part, my Lords, if we are to help in Rhodesia, if we are to help prevent the tragedy for Rhodesia which lies ahead of it on its present road, we must, in my view, not only apply but be seen to apply sanctions as whole-heartedly and as effectively as possible. We must not allow our critics and our enemies—and none of us should underestimate their number or their hostility—to ascribe any eventual failure of sanctions, if sanctions do eventually fail, to a lack of determination on the part of Britain to make them succeed.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to put my arguments in this way. If sanctions succeed in bringing about a change of political orientation in Rhodesia, the way to a settlement, an honourable and generous settlement, is possible between the two countries. And here may I say that I listened—and I have no doubt that the House did—to the strangely moving maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Poltimore, yesterday. If, however, sanctions were to fail as a result of the

555
demonstrable failure of other countries, members of the United Nations, to fulfil their obligations, it would still be possible to reach a settlement. We should be able to go to the United Nations and say that, although we had carried out our undertakings under the United Nations resolution in the letter and in the spirit, others had failed to do so.
We could present them with the evidence of this failure. We should then be justified, among reasonable people, in feeling ourselves free to negotiate in those circumstances the best possible settlement of this dispute. In both these cases, I think, settlement would take the form of a treaty registrable at the United Nations rather than some domestic constitutional instrument. In both these cases we, Britain, would still have some control over the ensuing situation. If, however, sanctions fail, and it appears that such failure was due to unwillingness on the part of the British Government to carry out their United Nations obligations fully, then we shall lose any real power to prevent the application to the Rhodesian situation of the only sort of expedient which is available: that is, force. Not the force of the British Army; not the force of an organised United Nations contingent; but the force aimed at Rhodesia by a mounting wave of terrorism and insurgency.
It may be that Mr. Smith's policy has already made a solution of the Rhodesian problem by force inevitable. I am certain—and Mr. Smith has already admitted it—that that unfortunate country has ahead of it a long period of terrorist activity and internal instability. Anyone who is tempted to shrug off the African capability for violence and insurgency should remember the seven years in Kenya and the long campaigns that the Portuguese have waged in Angola and Mozambique. They should cast their eyes over the situation in Nigeria to-day. Even with South Africa's help, Rhodesia has not the resources to stand up to the tremendous economic, physical and psychological strains which such an onslaught on it would involve. Rhodesia, isolated, already weakened by the impact of sanctions, the target of insurgency, would eventually be destroyed; and, my Lords, there are plenty of people in the
556
world only too prepared to undertake that with or without any sanctional reference to the United Nations and Article 13. Britain, under a Labour or a Conservative Government, would in such circumstances have little power to mitigate or prevent all this from happening.
My Lords, the alternatives in front of Britain in its handling of the Rhodesian problem are, I submit, these: either she can make every effort to make sanctions effective, going, in my submission, further than is intended at the present moment; or, by the half-heartedness of her application of sanctions, can make it inevitable that the solution of the Rhodesian situation will be achieved by force. Your Lordships will note that in my speech I have not tried to ascribe responsibility for the situation either to Britain or to Rhodesia.
If a vote is taken this afternoon I shall vote with the Government. Many of my noble friends will not feel able to do so. I hope that in these circumstances they will abstain. If they vote against this Order they must realise that they are voting not against the mismanagement of a discredited Socialist Administration, not in support of kith and kin in Rhodesia—their vote against this Motion may inculpate them in the process of ensuring that the Rhodesian problem is settled by force. They will be voting against many of the best and wisest in Rhodesia who are desperate to see action taken by Britain which is sufficiently effective to save Rhodesia before it is destroyed. They will, for all their sense of loyalty and patriotism, be playing into the hands of people outside Britain and Rhodesia who oppose everything that they and this country stand for.
It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate dissociated from my friends of long standing on this side of the House, or to say things that I know will cause pain and even despair to many people who may hear them in Rhodesia, or to vote with a Government which, at this stage in our history, it might well be the right thing to endeavour to force out of power. But I will vote for the Government to-night because I am convinced that it is the right thing to do; and I only hope that I have helped convince some other Members of this House to do the same.
4.16 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: My Lords, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes to tell you about my recent visit to Rhodesia. I left Salisbury last night having spent over a month touring the country. In the course of this journey I had the opportunity of meeting Rhodesians from all walks of life and of seeing for myself how Rhodesia was coping with sanctions. I am able to report that practically nothing is unobtainable, although some prices have increased since U.D.I. If sanctions are supposed to make the Rhodesians turn against the so-called rebel Government, they have certainly failed, and failed dismally. From the conversations that I had with Rhodesians who were members of the Rhodesian Front, and also with those who were not, I found an almost universal acceptance of Mr. Smith's policy and a readiness to continue the struggle, indefinitely if necessary.
What I found so sad was that many Rhodesians who had emigrated to Rhodesia from Britain during the last ten or twenty years were very bitter about the policy of the British Government; and the present confrontation is certainly turning the hearts of these people away from their natural affection for Britain. Possibly of more significance is the attitude of the young Rhodesians in their late teens. Many of these young people, who were born in Rhodesia, have grown up with the economic war that Britain is waging relentlessly against their country and, naturally, this is causing them to regard Britain as their enemy.
Why, my Lords, have sanctions failed? Quite simply, it is that neither Portugal nor South Africa are prepared to see Rhodesia destroyed; and as long as these two countries maintain their support sanctions will never bring down the present Government in Rhodesia. In my opinion, sanctions have mainly been responsible for bringing together, possibly more strongly than before U.D.I., the large majority of the population in support of Mr. Smith's independent Government. Have sanctions had any success at all? Yes, my Lords, they have, in one respect. But it is not one which I find at all heartening. Sanctions have certainly slowed down the development of the Rhodesian economy, and this has
558
adversely affected the rapidly-increasing African population in that not enough new jobs are available for them. One of the effects of sanctions has been the rapid diversification of the Rhodesian economy. Many products which formerly were imported, mainly from Britain, are now made locally. I sampled some of them and found most of them to be of good quality; although some were mere expensive than the previously imported goods that they replaced. To-day, we are asked to make sanctions tighter. But if sanctions have failed, more sanctions are not the answer. Negotiations should be reopened with Rhodesia and a genuine effort made to avoid the personal vendetta which seems to have marred all previous attempts at a settlement.
In conclusion, my Lords, I feel that I should not sit down without giving you my firm opinion that Rhodesia is not a threat to world peace. I toured the African townships of Harari and High-field near Salisbury, and saw ample signs that the Africans living there were well satisfied with their lot. Their schools, community centres, swimming pools and beer gardens were evidence of extensive Government interest in their welfare, and I saw African housing, ranging from flats for single persons to luxurious houses, even better than many Europeans have. I believe that Africans in Rhodesia are far better off, under the stable Government that is existing there now, than Africans in many of the recently made independent countries to the North where the economies are breaking down and where law and order is tending to become a thing of the past.
4.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, it is extraordinarily interesting to get firsthand, from the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort, the very latest report from Rhodesia. I had some doubt whether to speak in this debate. On the other hand, having been associated with Rhodesia for so many years, and having, as a Minister of State in different Offices, been so largely responsible for decisions which were taken before, during and after the war, I felt that I could not give a silent vote.
I shall be very brief as I always am. The first thing I want to say is this. There have been allegations—not so much in the debate to-day and yesterday, though

559
there have been one or two suggestions—that those of us who oppose sanctions are racialists. I do not believe it to be true at all in any case, but it certainly cannot be said with any truth of me. I was principally responsible for establishing the multiracial university in Salisbury and they did me the honour of naming the first hostel after me. I think that disposes of any suggestion that I am motivated (a horrible word) by any racial feelings. But I have become convinced, completely convinced, that sanctions are wrong for this reason: that experience has shown that the people who are hardest hit by them are the ordinary Africans, whose greatest need is employment.
That employment depends entirely on Rhodesian industry and Rhodesian agriculture. Every time an outlet in Rhodesian trade, industry or agriculture is closed or curtailed, Africans suffer most, and more and more Africans are thrown out of work. This emphasises that sanctions are wrong. But surely sanctions are made more ridiculous, or more impossible, than ever by the situation which is developing in Zambia; a new situation which proves the futility and the mischief of sanctions. My Lords, sanctions were supposed to help Zambia, but Zambia refuses to have anything whatever to do with them. Zambia says that she must trade with Rhodesia; she must have Rhodesian coal; she must have Rhodesian electric power; she must have the use of Rhodesian railways and Rhodesian rolling stock, and, incidentally, she must have the use of the Portuguese railway to ship her copper out by the port of Beira. If Zambia refuses to give any effect to these sanctions and, on the contrary, is going to insist, in her own interest, in trading more and more with Rhodesia, does that not make the sanctions futile and malicious?
My Lords, I promised that I would be brief, but I hope that I have put the case from the African point of view clearly. It is in the interest of the Africans that I shall vote against this measure to-night, and I hope that many of your Lordships, for those reasons, will join me in the Lobby.
4.26 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I shall be very brief indeed. Let me say at the outset that it seems to me that our policy
560
in Rhodesia is in a state of sterile deadlock, and so far as I can see there is no prospect whatever of any solution. Unlike the Government, I am not satisfied that the existing sanctions, or these new extended sanctions, are likely to offer any solution. Unlike the Opposition, I am not persuaded that negotiations now offer any possibility of a tolerable solution, whether based on the Six Principles or the Five Principles or anything like them. I hope I am wrong about that, but that is my present view; I should like to be persuaded otherwise. I am interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, shares my view on that one point.
That, my Lords, is a grim situation; but, however that may be, what we have before us now is this Order and we have to decide what to do about it. I do not know when I found it more difficult to make up my mind. I must confess that I do not like this Order. I think, nevertheless, that it would be a grave mistake for your Lordships' House to reject it. I cannot, therefore, vote with the Opposition against the Order. In coming to this conclusion, I have two considerations in mind. First, whatever one may think of the action of the Government in bringing in the United Nations in the way they have done, a unanimous resolution of the Security Council to which we have given our assent is something which, from the point of view of international relations, ought not to be disregarded. Secondly, I am not persuaded that the Rhodesian issue, which in the form in which it is presented to us to-day is a matter of foreign policy, is a good ground for exercising your Lordships' existing and undoubted power to reject the Order, quite apart from all the constitutional consequences which may ensue.
That being so, my Lords, one's natural inclination would be to abstain from this Division, but with the decision of the Opposition to vote against the Order that no longer seems to me to be sufficient. I have listened with some sympathy, and I hope with due understanding, to the official Opposition case put by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in those grave, measured and moderate tones which are so characteristic of him; but I cannot bring myself to believe that the course which the Opposition have decided upon is the course of wisdom, and

561
so deeply do I feel this that I find myself constrained, doubtful as I am about their policy, to go into the Lobby with the Government. My Lords, let me emphasise that I am speaking for myself alone, and not for any others on these Cross-Benches. We are independent, and each of us makes up his mind in his own way.
4.29 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport, because of the wisdom of the advice which I consider they have given to the House, and I hope that noble Lords are not going to try to salvage their consciences to-night by pleading about the state of unemployment in the African population. There is unemployment for Africans as the result of sanctions: there may be worse unemployment. But against that we have to balance the prospect of freedom and majority rule in the long term; and this is a prospect which ought to weigh very strongly with your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Wade has clearly stated where we stand on the Order itself. We support it, although, like many other noble Lords, we have reservations on certain aspects of the provisions. But this is only one side of the problem. Another aspect, one in which I am involved to some extent, is that which strikes at the fundamentals of the Constitution, though even this is not the main aspect. If there is an adverse Vote to-night, it is likely to distort completely the natural progress towards the reform of this House which we could be so near to achieving. It is no secret that the formal proposal which could be put to your Lordships' House and to another place would provide a workmanlike House for generations to come. I believe that it is the type of proposal which might well commend itself to the vast majority of the people of this country. But if the whole weight of the Conservative Party, animated by its Right Wing, is mobilised in the Division Lobby to defeat the will of the elected representatives of the people, not only will this reform be jeopardised but certain other things must inevitably follow.
First of all, there will be a strong demand from important sections of the
562
Labour Party and the Liberal Party that a sine qua non in any reform shall be the elimination of hereditary Peers from taking part in any of the proceedings of this House. The fact that this is an emotional reaction, the fact that the House would suffer by the immediate elimination of some such hereditary Peers, the fact that some of our hereditary Peers are radicals, and the fact that the weight of Right Wing opinions is not all with hereditary Peers (many of them in the Rhodesia Lobby appear to be Peers of first creation)—all these things would be weighed together and the result on the future of this House is in my view unpredictable.
Secondly, I would say that in the past ten to fifteen years the proponents of a one-Chamber system have been losing ground very fast indeed. I am afraid that if there is an adverse Vote to-night, their arguments will be fortified. I can tell the House one other reaction which is predictable—that is, that in the Liberal and Labour Parties the already strong movement in favour of an elected Second Chamber will gain further ground. To many of us this would not be the proper course to take, because we do not see this House as a rival to the House of Commons. But what the Conservative Party is in danger of doing to-night—and I hope it will not do this—is to revive all the old phobias about the House of Lords and to poison the climate of co-operation which has been established in the past year.
But in the matter of this Rhodesia Order the reform of this House is not the main issue. I have very great sympathy with the position in which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been placed by the mass of supporters who have appeared from somewhere to support him to-night. He and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, are among the most enlightened Members of your Lordships' House on any question, and I have great sympathy with the position in which they find themselves, because they both have ministerial responsibility of a high quality. I would still plead with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, even at this stage, to change the advice which has been given to his own supporters. I do not expect to influence the Rhodesian lobby in this House in any way, but I would appeal to the rest of the Conservative Party, and to any noble Lords on the Cross Benches who might

563
be inclined to oppose this Order, to think seriously before they do so.
The best argument which can be deployed is that an adverse Vote this evening will not really affect Government policy. The Order will still run to July 8, and it can then be re-laid. But the situation will not be seen in that light outside this House, nor will it be seen in that light in international circles abroad. An adverse Vote on this Order will be interpreted as nullifying the Government's ability to prosecute sanctions. It will introduce a strong element of half heartedness into the opposition which other countries should be putting in to the activities of the illegal régime in Salisbury, Rhodesia, and indirectly might well delay even further the prospects of an agreed settlement. I find it no argument to say that what those who oppose the Order are going to do is to hold up the Order for a few weeks to ensure that the public and the Commons have further time to consider it—and no doubt it will be added that, after all, that is something which might well be contemplated if we are to reform your Lordships' House in future. The difference is profound. Under any reformed system the massive reserves of Tory reaction would not be present in this House. They would not have the power to influence or to reject an Order laid by the Government. The case would be won on argument and not on numbers. And this is what I believe will be virtually resented outside this House as irresponsible action on the part of the Conservative Party, if they go into the Division Lobby to vote against this Order.
I would plead with those who want to see a successful evolutionary reform of this House not to jeopardise it by being party to a gesture that will be interpreted as a determination to defy the will of the elected representatives of the people on a matter of foreign policy, a province in which the Government of the day must feel itself to be supreme. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, implored us to think of what we are going to do about the Transport Bill and the Prices and Incomes Bill. These are quite different matters. By all means let us challenge the Government, as we are entitled to do, on a number of the major issues in the Transport Bill and
564
send them back to another place for reconsideration. But no Government of any complexion could ever tolerate a veto by a non-elected Chamber on its decision to implement an important resolution of the United Nations.
The Conservative Party cannot argue that mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia are in order if imposed and enforced by us but are quite illegal it imposed by the United Nations. The United Nations are entitled to determine the existence of any threat to the peace under Article 39 of the Charter. They have decided, rightly or wrongly, that the rebellion of the Rhodesian régime is such a threat. This decision was made with the concurring votes of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom is one. The country is therefore irrevocably committed legally to the decision that the Rhodesian régime is a threat to the peace. Having taken that decision the Security Council are entirely in order, under article 41, in taking measures not involving the use of armed force to give effect to their decision.
The position is, then, that Her Majesty's Government are legally and morally bound to put the resolution into effect. If they are not able to do so because of the action of this House, it will mean that this country is repudiating its solemn obligation to the United Nations, repudiating the Charter of the United Nations which it signed and ratified in 1945. The violation of the Charter of the United Nations is not something which this country should lightly undertake in any circumstances.
It has been argued that this matter should never have gone to the United Nations. I do not agree. This is a matter in which many countries have a direct interest. They are dealing with the civil rights of their own people, with the problems of different races in different countries. This is a matter in which the United Nations have a very proper interest, and I believe that we should be guided by the words which were uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: that this action is going to be watched all round the world and it is of vital consequence. We have to recognise that the United Nations resolution received massive support. That is why I feel sorry when a noble Lord with

565
the experience of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, refers to this as "a miserable squabble" between London and Salisbury. It is not looked upon as a "miserable squabble."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with great deference to the noble Lord, I never said such a thing.
LORD BYERS: I took down the noble Lord's words and I am sure we shall be able to check it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that the noble Lord will read my speech to-morrow.
LORD BYERS: Does the noble Lord think it is a miserable squabble?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I do not; I think it is a very serious matter. But I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
LORD BYERS: I am not asking the noble Marquess to do that. I specifically said that I had no hope of changing the views of people who hold the views of Lord Salisbury. But I must say that to suggest that this is not a matter of important international interest is something which I think should not go without protest. I cannot believe that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is still sticking to the views that he expressed yesterday: that a mandatory resolution is binding on Her Majesty's Government, but not on Her Majesty's Opposition. This I find to be quite untenable. I cannot believe that he put this forward seriously. Hallo, another correction
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord for a moment in the fine flow of his oratory, which I am admiring. I think probably—and I apologise to your Lordships' House—that in the interests of brevity I did unduly telescope my argument on this point yesterday. I should like briefly to explain my position here.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt? Is the noble Earl rising to make a personal statement to explain something? If so, would it not be better (I am sure the House will give him permission to do so) to make it later, rather than making a lengthy intervention
566
during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers?
LORD BYERS: With respect to the noble Earl, perhaps I could complete this argument and then he may correct it. I think it is an important point to get right, because I do not think the noble Earl did justice to himself. When he said first of all that a mandatory resolution is binding on the Government but not on the Opposition, he then went on to say:
"It is for the Government to consider before accepting these obligations whether they will be in a position to honour them."
I want to ask: Does this mean that a British Government, freely elected, with a sizeable majority in the Commons, must always consider in the execution of its foreign policy whether or not it can carry with it the Conservative Right Wing of a non-elected House of Lords?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear Answer
LORD BYERS: I have actually finished that point. But perhaps I should ask the further question: What happens if there is a Conservative Government in power, prepared to negotiate with Rhodesia on the Six Principles, as I hope they might, if they get in? Are they to be at the mercy of their own Rhodesia lobby? Are they to depend on the votes of us and others in order to get their policy through? This is not practical politics; it is not a tenable proposition.
On all these counts I appeal to the House not to oppose this measure. Calm reflection must show that no Government can tolerate such treatment as this from a non-elected House. The resentment which will be felt in many quarters at the interference with the execution of a policy by the Government on a measure which has so much international support cannot, in my view, be measured or predicted. I hope that noble Lords, particularly on this side of the House and on the Cross Benches, will not oppose this Order to-night; and if there is any move by some of them to do so, I hope That others will come into the Government Lobby.
4.44 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends behind me will allow me to survive the praise which has been heaped upon me by the Leader

567
of the Liberal Party. We have had a long debate, and in the course of the last two days we have heard every facet of the case, for and against, put most cogently from both sides of the House. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for me to speak at any great length about the merits of this Order. It seems to me, as I think it does to those of us who sit on this side of the House, that this Order is thoroughly bad; that it marks the bankruptcy of the Government's policy of Rhodesia; that it cannot be effective, and that it will almost certainly have the opposite effect of that intended.
I have never been, and am not now, a supporter of Mr. Smith or his régime; and, indeed. I could well have done without the advice which he has tendered to your Lordships, as reported in the newspapers this evening.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD CARRINGTON: I have made it clear on countless occasions, in this House and outside, that in my view it was most unwise of Mr. Smith to declare unilateral independence; and more recently it was foolish and short-sighted of him to reject the terms which were offered to him by the Prime Minister during the talks on board H.M.S. "Tiger". I certainly do not wish to bring any comfort to Mr. Smith. I hope that noble Lords opposite, who may disagree with a great deal of what I have to say, and, indeed, perhaps with the rest of my remarks, will at any rate acknowledge that what I have said so far is true.
But, my Lords, over the past few months the situation has been changing. Reluctantly we agreed with the official sanctions imposed upon Rhodesia. I, for one, though with considerable misgivings, felt that it would have been difficult for Britain to ignore Mr. Smith's actions and do nothing whatever to mark her disapproval. I do not think I ever felt it was likely that sanctions would bring Rhodesia to her knees, though it is interesting to recall that we were told at the time by the Prime Minister, and indeed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it was only a matter of weeks before the Smith Government would fall as a result of sanctions.
568
Subsequently the Government took the matter to the United Nations and mandatory sanctions were introduced. We are on record as having been opposed to that. We were opposed to it, first, because we felt that once the United Nations stepped into the arena things would go from bad to worse and more and more drastic action would be called for; and secondly, because we felt that sanctions would not be effective, not least because South Africa and Portugal were very likely to ignore the United Nations decisions.
We are now faced with another tightening of sanctions, another resolution of the United Nations. I think it is right that all of us who sit in this House should ask ourselves whether the proposals which are before us this afternoon are likely to do good or to do harm. It has, so far, been abundantly clear that, though sanctions may have weakened the Rhodesian economy, they have by no means brought her to her knees. Quite regardless of whether this is the right thing to aim at, it does not seem capable of achieving anything. The very fact that South Africa and Portugal are still openly trading with Rhodesia makes that a foregone conclusion. And all of us know from references we have seen in the papers, from the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort, this afternoon, and from others who have visited Rhodesia and South Africa, that large quantities of goods are coming into Rhodesia from countries which, though nominally adhering to the United Nations resolutions, are, of course, doing nothing of the kind.
Unless the United Nations takes action against South Africa and Portugal, then sanctions cannot succeed. As I understand it (and I am glad to hear it) it is certainly not the intention of the Government to do that—though by what logical basis you do the one and not the other, I cannot for the life of me understand. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose speech I listened to with great attention this afternoon, might ask himself, also, the question: If Rhodesia is a threat to world peace, though not a physical one, why then is exactly the same action not taken against the Republic of South Africa?
At the same time, I could think of some very good economic reasons why

569
you should do none of these things. The tightening up of sanctions proposed in this Order will, I have no doubt, have no more effect, or little more effect, than the previous mandatory sanctions, and if it has any effect it will be, I think, only to strengthen the resolve of the Rhodesians to hold out against the attempt to starve them into submission.
In the Statement which the Government made in Parliament just before the Whitsun Recess which announced their support for the United Nations resolution, we were told, in answer to a question I put, that a part of the resolution urged the members of the United Nations to give material assistance to the Africans in Rhodesia—the opposition to Mr. Smith. I must say, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said this afternoon, that I find it almost unbelievable that the Government should have put their seal on such a statement. While no doubt it is true—and I accept it at once—that they did not have any intention of encouraging subversion and terrorism and aid to the terrorists by accepting this proposal, it cannot surely have escaped their attention that the language used in that section of the resolution would almost certainly encourage the more extreme members of the United Nations to do just that, and to use an excuse for doing so the resolution which was adopted by the United Nations. I think that the words used by the Ambassador to Guinea bear out some of the misgivings that we on this side have. The Government, in my view, are culpable for having accepted those words, and since the Orders which we are discussing this afternoon are an expression of that resolution I must put it on record that we on this side dissociate ourselves from the Government and from the dangerous words to which they have put this country's signature.
Apart from the tightening up of sanctions generally, the main effect of this Order will be to prevent travel by Rhodesians to this country and to countries which are administered by Britain unless they travel on a British passport. I really do not understand the purpose of this. It seems to me mean and spiteful, but it is surely also a counter-productive a proposal as it would be possible to devise. One of the most obvious ways of bringing pressure to bear on
570
people with whom you disagree is by talking to them—all of us have been doing that for the last two days in this House—and by letting them see and hear at first hand the reactions of other people in other countries. And if as a Rhodesian you are forced to sit in your own country, or perhaps just to go to South Africa, is it very likely that you will hear the other side of the case, the case for moderation and the case for a settlement?
Surely, the more the people are isolated, the more they are cut off from world opinion, the more they are made to feel that they have been made outcasts, the more likely they are to become intransigent, resentful and obstinate. One has only to look at the history of the last two or three decades to see what happens to a country which is cut off from contact with the outside world: to take only one example, Russia in the days of Stalin and the transformation which has taken place since then. Free travel and free interchange of ideas is perhaps the most useful way to change people's opinions. Therefore, I must say that, of all the measures against Rhodesia which I have heard proposed, this to me is quite the silliest.
In any event, in my view sanctions will not work. We know that there are some countries which will not carry cut the United Nations' resolution, and we do not believe that the policy will be effective. I believe that there still is a chance of a settlement with Rhodesia. When Sir Alec Douglas-Home was there a few months ago he came back with a very definite hope and belief that even at this stage a settlement was possible, and a settlement to which we could all honourably agree. And as we heard yesterday, both from Sir Alec in another place and from my noble friend, he still takes that view, and I certainly, knowing Sir Alee as I do and as so many of your Lordships do, would feel that, if he thinks that, it is certainly right to have another shot at negotiation. Because, my Lords, do we really wish by our actions to push Rhodesia into the arms of South Africa and apartheid, to form an African white bloc, with all the attendant dangers for world peace which such a move might bring? I beg noble Lords opposite to think again and have another try at reaching a settlement, for I am certain

571
that it is only by settlement that a solution to this problem can be found.
My Lords, if those of us who sit on this side of the House had only to think of the merits of this Order we should not have taken long in making up our minds as to what to do. Our colleagues in the House of Commons had no such difficulty. But because of the composition of your Lordships' House it is likely, if all the Conservative Peers decide to vote in a particular way, that they will defeat the Government. So all of us have to consider a situation complicated by this factor. It is a situation which we have lived with from 1945 to 1951, and from 1964 until the present time. It has always been the case that if the Conservative Party in the House of Lords has taken a different view from that taken by the Labour majority in the House of Commons, there has immediately been an outcry in the Labour Party and in the Press about hereditary Peers, about the unelected Second Chamber—
LORD SHEPHERD: And the backwoodsmen.
LORD CARRINGTON: —and about the backwoodsmen; and it would interest the noble Lord to know that I was looking round the House earlier to-day and there is not one Peer on the Benches behind me whom I do not know by name.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh
LORD CARRINGTON: The influx of Life Peers has been such that we cannot now sit on that side of the House. As a matter of fact, in looking round, it occurs to me that perhaps I was wrong in saying that there were no backwoodsmen—as I look at the Bishops' Benches.
My Lords, this reaction to any action by your Lordships is not unexpected. The outpourings of Mr. William Hamilton, for example, are as predictable and as regular and as numerous as the tides of the North Sea. Usually these speeches and articles have been accompanied by threats about the abolition of the House of Lords and of the hereditary system and, more recently, of the abandonment of plans for agreed House of Lords reform. I must say, in passing, that I very much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been one of those who made a speech of that character
572
over the week-end. It might not perhaps be inapt to remind the Chancellor that the House of Lords is not "Mr. Jenkins' poodle".
My Lords, threats do not get anybody anywhere. In any event, in spite of the threats, we have on occasions made known our views, afforded a period of delay for reflection, and we have believed that that has been our duty. But after the matter has been discussed again by the House of Commons, and passed there once again, we have given way to the elected Chamber. We have—and it is absolutely true what noble Lords opposite have said—on no occasion taken the course of rejecting an Order, because as your Lordships know, owing to an anomaly, a rather curious one, which was left unamended in the Labour Government's Parliament Act 1949, Orders do not come under the provisions of that Act. Nevertheless, even on Orders we have on occasions made it absolutely clear what our attitude is; and I can think of one occasion, not so long ago, when the Government, partly at any rate for this reason, decided on a completely different course of action rather than continue with an Order in this House.
My Lords, on this occasion we are faced with a very difficult situation, but not, I think, quite so difficult as I made out in the speech I made in December, 1965, which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack very fairly quoted yesterday. If the House decided to vote against this Order the effect would be this. The Order would remain in force until July 8, when it would be possible, if the Government so wished, to re-lay it; and during the meantime the Order would remain in operation, so that there would be no question of the Order lapsing, unless the Government decided not to re-lay it. I must say that I think that at some later stage we ought to discuss the rather curious position which seems to have emerged from this investigation, which is that, quite regardless of what either House of Parliament does, it appears that the Executive can, if it re-lays an Order time and time again, follow a policy which has been rejected by Parliament. In my opinion, quite apart from the constitutional position of the House of Lords, this is something which we ought to investigate at another date.

573
I want now, if I may, to be very careful in what I say, but I think I must go as far as this: I find it inconceivable to imagine that in any reformed House of Lords which, as your Lordships know, has been the subject of discussion over the last few months, there would be no provision for the House of Lords (or the second Chamber) when seriously troubled on a matter of principle to reject a Statutory Instrument and to enable the Government to have time for reflection and the opportunity for another debate in the House of Commons. Certainly none of us who sit on these Benches would agree that a reformed House should have no say whatever and should not have a constitutional right to record its opinion on these matters. Therefore it would seem to me that if we took the course which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe outlined yesterday we should be doing precisely that.
The fact that under the present system we could throw the Order out again and again is perfectly true, and I will come to that a little later, if I may. Those of us who feel that these mandatory sanctions are likely to be wholly counter-productive and to have the Opposite effect to that which almost all of us in this House want, are placed in a great dilemma. A number of powerful arguments have been advanced on the other side of the House as to why we should not vote.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made a point in his speech of the effect of such a vote on the discussion on the reform of your Lordships' House. I am one of those who, quite openly and for a great many years, has said that I wish to see the reform of this House. If I may say so without offence, I have probably been saying that a great deal longer than most of your Lordships. One of the reasons why I want to see a reform of its composition is that however wise and sensible may be the decisions which your Lordships take, they are always weakened by the attack made on the membership of this House by members of the Labour Party and others, and I cannot and do not try to justify the presence of a permanent majority for any one Party in one of our two Houses of Parliament.
I am as keen as anyone to see that reform should take place but, my Lords,
574
what sort of people should we be—what sort of a person should I be—if, because of my wish to see a reformed House, I trimmed my sails on every issue which I regarded as being of major importance? I think that people outside would be justified in saying that a body composed of people like that is not worthy of reform or of perpetuation as a Second Chamber. If I may I would point out to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor—and I do not think I need to—that it is certainly my belief that what we have been doing in the inter-Party conference is to devise a Second Chamber which all of us believe to be the one most suited to our needs, one which can be defended both in composition and in powers. I certainly do not believe in that more or less, because of the actions which noble Lords opposite may take from time to time; nor, I think, should they be deterred from what they believe to be the right solution by actions which we take from time to time. We are not dealing at this moment with a reformed House of Lords; we are dealing with the Constitution and the House as it now is, and I very much hope that the members of the Government will continue to strive for the best solution for the House of Lords and not decide to take unilateral action. I am sorry if the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, finds that very funny. I was trying to make a serious argument.
The second reason which noble Lords opposite have adduced, and notably the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, against our voting on this issue has been that of the international obligations of the Government. My Lords, I concede at once that this is a factor of the greatest importance. The Government have accepted the resolution by the Security Council and there is no denying that. But it seems to me there is another side to this argument. The Government have accepted a resolution at the United Nations. In order for that resolution to be implemented it is necessary for legislation to be introduced and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Is it really argued that both, or either, House of Parliament is debarred from expressing its opinion on the merits of the course which the Government have taken? If so, what is the purpose of the Affirmative Resolution procedure? Is it really argued that both Houses, because of the commitment by

575
the Government, are powerless to reject that legislation? What would happen, for example, if both Houses did reject such an Order? I am no lawyer, as your Lordships know, and the last thing I want to do is to tangle with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or indeed with my noble friend Lord Conesford, on a matter of law, and particularly on a subject as complicated as this, but to me, as a simple man who was brought up to believe that Parliament is sovereign, I cannot conceive of a situation in which the ultimate control of British foreign policy passes out of the hands of Parliament into the hands of the United Nations—
LORD BYERS: May I—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to go on. Nevertheless, having said that, I concede that this complicates the issue and increases the dilemma of noble Lords on this side. The Government have international obligations and it is something which would certainly weigh heavily with me if, on a subsequent occasion, we had to debate this Order again. But are we, as a House, not even to record our opinion? Are we not to perform the function of a Second Chamber, or at any rate to advise our followers to perform that function?
By voting against this Order, it seems to me, we should be doing a number of things, all of them perfectly and absolutely consistent with the duties of a Second Chamber. First of all, if the House were to reject this Order (and there may be some on this side of the House who do not agree with what I am saying), we should be putting on record that the majority of the House, composed as it now is—and it is, after all, this House that we have to deal with—believe that the Government's policy with regard to Rhodesia is wrong and calculated to lead to disaster for black and white alike in Rhodesia; and by doing that we should be asking the Government to consider the powerful arguments which have been adduced from this side of the House this afternoon, and to reflect upon them.
We should also be allowing time for public opinion to make itself felt. I do
576
not know what public opinion is about Rhodesia. I, too, saw the results of the Gallup Poll in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I was surprised, because certainly the cross-section of people I meet do not seem to hold those views at all. I have no idea what public opinion is, and I do not suppose the Government have; but at any rate such action on the part of your Lordships would enable people to express their views; it would enable newspapers to air their views; it would enable letters to be written to Members of Parliament, and all the other accepted ways of forming public opinion.
Thirdly, if the Government decided, in spite of the advice which we had given them, to re-lay the Order, we should be giving the Commons another opportunity to debate it in the light of what has been said in this House by some eminent people who have first-hand knowledge of Rhodesia. I have always thought that this was the proper function of a Second Chamber. If, as may be the case, it is quite clear that the people of this country are either in favour of the Government's policy or not interested, or are uncertain; or if it is reflected in another Vote by the elected Chamber, then, so far as I am concerned, I do not think your Lordships should persist any further. You will have performed your proper constitutional function. But what I cannot accept is that we who sit in this House have not a right—not just a legal right, but not a right—and indeed almost a duty on occasions of this kind to do what we think is right, to take what we believe is the proper course, a proper course that Members of a Second Chamber should take.
A great deal has been written in the past few days about a constitutional crisis, and if I may say so, I think that a good deal of it has been greatly exaggerated. If the sort of action which I have outlined is going to bring about a constitutional crisis, then I really do not see what the value of a Second Chamber is. I do not think that I would care to sit in a House, in a place which has no power of any kind, which cannot even record its opinion, and which is just a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. So the course that I am going to take—and I take it with a deep sense of responsibility—is to record my conviction that the Government's policy on Rhodesia is wrong, not in support of Mr. Smith or

577
any faction in support of Mr. Smith, not to sabotage anything, but because I believe the Government's policy on this to be entirely and absolutely wrong. I believe that the only chance of peace is a settlement by negotiation, and I believe that the Government should think again about the course that they are pursuing. They should listen to what people are saying. But if in their wisdom the Government decide to reintroduce the Order and it is passed again by the Commons, the factors which I have outlined in my speech would certainly weigh very heavily with me in any further advice I was bold enough to give to your Lordships. In the meantime, I shall do what I believe to be my constitutional duty.
5.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to waste the time of the House by making the usual sort of winding-up speech and paying the usual compliments, but there are two speeches to which I should like to refer. I am sure the whole House would wish me to refer to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Poltimore. I think that as our newest, if not youngest, Member he managed in a most admirable way to convey both the strength of his feeling and the depth of his knowledge, without in any way offending the proprieties or causing anything other than pleasure to us all.
I would also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has managed to put forward his views no fewer than three times in the last 24 hours; first of all in The Times, where he rode the whirlwind—I am rather doubtful now whether he is really riding it; secondly, last night on television, and thirdly in his speech to-day.
When I listened to all yesterday's debate, I must admit that I was frankly appalled by the way in which the debate had developed. To-day, I think, we have hit rather higher standards, and indeed noble Lords have been deliberately and consciously restrained and moderate in their remarks. This debate is taking place not just in terms of the interests of this House or of this country but in terms of the world. There is an agonising drama—and we all agree about this—prolonged, and perhaps, so far as our life-
578
time is concerned, of unpredictable duration, which is unfolding in Africa, and running as a sinister theme throughout all our discussions has been the question of race.
It is not just the fate of 200,000 white Rhodesians or 4 million Africans in Rhodesia that is at stake to-day; it is, indeed, the survival of multiracial policies. And those multiracial policies—despite some remarks from noble Lords which suggested to me that although they would deny that they were racial in instinct indicated a lack of understanding—are still being fought for by men, white and coloured—men like Kenneth Kaunda and Jomo Kenyatta, in the face of actions and in the presence of remarks at times of such provocative-ness that one must despair of the prospect that white and coloured can live together in peace in this world. I of course acquit noble Lords, certainly noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, from this sort of prejudice, but I was distressed by the speeches of certain noble Lords, distressed as much by the obvious sincerity with which they spoke—that unfortunate reference to ju-ju men, the sort of suggestion that for many years to come the white man has still got to rule.
Then, too, there was the attitude to the United Nations. "A bit of a giggle", the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, called it. He made a point even of repeating it, and boasting of the fact that he was a Life Peer. I find this sort of attitude so irresponsible that I am surprised to find the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and it may be that he now regrets it—suggesting that a mandatory resolution (and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to it) of the United Nations is binding on Her Majesty's Government but not on Her Majesty's Opposition. It is Britain on whom the resolution is binding. We cannot have two foreign policies both running at the same time. I had the feeling that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, wished at one time to correct this impression, and if he did I will gladly give way.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I did indeed. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, had asked me a question about this, and I was about to give a reply when the noble Lord intervened. But I think I can say quite straightly to

579
him that the constitutional position on this, and how we regard it, has been put by my noble friend Lord Carrington. I entirely agree with what he has said on this point regarding the Opposition's responsibility.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can scarcely believe what the noble Lord is saying. He went on to say that it is for Her Majesty's Government to consider, before they incur an international obligation, whether they will be in a position to honour it. In this context this can mean only that they cannot enter into arrangements in the conduct of foreign affairs except by the leave of the Conservative majority in an unreformed House of Lords. I cannot see what else it can mean.
Of course, the Government of the day has to carry Parliament with it; and this means in another place. Traditionally she Government of the day stands or falls in the House of Commons. It does not stand or fall in your Lordships' House. It is, I think, part of the difficulty that noble Lords opposite have got themselves into. They are having to erect an ingenious and unconvincing case for an action which many of them wish they were not taking to-day.
Let me now try to establish certain matters on which there is agreement, at least, so far as the Front Bench on the other side is concerned. We are all agreed that the objective must be to end the rebellion, and we agree that we should seek to negotiate an honourable settlement in accordance with the Six Principles. It is, I think, also agreed—certainly it was in the past; though I am not quite sure whether this is the view of the Conservative Party now—that economic sanctions should be used to persuade the régime to negotiate a settlement within this context. We are agreed, for reasons which have been fully spelled out, that force should not be used. We are also agreed that this is primarily a British responsibility; that we should seek to avoid a confrontation with South Africa, that the position of Zambia should be protected and that they should not be forced to commit suicide.
The Opposition apparently seek to distinguish between sanctions imposed unilaterally by this country and sanctions
580
imposed, for the most part on other nations, by the Security Council. Some noble Lords (this suggestion may be unworthy, but it seems so obvious that we cannot but make it) feel that the real distinction should be between effective and ineffective sanctions. We have had arguments as to whether sanctions are punitive, whether they are some kind of petty revenge—I am sure the noble Lord Lord, Lord Carrington, would not accuse the Government of that.
My Lords, the purpose of sanctions is of course to establish beyond doubt that the illegal régime, with all its talk of a nine-days' wonder, cannot hope to build up a prosperous Rhodesia unless it returns to legality. Inevitably, the effect of sanctions falls on the guilty and the innocent alike, Africans and loyal Europeans. But what would noble Lords have? The only alternatives are force in the short run, or, as I sincerely believe, force in the long run against a beleaguered society, by guerillas and freedom fighters constantly harassing the unhappy people who will live in those conditions. I do not think there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken regularly in these debates who has not condemned U.D.I. and the actions of the Smith régime. Yet this is the moment when they want to call the whole thing off. For that can be the only meaning of a vote against this Order to-day.
The whole object of our policy in Rhodesia is to achieve an honourable settlement. The principles on which it should be based are those which were worked out by the previous Administration, and were agreed to by both sides of the House. So far as sanctions are concerned, we have never looked on them as an end in themselves. We are not trying to punish Rhodesia, still less to ruin her economy and seek to destroy the livelihood of the people who live there. Right from the start our aim has been to use sanctions in order to convince those who have taken power in Rhodesia that the best hope for their country and for their own wellbeing lies in a settlement based on the principles I have already referred to.
I should like to refer in a moment to the interesting speech of the noble Lord. Lord Alport. He certainly did not suggest this, but some noble Lords have argued that sanctions are a farce. This is

581
not the view of those in Rhodesia who are engaged in business there. In recent public statements they have made this very clear indeed. As recently as yesterday, I had discussions with a leading loyal Rhodesian citizen as to just how anxious they are about the effect of the further development in sanctions. What the Government seek, and what is the purpose of sanctions, is that Rhodesian prosperity can be built only on a genuine acceptance (I use those words carefully) of the rights of the majority. Sanctions are there to bring this home to those concerned. It does not make sense to argue that this would be better done if we did it alone, without the co-operation of the international trading community secured by the United Nations resolution.
We already know that, except in one important respect (which I acknowledge and to which the noble Lord referred), this Order adds little to the sanctions that are already in force. What it does is to implement the resolutions which impose them with greater force on other countries. Economic sanctions can be successful only if we have a greater degree of international co-operation; and in practice this means mandatory decisions of the Security Council. As my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack said, it is strange that noble Lords opposite, who have so often pointed to the loss of British trade, should now oppose a measure which would seek to ensure that other countries did not pick it up.
Before I leave the question of sanctions let me say one more thing. Noble Lords opposite have not made as much use of the kith and kin argument as we have heard on previous occasions. Let us also remember—I think it is important that they should know that we are aware of it—that a considerable number of loyal white Rhodesians, headed by the Governor, detest the illegal Government and all that it stands for; but they still look for a settlement, and they have accepted the Six Principles. We regret that the action we are going to take will be painful, and possibly arduous, for them, as it will be for the 4 million Africans. But it is for their joint future that we are having to take this action.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, put the view that there was now no chance of successful negotiations with the régime,
582
and he argued that the time had come when the Governor should be allowed to retire gracefully to the country. I fully acknowledge the noble Lord's deep knowledge of this problem, and his sincere sympathy with the Governor and those who are standing up for what is right. But our views on these two points are not the same as his. We still hope—and I stress this to noble Lords—that negotiations can be held, and we attach the highest value to the Governor's admirable readiness to stick to his views. In short, the views expressed by a e noble Lord, Lord Alport, are quite different from those of the British Government, and I can assure the House that the Governor himself is far from sharing them.
There was one other point made by the noble Lord, about the residual mission in Salisbury. I think it is relevant that during the discussions at the Security Council it was accepted by all concerned that if we were to be able to discharge our responsibilities in respect of Rhodesia we should need to retain the office we have in Salisbury. This was accepted in New York, and it is the view of the British Government. It is one of the things that Lord Caradon managed to get in the discussions at the United Nations. I do not wish to take up much time, but some of these points need to be emphasised. It does not seem to be appreciated by certain noble Lords (I have in mind particularly the question of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton) that Her Majesty's Government are still anxious to get a settlement by negotiation. In particular, Lord Lytton asked whether the British Government would be prevented from negotiating with the illegal régime as a result of the United Nations resolution, and would not be able to grant independence before majority rule.
The answers are, first, that the resolutions of the General Assembly, unlike the mandatory resolutions of the Security Council, are not binding on Member Governments. Secondly, Her Majesty's Government have announced that they would not commend to Parliament independence for Rhodesia before majority rule. That remains our position. But noble Lords will recall that the Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen have repeatedly made it clear that if there were a substantial change in

583
circumstances in Rhodesia this question could be looked at again.
As regards holding discussions with the régime, I would remind the House that the Prime Minister and other spokesmen have repeatedly emphasised that the Government are anxious to reach an honourable settlement. The Governor is authorised, as the Prime Minister said recently, to pursue any meaningful development which satisfies the Principles and the necessary requirements of trust. If and when at any time, soon or late, he should so report, that will be the time for decision.
Now the position of Mr. Smith, as we see it, is subject to three conflicting influences. In the first place, while he does not himself regard majority rule—and my noble and learned friend made this clear—within the foreseeable future as a desirable goal for Rhodesia, I think he begins to realise that no settlement may be possible on any other basis, and that without a settlement Rhodesia cannot hope to prosper. He has said, and clearly he is right, that for this reason it might be necessary to agree on a settlement that would involve unimpeded progress to majority rule. What he has not been prepared to do is to agree to measures which would, in fact, provide this unimpeded progress. These are two of the three conflicting influences I mentioned. The third is the policy of the Right-wing extremists inside the Rhodesian Front and outside it, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be able to understand what that means. They see the future in terms of unrelieved white domination, possibly disguised with theoretical doctrines of apartheid. Mr. Smith is also sensitive to their pressures.
The House will have seen a report in to-day's Evening Standard that Mr. Smith has said in an interview that he pleads with Peers to vote against the new sanctions Order to-day. My Lords, it is surprising that noble Lords complain about my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and make no complaint—although the noble Lord said with great skill, "Of course we would ignore him", but other Lords have hardly mentioned it—
LORD CARRINGTON: What I said was that I should be very glad to be without Mr. Smith's advice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I say something? I am regarded as an extremist of the Right Wing, and I very much regret what Mr. Smith has said.
LORD SHACKLETON: Of course noble Lords regret it. It is deeply embarrassing for them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think that is quite fair of the noble Lord. I regret it because it is a great mistake for anyone outside to try to influence what we do in this House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, noble Lords talked about "Mr. Jenkins's poodle". Nobody, I think, would suggest that the House of Lords is "Mr. Smith's poodle." Indeed, noble Lords have done their best to meet an embarrassing situation. But I am leading to another point: that is, that if noble Lords are influenced—and I am sure it was counter-productive—to answer that appeal, then irrespective of what is done later to remedy the situation over the Order their action this afternoon would have the effect of weakening the incentive for Mr. Smith to come to a just and honourable settlement, and it would strengthen the influence of those who urge him to reject all thought of a settlement and to follow their own extremist policies. Rejection of this Order—and I say this with complete and absolute belief; this is my view—with the resulting polarisation of the whole situation, would greatly damage the prospects of the Governor's being able to report, as indicated in the reference I made to what the Prime Minister said on March 27, that there were developments which he could pursue and which satisfied our agreed principles and the necessary requirement of trust.
My Lords, we are in a difficulty with regard to the knowledge that Sir Alec Douglas-Home has, because the House does not know what was said, but it is the opinion of my right honourable friends who have studied the proposals—and if we are to believe Sir Alec Douglas-Home I think it is right that we should believe my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary—that these proposals still lack the essential requirement of the blocking quarter and the guarantee towards unimpeded progress towards majority rule. When that is

585
forthcoming—and I stress this—the Government will be ready to seek an honourable settlement.
Let me turn now to what has been called the "Constitutional issue", which has rather clouded and complicated our discussions. Noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, should not grumble, and I am sure they do not, when Members in another place and elsewhere refer to the "Constitutional issue", because, of course, they were the first people to mention it. They gave as their reason on previous occasions why your Lordships' House should not vote against Orders that it would be unwise because there would be a constitutional crisis. I am being very sparing in my quotations because I know how embarrassing it must be for the two noble Lords opposite, but the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said:
"if your Lordships were to reject the Order the Government could always reintroduce it. But I do not see how that advances his argument.
Surely then my noble friend, and those who feel like him, would again move to reject the new Order. I cannot believe the 'Constitutional issue' can be dodged in this way so I must ask my noble friends, do they now really wish to precipitate that constitutional crisis?"
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, his own question, because that is precisely what he has done. They have, in fact, unleased a whirlwind, the whirlwind which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was riding so skilfully in The Times—and I pay tribute to the way he has always managed to ride the whirlwind; we know the job of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition in this House is not the easiest one in the world. He has lost control of the situation, and I want to emphasise the consequences, since some noble Lords seem to have failed to appreciate what they will be doing to-day. They have said that they must do their duty and vote as they think fit. Of course they must; and they must also have regard to the consequences of their actions and the interpretations that will be put on them, and I should like to spell them out.
I hope we can forget all this talk about threats and bribes. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, made fun of them. I wish the constitutional issue had not come up.
586
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I am appalled that it has now arisen at this particular moment. The noble Lord has attempted to rationalise what the Opposition are now doing. He is saying that they are giving the Commons an opportunity to think again. In relation to an Order he is propounding a novel constitutional principle. It may be familiar to him, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and others who have been having discussions on this matter, but it is certainly not known as a proposition outside. Furthermore, it was linked only to a greatly changed composition.
Last night the House of Commons passed this Order by a large majority. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party voted for the Order. Noble Lords know that the Government cannot think again on this issue. This represents a crucial issue, and indeed it would become an issue of confidence. Some Members may feel that in this tight little island we can opt out of world opinion, we can ignore the unanimous vote of the Security Council. My Lords, we heard yesterday from a former Minister of State for the Colonies, Lord Perth, who begged the House of Lords to support this Order. Some of us remember his father when he was a well known and distinguished Secretary of the League of Nations. My noble friends Lord Rowley and Lord Henderson (whose father, Mr. Arthur Henderson, was such a great supporter of the League of Nations) will appreciate the vital need, imperfect though the United Nations may be, to continue to support it. Do the Opposition really want us now to back down? Do they think that the House of Lords should have been consulted before Lord Caradon pulled off a remarkable diplomatic success at the United Nations? Noble Lords have totally failed to mention this matter, and I am sorry that there has not been a word of praise from noble Lords for what Lord Caradon achieved
There is a further implication in what noble Lords are doing to-day—and I believe this to be a serious matter. The House of Lords has survived by its ability at moments of crisis to accept realities. When, long ago, it did not do so, it paid a heavy price. When the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister he was a wiser man than certain noble Lords before the First World War. Noble

587
Lords have said that it is right to throw out this Order, and have discussed lightly the meaning of this act, suggesting that they must in fact just vote according to their consciences. I do not know why in the last fifty years—there may not have been many Orders fifty years ago—they have never found an occasion on which their consciences troubled them on a particular Order, but they have argued, in effect, that, although they have never rejected an Order in this House, it is right to do so on this occasion.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, it happens to be a fact that I secured the rejection of an Order in 1937.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord achieved the withdrawal of an Order.
LORD SALTOUN: I had the whole House with me.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there is a great difference. Indeed, there have been references to Stansted. The great difference between Stansted and this Order is that by discussion and debate on a Resolution, and not on a Motion to reject the Order, this House, and notably the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, exercised the sort of influence which was right and proper; and the Government thought again. But today they are giving the Government no chance. They are saying, "Reject the Order". Until 1909, the House of Lords never rejected a Finance Bill or a Budget. There must have been many Finance Bills that they did not like. I cannot believe that they liked some of Lord Harcourt's proposals. But suddenly, in 1909, such was their hatred of the Liberal Government, such was their conviction of its unpopularity in the country, that they broke with their own precedent to which they had firmly stuck until that moment, and threw out the Finance Bill. This country was then thrown into years of bitter constitutional controversy.
What the Opposition are proposing to-day will be a breach of self-imposed principle. They propose to reject an Order where public opinion has been given a full opportunity to impress itself on the Government—when there have been considerable discussions over years on this subject; when in fact, public
588
opinion polls support the Government; when the whole of the responsible Press advise the Conservative Party not to vote against this Order. For not just The Times, and the Guardian, but the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Mirror, are all advising noble Lords not to vote against the Order.
This is not a simple matter. It is no use noble Lords' coming along now and saying, "All we are going to do is to ask another place to think again". Nor am I so certain about the consequence of the defeat of this Order. I cannot at this moment say whether this Order in fact can be laid again in the present form. There are legal difficulties. The fact that the Government undoubtedly will have to persist with their policy does not alter the consequences which can be at least technically difficult. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who is wise in these matters, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would regard it not quite as simply as some noble Lords opposite think.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, since this is a very important point? Is the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, saying that an Order cannot be relaid in another place giving effect to exactly the same provisions as this Order?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the technical point, I am not expert enough to know what the precise consequence is. As I understand it, this Order has immediately cancelled existing provisions under older Orders. Furthermore, I understand that it may be necessary to have a new type of Order. It is not just a question of relaying the Order. It may undoubtedly be a similar Order, but we shall be taking a serious and definite step.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that this is very important, and I would ask the noble Lord if he would clear it up. Is he saying that it will not be possible for the Government to lay an Order which gives effect to the same provisions as this Order? This really is a very important point.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not saying that. I am saying that it

589
will not be possible to relay this Order; it may be necessary to lay a different Order. I fully acknowledge this. But the consequences are quite considerable.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to me would he give way? Is not the position that if this Vote against the Order is carried to-night, the Order will cease to be effective after 28 days? It does not lapse immediately. At the end of those 28 days, another Order in precisely similar terms can be laid. It will not be the same document; but another Order in similar terms can be laid, and that can be brought into force under the same Act, just as this one has been.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is asking us to continue to administer an Order which one House of Parliament, unrepresentative though it may be, has refused to approve. The Government, clearly, are going to have to consider the implications of that. It is certainly true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, that at the end of the period it will be possible for the Government to lay a similar Order, but it will not be the same Order in certain quite important respects. Certain consequences have already been noted. All I can say to noble Lords is that they are presenting us with a complicated and difficult situation on which I cannot give a definite answer to-day, and on which I should have thought that, before they sought to defeat the Order, they would themselves have found out the consequences.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think that it was in 1937 that I moved the rejection of an Order of the Scottish Office. The Order was withdrawn by the Government, and after consideration it was relaid later.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is being a little less than fair. Certainly my understanding, and the understanding of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, is that an exactly similar Order, though perhaps with a few different words, can be laid. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with all the advice of the constitutional lawyers behind him,
590
says that that is not so, then so far as I am concerned that makes a very great deal of difference to the action I should take.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord seems terribly worried I about the possibility of not relaying exactly the same Order so that your Lordships can pass it.
LORD CARRINGTON: No.
LORD SHACKLETON: I wonder why the noble Lord bothers to vote it down.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very unfair and rather evasive about this. I made a very long speech in which I made my position absolutely clear, and in which I said that, if a certain number of things happened, I would not advise noble Lords who sit on this side to persist in their opposition to the Order if it was relaid. It the noble Lord is now saying that it is not possible to lay an Order with the same provisions as this one, that alters my argument. The best advice that I can get from my noble friend Lord Dilhorne and others is that one can lay exactly the same Order, except for a few words. If the noble Lord is saying that that is not so—and I ask him a direct question—that alters the position.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can only repeat again that I cannot myself attempt to answer for all the legal consequences of the action to-day.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh
LORD SHACKLETON: Noble Lords are seeking to annul this Order. I certainly do not want to mislead the noble Lord, and I will be absolutely fair with him. It is my opinion that it will be possible—indeed, my advice is that it will be possible—to lay, if not the same Order (in fact, in some respects it may be quite significantly different) an Order which gives the same effect as this. I must in fairness say this to the noble Lord, because I should not wish him to be deceived and I should not wish to give him a misleading excuse for not voting against this Order. What I was saying was that the consequences ale of a kind which we shall have to think about very carefully. I hope that I have not misled the noble Lord.

591
I am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but your Lordships have still not rejected this Order—and I hope that you will not do so—and it is really not possible for the Government to decide in advance what their actions are going to be on something which is of such a unique and extraordinary nature. Orders vary—the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred to Orders being relaid. It depends. There is a vast variety of different types of Order, and I should hope not to get drawn any further. I have said that what the Opposition are proposing to-day will be a breach of a self-imposed principle, but when I say that the consequences are unforeseeable I beg noble Lords not to consider that as a threat. It is a simple statement of the effects and of the enormity of the steps they are proposing to take.
I have spoken at such length that I shall not have time to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Halifax—I mean the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The contrast between the two is so strikingly obvious that it was my intention to draw your Lordships' attention to a famous debate in 1947, to which my noble friend Lord Shepherd has already referred when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury (Lord Cranborne, as he then was), and the Conservative majority in this House were dissuaded by the late Lord Halifax from voting, not on an Order but on a Resolution condemning the policy of the Government in India. On that occasion the noble Marquess and other noble Lords heeded that request. I am sorry that there is no Lord Halifax here to-day. I do not know whether we shall cast the noble Earl, Lord Perth, or the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for that role. But I say to noble Lords that it would have been perfectly possible for them to have moved a Resolution and voted on it, without taking this unprecedented step.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that we asked in this House, before this matter was discussed by the United Nations, whether we could have a debate here, and it was refused by the Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Marquess is making a totally untrue statement. It was never refused, and he knows it is not possible to refuse
592
a debate in your Lordships' House. Any noble Lord can put down a Motion. It may be that his noble friends on the Conservative Front Bench were unwilling to have a debate, but it is really not fair to say that a debate was refused.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord? I think the question is a fair one, and the noble Lord will not hesitate to give his answer. If he says that it is wholly improper for us to vote in the way that we have been advised to vote, why did the Government put in their 1965 Act the power to do so? Why did they not say that the confirmation should be by the Commons House of Parliament?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord raised that point last night, and I really did not think it worth answering. He referred to the Industrial Expansion Act, and the reason why that was confined to the Commons was that orders made under that Act will be concerned primarily with financial matters. There is that custom, but, if I may say so, I and former Leaders of your Lordships' House have, perhaps wrongly, continually been jealous to ensure that we had that right. But the Government have always assumed, as have previous Governments, that the House of Lords would not reject an Order, and this is what they are proposing to do to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must say one word. I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has accused me of telling an untruth. If I have, I apologise and I withdraw it, but I believe the occasion to have been in a supplementary answer to a Question. I hope he will understand that I was speaking what I truly thought.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I certainly would not accuse the noble Marquess of deliberately telling a lie. I am only saying that unintentionally he was misleading the House. If the Conservative Peers, and those who are minded to follow their leaders into the Lobby to-night, go in in sufficient strength to defeat the Government, there will be the following consequences. The first consequence will be that it will not damage the standing of the present Government in this country. Indeed, it is even arguable—and this may cause some noble

593
Lords to pause—that it could be a bonus from the Labour Party's point of view. It will not have any establishable effect, although there will be great complications because, as I have indicated, the Government cannot change their policy in this matter. I cannot say what will be the consequences of the adverse vote. The House of Lords, as I said, ought not to assume that we just go on relaying the Order indefinitely. The Conservative Party in their hearts know that if they were in office they would have to continue with the present policy. What noble Lords will achieve by their vote is a great diminution of the reputation of your Lordships' House. They will have revealed a weakness in the leadership of the Conservative Party, and they will have damaged the reputation of this country in the eyes of the world. How can we explain a vote in the House of Lords to the rest of the world? Should we just say that the House of Lords is totally unrepresentative?—in which case they would ask why we have tolerated its existence for so long.
Above all, and I believe this most sincerely, the possibility of a settlement of the Rhodesian problem will be diminished by such a vote. We cannot avoid the fact that this will be an encouragement to Mr.smith
and the Rhodesian Front to be more intransigent, rather than less. Time and again the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has advised us not to send a message of comfort to Mr. Smith. I appeal to noble Lords who on the whole, in my experience, bring an independence of mind and judgment on such matters, if they cannot vote for the Order at least to abstain. I suggest that that would be the wise and dignified act for those in doubt.
I would only repeat again to those who may be doubtful—and some noble Lords said that they would determine their attitude on the assurances of the Government—that at the moment there are signs of a real prospect of Mr. Smith coming to the conference table and abiding by what is said there, the Government will be prepared to open talks with them. I therefore ask your Lordships to indicate your attitude on this really rather extraordinary and special occasion by supporting the Government and voting for the Order.
6.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 184; Not-Contents, 193.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Carnock, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Carron, L.

Goodman, L.

Alport, L.

Chalfont, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Amulree, L.

Champion, L.

Granville-West, L.

Archibald, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Hall, V.

Arran, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Chorley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Citrine, L.

Hayter, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Helsby, L.

Barrington, V.

Cohen, L.

Hemingford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Henderson, L.

Beswick. L. [Teller.]

Coventry, L. Bp.

Henley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Craigton, L.

Heycock, L.

Birk, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Crook, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Blackford, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Holford, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Hughes, L.

Boothby, L.

Esher, V.

Hunt, L.

Bowden, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Exeter, L. Bp.

Inman, L.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Faringdon, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Brock, L.

Fiske, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Foot, L.

Kahn, L.

Brown, L.

Fulton, L.

Kennet, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Burden, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Kings Norton, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kinloss, Ly.

Byers, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Gifford, L.

Latham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Pargiter, L.

Sherfield, L.

Leathers, V.

Parmoor, L.

Simey, L.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Peddie, L.

Snow, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Penney, L.

Soper, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Perth, E.

Sorensen, L.

Lindgren, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Pilkington, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Platt, L.

Stonham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

London, L. Bp.

Popplewell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Strang, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Raglan, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

McLeavy, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Ravensdale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Mais, L.

Rea, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Maughan, V.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Tayside, L.

Milford, L.

Rochester, L.

Todd, L.

Mitchison, L.

Rowley, L.

Wade, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Rusholme, L.

Walston, L.

Morrison, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Waverley, V.

Moyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Moynihan, L.

Samuel, V.

Williamson, L.

Nathan, L.

Segal, L.

Willis, L.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Serota, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

Norwich, V.

Shackleton, L.

Woolley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shannon, E.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Ogmore, L.

Sharp, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Shepherd, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gisborough, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Godber, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Colwyn, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Conesford, L.

Gough, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gray, L.

Allerton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Greenway, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Craigavon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cranworth, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Atholl, D.

Crathorne, L.

Haddington, E.

Auckland, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Harris, L.

Audley, Bs.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Headfort, M.

Barnby, L.

Daventry, V.

Hives, L.

Bathurst, E.

De La Warr, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Beatty, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Beaumont, Bs.

Denham, L.

Howe, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Derwent, L.

Ilford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Digby, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Jessel, L.

Bolton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Boston, L.

Dudley, L.

Killearn, L.

Bourne, L.

Dulverton, L.

Kindersley, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Dundee, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Braye, L.

Dundonald, E.

Latymer, L.

Brecon, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Leicester, E.

Brentford, V.

Effingham, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Egremont, L.

Lloyd, L.

Bridport, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Long, V.

Bristol, M.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lonsdale, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Loudoun, C.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Lovat, L.

Buckton, L.

Falkland, V.

Lucan, E.

Burton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lytton, E.

Caldecote, V.

Ferrers, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Carrick, E.

Ferrier, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Fisher, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Chandos, V.

Foley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Chelmer, V.

Forester, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chesham, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mar, E.

Clinton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margadale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

May, L.

Remnant, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Mersey, V.

Rockley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mills, V.

Rothermere, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Milverton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Swansea, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Rothes, E.

Swinton, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Rowallan, L.

Templemore, L.

Monsell, V.

Rutland, D.

Terington, L.

Monson, L.

Sackville, L.

Teviot, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Thorneycroft, L.

Moyne, L.

St. Helens, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nairne, Bs.

St. Oswald, L

Townshend, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Salisbury, M

Trefgarne, L.

Newton, L.

Salter, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Saltoun, L.

Ullswater, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sandford, L.

Verulam, E.

Oakshott, L.

Sandys, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Savile, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Poltimore, L.

Selkirk, E.

Watkinson, V.

Portal of Hungerford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wedgwood, L.

Poulett, E.

Simonds, V.

Westminster, D.

Rankeillour, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Willingdon, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

Reading, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Wrottesley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strange, L.

Wynford, L.

Redmayne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
6.16 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): 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 Kennet.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD OAKSHOTT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Survey of planning areas]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: Your Lordships now revert to domestic matters, and, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say that I anticipate no constitutional clash arising out of the Committee stage of this Bill, at any rate. My first Amendment is designed primarily to elicit from the Government a statement about the surveys and the way in which they think they will be organised. If I may enlarge for a moment on this general issue of Part I of the Bill, I am entirely with the Government in believing that a reorganisation of the present development
598
plan procedure is desirable, and my noble friends and I would wish primarily to try to join with the Government in making this Part, and indeed the other Parts, of the Bill even better than they are.
The idea of the statutory survey is a new one. In Clause 2 we shall come to the structure plan; and I well appreciate that the boundary of the area to be covered by a structure plan may well cut across the area of a local planning committee. Why, however, is it necessary to have a similar division in regard to the statutory direction of the local planning authority to institute a survey? Would it not be wiser, while the survey is being instituted and carried out, for the local planning committee to cover the whole of its area? I believe I am right in saying that the Government regard this survey in each case not as a kind of new birth but as a continuation of a process which has probably already been going on, and should have been going on, under the auspices of any efficient local planning authority. If that is so, would it not be desirable for the survey, which the local planning authority is by this clause to be instructed to institute and carry through, to cover the whole of its area? Indeed, would it not lead to the construction of a better structure plan under Clause 2 if that were made against the background of a survey which had extended to the whole of the local planning authority's area?

599
It has been made clear on behalf of the Government that their intention is to use their powers under one of the later clauses in the Bill (I think it is now Clause 89) to get this process of surveys and structure plans started in a limited number of areas, each area covering, or including part of, the territory of several local planning authorities. I presume that this is because these first structure plans will act as pilot schemes; and the Ministry as well as the local planning authorities will be able to gain experience of the working of this new system without risk of a nation-wide collection of structure plans all descending upon the Ministry simultaneously and submerging it, as virtually happened with the development plans under the former Act.
Even if that is so, would it not be wise, whatever the proposed boundary of the structure plan were to be, to encourage each local planning authority to go ahead with a survey covering the whole of this area? I am moving this Amendment, not in any hostile spirit and certainly with no intention of pressing it, but in the hope that it may afford an opportunity for the Government to explain rather more clearly what they have in mind about the surveys and how these surveys are to lead on to structure plans. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
6.25 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I shall find difficulty in improving on the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in the parts of his remarks where he said he supposed the Government reasons would be the following. It is really just that. The purpose of having this power in the Bill for a local planning authority to carry out a survey of part only of its area relates to the transitional period between now, when we pass the Bill, and the time when the new planning system is in operation all over the country. During that time it may be the case, indeed I hope it will be (and there is every intention on the part of the Government and certain local authorities to ensure that it shall be) that two or more local authorities will come together to
600
draw up a plan which may cover the whole area of some of them and only parts of the areas of others.
A typical case would be the conurbations where good planning, as such, would be much better served if there were one coherent plan covering not only the densely built-up parts of the city, as traditionally considered, but also parts of the county or counties surrounding it. The drawing up of such a structure plan would be done together by the county borough or county boroughs and also by the surrounding counties of a predominantly rural nature, and would be done with their agreement. For the purpose of such a structure plan there is need for a survey, and the survey tending towards that structure plan will not need to cover all parts of the counties—that is, in the example that I give; but one can think of other examples. Its purpose is to facilitate the putting into effect gradually of the new system of planning, area by area throughout the country, according to criteria which have been named in the House of Commons and pending the time of local government reform itself.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has explained what are the Government intentions largely by repeating my remarks in words of his own. I am still not wholly in a position to understand why the Government have in mind to confine the statutory survey which some local authorities will have to carry out to a certain part of their area. Would it not be better if the local planning authority, which should know its whole area fairly well by now, were to institute its first statutory survey covering the whole area, in which case much of this subsection (5) would not be needed? I appreciate that the Government may wish the eventual structure plan not to extend over the whole of the area, but why should the authority be discouraged from getting its survey completed over its whole area as quickly as possible?
LORD KENNET: It is not, of course, the intention in this clause, as drafted, to discourage local authorities from doing anything which ought to be done. It is the intention that there shall be machinery and powers available for them to do what ought to be done, even if

601
it is different. It may be that one local authority ought to survey part of its area as part of a joint survey with other local authorities, and ought to survey other parts of its area in an entirely self-sufficient way and not in conjunction with other local authorities. It may be that these two things ought for expediency to happen at different times, and it is simply to allow this to happen that the subsection is there.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I will withdraw my Amendment in a moment, but I wonder whether we are using the word "survey" in two different senses; one as the work of surveying, which I still feel should undoubtedly be continuous, and the other as a report of a survey, which may well be confined to certain areas. However, I do not want to press the noble Lord further on that matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Preparation of structure plans]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (4)(b), after "proposals of the", to insert "structure". The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. If your Lordships would be good enough to look at subsection (4) you will see that the local planning authority is required to have regard:
"(a) to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole"
and
"(b) to the resources likely to be available for the carrying out of the proposals of the plan …"
As you cannot have economic planning without an economic plan, the natural way to read that is to suppose that (b) raises the question whether there will be sufficient resources available to carry out the economic plan of the region as a whole. I do not think that is what is meant, and that is why I suggest that it would remove ambiguity if in line 27 the word "structure" were inserted before the word "plan". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, after second ("the") insert ("structure").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said and would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved, in subsection (5), to leave out "indicate" and insert "describe". The noble Lord said: Having had 50 per cent. success up to now, I am starting off in really good heart. With Amendment No. 3 perhaps it would be convenient to consider Nos. 9 and 30, which are related. This Amendment concerns subsection (5) of Clause 2, which says
"A local planning authority's genera proposals under this section with respect to land in their area shall indicate any part of that area (in this Act referred to as an "action area") which they have selected for the commencement during a prescribed period of comprehensive treatment, …".
My Amendment is to substitute "describe" for "indicate". In another place an Amendment was moved but was not acceptable to the Government, to replace "indicate" by the word "define". I think that I can appreciate the Government's objection to being as definite as that but I suggest that the word "describe" would be an improvement on both.
The point is that the moment some part of an area in a structure plan is indicated as likely to become an action area, everything around it begins to suffer from blight. As we shall be reverting to the subject of blight under a later clause, I think I should say a word about it now. We have seen it particularly in London recently with the motorway box scheme. I observed it four years ago in what was at that time my constituency. And when I was the responsible Minister, I found it necessary to legislate about blight. Maybe I did not go far enough, and a subsequent clause of this Bill seeks to take the legislation further.
The point at issue is that the instant the idea gets about that a certain part of a town is to be the subject of redevelopment, or the site of a new road, or anything like that, blight falls upon that part, in the sense that prices fall, because people know that if they purchase property in that area they are likely to have the enjoyment of it for only a limited,

603
though usually an uncertain, time. So I am putting it to the Government under this Amendment that it is contrary to everybody's interest to allow blight to spread more widely than is necessary.
I have much sympathy with the Amendment moved in another place to replace "indicate" by "define", because if the structure plan really defined the action area there would be no need for blight to settle outside the defined perimeter. The Government said, with some sense behind them, that at that stage neither the Minister nor the local planning authority could be certain of getting the exact definition of an action area right. Therefore, it would be a mistake to use the word "define". But it really is not good enough to retain the word "indicate".
I understand that it will be the written part which will be the governing part, rather than the map, but unquestionably, if we retain the word "indicate", that will leave the local planning authority free to indicate in a vague way in its description, which will form the main part of the structure plan, that area which is to be an action area, and therefore blight will settle not only on the intended part but on a large area around also. I believe I am right in saying that the indication on the structure plan of a proposed action area would be a diamond-shaped mark superimposed on a large coloured area. The diamond shape will certainly not be the shape of the area. It will simply indicate that somewhere on a coloured piece of the map, which may be quite large, there is an action area; and if there is good property in the area, blight will settle and houses will become difficult to sell at a fair market price.
It seems to me that something more definite than "indicate" is required, even if I allow the Government's case that something less definite than "define" should be used. May I suggest "describe" here and in the corresponding places in later clauses. A description, while it will not be so precise as to cause embarrassment to local planning authorities and need not go precisely along the centre of a particular road as it might have to under a definition, would, I think, be considerably more precise than a mere indication by a coloured diamond on a big map. I do not think
604
that "indicate" is sufficient. I believe that the Statute should contain a suitable word, and I suggest "describe", which will not permit a local planning authority to put forward a structure plan where the indication of the action areas would be so vague as to cause blight quite unnecessarily to a considerable area of surrounding property. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out "indicate" and insert "describe".—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. At the present moment, my county council is dealing with a development plan, about which a great many different maps and indications are being used, and it is exceedingly difficult to see how things are going to work out. When I made inquiries about getting more accurate descriptions I discovered that this was very difficult because things are still under discussion and not actually completed. I think that the word "indicate" is too wide and that if, in addition to whatever symbols are put on the plans, there could also be a description of the areas, this would be of great help to people who are interested in the plan and to those whose houses will be affected by the action taken on the plan.
6.39 p.m.
LORD KENNET: I have the greatest sympathy with the purpose behind this Amendment, because accuracy is good in itself and blight is always bad in itself, but I want to run through the reasons, which I hope will not sound pedantic, for preferring "indicate" to "describe". The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, did not go so far as to ask that action areas should be shown on the map at this stage. That would be the extreme course, to define them in precise lines on the Ordnance Survey maps. I would remind the House that at this stage in the new procedure it will be the description, the written statement, that counts, and not the map.
The description of the area would require the planning authority to have a pretty precise idea of its detailed scheme for the area. This in itself would go rather against the whole concept of the structure plan, because the whole idea of the structure plan is to present to the

605
Minister only those issues with which Central Government must concern itself—the policy and general proposals for the whole area—leaving the detailed planning within the framework of that to be dealt with in local plans, among which the action plans would be.
Experience under the present system has taught us that the involvement of the Minister in every detail of the plan, and the need to set every detail right for purposes of his approval is one of the major causes of the enormous delay which we live with at the present time in dealing with development plans. I think the Committee ought to be very careful about introducing anything which might tend to perpetuate that fault, and I really think this simple shift of words might. The idea is that a structure plan should indicate those action areas on which a start is expected to be made in the next ten years. This is a very long time, and it would be hardly realistic to expect description of the boundaries of all the areas on the structure plan as much as ten years before there may well have been a start upon them, let alone a finish. I think that to attempt to draw boundaries, to describe boundaries—because "describe" must mean being rather precise about boundaries—so far in advance would risk misleading people, and would only increase disturbance both among public bodies and private persons who would be affected by the plan.
Lastly, on the question of blight, this is a very difficult question to settle. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, put it rather simply in saying that the more precision you have the less blight you have. I feel that the real situation is more difficult than that. The more precision you have, the less widespread will be your blight, but the more severe it will be within the area precisely defined or described. The less precision you have, the more widespread will be your blight, I agree, but the less severe it will be because of the very doubt about the area in which the development in question is to take place. This is a balancing out between precision, giving geographically limited but severe blight, and imprecision, giving geographically more extended but less severe blight. In my view, the word "describe" is the right one to put us at the correct
606
place on the spectrum which I have just described to the Committee.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The word "describe", or the word "indicate"?
LORD KENNET: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The word "indicate". The noble Lord, as so often, has saved me from adopting his own position. Consider the derivation of the two words, "indicate", meaning to point with the finger, and "describe", meaning to write down or write a line round. The latter is too precise, and I would urge the Committee, for the reasons I have given, to retain the rather better word "indicate".
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: At any rate, the noble Lord has accepted that this is a difficult matter. I, for my part, accept his improvement of my description as between deep blight over a small area and lighter blight over a larger area. I hope that the Government will continue to think about this to see if there is any way in which we can ensure that the structure plans will not create more blight than is necessary. I think the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who has great experience in these matters, will agree with me that blight is one of the most difficult and complicating factors when one is trying to do long-term planning.
If your Lordships can, through debate here, assist the Government in working out a way in which these structure plans can be arrived at, so as to create the minimum of blight in the years to come, that will be a very great gain. Even if the Government are unwilling to alter this word "indicate", I hope that they will carefully consider, in any circulars they are sending out, or any regulations they are making in regard to a structure plan, whether there are means by which they can alert local planning anthorities to the great danger of so drafting and preparing their structure plan that they may cause unnecessary blight. We have had our debate. I am inclined to think that "describe" is the better word, and the Government think that "indicate" is the better word. Let us all think over it, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I should like to say a few words about Clause 2. I wish to pay my tribute to the Planning Advisory Group and to all those, in Government circles and outside them, who have worked together to think out this new idea of the structure plan. I have no doubt at all that it will be an improvement on the former development plan. There is one particular question that I want to ask. It arises out of the emphasis which the Report of the Planning Advisory Group laid, and which this Bill embodies, with regard to taking transport and traffic questions much more fully into account at the stage of drawing up a plan than was done in the main with the original development plans. Indeed, subsection (3)(a) of this clause lays special stress on measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet said that the Minister would be contemplating a ten-year period in this clause. Ten years is quite a long time on the traffic side, and a great deal can happen in ten years. Will the structure plan include not only an indication or description of the action areas, but also an indication or description of all those parts or strips of the structure plan area which are likely to be (shall I say?) radically altered on traffic grounds because of the need for new roads or other ways for the traffic? Again, I have blight at the back of my mind, but whereas the clause is fairly specific about the action areas, it is not so specific about the manner in which road changes, in particular, are likely to be marked and made clear. I think that if the noble Lord could say something about the addition which he expects this new emphasis on traffic management will cause for structure plans and those who are compiling them, in comparison with the old development plans, it would be of value; because, as I say, though the action plan has a whole subsection devoted to it, the traffic management aspect is simply mentioned in passing.
LORD KENNET: Yes, I should perhaps have first of all clarified the ten-year period I mentioned. The idea is that this should be the period up to which action areas should be indicated on the structure plan. That is, when a local authority is preparing its structure plan,
608
if it wants to do something in a given local area within ten years it should make it an action area. If it does not, it should not. That is the general guidance on this point. The period of ten years does not have the same significance elsewhere as in action areas. On the general question which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked about, showing traffic proposals and road proposals in the structure plan, the answer is "Yes, of course." That is why it appears in this clause: in order to ensure that that shall be shown and taken properly into account.
I should perhaps say at this stage that we, and I think the local authorities as a whole, are very conscious of the fact that co-ordination between the planning side and the road transport side has not been as good as it should have been over the last twenty years, either at Central Government level or at local government level. For this reason we are bending all our efforts to improve it at both those levels. I believe that this new structure plan procedure will provide a very good vehicle for a final fusion of effort from those two sides of the house, both nationally and locally.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to
Clause 3 [Publicity in connection with preparation of structure plan]:
6.53 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in their opinion". The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships will be willing to consider, along with this Amendment, Amendment No. 10 to Clause 7, which is identical though in another context. Both Clause 3 and Clause 7 were clauses which were moved into the Bill at the Report stage in another place; therefore, we have a special obligation to look at them carefully, as they did not go through the whole long Committee examination that the rest of the Bill did. The particular question I want to ask here is whether the Government are right in including these words "in their opinion". I know the Government to be sincere in wishing that there shall be much better and more effective publicity in connection with plans of all sorts than took place in all cases in the past; and

609
it is for that reason, no doubt, that we have two whole clauses devoted to publicity: one to publicity for structure plans and one to publicity for local plans. But is it right simply to stipulate that
"the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure"?
I think we can take it as axiomatic that there are good, bad and indifferent local planning authorities. One cannot tell what there will be after local government reorganisation has taken place. I cannot help thinking that in the matter of implementing Clauses 3 and 7, different local authorities may hold very different opinions as to the amount and quality of publicity which will be necessary to achieve these objects. If those words, "in their opinion", remain in the Bill members of the public who feel very disturbed about the lack of proper publicity that has been given by their own local planning authority to a proposed structure plan or proposed local plan will have no defence, they will have no weapon, because when they complain to the local authority, the local planning authority will simply say, "We did what was in our opinion enough, and that is all the Bill requires us to do". Surely it would be better to leave out the words "in their opinion" so that the local authority would not be the judge in its own cause as to the quantity and quality of publicity which it should secure for its structure plans and its local plans. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("in their opinion").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD HOLFORD: I hesitate to intervene in this matter because the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has administered town and country planning; I have only made proposals. But I feel rather strongly about this subject, and the point I want to make is this. Some initiative must be taken in this matter, and I take it that the object of this clause in saying "in their opinion" is that local authorities should take the initiative. At the end of the subsection it is stated that the authorities shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period, which means that if other people want to take the initiative and
610
put forward suggestions or make objections they can in fact do so. It seems to me to be abundantly right that the local authority should have placed upon it the job of bringing this matter to people's attention, which is something positive. In other words, I think that it is better to leave in these words "in their opinion", because what we are really discussing is not the ends but the means by which they do it.
LORD KENNET: The point is that if we leave out the words "in their opinion" we bring in the courts. We create a gap which can be closed only by application to the courts, and we could get endless litigation about whether or not the local authority had taken the steps which the Bill will say they ought to take. They are rather vaguely phrased, intentionally so, because I think the local authorities know their own situation in their own areas best. The limits within which the local authority can act in this matter of publicity and public participation in drawing up plans are subject to what the Minister may lay down in regulations. But, subject to broad considerations such as the periods during which any notices must be displayed and the opportunity of inspecting documents, the local planning authorities themselves are, we think, the most competent judge of what publicity will produce adequate results. They know best local conditions and the likely reaction to particular methods of publicity and of inviting people to come along and take a hand.
There are many safeguards in this connection, even if we leave in the words "in their opinion". The actions of the local planning authority have to be reported to the Minister; the authorities have to tell him what they have done. The Minister has power to withhold consideration of the plan and return it to the authority with directions to take further steps about publicity and so on. It would be going rather far if a structure plan should risk invalidation at the very end of the whole procedure following a challenge in the courts on the grounds that the publicity given to proposals was not adequate. If there are inadequacies in publicity they should be corrected at a far earlier stage, even long before the formal public inquiry is held.

611
As the Bill stands now it provides for the Minister to ensure that such inadequacies are corrected. The point is that as the Bill stands, without amendment, the local planning authority will not be the final arbiter as to what steps are adequate. The effect of the words "in their opinion" is indeed to exclude challenge in the courts, but they do not prevent the Minister from imposing firm obligations by way of regulation and also giving general advice which will be given after the report of the Skeffington Committee, which I need not describe to your Lordships, on the whole question of public participation in planning. A combination of regulations, general advice and the Minister's power in Clause 3(4) to send the whole thing back if he is not satisfied about the publicity, or to direct the authority to do something else about it, ought, in my view, to be enough to secure the effect which I know all sides of the Committee are at one in desiring, namely, that the publicity shall in every case undoubtedly be sufficient.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and for my part I am solely anxious to be helpful here. I was glad to hear that he seemed to be satisfied that the words which I propose to leave out would not undermine the Minister's power in subsection (4). I think this point needs looking at further, although I will not press him on the matter to-day. Subsection (4) provides what may happen if the Minister is not satisfied that the authority has adequately complied with subsection (1). I do not see how he can fail to be satisfied that the local planning authority has taken such steps as would "in its opinion" secure certain results. The local planning authority would simply say, "This is our opinion, and the law says it is our opinion and not yours that matters; therefore 'buzz off'".
I appreciate that the Minister also has to be satisfied about lines 24 and 25, whether the authority has adequately considered any representations made to it within the prescribed period, but are the Government really wise to leave the Minister so powerless, as he will be if these words are retained, on the question whether a local planning authority has adequately complied with its first duty
612
under subsection (1), namely, the publicity duty? Now that I have raised the point I feel sure the Government will consider it between now and Report stage and will see whether there can be any better wording, because we are all anxious that adequate publicity shall be secured and that the intentions shall not be frustrated by a local planning authority which has antediluvian ideas on publicity. Having said that, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (2), after "inspection" to insert "and purchase". The noble Lord said: Perhaps your Lordships would consider, along with this Amendment, Nos. 11 and 12, to Clause 7, which are related to the same point. Here we are dealing in the first instance with Clause 3(2), which requires the local planning authority to make copies of the plan, as submitted to the Minister, available for inspection at their offices and at such other places as may be prescribed. This Amendment raises the question whether that goes far enough.
A local planning authority can comply with that statutory requirement simply by having copies of the plan available in certain places during office hours. These plans will be important documents and will be of interest to a large variety of people. Not all of them will be people of such leisure that they can go along to certain buildings within office hours and sit down and read studiously the copies of the plans that are there. If I were professionally concerned in this, or indeed if I were a member of a society which was interested in the growth and development of the town, I should want to be able to get hold of a copy of this plan and take it home with me and study it. That is why I am suggesting that the statute should stipulate that these plans shall be available for inspection and purchase, and not only for inspection. This Amendment is probably too simply worded from the draftsman's point of view, but I think its object is plain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, after ("inspection") insert ("and purchase").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support this Amendment. In these days of copying machines which are fairly widely available, there should be no difficulty for local authorities in getting copies prepared for sale to people who require them in order to study them in their own offices or homes. One cannot possibly expect a person who has studied a complicated plan in some local authority building to be able to remember that plan. He either has to make a copy for himself, which would seem to be a tedious exercise for him, sitting in the office of the local authority, or he must have one provided for him in some way. Surely the answer is to use copying machines and to make these plans available for a reasonable sum to people who want to buy them.
LORD FISKE: I should like to intervene shortly, perhaps partly on the grounds that I have never knowingly in my planning life told anybody to "buzz off". But if I have clone so I am sure it was with the best intentions. I am a little worried about this Amendment, not because I think these plans should not be circulated but because of the stage at which they should be circulated. There is nothing more confusing than to have one plan generally purchased and circulated to all the solicitors and estate agents in a town, on which people take their decisions to buy or not to buy certain properties or land, and then to find, on inquiry at the town hall, that it is not really the right plan, because when it went to the Minister he had excluded a little piece of land on which you thought you could build a house. So, while I think it is perfectly fair that the plans should be available for purchase, in my view it should not be when the plan is published but when it comes back approved by the Minister that it should be put freely on sale.
LORD MITCHISON: I should like to make a small plea for the people who are affected by these plans. It is no doubt right that they should have a copy, but is it absolutely necessary in all cases that they should be made to pay for it? That would seem to be the effect of putting in these words; but I, knowing the warm-hearted generosity of wealthy local authorities, should hope that people would sometimes get one free.
LORD ILFORD: I hope your Lordships are not going to place upon local authorities the responsibility for providing these plans to everyone who likes to walk into the office and ask for them. If a person has an interest in the area he will probably be prepared to pay a shilling or half-a-crown, but it is quite a different matter to say that the local authority ought to undertake to distribute the plans free of charge.
LORD KENNET: We at any moment now shall be affronting the question of selectivity in the social services. As my noble friend Lord Fiske has said, it is important to distinguish between the operative plan which is approved by the Minister and the draft plan. I am sure it is unnecessary, but to be double sure that we are avoiding mistakes the approved plan is treated differently. This comes under Section 10 of the Act of 1962, which states that copies of development plans approved by the Minister are available for sale to the public at a reasonable cost, and this has been done ever since then. That provision is carried over into the Bill now before us. Clause 13 enables a similar provision to be made in regulations about structure and local plans once they are approved by the Minister, and the Minister intends to make a regulation having that effect. So that local authorities will have to offer for sale the approved plans.
We now turn to the draft plans which are the subject of Lord Brooke's Amendment. Here I would point out, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we are not discussing whether or not the local planning authorities shall be empowered to offer these plans for sale. They will be empowered; they can do so without amendment of the Bill. The effect of the Amendment would be to bind them to do so in all cases. We ought to remember that the local plans will vary very much in scale, detail and importance, and some of them will be really very minor things indeed, not showing much, and will not be of interest to very many people; and it is possible that to impose on the local authority a statutory duty to print off or render publishable copies for sale would be going too far, because photocopying machines do not always produce satisfactory results and a local authority would feel it ought not to offer inferior

615
goods for sale and would have to print the lot. It would be a pure waste of money for something which interests only half a dozen people in any case.
What I suggest is that we do not amend the Bill on this point, simply on the grounds that the question is not important enough for a statutory obligation, but that we let the Bill go through as it stands. And I can give an undertaking to the Committee now that if, after some experience of the new procedure has been gained, the Minister finds that there is complaint about the way it is being operated, he will issue a circular telling local authorities that they ought to make copies available for sale of certain categories of draft plans—at any rate those which are likely to be of interest to more than merely a handful of people. I hope that the Committee may agree this will meet the case.
LORD AIREDALE: I simply cannot believe that any local planning authority which is of county council or equivalent status has not in these days access to a copying machine which can be relied upon to produce legible copies of documents.
LORD KENNET: I do not know about that, but I have not in the Ministry.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The Ministry seem to have gone downhill since my day. I feared that that was the case, but had not liked to mention it. I can appreciate that there may be a difference as between the structure plans and the local plans. Some local plans may be of interest to only a handful of people, as the noble Lord said. But I cannot believe that there would be any structure plans which would not be sufficiently important to be of interest to a considerable number of people; and, though I am grateful for the offer the noble Lord made on behalf of the Government, I feel concerned particularly for those who will be professionally concerned with these matters.
It seems to me that the moment a draft structure plan is made available for inspection under subsection (2) of Clause 3 a considerable number of people in the professions will find it their professional duty to examine it, in order that they can advise their various prin-
616
cipals whether there are any matters on which those persons should take the opportunity given them under subsection (1)(c) of making representations about the draft plan. If the local authority can say to all the solicitors, valuers and agents of other kinds, as well as to individual property owners who may be interested, "We have no obligation beyond exhibiting copies of this draft plan within office hours at certain places", they will obviously create a great deal of for themselves. What we want to do is to extend good will. That is the whole object of Clause 3 and the publicity provisions.
I hope that the noble Lord will think further about this. I am quite sure that my Amendment is too simple to be properly drafted, and I appreciate that there may be small local plans where one would not wish to put the local authority to the trouble of making a number of copies for sale which might never be bought. But I have no doubt whatever that with all structure plans there will be a genuine demand for copies for people to take back to their homes or offices and study, and I think that that demand ought to be met from the very inception of this procedure.
I feel sure that the Government will consider this and see whether there is a way, without imposing unreasonable obligations, of ensuring that the people
"who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority".
to use the words of the clause, will have ample opportunity to provide themselves with a copy of the plan about which they wish to make representations. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.17 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I wonder whether the Government could give an assurance that their idea is that the public inquiries will take place in

617
just the same way for these structure plans as for the development plans. One has subsection (3)(b), which says:
"afford … an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose; and
(c) if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, also afford the like opportunity to the local planning authority and such other persons as he thinks fit."
Are the Government envisaging that there may be some cases where a private hearing will suffice without the local planning authority being present? Will it not always be the case with a structure plan, unless the unbelievable happens and there is not a single objection or representation from anybody, that it will be necessary to have a public inquiry? If so, should we not say so, either in the Bill or through the words of the noble Lord speaking for the Government?
LORD KENNET: There is no intention of departing from the procedure in this respect which has long prevailed in this field. I agree with the noble Lord that it looks odd to put in "if there is a hearing or a public inquiry", but I imagine the Committee would not wish to make it impossible, in the very unlikely event of there being virtually no objections, to dispense with a hearing or a public inquiry. What do I mean by "virtually no objections"? I agree that it is a very remote, possibly hypothetical case. Supposing a structure plan is submitted to the Minister and there is simply one objection which is based on a misunderstanding of the plan. This can be sorted out in correspondence; this is a written representation. This would not then give rise to a need for a hearing or public inquiry at all. I agree that it is unlikely to happen, and I agree that the procedure otherwise would be the same as under the 1962 Act.
LORD MITCHISON: Before the clause is agreed, I should like to remind the Committee that in subsection (4) there is at present a provision that the Minister
"shall not be under an obligation … to cause any local inquiry or other hearing to be held".
So that if effect were to be given to this suggestion there would have to be an Amendment to the clause, and no doubt the Amendment would indicate in what
618
circumstances a local inquiry is considered to be imperative on the Minister.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Alteration of structure plans]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD KENNET: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the same obligations in respect of publicity and public participation as apply to the original submission of a structure plan are made to apply also to proposals for alterations to that plan. I do net expect the Committee would wish me to explain in detail how this is done. It is fairly evident that what is sauce for the original plan should also be sauce for the alterations to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out from first ("and") to ("4") and insert ("sections 3 and").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6—[Preparation of local plans]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This deals with the provision that different local plans may be prepared for different purposes for the same part of any area. I am aware that this matter was raised on a probing Amendment in another place, and I appreciate that there may be circumstances in which local plans may overlap one another, but I see considerable dangers in having different local plans for different purposes for the same part of the area, and I move this Amendment principally to enable the Government to explain how they propose to get over those dangers. Hitherto, we have, in general, been accustomed to a plan which is "the plan". We now have provision made for different local plans. I suppose one might be a recreation plan for part of the countryside, and one might be a traffic plan. It may be that in an area there will be a large-scale plan and a small-scale plan. Unless a great deal of trouble is taken to inform everybody concerned, there will be a danger that some-body looking at a plan will think that it is "the plan" and that he need look no further. My point will be met if the

619
Government will give an assurance that by regulations or otherwise they will put local authorities on guard against the possibility of misleading people by not making it sufficiently clear that there may be in existence another local plan in the particular area, in addition to the plan at which the person concerned is looking. I know that this subject has caused some anxiety in professional circles and, without wishing really to leave the subsection out, I should like to be assured that the Government are alive to the possibility that different local plans, if they were not all available at the same time to the same person, might quite easily mislead him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: I think in the interests of speed the simplest thing I can say is, yes, I do give the assurance for which the noble Lord asks.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"( ) A non-county borough if they so desire may prepare a local plan for their area and the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to any such plan as if it had been prepared by the local planning authority, references to the local planning authority being deemed to be references to the non-county borough."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for the non-county boroughs to prepare the local plans within their areas. It is recognised that the structure plan must be made by the county council, but within the structure plan there are local plans which deal with particular areas in much greater detail than does the structure plan. It seems right that the non-county boroughs in the area of the structure plan should be given some part in the preparation of their local plans. After all, they are the authority who are, I suppose, in the closest contact with the population and more fully acquainted with the nature of their district than the county council are likely to be. I desire to cast no reflection on the county coun-
620
cils, but it is obvious that the local authority, the non-county borough, is a great deal more in contact with the population and with the district than the county council can be.
These non-county boroughs are not small authorities; some of them are quite large authorities. They are all housing authorities and they are all highway authorities for certain classes of highways; and it seems to be a natural thing that, in addition to discharging the important functions of those two services, they should be entrusted with the preparation of the local plan. Many of the larger non-county boroughs have provided themselves with a planning department and with an adequate planning staff, so they are quite capable of undertaking the preparation of local plans without having to engage additional staff, or a staff which differs from that which is already in their employ.
Not infrequently the Government express a desire to maintain these county districts. They recognise the advantage of an authority which is close to the population. This provides exactly the opportunity which is wanted to extend the services which have been entrusted to these authorities in a direction in which they will do something to make good the loss of powers which these authorities have suffered in recent years from the many different changes in the administration of local government. It may be that the Minister will think that he cannot go as far as the Amendment invites him to go and make it possible for a non-county borough, if it desires to do so, to undertake the preparation of these plans. That seems to be the best and simplest course to take, but it may not be a course that necessarily appeals to the Minister.
I would invite the Minister to consider whether some form of delegation might not be adopted. I would remind him that under the Education Act 1944, delegation was extended in certain directions a great deal further than it had been before. Excepted districts were there set up. There is a similarity between the planning authority and education in this regard, because the excepted districts were given power under the Education Act to prepare within their areas their own school plans. I would invite the Minister to consider whether, if he cannot go as far

621
as the Amendment invites him to go, by some similar form of delegation the non-county boroughs might not be brought into the business of preparing the plans. Delegation under the Education Act has worked well, and I think the excepted district found the position was a very acceptable one. I should, of course, like the Minister to accept the Amendment, but if he feels he cannot do that, then perhaps he will consider whether delegation might not prove an acceptable alternative.
I ought to say that the Bill already contains some provisions for delegation, but they are not very satisfactory provisions because they involve the submission of the decisions of the county district authorities to the county council and their consideration by the county council. They then become effective until they become decisions of the county council. A good deal of time is occupied by all this going backwards and forwards, and the arrangements under the Education Act, in which the county district authority, or the excepted district as it is in education, is given power to prepare the plans in its own area, are much more suitable.
I hope the Minister will consider this matter sympathetically. People often express a good deal of sympathy with these county district authorities without doing very much to give practical effect to their sympathies. This is an occasion where something which is quite properly suitable for administration by the county districts might be entrusted to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ilford.)
7.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am sorry to find myself in dispute with my learned friend who speaks for the A.M.C., but though the County Councils Association have not formally considered this Amendment, I cannot believe that it would be very popular with many county councils.
LORD ILFORD: I speak for the County Councils Association, too.
VISCOUNT GAGE: But surely not on this Amendment. I thought that one of the principal criticisms of the present planning set-up was that the areas were too small to permit of the proper de-
622
ployment of trained staff; and trained staff are getting rarer and more difficult to obtain all the time. Certainly in my experience the greatest possible expertise is necessary in the preparation of town maps, as they were called, and areas of comprehensive redevelopment as they were called, now to become action areas and local areas.
Of course, the non-county borough could, and probably would, employ a consultant. I am speaking in the presence of the well-known town planning consultant, and I do not wish to give any wrong impression about this, but in my experience the consultant nearly always has to get a great deal of material from the county, and he then proceeds to make his plan. Unless he works very closely with the county council he may well come to a conclusion, in his efforts to please his clients, which in some ways conflict with county interests, particularly in the matter of roads.
I think it is very right and proper that county districts and non-county boroughs should be given the maximum responsibility, and often it is quite possible for the county authority to delegate certain particular functions to the borough council. I think it would be a mistake, however, to put this into a sort of statutory form. I think it might lead to a good deal of altercation in certain cases, altercation which would be very difficult to resolve except possibly by the Minister himself. I think it would be particularly unwise, too, to make such a substantial change in planning law just at the time when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Structure of Local Government is expected and when we expect considerable changes in planning structure to be proposed. I fully agree that county councils should be encouraged to be on the best possible terms with the county boroughs and districts, but I think this is possibly not the best method to promote those good relations, and I hope that it will be left over for the time being.
LORD SILKIN: I fully agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I think it would be a great mistake to give specific powers to the non-county boroughs at this time, or indeed at any time. When the 1947 Act was introduced we came to the conclusion that there

623
were far too many local planning authorities in the country. At that time I think there were something like 1,100, and the number was reduced to something like 100 or 110. Unfortunately, there became a tendency among county councils to delegate to local authorities, with the result that these delegated authorities, instead of acting as pure delegates, became virtually authorties on their own account, and acquired particular points of view, very strong local points of view, which were not in accordance with the conception of planning as we understood it.
If this Amendment were carried it would in fact create a new type of planning authority whose interests would be located solely in the area itself, and there would be a great tendency not to have regard to the planning of the area as a whole. It would be the very negation of what, as I understand it, we have in mind, under this Bill, which is to widen the scope of town planning, to create larger units and to get a conception of planning an area as a whole. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be incorporated in the Bill. It may be that by agreement with the county councils, these boroughs may have some kind of function hereafter. I should not object to that, some kind of voluntary functions, but I think that to create new planning authorities of this kind and to give them powers as local planning authorities would be a tremendous mistake.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said that the district councils ought to have this power of drawing up plans because they had greater local knowledge than the county councils, and I think nobody could possibly dispute that. After all, they live there and the area they cover is less wide. Therefore, it would be strange indeed, and they would be failing in their duty, if they did not know every inch of the area a little better than the county council. However, the county councils themselves have built up a pretty formidable knowledge of their areas. After all, they have been planning authorities for twenty years, and during that time, in cooperation with the district councils and with the help of the district councils, they have gathered a knowledge which, I think, is very little indeed behind that
624
in detail available to the district councils. And, of course, it is wider in its incidence and therefore better fits them for the joining up of their plans which must, by their nature, be related closely to each other over the whole area of the planning authority itself.
I think a more important difficulty in the way of this is the question of skilled manpower. I know the noble Lord said that district councils had planning officers who were pretty good, but I expect he would agree this is not true of all of them. The best might be capable of doing almost as good, or indeed as good a job as the county council in its planning field. But it would have to be admitted that in general the county councils, having been the planning authority for many years, have a greater concentration of skilled manpower, and that if one were to delegate this local plan-making function permanently on a statutory basis to the district councils, an inevitable result would be the erosion, if not break-up, of those pools of skilled manpower which at present are available to the existing planning authorities.
There is also the question of whether the non-county boroughs would themselves always have the right boundaries for the drawing up of local plans. One can imagine a district plan, or even an action area, which would cross the boundary of a non-county borough and run into county territory. In that case there would be a clear disadvantage in allowing the non-county borough to draw up a local plan. Another thing the Amendment does not do is to stop the county from drawing up a local plan. There is no machinery for settlement if a dispute develops. The noble Lord mentioned education as an analogy, but education is a field which is different enough in its nature and in the job which has to be carried out to make the analogy not close or relevant to our discussions. He also said that there were classes of decisions delegated by counties to non-county boroughs which then had to be vetted by the counties. He cannot have meant under the Bill, because I do not think that there is anything in the Bill of that nature, so any such troubles which exist at the moment under the Bill will go.
I come to the two greatest objections to doing this. The first is that it never

625
has been done. It could be held to be a step in the wrong direction, since we want in the Bill to make it easier for planning authorities to group together to get plans which cross boundaries. We also want in the Bill to have ready a new planning system which will be able to be operated by the larger units which people expect to come out of the Royal Commission Report, if indeed they recommend that. The tendency will be towards concentrating the skilled staff into larger units rather than dispersing them. One might hold that after 20 years experience of having planning authorities at county and county borough level, now would be the wrong time to delegate plan-making powers themselves lower down. An Amendment to a similar effect was rather fully discussed in the House of Commons and did not find favour there. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: I am a little disappointed that the Minister is so unwilling to consider delegation on the lines I suggest, since I feel that it offers a solution. It is not every non-county borough which could undertake these powers, and I was not suggesting that it should. But having heard what the Minister has said, I must accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: In Clause 6 we come to the important concept of the local plan. This was another of the new clauses which on the Report Stage in another place was moved into the Bill in substitution for something different and it is reasonable to ask one or two questions about it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to say something about the Government's general idea for the local plans. I think that everybody understands the concept of an action plan. This is where what hitherto we have called comprehensive development is required. But that will not be the only kind of local plan, and the local planning authorities will be at liberty to start preparing all
626
kinds of other local plans for different parts of their areas.
How do the Government envisage their going about this? It is at their discretion. Where should they start first? A further question is, how all this will link up with the existing plans? As I see the matter, these local plans will be of special value in that they will give developers a clear idea of what kind of development will or will not be acceptable in particular parts of the town or countryside. That clearly is of importance. But how is a local planning authority to proceed? To which parts of its area, other than action areas, is it to give priority here? In the case of an action area, I understand that if an area has been indicated in a structure plan as an action area the local authority will be required under subsection (6) to go ahead as rapidly as possible and prepare a local plan for it. But what about the rest? In some cases they may have had amendments to their development plan quite recently approved by the Minister. I know that development plans and local plans will not be exactly the same, but the information—the guidance, shall I say?—to potential developers will in such places be up to date.
Is it envisaged that local planning authorities will turn aside from such areas, and after they have dealt with their action areas will they get to work on parts of their area where the existing plan is out of date and seek to bring that up to date by the preparation of local plans? I think I can see vaguely how this will work. It seems to roe that local planning authorities would benefit by considerable guidance as to how they are to use these new powers. I take it that I am right in assuming that all existing plans will remain in force until they are replaced by local plans under this clause.
My final questions on this clause relates to subsection (7). This is the subsection which gives the Minister power to give a direction that they shall prepare a local plan as soon as practicable for a certain part of an area covered by a structure plan. In what sort of circumstances is it envisaged that the Minister will wish to use that power? Is that simply a long-stop power to stimulate a local authority which does not appear to be getting on with the job?

627
Or, alternatively, is it intended to provide a way forward for the Minister when for reasons of Government policy it is thought desirable that a local plan should be prepared by the local authority for that area? I hope I have made my general questions clear. I think it would be of considerable help to your Lordships if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made a short statement about the local plans, other than the action area plans which are self-explanatory.
LORD KENNET: I welcome the opportunity of making a statement, because it is a puzzling matter if one just reads the Bill. There will be a variety of kinds of local plans. One of these, which must follow from the structure plan, is the action area plan. This is typically for comprehensive treatment, whether by development, redevelopment, improvement or a combination of two or more of these, and—this is the detailed plan—the provisions for drawing the boundaries which we discussed on an earlier Amendment. The terms of the Bill, and of the intended regulations under it, will permit a range of treatment in these action areas from the fully detailed to a document in the nature of a brief for the developer, which will lay down the guide lines for what the planning authority wants to be done.
The question of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was directed more specifically to the other local plans, the non-action local plans—what are they for? The primary function of local plans, other than action area plans, will of course be to guide development control. These plans will typically be prepared for neighbourhoods within large existing towns, or for small towns not exceeding 50,000, where there are no conspicuous proposals for concentrated change. If there were such conspicuous proposals, then an action area plan would of course be appropriate. They will be something akin to the town map in the development plans under the 1962 Act. That will be the closest resemblance to any existing animal, though they will not be very like that. Their function will be to display the subsidiary structure of neighbourhoods or small towns and to set out the pattern of land uses expected.
Another sort of local plan will be concerned to present a particular policy of
628
the planning authority—for instance, for rural recreation or for the working of minerals—and to put flesh on the bones of the bare statement which will appear in the structure plan that, "Here be recreational; here be mineral workings." Those are the sort of plans more than one of which may exist in relation to one tract of country, which we discussed at an earlier stage and agreed it would be important to ensure that local authorities saw to it that nobody was confused by the permitted multiplicity.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, inquired about the relationship of the new local plans with existing plans. What will local authorities do if they have only just had their old style plan approved by the Minister? One of the criteria governing the going over of the planning authority to the new scheme will be its position in the cycle of the old planning system; that is, if it has just had a jolly good new development plan approved by the Minister, that will be a reason for delaying the coming into effect of the new planning system in that area. If, on the other hand, it has an old development plan which is out of date and which was coming up for review quite shortly, that will be a reason for bringing it into the new system earlier rather than later.
I shall not trouble the Committee with all the other reasons. This is only one of five or six, and may of course be overridden by other criteria. The transitional provisions of the Bill empower the Minister to cancel, delete or utterly annul such planning material left over from the old system as is no longer needed when the new style plans come into effect.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, inquired about the Minister's powers of direction under subsection (7). These are really intended just to see that there are no local planning authorities which simply do not react to new Government proposals. If there should be such powers they are default powers of a specific nature, but they are not the general default power which covers the whole Bill. If what I have been able to say is not sufficiently detailed for the noble Lord, I ask him to allow me to come back to it at a later stage in the Bill. But I hope that what I have said is sufficient.
Clause 6 agreed to.
The Sitting was suspended at 7.55 p.m. and resumed at 8.25 p.m
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Inquiries, etc. with respect to local plans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: On Clause 8, I should like to ask the same sort of question which I asked on an earlier clause with regard to structure plans, but here we come to something new. These are inquiries on local plans, and they are going to be taken by a person appointed by the Minister or, in certain circumstances, by the authority themselves. We therefore have something new here. May I say that I welcome the Amendments which the Government made in another place to ensure that the inspector (if I may call him that) who takes an inquiry into a local plan shall not be a mere creature of the local authority. I mean that with no disrespect to local Government officials, but I think it is universally accepted that it is important that this should be a well-qualified and independently-minded person.
May I take it that the general practice here will be as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, assured me it would be with regard to structure plans; that is to say, where a local inquiry would in a normal case be held into a plan now, the same kind of public local inquiry will be held in future into a local plan, though the person who holds the inquiry may not be a Minister's inspector and though he will report to the local authority and not to the Minister? I hope I can be assured that, in general, if there are representations or objections of sufficient importance to warrant a local inquiry rather than a private hearing, then a local inquiry will be held. I am not quite certain how the Minister is going to secure that: I am concerned only to ensure that it shall be secured.
Secondly, may I ask a little further about the inspector's report? I understood during our Second Reading debate that the report of an inspector on an inquiry or hearing into a local plan would be both published and sent to the Minister. I am not sure how that is secured. I do not think that the 1958 Act, referred
630
to in subsection (l)(b), is sufficient to secure the publication of the inspector's report; though it does ensure publication of a statement of reasons for the local authority's decision. My general feeling about this is that I am prepared to accept that these local plans should be subjected to a form of inquiry similar to those to which we have been accustomed but not necessarily taken by an inspector appointed by a Minister.
I am anxious for the assurance that everything in respect of these inquiries will be as public and above board, shall I say, as it is at present. I have no reason to suspect that it will not be; but it is not clear on the face of the Bill how it will be ensured, for example, that the person who conducts the inquiry will be required to produce a report that will be published by the local authority so that the public will know not only what the local authority has decided, and why, but what the inspector or person who held the inquiry reported or recommended to the local authority. I had rather expected, for example, that subsection (2) dealing with regulations might extend to these matters. It may be that the Minister can make regulations in other ways. I am not questioning the policy here; I am only asking how the Minister is going to ensure that his intentions are carried out.
LORD KENNET: In a word, by regulations under Clause 13 to which we shall be coming. The main point about all this is that the question whether a given matter shall be settled by hearing or by public inquiry will be regulated in the same manner as it was under the 1962 Act and that the report of an inspector on any inquiry will be required to be published. I hope that that is enough to cover the points made by the noble Lord.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Adoption and approval of local plans]:
LORD KENNET: This Amendment is more than drafting but still on a point of detail. Its effect is to ensure twat the local planning authority shall not adopt a local plan if the Minister has directed, under subsection (3) of the clause, that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him. The condition which I now invite the Committee to impose

631
was, in fact, included in the Bill as it was introduced in the House of Commons; and the omission of the reference to the relevant subsection was inadvertent. It is, as it were, a drafting Amendment of substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)".—(Lord Kennet.)
8.35 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that if the local planning authority propose modifications to the plan they shall, before adopting the plan as modified, afford an adequate opportunity of making objections to the modifications proposed, and shall consider any such objections made."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. The requirement in this Amendment may be provided elsewhere in the Bill. I should like to make sure that it is. If not, I may feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
The draft local plan is published. It goes to inquiry. A report is made by the inspector or person holding the inquiry, and that goes back to the local authority. The local authority, under subsection (1) of the clause, can adopt the plan either as originally prepared or as modified so as to take account of objections. Modifications to a local plan may be very extensive. They may also be very expensive, but what I am thinking about here is that they may substantially alter the conditions of life for a number of people. If a road for which a particular line is proposed in the original draft plan gets drastically altered as a result of objections made to the inquiry, the road then has to go somewhere else and that may create a situation in which other people should be entitled to have their objections heard.
What I am anxious to discover is what procedure the local planning authority is required to go through when, as a result of a public local inquiry, it determines that substantial alterations to the draft plan, or modifications as they are officially called, are desirable. If the whole matter has been covered with the discussion of alternative possibilities in the public inquiry, well and good;
632
but if such strong objections have been adduced to a particular line of a road that the local planning authority then wants to put into its modified local plan an entirely different line of which perhaps no one has heard of before, it seems only just that those who may be affected by these modifications—and they may be drastically affected—should have their own opportunity to make representations and objections. My Amendment is designed to discover from the Government what they envisage and how these people who may be so affected by modifications will have an opportunity to have their views heard and considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
8.38 p.m.
LORD KENNET: The idea is that this matter should be covered by regulations under Clause 13, and I welcome the opportunity of saying what is the intention about these regulations. The Minister intends they shall provide for the following. Modifications which the authority think necessary will have to be published in a manner laid down. With the modifications there will be deposited for public inspection a copy of the original plan and a copy of the report of the inquiry or hearing, together with the authority's resolutions on the recommendations. A copy of the report and the proposed modifications will then have to be sent to the Minister at this stage. Not less than 21 days will be allowed for objections to the proposed modifications. The planning authority must consider these objections. They will not be under an obligation to afford a hearing to objectors; though they may hear them if they wish and the Minister intends to advise by circular that they should do so if the modification has caused the objector to raise new issues on which he had no opportunity of being heard at an earlier stage. In general, unless modifications are of a particularly radical nature it should be possible for objections to modifications to be dealt with by written representations or made the subject of a hearing rather than a public inquiry; but any hearing will have to be conducted by someone other than a member or officer of the planning authority

633
or district council concerned. Having considered any objections to their proposed modifications, the authority must resolve provisionally whether to adopt the plan as originally deposited, to adopt it with specified modifications, or to withdraw it. I hope that this statement of the Minister's intentions with regard to what will go into the regulations meets the point made by the noble Lord.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I should like to examine carefully in Hansard the detailed particulars he has given, but on first hearing they sound to me very satisfactory. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: The purpose of this Amendment is to make explicit a procedural step which has so far only been implicit in the Bill. It relates to the Minister's power to call in a local plan so that, instead of its going forward for adoption in the standard fashion by the local planning authority, it shall become subject to procedures leading to the Minister's approval. So far the Bill has merely said that the Minister may direct that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him. The Bill has said nothing about an obligation thereby resting upon the local planning authority to submit the plan to him for approval. This Amendment therefore states categorically that as a consequence of the Minister's direction that a local plan is not to have effect unless approved by him the authority must submit the plan to him for his approval. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 43, after ("him") insert—
("(4) Where the Minister gives a direction under subsection (3) above, the local planning authority shall submit the plan accordingly to him for his approval").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: I rise purely to seek an assurance from the Minister that the procedure laid down in this clause for the adoption and approval of local plans will be revised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Gov-
634
ernment. It seems to me that as the Bill stands there is the objection that local planning authorities will be in a position to pronounce upon objections to a local plan which they themselves had prepared—in other words, they will be judge in their own cause.
I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the integrity of local planning authorities, but as a principle I should have thought it wrong that they should have this opportunity. I feel that this is borne out by experience. It is difficult for the originator of a plan to view it dispassionately when he receives objections. Moreover, does not the noble Lord feel that objectors who are not successful in getting their views accepted may feel that this was due to vested interests? If such a feeling became prevalent with objectors, the system could become discredited.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to two points which were made in the Maud Committee Report on the management of local government. They say:
"There is often too wide a gulf in local government between the governors and the governed."
They say at another point:
"Whatever changes in the structure of local government may result from the report of the Royal Commission, the value we shall get from time and money spent on local government will still depend … on the degree of mutual understanding established between them and the people of the local communities they serve."
I am not sure whether there has been a complete change. Would not the system of local plans be defeated if they had to be referred to the Minister? Would not the ideal solution be that the right of approval should rest with the next higher planning authority? The reason why I am asking for this assurance is that it may well be that the Royal Commission will recommend a two-tier structure for local government, with a grouping of local authorities into larger regional authorities. Earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to larger units. I do not know whether he meant larger regional units, but if he did, we are thinking on the same lines. Would the noble Lord not agree that it is reasonable to seek an assurance that such a review would be undertaken, or that the provisions in this Clause would not be implemented until any recommendation

635
such as I am suggesting may be put forward by the Royal Commission had been put into effect?
LORD KENNET: When legislation arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government is being prepared it will be necessary to see whether the new system which is to be taken into operation conflicts with anything in the existing law—and the Bill now before the Committee will by then be existing law. It will be necessary to reconcile any new proposals with anything that is in this Bill, and it may be that the Government at that time will have to repeal or modify clauses of this Bill, along with many others. I do not think there would be any case for singling out Clause 9 of this Bill for special review in that context, although Clause 9, along with other clauses, and this Bill, along with other Acts, will need to be reviewed for that purpose.
On the point of local authorities' being judge and advocate in their own cause. I might remind the Committee at this point that in certain categories of cases objections to local plans will be heard by inspectors appointed by the Minister, and not by the local authority which made the plan, and the right of appeal to the Minister against a decision on a given planning application, which of course will be affected by the contents of the plan, remains unaltered. Appeal to the Minister will be the same, except in so far as certain categories of appeal will be settled by the Minister's inspectors in their own right not by the Minister—a point to which we shall come later. Lastly, of course, as always, if any local planning authority conducts itself in such a way as to make itself unpopular with its own electorate, it will be chucked out.
Clause 9, as amended agreed to.
Clause 10 [Alteration to local plans]:
8.44 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved after subsection (1) to insert—
"( ) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a local planning authority shall, if the Minister gives them a direction in that behalf with respect to local plan adopted by them or approved by him, as soon as practicable prepare proposals of a kind specified in the direction, being proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of the plan".
The noble Lord said: Clause 10(1) provides that a local planning authority may at any time make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan they have adopted or, with the consent of the Minister, make proposals for similar action with respect to a local' plan approved by him. It it one stage further forward. The Bill confers no powers for the Minister to direct the local planning authority to prepare and submit proposals for the addition, repeal or replacement of a local plan, such as he has by virtue of Clause 5(1), which we have already passed, in relation to a structure plan. The effect of this Amendment is to bring these two things into parallel and to provide that without prejudice to the local planning authority's power to prepare plans at their own discretion the Minister shall have a power, exercisable in relation to local plans whether adopted by the authority themselves or approved by the Minister, to direct the local planning authority to prepare as soon as practicable proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan as may be specified in the direction. That is a precise account of the situation, which can be summed up more succinctly by saying that the Minister can direct a local authority to submit proposals to him for a change in the structure plan, but as the Bill is drafted he cannot for a local plan, and the Amendment would give him authority to do so. I be to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This seems to be an improvement in the Bill and I welcome it. Perhaps I may raise on it one point which otherwise I should have raised on the subsequent Motion, That the clause stand part. This new subsection refers, as does subsection (1), to the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan. I understand "alteration", and I understand "replacement", but I am not clear in what circumstances one would wish to repeal a local plan. If one repeals a local plan one leaves a blank. If one wants a better local plan, then one replaces it, and provision is made for replacement. But it seems to me strange that in any circumstances one should wish to repeal a plan; stranger still that in any circumstances the Minister should wish to direct a local

637
planning authority to repeal a local plan. I did not give the noble Lord any notice of this question. If he is not in a position to answer straight away, perhaps he will think about it.
LORD KENNET: I think that that is what I had better do. Prima facie, I take the noble Lord's point: what would one do by repealing a plan and not replacing it? If the noble Lord agrees, I will think about it and consult, and we can revert to it at a later stage.
LORD KENNET: This is entirely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("9(2)(a)") and insert ("9(4)(a)").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Disregarding of representations with respect to development authorised by or under other enactments]:
LORD KENNET: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, leave out second ("of"). —(Lord Kennel.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Supplementary provisions as to structure and local plans]:
8.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: In the interests of swift progress, I should like to say simply that this Amendment is designed to eliminate a duplication between subsection (1)(b) and subsection (1)(d). I think that noble Lords who have their eye on the text will see at once what I mean. Possibly it will not be necessary to discuss it further, and in that spirit I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 18 and insert:—
("(d) without prejudice to paragraph (b) above, provide for notice to be given to particular persons of the approval, adoption
638
or alteration of any plan, if they") —(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: Let me try again, in the interests of speed, to give my explanation to the Committee in capsule form. The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that Clause 13(1)(f) covers local plans as well as structure plans in all respects. I realise that I am rather trying the Committee in presenting it in this form, but perhaps that is sufficient explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 27, leave out from beginning to first ("or") in line 28 and insert ("structure plan or local plan which has been approved, adopted or made, or any document approved, adopted").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have two points to raise on this clause. The first relates to the second line of subsection (1), which says that the Minister "may make regulations" with respect to a great many things. From m hat the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has already said, I understand that the Minister is intending to make regulations and this, I guess, is one of the places where common sense would provide that the word "shall" should be used—"the Minister shall make regulations"—but the draftsman, for reasons which are no doubt good but are sometimes incomprehensible, feels that it is more appropriate to say "may". I have argued this both ways, in Government and in Opposition, but I do not want to do that now. I want an assurance from the Minister that he really does intend to make regulations about all these various matters on which he is empowered to make them. If he does not, I think a great many people will be left in considerable difficulties.
The second point is one which I should like to raise because this seems to be the most appropriate place to do so. We are going into an era when there will be a great many plans. There will be existing development plans, there will be existing non-statutory plans, there will be structure plans, there will be local plans and there may be different local

639
plans for the same area. It will be of great convenience to all concerned if it is possible somehow, somewhere, to find out with certainty what plans are in existence, what is their authority, status, state of progress, and so forth, and what other plans are in preparation though they have not yet seen the light. I have in mind that not only owners of property but surveyors, and, particularly, solicitors, would find it of great convenience if they could establish these matters with certainty. Will the Minister, among the many regulations that he has power to make, include a regulation that will require the planning authority to publish and keep up to date a list of that sort?
LORD KENNET: On the question of "shall" or "may", the common sense thing here is that the Minister is going to make regulations. But one cannot put that in a Statute and so it came out as "may", no doubt for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord. I could not here and now give an undertaking that he will make regulations about every single matter on which he is empowered to make regulations, but I agree that most of those matters will have to be regulated, and this corpus of regulations will be one of the main ways in which the planning system goes forward.
On the question of Ministerial regulation to require each planning authority to keep a register of plans in force, I should like to have time to consider that point, and perhaps we can return to it at the next stage. It is of course necessary that one should be able to go to the office of any planning authority and say: "Will you show me all the plans which are in force, whether for the whole of your area or a certain part of it, and may I be assured that what you have shown me is the totality of plans in force?", and that one can be quite sure that it is the totality. But as for a specific undertaking, I should like to be able to consider this point.
LORD MITCHISON: Before anything happens about this may I make two comments? The first is that the Minister is given various powers to deal with a whole mass of subjects—"maze" is really the better word—because otherwise he might feel himself compelled to make plans about the non-existent; and not even the wisest man has ever been able to do that.
640
The second is this. I have read and tried to understand this Bill—and indeed a good many of the debates on it; but if ever there was a case for a few "child's guides" I should have thought that this was one, and I hope my noble friend will consider the publication of one or two "child's guides" as useful. They do them very well in the Ministry of Housing.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [New provision as to enforcement notices]:
9.2 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert
"on any other person having an interest in that land".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment about which I feel somewhat strongly. We are dealing here with enforcement notices. We have reached now Part II of the Bill. Subsection (4) says:
"An enforcement notice

(a) shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates; and

(b) may, if the authority think fit, also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected by the notice."

I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should not be a statutory requirement to serve an enforcement notice on all other persons having an interest in the land, instead of its being left to the opinion of the local authority as to whether some other person's interest is materially affected by the notice. My Amendment, which may not be particularly skilfully drafted, is designed to ensure that object, so that it will read:
"An enforcement notice—

(a) shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates, and on any other person having an interest in that land."

I should have thought that it was impossible to resist an Amendment of that character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS SEROTA: It is perhaps unfortunate that I should be in this particular position just at the point when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, begins to feel strongly, but the Amendment he has just moved with considerable conviction would oblige a local planning authority to serve an enforcement notice not merely on the owner and occupier of the land, as he has indicated, but also on any other person with an interest in the land. The requirements for the service of an enforcement notice under the clause we are discussing do not differ from those which already apply by virtue of Section 45(3) of the 1962 Act. The mandatory requirement for service on the owner and the occupier dates from the 1947 Act, and the discretionary power in paragraph (b) dates from the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, but at no time has the service of an enforcement notice on persons other than the owner and occupier been obligatory.
The noble Lord indicated that possibly the Amendment might have certain other repercussions, and I must advise the House that it would in fact have a far more drastic effect than the one that he has foreseen and sought to introduce. Indeed, this could really be a wrecking Amendment in certain senses, in that it would oblige local planning authorities to serve enforcement notices on all persons with an interest in the land; and in that sense the Amendment covers mortgagees, people such as ground landlords with only a remote reversionary interest, mere licensees, and persons bound by contract to acquire an interest in the land. It would mean that the local planning authority would virtually always be driven to go through the time-consuming procedure of a formal request under Section 215 of the 1962 Act for the names and addresses of persons with an interest in this sense. What is more, the risk of technical failure in service would inevitably be greatly increased, and it is one of the more important aims of these new enforcement provisions to seek a reduction in the number of such failures.
I hope with that explanation the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, are a little less strong than they were when he first moved this particular Amendment. I hope that in the light of the explanation he will at this
642
stage withdraw it. He may, of course, and one fully understands this, on second thoughts wish to discuss the matter further, but, as at present drafted, I fear that the Amendment would cause difficulties which perhaps he himself had not envisaged at the stage when he put it down.
LORD MITCHISON: I hesitate to intervene when strong feelings are involved, but I think that the Amendment would carry matters far too widely. I think I can best put it by dividing the sort of cases I have in mind into geographical cases and others. In geographical cases the planning permission may relate to land and to something to be done on some part of the land, and yet the notice may have to be served on someone who had an interest in the land, which might indeed be a geographical one, in another part of it. The Amendment is not really clear in that respect. But what is even more serious is the breadth of the phrase of "having an interest in that land". It would cover, for instance, people who had an interest by way of a charge or mortgage but who might not in the least be concerned in the enforcement notice in question, which could relate to a small thing as well as to a large one.
A similar instance seems to me to be the case of an easement over the land, which I suppose would constitute, an interest in it. Sometimes these people are extremely hard to find. I remember a case in my former constituency where there were a number of proprietors of a few rights in a village and nobody could ever find out who they were. There was a solicitor who claimed to act for them, but I do not believe he knew who they were; at any rate, he never let out who his clients were. One gets over interests in land and small matters. I think it is something which we must leave to the discretion of some authority, in this case the local authority. I hope I am not sounding unreasonable, but it seems to me that this Amendment might create difficulties that would hold up for some trivial reason something which ought obviously to be done by way of an enforcement notice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will accept that I say this, believing that it would be workable in most cases—I will go that far with him on his Amendment—but there might be a number of cases where

643
it would not be workable. One of the main difficulties with a provision of this kind, when you make it obligatory to do something in regard to it, is to find the people concerned.
LORD SILKIN: While I think that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, goes too far, I am not satisfied that the clause as it stands is entirely satisfactory. It is hedged by too many provisos. Subsection (4) says that an enforcement notice
"(b) may, if the authority think fit also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected …"
Why are you giving a discretion to the local authority? Why are you saying they may serve this notice only if they think fit? I think this provision needs to be looked at again. This is an abundance of caution.
Furthermore, the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Mitchison have both suggested that a mortgagee is not necessarily a person who would be affected. I should think that in most cases where there is an enforcement notice he will be very much affected. After all, his security may well be involved. I think that there ought to be some kind of an obligation to give notice on such a person, and it should not be left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. Therefore I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, might withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the whole matter is looked at again.
LORD AIREDALE: I agree very strongly with the first part of Lord Silkin's speech. There are surely far too many qualifications to this paragraph (b) as it now stands. I could not help thinking that the Government's reply really amounted to the fact that it would be much less trouble for bureaucracy if this Amendment were not accepted. How often does a local planning authority serve an enforcement notice? I do not suppose they serve them every day. Of course it is possible to think up cases such as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, advanced, an exceptional case where it is difficult to find somebody who has some tenuous interest in the land. But how many of these cases are there going to be? If the person cannot be found, well he cannot be found, and it is just too
644
bad. But surely the general rule should be that any person having an interest in the land about which an enforcement notice is to be served shall, under the Statute, be served with a copy of the notice. That would seem to be the best and proper thing to do, and if it sometimes puts some local authorities to some trouble—well, life is like that.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: There is one point that I should like to bring up. Neighbours in neighbouring land may be affected by an enforcement order, and they ought to have a say or be notified. Could the noble Baroness give an assurance that all people affected will be notified?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNNOR: The most persuasive thing the noble Baroness said in her reply to me was that improvement of the law had been brought about by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, because that must mean that I was responsible for that improvement. It also reveals that I am, in a sense, seeking to amend my own Act. However, most of us can do that, and we need not be ashamed of trying to do so; and I am encouraged by the degree of support I have received from various noble Lords for my proposition that this subsection requires further attention.
Of course I do not want to press any Amendment that might be a wrecking Amendment. We all want to arrive at something which is practicable. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I cannot really see any justification for the insertion of the words "if the authority think fit", even though eight years ago I may have been convinced that they were necessary. Having heard the noble Baroness's reply, I believe that we all have one aim, which is to ensure that the people who may be affected are notified while avoiding the immense and unnecessary proliferation of paper. I feel sure that, in the light of this short debate, the Government will give further consideration to this matter; otherwise, I may have to put down a further Amendment at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This is an important Clause, and it was substantially and valuably amended during its passage through another place. I need not go into all the history of what has hitherto been the length of time after which an enforcement notice cannot be served. But in the Bill as originally presented to Parliament there was no time limit in respect to any kind of development. I think I am right in saying that in another place, as a result of criticism, the Government went so far as to insert subsection (3), which says that where the breach of planning control is, broadly speaking, a breach in respect of material development rather than in respect of user of land or premises, then there shall be a limit of four years. That is a great improvement. With that limitation I, for my part, am prepared to accept the clause.
But it would not be right for your Lordships to allow it to go through this Committee without my mentioning that there is considerable anxiety about the lack of any time limit in the other cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, indicated on the last Amendment, these matters may have considerable effect on value. All the time people have to make valuations for various purposes, including death duties, and hitherto it has been known that a breach of planning control which had continued for a certain time could not be challenged by way of an enforcement notice. Now it will be challengeable at any time if it is a breach in respect of user, rather than a breach in respect of material development.
Undoubtedly there is anxiety among people who are professionally concerned with valuations and the like that this will make their job more difficult, in that valuations may be upset through an enforcement notice coming along at any time in respect of a breach of planning control which has existed for many years. I for my part am prepared to accept the Government's compromise solution here and to see how it works. It was only right to put on record that there are people, particularly in the professional world, who are by no means happy about the absence of any time limit for an enforcement notice in user cases.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I am very unhappy indeed about the lack of any provision of a time limit, for the reasons that he has given, apart from the question or valuation. There is the simple case of a person who has been using part of his own home as an office. I may want to use part of my house in a year or two as an office, to save my going out. I shall do it for a time, but I am always at the mercy of the local authority coming along and saying that I am using it without planning permission and that it is a change of user. After a certain period one ought to be at ease and able to feel that the change of user is one which has now been sanctified by time.
It may be that exactly the same provisions are not applicable for a change of user as for development, but if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had felt disposed to put down an Amendment I think I should have been very happy to have given him support. I certainly hope that further consideration will be given to this matter, even though I recognise that the Government have compromised. But why do the Government feel it necessary to compromise? What was the evil that they had been trying to meet? I have never had a difficult case which has arisen simply because after four years it was not possible to serve an enforcement notice. Why the Government should want to draw this distinction between a change of user and development, I do not know. I agree that there has been a compromise, but why is it always necessary to compromise? Why could not the practice have been permitted to go on? However, there is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, and all we can do is to ventilate our views about the matter in the hope that the Government may look again, or that some Amendment may go down at a later stage.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect to my noble and distinguished friend, I hope we are not going to encourage him to use odd corners of the Palais Wilson as offices without getting planning permission. I should have thought the simpler remedy was to provide a suitable prize for people who, after having evaded the law successfully

647
for three years, could perhaps be given a spoon of some sort—I am not sure whether it should be wooden or silver—as a prize for their success in their effort, and then encouraged to apply for planing permission. Planning permission means something, and if you are going to let people be naughty simply because they have been naughty long enough, it makes the law a bit silly.
LORD AIREDALE: In that case, I wonder how the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, defends the four-year period for enforcement notices under subsection (3).
LORD MITCHISON: As a compromise.
LORD KENNET: May I say a word about this matter? I think the justification for the distinction between something which is already built—development control—and change of user is the following. If I erect a large or even a tiny building and the planning authority does not get around to challenging me within four years, then it is not worth its salt, because it ought to. If, on the other hand, I have a field or a plot of land of an indeterminate nature in one corner of which I break up and sell for scrap two cars a year, and then at the end of the limitation period I suddenly go into big business as a scrap metal dealer, perhaps burning off painted panels and rubber-covered wiring and making myself a general nuisance all round, it is a very different matter. That is the justification for making the distinction.
LORD SILKIN: Is my noble friend saying that the local planning officer would not discover this general nuisance in four years?
LORD KENNET: It would not be a nuisance beforehand. Who shall say that breaking up two cars and selling the bits on a given plot of land is a nuisance? I would not say it was. But breaking up twenty cars a day on the same plot of land may very well be a nuisance. This is one of those cases where if all citizens in this country were like your Lordships one would not have to bother; but they are not. Some of them know very well there is a limitation and they establish a use in a minimal way which is imperceptible to everybody and gives no trouble, for the sole purpose
648
of getting an uncovenanted and unpermitted profit thereafter. It is to prevent this abuse that the Government arrive at a compromise.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful for that short debate. I feel it would be difficult for me to put down an Amendment on Report stage, in view of my having said that I should be prepared to accept the clause, but we may have to return to it. I have one other small question to which I certainly would not expect an immediate answer, and that relates to subsection (8)—the provision for withdrawal of an enforcement notice. I am not quite sure in what circumstances this would arise, but if a local planning authority serves an enforcement notice the owner or occupier on whom it is served may be put to some immediate expense, whether in resisting the notice or in seeking to comply with it, and then, suddenly, under subsection (8) the local planning authority could withdraw the notice and give notice of that to everybody.
If I remember rightly, under the principal Act, should an enforcement notice be quashed the Minister has power to award costs against the local planning authority. I should like to know whether a smiliar power will exist here if in fact it appeared that the local planning authority had been acting unreasonably in first of all calling upon the owner or occupier to do something by this enforcement notice and then changing its mind and withdrawing the notice. I do not ask for an immediate answer to that question, but perhaps the point could be noted.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appeal against enforcement notice]:
9.27 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is a drafting Amendment to improve an Amendment which was moved into the Bill by the Opposition on the Report stage in another place. As Clause 16(4)(b) now stands as a consequence of that Amendment, the Minister is empowered to disregard a failure of service if either the appellant or the person who ought to have been served has not been substantially prejudiced. What is intended, of course, is that the Minister should disregard the

649
failure of service only where no one has been prejudiced. This Amendment ensures that this is made the effect of the paragraph. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 29, leave out from ("if") to ("been") in line 30 and insert ("neither the appellant nor that person has").—(Baroness Serota.)
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved to leave out from the beginning of subsection (7) to end of paragraph (a) and to insert instead:
"(7) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought under this section the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permisson for the development to which the notice relates and, in relation to any exercise by the Minister of his powers under subsection (5) above, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) any planning permission granted there-under shall be treated as granted on the said application;".

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23 I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Amendments Nos. 105, 109, 110, 115 and 116 to the Schedules also relate to this particular Amendment. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make mention of their relevance at this stage although we shall, of course, come to them later. The first of these Amendments, Amendment No. 23, restores to the Bill the concept of a deemed application for planning permission for the development to which an enforcement notice relates accompanying any appeal against that notice. It is a concept which stands in the Act of 1962 by virtue of Section 64(2) and (3), but it was not included in the course of recasting the enforcement provisions in the Bill when the power of the Minister to grant a planning permission when determining an appeal against an enforcement notice was expressly stated in what is now Clause 16(5). The effect of paragraph (a) of the Amendment is that a permission granted under Clause 16(5) takes its place along with all other permissions, and is capable of being revoked or modified like any other planning permission. Apart from that general point, the restoration of the concept is specifically necessary in order conveniently to secure that three limitations on the grant of planning permission shall apply in the case of the grant of permissions under Clause 16(5). These points
650
are dealt with in the Amendments which I mentioned earlier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert the said new words.—(Baroness Scrota.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice.]:
BARONESS SEROTA: The purpose of the new subsection which this Amendment proposes should be inserted into Clause 17 is to ensure that tipping of refuse or waste materials can be halted by means of a stop notice pending the final determination of proceedings on an enforcement notice served by the local planning authority. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties associated with tipping waste material—particularly those who live in cities like London. The justification for the Amendment is that tipping is just as irreversible in practice as building and other kinds of operations. The stop notice procedure is intended as a means of "holding the ring" so as to avoid prejudicing the outcome of enforcement proceedings while they are in progress. It is just as necessary that this procedure should be capable of being applied to the deposit of refuse or waste as to the construction of a building or any other works. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 41, at end insert—
("The operations which may be the subject of a stop notice shall include the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land where that is a breach of planning control alleged in the enforcement notice.").—(Baroness Serota.)
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Determination of planning and similar appeals by persons appointed by the Minister]:
9.34 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "prescribed class", and insert:
"class prescribed by the Minister by an order which shall not have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
The noble Lord said: We have now reached Part III of the Bill. I hope that the Government are pleased with the rate at which the Opposition is enabling them to make progress with this Bill. But we must pause a little, I think, on Clause 19, because it provides for an extremely important change in procedure. I sympathise with the desire of the Government to try to relieve the excessive load of work falling, nominally on the Minister but in fact on his officials, who it is well known need to get ministerial decisions on only a relatively small percentage of the cases and problems that pass through their hands in this field. But something needs to be done about the tremendous load of appeals which, at any rate nominally, have to be decided by the Minister. Hence we have this far-reaching proposal in Clause 19, that the actual decision on a planning appeal can be taken by the inspector, instead of it merely being the duty of the inspector to hold an inquiry and report to the Minister, when his report has to be processed in the Ministry and the Minister himself has to take the decision, or it is taken in his name.
I accept that there is an overwhelming case for some alteration. I must say that in principle I dislike the idea of important decisions being handed to people in official positions. I think it is more desirable always that elected persons should take decisions which may be of a controversial character, and should then have to answer for them. But I accept that it is quite impossible to continue with the present arrangement. I understand that something like 97½ per cent. of all the planning appeals are decided by the Minister in accordance with the recommendation of his inspectors. Therefore if we can create a new system under which some section of that 97½ per cent. can be actually decided by the inspector without the necessity for his report being examined in the Department, that will be a great gain.
I understand that it is the intention of the Government to transfer only certain categories of appeal away from the Minister to a person appointed by the Minister under this clause, and that is well and good. I am sure it is right. But which categories are transferred will be extremely important, and while I accept
652
that after the transference of one class has been made the transference of other classes may be thought desirable, nevertheless I feel that Parliament should keep a watch on all this. That is the reason for my Amendment.
At present, under the Bill as it stands, the Minister may prescribe a class of planning appeals which shall be determined not by him but by the inspector. My Amendment would ensure that this prescribing of classes would be subject to Parliamentary control, and I think that that is very desirable. I do not want to multiply the number of matters which are subject to Affirmative Resolution—this is not a day when I should specifically seek to multiply that—but here one is transferring from the full Parliamentary control which attaches to ministerial decisions classes of cases away from ministerial control; and I think that the Minister will not be answerable for planning appeal decisions taken, not by him but by somebody appointed by him. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very interested to know.
In other words, I do not want to seek to impair the general purpose which the Government are following here, but I suggest that there should be closer Parliamentary control. I think that is very desirable in this transitional stage when people will hardly have got accustomed to the new system. People do not like the idea of matters which may be very important to them individually—not necessarily important in terms of money but important in terms of amenity—being decided by an official and not by an elected Minister. That is why I hope the Government will take seriously this suggestion that when the Minister wishes to prescribe a class of cases that can be transferred away from him to a person appointed by him he should seek the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 26, leave out "prescribed class" and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS SEROTA: In introducing this Amendment, the noble Lord rightly drew the attention of the Committee to the objects of Clause 19 and of the remaining clauses in Part III of the Bill and their great significance in terms of

653
the changes in the way in which we deal with appeals under the arrangements outlined in this Bill. He has also indicated that the object of the exercise is to expedite the determination of appeals to the Minister against decisions of local planning authorities. This is a cause which I think we all have at heart, and it was given general welcome at Second Reading stage. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the transfer of responsibilities of this kind from Minister to inspector causes certain qualms, and if the hour were not so late I should be tempted to engage in debate on the relative roles of the elected member and the permanent official at either Central Government or local level. This is very much in the public mind to-day.
But while the arrangements that we seek to introduce as a result of the changes in the Bill will be brought about as early as is properly possible, early introduction of the arrangements at the cost of causing inconvenience to persons who have already lodged appeals, or of delay in the discharge of business due to an unsuitably phased changeover, would clearly be extremely unfortunate. Further, the Committee can be assured that the Minister will see that the regulations setting out the classes of appeal to be delegated will be made in good time for people to take account of them before their effect is felt in practice.
On the specific point that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve by this Amendment—that the regulations prescribing the classes of appeals which will be for determination by inspectors under the new system introduced by this part of the Bill shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure—as the Bill is drafted the regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. This is because Clause 85(3) of the Bill has the effect of applying Section 217(2) of the 1962 Act to the definition "prescribed" in Clause 85(1).
I am very conscious at this moment of time that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and other noble Lords present have far greater experience than I have in this House and in another place, but I understand that, broadly speaking, the distinction is between regulations which settle matters that are fundamental to the operation of the Statute and those which provide merely for the filling in of
654
details which do not have to be settled once and for all by the Act but are deliberately left for later consideration by the Minister. By this standard there is no case for making the regulations under Clause 19(1) subject to Affirmative Resolution.
If the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, were carried, the effect would almost certainly be to postpone the making of the first regulations under Clause 19. As I indicated a few moments ago, it is the intention of the Minister, subject to the proper consultations and safeguards, to implement the procedure as early as is reasonably possible, having given due weight to all the considerations involved. As the clause now stands, it is hoped —subject, of course, to Royal Assent being given this side of the Summer Recess—to be able to apply the new system to appeals in the subscribed cases on or after October 1. I should not like your Lordships to take this as a firm date, but this is the target to which the Minister intends to work. The regulations made under Clause 19 will, in the usual way, be subject to consultation with the local authority associations and the usual professional representative bodies.
I hope that with that explanation, and possibly with further thought, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will withdraw his Amendment to-night. I think we are all anxious, following the policy of this Bill, to implement the new procedures as soon as we can, and it is the view of the Government that this particular class of regulation, subject to the negative as opposed to affirmative procedure, is the right way to achieve this.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I had had any thought of pressing this Amendment to-night, I think the noble Baroness would have persuaded me not to do so. However, it does not seem to me to be a matter on which I should seek to divide the Committee. We have had the clarification from the Government that these regulations under which classes will be prescribed will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. That does not appear on the face of the Bill except to anybody who knows his way thoroughly about this Bill and the principal Act. So it is helpful to have it on record with the authority of the Government.

655
I agree with the noble Baroness that if we are going to have this change the sooner we start to get experience of the new working the better. She said that some class or classes might be prescribed in time for the new system to apply to them by October 1. May I ask if she is in a position to say whether it is the Minister's intention to include anything other than single houses in the first class of cases to be transferred to the new procedure? It has been made clear, both on Second Reading and in another place, that the Government are anxious to draw a distinction between the type of planning appeal which, though it may be of immense interest and importance to an individual, can hardly be said to have widespread repercussions, and those which are of wider interest.
I would agree that probably the planning appeal relating to the single house represents the class that could most easily be transferred for experimental purposes to the new system. I must say that I should be sorry if the Minister were to proceed too fast and were to transfer cases which might be of a more widely controversial character to be settled by permanent officials, and not by him, until we had had a great deal more experience of the working. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some indication of the Minister's intentions before I withdraw my Amendment.
BARONESS SEROTA: As I understand the position, the classes of appeal that the Minister is at present minded to prescribe are single houses, which amount to 33 per cent. of all appeals; housing estates comprising ten dwellings or under, amounting to some 10 per cent. of appeals; outlying residential applications of 2 acres or under, which at present amount to 4 per cent.; flats and maisonettes, 10 or under, 2 per cent.; residential conversions, 3 per cent. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I will add that up for him. I have it in front of me, and he has not unless he has been quick at writing it down. It is a total of 52 per cent. These are likely to amount, allowing for some cases that serve special reasons, to well over 40 per cent. of all appeals decided, and about 60 per cent. of the full range of appeals under Section 23, which are at present foreseen as coming within the
656
general system. I hope that is information which the noble Lord will find helpful, and I can only assure him that if there are further details in this matter that will assist him in consideration of the clauses concerned, we shall be only too happy to let him have them.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for both of her replies. Now that we are satisfied that the transfer will be subject to Parliamentary control by the Negative procedure, and also that the Minister is quite clearly going step by step in this matter, I do not think we should press this Amendment further and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Determination of appeals by the Minister]:
9.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Clause 20 provides that the Minister may, as it were, withdraw an individual appeal which is in a class prescribed for transfer and decide to determine it himself. It would be of interest to the Committee, I think, to know in what circumstances it may be the Minister's intention to use this power. Personally, I hope he will not hesitate to use it where there is evidence that the planning appeal, though it may be concerned with a small site or a small issue, nevertheless is giving rise already to strong local controversy. If we are to save administrative time and difficulty by this change, I am anxious to avoid bringing permanent officials, whoever they may be, into the field of strong local controversy. Indeed, it would be wholly unfair to do so. The great difference is that Ministers can speak for themselves and defend themselves, or try to, whereas permanent officials are necessarily silent. If you are paid to do the job, you do the job and make your recommendation, or in this case you issue your decision, and there it is. The storm may break upon your head and you cannot defend yourself.
I greatly hope I shall hear that it will be the intention of the Minister, where

657
he has reason to believe that there is likely to be considerable local controversy over the outcome of a planning appeal, whichever way it may go, to withdraw it. I know from my experience that there are planning appeals where, so to speak, you cannot win. If you decide one way you please one set of people and you make permanent enemies of the other; if you decide the issue the other way the result is simply the reverse of that. Anger seems to be much more prevalent than gratitude in these matters. I submit that the anger should fall on the elected person rather than on the permanent official.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am very happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.
LORD SOMERS: Before we pass this clause, I should like some assurance from the Government that if a private individual makes an appeal against a local government and gets no satisfaction it will be possible to apply to the Minister. I remember a case a few years ago where a cousin of mine made such an appeal and it was refused. It was for a very small matter inside his own house, and when the appeal was refused he had good reason to believe that in fact it had never appeared before the planning authority. So I arranged for him to come with me to have an interview with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who at that time was none other than my noble friend Lord Brooke, who may possibly remember the occasion. Eventually we were able to find out that it was definitely the case that this appeal had been merely rubber stamped by an official and had never appeared before the planning committee at all. That kind of thing is difficult for the ordinary private individual to find out, and it seems to me that the Minister is the only person who can do it.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am not quite sure whether I have followed the argument of the noble Lord or whether the point he made is relevant to this particular clause. Clause 20, which we are now discussing, relates to the power of the Minister to recover jurisdiction in any appeal that would otherwise be decided by an inspector. But we have taken a note of the noble Lord's point
658
and perhaps we can discuss it with him in another way.
LORD SOMERS: I must apologise to the Committee if I have raised it at the wrong time. It is a little difficult for a layman to understand which clause is relevant and which is not.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Local inquiries and hearings]:
9.59 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "if" to "the applicant or appellant desires or". The noble Lord said: We come now to local inquiries and hearings in relation to this new procedure. There are well established arrangements for local inquiries and hearings under the existing procedure, where an inspector takes the public inquiry and reports to the Minister, and, generally speaking, there is no difficulty in its being decided whether a public inquiry is necessary or a private hearing is sufficient. However it seemed to me desirable, as we were coming into a new field, to ask whether the same rules would apply. I am seeking to raise the subject by means of this Amendment. At present the subsection says that a person appointed to determine an appeal shall hold such an inquiry if the Minister directs him to do so, and my Amendment would make it read that he shall hold such an inquiry if the applicant or appellant desires, or the Minister directs him to do so. I am extremely anxious to ensure that the applicant or appellant, as the case may be, shall not lose any of his rights to the holding of a public inquiry simply through the transfer of the determination from the Minister to the inspector. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, at beginning insert ("the applicant or appellant desires or".—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to support this Amendment, on the, well-known ground that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. If an appellant desires that justice in his case should be seen to be done by a public inquiry he should be entitled to it. It is not only very good for the

659
public to take an interest in these things, and for the Press to attend local inquiries and to report the proceedings in local newspapers, so that people in the neighbourhood shall take an interest in the matter, but it is also very good for officials to have to conduct inquiries under the public gaze. It is very good for your Lordships to have to conduct your deliberations under the public gaze. We are doing so at 10 o'clock at night under quite a strong public gaze. It is very good for us. It is good for everybody deciding matters to do so under the public gaze, and that is why I strongly support the idea that if an appellant feels he would like his appeal to be heard in public, that wish should be respected and it should be granted.
BARONESS SEROTA: As I read it, this Amendment would mean that an inspector dealing with a transferred appeal would have to hold a local inquiry if the appellant so desired, and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, are concerned about the form of the inquiry. As I understand the situation, in practice an inquiry at which the public could be present would never be refused if that were what the applicant or appellant wanted, and I think this meets the point the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just made. But it seems wrong that a matter which ought to be settled in the light of the weight and circumstances of the case should not be in the control of the Minister, who can override his inspector by virtue of the directing power in Clause 22(1) in order to insist on a local inquiry.
In the view of the Government the Amendment is open to objection on a number of grounds. First, it enables the appellant to insist on a local inquiry but gives no corresponding right to the local planning authority. This, I submit, is wrong. Secondly, it applies only to appeals transferred to inspectors and does not affect appeals to be determined by the Minister. In principle, the procedure for dealing with the two kinds of determination ought to be the same. Thirdly, the purpose of Clause 22(1) is to empower an inspector determining an appeal to hold a local inquiry even if neither party asks for one, and to compel him to hold such an inquiry if the Minister
660
directs that it should be done. A more appropriate place in the Bill to make provision about the rights of the parties to an appeal, as opposed to the powers and duties of the inspector, would probably be in Clause 19. I wonder whether, in the light of these comments, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would like to withdraw his Amendment so that we can have further discussions, perhaps at another stage, about it.
LORD AIREDALE: I certainly accept the point the noble Baroness makes, that perhaps it is unfair that the local authority should not also have a right to demand a local inquiry. I think perhaps that is a good point. By all means let us have a further Amendment from the Government at the next stage to say that not only the appellant but also the local authority shall have the right to demand a local inquiry. Let that argument be used not to defeat this Amendment but as a springboard from which a further Amendment might be introduced at the next stage.
LORD MITCHISON: With respect, I do not think, that a local inquiry is on quite the same footing as an appeal. There are very many instances in the Statute Books of local inquiries being allowed, and they are sometimes allowed on the direction of the Minister alone, sometimes at the direction of the Minister or of some other person in a peculiarly responsible position; or, I think I am right in saying, speaking from memory, at the instigation of quite a number of people concerned in a case. But that an individual should be allowed to insist on a local inquiry I think, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, is pressing things too far.
The trouble about this planning machinery is that in this Bill as in others, it is most complicated and it takes time, and the public feeling about it I think is a certain indignation at the delay and inconvenience rather than a feeling that a local inquiry ought to be held. There certainly would be cases for a local inquiry, but whatever one's personal opinion may be, one is not entitled to assume that all Ministers are necessarily idiots; and in a case like this I should have thought that the Minister was the right person to entrust with the duty of deciding whether or not there was a case for a local inquiry.

661
I am not pretending for a moment that Ministers are infallible; they certainly are not. I am sure that they make mistakes over a matter of this sort. In fact, I expect that the noble Lord and I have made a number of mistakes. But apart from that, one has surely to strike a balance between expense, inconvenience and delay on the one hand, and an excess of formality and rights of the individual citizen on the other. The right to a local inquiry does not seem to be quite on the same footing as the right to have visible and apparent justice. I should have thought it is a different kind of thing. Therefore, for myself, I feel doubtful whether this Amendment would really inure to the public benefit. I hope Lord Brooke will not mind my saying that I am utterly convinced by his sincerity in wishing to simplify the procedure of planning so far as possible, to cut out time and, incidentally, to reduce the number of people engaged in the machinery of planning.
10.8 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: This Amendment may well appear in the wrong place, but let me excuse myself by saying that this is a most difficult Bill, and I can find my way about it only through the exercise of common sense. As my Amendment concerns local inquiries and these are mentioned in Clause 22, and, so far as I can ascertain, are not mentioned at all in Clause 19, it appeared to me desirable that I should table my Amendment, not to Clause 19 but to Clause 22. I had read Clause 19 and it was from that clause that I took the phrase "applicant or appellant". For my part, I cannot see how the person concerned with an appeal is not also the appellant; but if your Lordships will subject yourselves to reading subsection (6) of Clause 19, you will see there that before the determination of any such appeal "the Minister shall ask the applicant or the appellant" certain questions. In order not to be caught out on that, I put the words "applicant or appellant" in my Amendment.
I take the point that there should be equal rights for the local planning
662
authorities as for the applicant or appellant, to demand a local inquiry. My concern really is to ensure that justice is seen to be done to fully the same extent under this new procedure as has been the case under the existing procedure, where the inspector reports to the Minister. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I should be grateful if the Government would consider what I have said and what has been said by other noble Lords, and see whether the point can be made any clearer, because it would be an undesirable result of this desirable change if people started to say that whereas under the old procedure a local public inquiry would always be held when it was desirable, under the new procedure one was not equally sure of getting it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Repeal of existing provisions for compulsory acquisition of land]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am not sure whether it is best for me to ask for a statement from the Government here or on Clause 27. Clause 25 repeals Section 67 of the principal Act and Section 47 of the Post Office Act 1953, and, as I understand it, makes way for the apparently sweeping powers granted in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 27. If the Government say that it would be better for me to wait until we reach Clause 27, well and good; but either now or then I am anxious to ask the Government to explain precisely why these changes are being made and what will be their effect.
LORD KENNET: If the noble Lord agrees, I would sooner do it on Clause 27.
Clause 25 agreed to.
10.13 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "or assist".
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance, although it is a very short one. Subsection (1) of Clause 26 indicates the matters on which the Minister must be satisfied before he will authorise a local authority to acquire land compulsorily. From the point of view of the individual citizen, subsection (1) with its paragraphs, (a), (b) (c) and (d), is pretty formidable. When I read it my first instinct was to put down a number of Amendments to limit these very wide categories. I then found that they were taken almost word for word from the principal Act which has been in force for a number of years, and therefore it seemed to me that it would be perhaps a waste of the Committee's time if I were to do that.
But there is one substantial alteration here and that is that the words "or assist" have not, so far as I am aware, hitherto been part of the law in this context. Subsection 1(a) says:
"The Minister … may authorise a local authority … to acquire compulsorily any land within their area if he is satisfied—(a) that the land is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement"
et cetera. I would not for one moment question that where the land is required to secure the treatment as a whole by redevelopment or improvement of the land or any area in which the land is situated, there exists a clear case for the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. But I am more doubtful whether we should extend this category by inserting the words "or assist". To secure something is quite definite and plain; but one may give the most minor assistance and yet be categorised as assisting.
If we were to pass the Bill in this unamended form it could be argued by a local authority which had made a compulsory purchase order that although it was not necessary to acquire the land to secure these various results, nevertheless it would assist those results if land was compulsorily purchased. That is not a strong enough ground on which a public authority should be entitled to take away compulsorily the citizens' property. As I said on many occasions
664
during the proceedings on the Country-side Bill, there must be compulsory purchase powers and, equally, Parliament must examine scrupulously any extension of those powers. This is an extension and appears to me to be undesirable. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment, or propose some Amendment of their own which will guarantee the owner of the property against the risk that the Minister may confirm a compulsory order against him simply because a local authority says it will be of help to them in bringing about a certain result if they are enabled to acquire the land compulsorily. That is not sufficient justification for compulsory purchase and that is why I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Age 23, line 8, leave out ("or assist").— (Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD MITCHISON: I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that this kind of case needs watching very carefully. But it needs watching from both sides. This is a case where one has to consider carefully the effect of leaving out the words. They have been put in here because the Government— in this case the Ministry of Housing, no doubt after consultation with local authorities—are of the opinion that they are required. One must assume that Ministers are on the whole reasonable people and have regard to the public advantage. In some cases there may be questions of policy; in others the policy may be self-evident. The person who has to be satisfied here is the Minister, no doubt at the instigation of the local authority. The Minister could be asked questions in Parliament about how he had managed to be satisfied in this case.
Let us think for a moment about what is involved. We are asked, and it is agreed, that powers should be given to secure the treatment as a whole for the development, redevelopment or improvement of land—if I may shorten it. No one doubts that those powers are necessary, and no one doubts that there will be proper cases in which they are not absolutely necessary and cannot in that sense be said to secure the object we are considering, but are none the less of material assistance to it. It might reasonably be the case in a very large number of instances that there were things which

665
assisted to a considerable degree but which could be dispensed with, and where compulsory purchase could be avoided if this Amendment were accepted, at the cost of putting the public or the municipal purse to some extra expense.
I entirely agree at once that compensation for compulsory purchase ought to be fair, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is not the only ex-Minister in this place who has done his best to achieve that object one way or another, but I do not think we can proceed on the assumption that there is something fundamentally wrong with compulsory purchase because it always results in unfair compensation. The remedy for that is to try to deal with the compensation. What it does do is to take away the land of some person who might not otherwise be willing to dispose of it. We know that is the position, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that that is a very serious matter which must be closely looked at.
We therefore get to this balance. On the one hand, there is the man whose land is being taken away from him although he does not want to part with it. On the other hand, there is the possibility of achieving the desired result by way of development, redevelopment or improvement by some much more expensive or otherwise objectionable method, so that it cannot be said strictly to secure the land. This kind of case is a matter of judgment and opinion, and I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I could have agreed, if we had had an opportunity of discussing the matter fully, that a balance of convenience of that kind must be decided by and on the responsibility of the Minister of the day; and that to try to do it by omitting words from a Statute which seem to be necessary in, at any rate, a large group of cases is the wrong way of tackling the problem.
I suggest that you really cannot find words that will cover the cases of assistance which are proper cases, as distinct from the cases of assistance which are really quite slight cases, such as the noble Lord had in mind, where the local authority is being a bit unreasonable and saying," It is convenient to do this, and therefore we shall say that it assists us
666
and will use compulsory powers". What you must do when there is that balance to judge is to leave it to the responsible Minister to weigh up the two considerations, as I know well the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has often had to do himself, and decide which he thinks is right. Different Ministers and different Governments will come to different conclusions. There will be different conclusions in one part of the country from those in another, and there will be any number of factors involved which cannot be dealt with by appropriate wording in a Statute.
I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will agree—I think that is always a nasty phrase and perhaps I should say that I hope I have succeeded in persuading the noble Lord—that there really is a case for leaving the words in, and that it is sometimes inevitable to have to leave questions of balance of this sort to Ministerial judgment. That is what Ministers ale for, and the poor devils—I hope that is not too un-Parliamentary a way to describe them—sometimes get far too many kicks because they have to do it. But somebody has to do it and it cannot be done by putting the whole matter into statutory language. Therefore, I would leave the power, relying on the fact that it depends not only on a local authority application —I should not pay nearly so much attention to that—but also on the decision of a responsible Minister, for which he is answerable to Parliament.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, surely there is another authority which occasionally has to be satisfied as to the meaning of words, and that is the courts. I remember certain decisions—Ministerial decisions, too—being challenged in the courts and being found ultra vires, with very great effect on planning legislation. I know, from what we are told, that judges ought to be able to interpret anything, but surely we ought to try to make the intentions of Parliament clear enough for them to be enabled to make a decision; and if you employ words as vague as this I should have thought that they would have had some difficulty in doing so. I quite agree that you cannot tie everything up completely, and I merely wish to put forward that particular consideration.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may reply for one moment to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, may I say that I agree with a great deal of what he said. But the trouble in this kind of case is that you cannot find a form of words which will cover the good cases and not cover the bad ones.
LORD HOLFORD: I hope your Lordship will forgive me for ventilating a different kind of anxiety which I have on this word "assist". I have been putting myself in the position of someone advising a local authority, after preparing a scheme, that they ought in fact compulsorily to acquire a certain interest in land. If the word "assist" means assisting the convenience of the makers of the plan, although one would often welcome it I do not think that is a worthy object. If it means assisting by way of convenience and making a thing more tidy, or anything of that kind, I beg leave to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that this is not the right use.
But much more important is the question, what the word "assist" adds to the word "secure". Because here we are talking about securing "the treatment as a whole "; and I must say that I should be very much relieved if an example could be quoted of what I think the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has already implied in what he has said—that something is essential to assist a plan which cannot in fact be got by securing the treatment as a whole.
LORD KENNET: First of all, let me clarify that we are not of course talking about assisting the convenience of a local authority. Let me read this part of the clause as unamended. The Minister is to be satisfied,
"that the land is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement or partly by one and partly by another method, of the land or of any area in which the land is situated;… "
So it is perfectly clear what "assist" applies to: it applies to the treatment as a whole
"of the land or of any area in which the land is situated".
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said first of all that the word "assist" introduced a new power, and, secondly, that
668
it introduced a power which ought not to be there. I believe that in both these assertions he is mistaken. It does not introduce any power—and let me ask him whether he would not agree with me that it does not when he has heard the parallel power in the 1962 Act. This Bill abolishes the requirement of designation—that is, designation of land on the plan as subject to compulsory acquisition—which has failed to serve the purpose expected of it, and replaces the "comprehensive development area" with the "action area" concept. Now these changes force a change of language in this regard, but they do not, I submit, entail any change of substance, and there is not, I submit, any change of substance in the wording now before the Committee when compared with that in the 1962 Act.
Under the 1962 Act, land which could be brought under the relevant section, the compulsory purchase section, had to be
"either comprised in a comprehensive development area defined in the development plan or contiguous or adjacent to such an area; …"
and the Minister had to be satisfied that
"either it was required to secure the development or redevelopment of the area; or"—
and here we come to the point—
"that it was expedient in the public interest that it should be held together with land so required".
If the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, can tell me in what way that concept differs from the concept of assisting in the development as a whole, I think he will have established his point that a new power is being conferred here. Otherwise, I take leave to insist that no new power is conferred. There remains the question of whether the power conferred is one that it would be right to continue. If we agree that it is already there, is it right to continue it? I think it is; for the same reason that it was right to have it in the 1962 Act; and that is primarily because of the one owner, the owner of one house or building in the middle of what is a comprehensive area, or what may now be an action area, who will not sell.
You may imagine that the local authority wishes to purchase by agreement; that the whole of the area is to

669
be purchased for development or redevelopment; and that there is one person in the middle holding out against an arm's length purchase, the ordinary purchase by agreement; and that the local authority wishes to purchase his property compulsorily. If we delete the words "or assist" he can then take the local authority, not by way of appeal to the Minister, but beyond to the courts. He can say, "If you do not buy my one house you will not have been prevented from securing development of the area. You may have 500 or 1,000 houses all round. How can you say you are not able to secure it?"
This is where the word "assist" comes in. The local authority can then say, "Ah, but it would assist in the development; the whole development, which we admit would be secured without the purchase of your house, would be assisted if we could also purchase your house". My contention is that the power in question is neither new nor unjustified; and the latter contention depends on the former. If it was justified in 1962, it is justified now. I hope the noble Lord may agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: First may I say what a privilege it is to us that we should have the noble Lord, Lord Holford, present in this Committee. There is an immense advantage to this House in having somebody who is willing to put his vast experience at our disposal during these complicated matters. I think perhaps that he may grant to us, as he has come fairly fresh to legislation, that the business of getting the law right is just as difficult as the business of getting the plans right.
We shall have to return to this again on Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that there was nothing really new in the words "or assist". He asked me whether I was aware of the existence in the 1962 Act, the principal Act, of the reference to its being expedient in the public interest that the land should be held together with land so required. That is what he said implied the word "assisting". But those precise words appear in paragraph (b) of this subsection. We have had those words on the Statute Book, I know, and we have had the word "secure" on the Statute Book for years. My case is that we are add-
670
ing to the various powers in this Bill the additional concept of assisting the treatment as a whole.
I must say that I could not follow from the noble Lord's argument how he, managed to claim that the word "assist" was not an addition to the existing law, or how it would not be possible to acquire that obstinate individual's house in the middle of a re-development area if the word "assist" was not there. We have surely been able to overcome those difficulties in the past, and it certainly appears to me that the case for adding this new concept contained in the words, "or assist" has not been made out.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and I was grateful for his general approach, but he seemed to think that I was seeking to take away an existing power. I am not; I am challenging the addition of a new power, and I hope that between now and Report stage further thought may be given to this point. I should be very willing to discuss it further with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if that would be helpful, but I must make clear to the Committee that the onus is on the Government to show why the existing words have not been operating sufficiently well and that it is desirable for Parliament to add this new power comprised in the words, "or assist".
I will leave my argument there, because I do not think it is any good pursuing it indefinitely at 25 minutes to 11 at night, but I must give notice that if I have not obtained some satisfaction meanwhile, it will be essential to ask the House to revert to this matter on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.38 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"( ) The Minister may authorise any local authority as aforesaid to acquire an easement or other right over land by the grant of a new right:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an easement or other right over any land which would for the purposes of the Act of 1946 form part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment."
The noble Lord said: Clause 26 and the following clause, Clause 27, which is relevant to this point, deal with the

671
powers of compulsory acquisition. Clause 26 authorises the Minister to grant to certain local authorities the right to acquire compulsorily any land within their area on certain conditions. Then if your Lordships look at Clause 27, you will find that it gives the Minister of Public Building and Works powers to acquire compulsorily
"any land necessary for the public service.".
Subsection (3) states:
"The power of acquiring land compulsorily under this section shall include power to acquire an easement or other right over land by the grant of a new right."
Your Lordships will see that the powers which are given, and the powers which may be given, to a local authority are different from the powers given to the Minister of Public Building and Works. The Minister may acquire an easement or right over the land without having to acquire the land itself, whereas the local authority is given power only to acquire the land. This Amendment seeks to extend to local authorities authorised to acquire compulsorily the right to acquire an easement or right over the land in the same way as the Minister of Public Building and Works. It is very much to the advantage both of the local authority and of the citizen that if the local authority's purpose can be met by the acquisition of a right over the land, or an easement as it is called, without having to acquire the land itself. It is a great advantage to the landowner, who does not lose his land, and to the local authority which will not have to take on more land than it requires for its purposes.
It is always dangerous to give illustrations in a case of this sort and wiser to deal in generalities, but I wonder whether I can illustrate the point the Amendment aims at by a simple illustration. Suppose that a local authority possesses a site for house building, or some purpose of that sort, but the access to the site is across the land of an adjoining landowner. As the Bill stands, the local authority would be compelled to acquire the adjoining land, not because it wants it, but because it wants the right to pass across it to its own site. The Amendment would make it possible, if the local authority arrange to give the
672
owner a corresponding right in another part of the area, for it to acquire the right to cross his land without having to acquire the land itself. If it is good for the Minister of Public Building and Works to have this power, I should have thought that it was equally good for the local authorities. I am sure that it is very much to the advantage both of the local authority and of the citizen, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to take the same view of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has justified his Amendment mainly by reference to Clause 27, which re-equips the Minister of Building and Works and the Postmaster General with certain compulsory purchasing powers. This is in the Bill because it repeals the designation provisions of the 1962 Act, and it is necessary to give these Departments the power to require the grant of easements and certain other rights. These rights are of obvious use to the Post Office for the purpose of laying cables and to the Ministry of Building and Works for access, for instance, to remote defence sites.
I understand that parallel powers are already in the hands of local authorities. I do not seek to convince the Committee and the noble Lord that they ought not to have parallel powers, but I seek to convince them that they already have these powers. A parallel case would be when a local authority is acting as a water undertaker or sewerage authority, in which cases it already has compulsory powers. There remains one category of case—that is, when a local authority would be content to take an easement instead of making an outright purchase of a piece of land. I assume that in such a case the owner would prefer to grant an easement rather than sell the land outright, and agrees with the local authority on normal purchase without the use of compulsory powers.
In conclusion, I would inform the Committee that this matter was discussed in another place, and it was left by my right honourable friend the Minister of State to the honourable Member of the Committee who had introduced the Amendment corresponding to this one to

673
let him have any information in his possession which indicated the need for an extension of the acquisition powers proposed by the Amendment. No information has been received, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that if he could let me have any concrete information which suggests that the existing powers of local authorities as sewerage authorities or water undertakers does not suffice for this sort of purpose, then I would be grateful to have a look at it. Pending that, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I am inclined to think that my noble friend ought to look at this independently, too. I have in mind one or two types of case. I imagine that where the easement or other right is attached in some way to a piece of property that is being compulsorily bought there ought to be no difficulty. But I am sure that it ought to he checked.
I think one has to remember that what we are trying to do in the whole of this Bill involves a good deal of redevelopment, and the sort of case that I have in mind is a right of way. It may not exist at all; there may be nothing that can be handed over in exchange for it —no question of an old right exchanged for a new—but it may be for the convenience and advantage of everybody that a right of way should exist in some cases. One thinks of all kinds of things —children getting to school, and so on. If that is so, then we ought not to allow a local authority to be put to a large amount of additional cost in buying things it does not want, or to be held to ransom by someone who perhaps has the strongest physical revulsion to a number of small children crossing the bottom of his garden, or land. I know that people have rights, but in a case of this sort one must provide reasonably.
LORD ILFORD: I will certainly see what information I can obtain on this matter and send it to the Minister. I hope it appears that this right to acquire an easement is desirable in cases other than the cases he mentioned, where the local authority is a water undertaker or is laying sewers. My recollection is that both those two powers are express statutory powers. As I say, I will see if I can find the information the noble Lord wants and send it to him, and I
674
hope that he will then look more favourably on my Amendment than he does now. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Compulsory acquisition of land by certain Ministers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.48 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I now press the Minister to answer the questions which I asked, perhaps prematurely, on Clause 25? Subsection (1) of Clause 27 has the appearance of meaning that all land required for the public service by any Minister except the Postmaster General shall in future, if it is necessary to use compulsory powers, be acquired by the Minister of Public Building and Works. It would be helpful to know whether that is really what it means, and whether, by the combination of Clauses 25 and 27, all other Ministers except the Postmaster General are losing their powers of compulsory purchase. The phrase, "any land necessary for the public service" is extraordinarily wide, and it would seem at first sight that it would be almost impossible to challenge it. Perhaps the Minister will explain why those words have been chosen.
Now I come to the Postmaster General. I believe I am right in my recollection that the Postmaster General's existing powers of compulsory purchase are so complex that they are never used, and that the Postmaster General must have recourse to roundabout methods if he requires any land that he cannot obtain by agreement. That, at any rate, was the position before the designation procedure existed. I am not absolutely sure whether the designation procedure was open to him. What it amounts to is this. On the face of it, the combination of these two clauses appears to make the most drastic changes in the powers of Ministers to acquire land compulsorily; and Clause 27 appears to empower the Minister of Public Building and Works to acquire compulsorily virtually anything simply by saying that it is necessary for the public service—not necessary for the public service within

675
his Department, but necessary for the public service anywhere.
What is the explanation of all this? It may not have any sinister implications; I do not know. But I confess that by reading the proceedings in another place I was not able to get my ideas wholly clarified. Maybe that was my fault. I have no desire to hold up the proceedings here if in fact these changes are not fundamental ones. But I think that the Committee would wish the Minister to give a clear explanation and not to feel limited by the lateness of the hour or restricted thereby into keeping his explanation very brief.
LORD AIREDALE: The words "the public service" are indeed wide. I imagine that they would include, for instance, the building of a new post office, and thus would have the position that, under subsection (1), the Minister of Public Building and Works may compulsorily acquire any land necessary for the building of a new post office because it is for "the public service". Could that be really intended? Surely these words are far, far too wide and we must have an explanation of what is really meant.
10.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: They may be wide, but they are not new. Let me first stand for a moment in sackcloth for having contributed my proportion, and probably more than my due proportion, to the confusion which has surrounded the discussion of this clause in both Houses. I think the best thing I can do about the question of the powers of the Minister of Public Building and Works is to run through, in capsule form, the history so far. In 1852 the Minister of Works was given power to acquire land by agreement for the public service—that was by agreement. That was the first appearance of the phrase "for the public service". Under the 1947 Planning Act he was given power to acquire land by compulsion for the public service and for the exercise of any of his functions. This power was at that time limited to places designated in plans for this kind of development, and also to areas in which no development plan was in operation. I do not need to remind the Committee that at the beginning of the operation of
676
the 1947 Act, and for a few years after, the second class of areas—that is, those where there was no development plan—covered the entire country.
The third stage is 1968 and the Bill now before this Committee. The whole concept of designation is going, and so something has to be put in to say what the Minister of Public Building and Works may or may not do. The proposal in the Bill is that he should have compulsory purchase powers for the public service and that this shall not be limited to any particular part of the country, as indeed it was not for a few years after 1947. I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that, far from giving him increased powers, we are giving him rather reduced powers in this respect. In 1947 he had powers to purchase compulsorily for the public service and for the exercise of any of his functions. The present Bill will give him powers to purchase compulsorily only for the public service.
I hope and believe that covers most of the points that the noble Lord had in mind. If there is anything further he would like to say about it—and I admit that this is the latest attempt to clear up the confusion that has existed in both Houses so far—if the noble Lord is against this in any respect (I say this in all sincerity and helpfulness) we can carry the matter forward better if he will tell me in what respect he does not agree.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not think I heard him explain the position with regard to the Postmaster General, and I asked about that in connection with subsection (2). The further question with which he did not deal, and I am sorry if I did not make it explicit, is whether, if we agree to these clauses, it will leave no Ministers with compulsory purchase powers other than the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Building and Works. Those two will have the powers under subsections (1) and (2). What about all the other Ministers? What about the Defence services and everything else that is needed for the public service? Is it the case that whenever a Government Department requires something for the public service and cannot acquire it by agreement it will rely upon the Minister of Public Building and Works acting

677
under subsection (1) of this clause? The one other case, as I have made clear, is that of the Postmaster General, and perhaps the noble Lord will complete his reply by telling us exactly how the Postmaster General has stood and will now stand.
LORD MITCHISON: I hesitate to intervene in this Front Bench "battle" but I think what was said in Committee in another place might be of assistance to your Lordships. May I be allowed to remind the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, if he has a bound volume of the Committee Proceedings in another place, that he will find it beginning in column 643 on March 26. The Minister, Mr. MacDermot, agreed that at first sight these words "for the public service" looked a little confusing and might appear to be immensely wide. The difficulty arises as soon as we try to put some other phrase in their place. Then he commented on an Amendment which might at first sight have appeared to restrict the powers, because the Amendment was "for the purposes of any of his functions", and he said that if he were feeling very Machiavellian he would accept that Amendment because it would widen the present powers.
The reason is that apparently over a long period of years a precedent has been established that this term "the public service" is construed rather narrowly and is usually taken to mean the administration of the central Government. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right in supposing that the Minister of Public Building and Works would exercise this power for Departments other than his own.
Again, in column 646, the Minister said:
"The matter has been looked at again to see whether there is any other wording which would achieve the object better and with more modern phraseology, but I am told that when looking into it the advice was that any attempt to do so would be likely to result in a widening of the power or in our having to itemise a list of detailed purposes which would then require amending legislation on reconstruction of Government Departments, and so on. It is for this reason that the power has not been found to be excessive in relation to the powers of acquisition by agreement. I hope the Committee will feel able to accept my assurance about this".
678
Then he went on to assure the Committee
"that the provision will continue to be administered in the rather restrictive way in which the term has been used up to date."
There was a division on the matter—this was on substantially the same sort of point—and a conclusion was reached in another place, not of course necessarily to be accepted here, but hope that this House, in the passion it has acquired to-day for innovation, will not feel compelled to practise modernity in the form which the Minister had found would result only in widening the actual powers. I agree with noble Lords opposite, if I may say so respectfully and seriously, who said that these powers sound amazingly wide. I am afraid the short answer is that they are not in practice amazingly wide, but if you try to effect the result in language instead of practice, which might still occasionally commend itself to this House, you would only either widen the powers or produce an enormously long list which would have to be changed from time to time. I put this forward hoping to help the House in the matter, really believing there is no mischief here but also that it looks highly mischievous.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I think the noble Lord is very likely right. There may be nothing sinister here but it is extraordinarily difficult to be satisfied that that is so. I was following the noble Lord when he was reading out passages from column 646 of the Committee proceedings in another place, but he stopped just before he came to the sentence which had been puzzling me. Mr. MacDermot, the Minister, said
"I assure the Committee that the provision …"
that is, I think, subsection (1)—
"will continue to be administered in the rather restrictive way in which the term has been used up to date. It certainly would not include powers which other Ministers have for carrying out some service which they are responsible for administering, social services or planning services, whatever it may be."
I do not know whether Mr. MacDermot was wrong there; I think he may have been speaking off the cuff and may have made a mistake, and in fact it may be that these Ministers would always, at any

679
rate in future, apply to the Minister of Public Building and Works if it was sought to acquire land compulsorily for the public service. But this is one of the matters I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to clear up for us.
11.5 p.m.
LORD KENNET: Let me have a shot. First of all, if I may concentrate for a moment on the Postmaster General, his powers under the Bill—and I will say why they are there in a moment—are to acquire compulsorily any land required for the purposes of the Post Office as defined in Section 87 of the Post Office Act 1953, and that definition is
"'The purposes of the Post Office' includes any purpose relating to or in connection with the execution of any duties for the time being undertaken by the Postmaster General or any of his officers."
In other words, it is the job he is there for.
If I may retreat for a moment to speak slightly more in general about this whole situation, it arose like this. Under the 1962 Planning Act land could be designated for the purposes of the functions of any Minister and that Minister could himself then acquire that land compulsorily under Section 67. Now we are getting rid of designation and all its works something has to be done. All Ministers except the Minister of Works and the Postmaster General now fall back on their functional powers contained in other legislation—for instance, the Minister of Transport through the Highways Act, and the Minister of Defence through the Land Powers (Defence) Act. The Minister of Works and the Postmaster General do not. Because of the necessity to put a number of Bills together in such a way as to make sense, they figure in the present Bill. The Minister of Works has the powers which I have just outlined, and the Postmaster General also has the powers which I have just outlined.
To revert to the Minister of Works for a moment, what is "the public service"? The public service is primarily Government Departments, the provision of buildings for the work of central Government. That is the public service in this context. The Minister of Works has other functions which are not so assumed under that category of public service—for instance, responsibility for ancient monu-
680
ments. He might wish to acquire a theatre, some place of entertainment, any building on behalf of some Government body, or some Government-subsidised body. This would not be the public service, but it would be a function of the Minister of Works to do so. The Bill gives him compulsory purchase powers only for the public service. It is the provision of offices for Central Government and all its works, and not for the exercise of other functions which may be his. I hope that I have succeeded in throwing some light on what is, I admit, a confused scene, but confused only by the necessity of fitting together separate Acts of Parliament.
LORD AIREDALE: I am thinking of the Ministry of Social Security. They need buildings, do they not, in all large centres of population just as the Post Office do? It is rather curious, is it not, therefore, that the Ministry of Social Security do not figure in Clause 27. This clause seems most odd. No wonder we are uneasy about it
LORD KENNET: I do not think it is at all curious. The Ministry of Social Security require offices. The Minister of Works has a great deal of experience in providing offices: it is perhaps his main job. The Post Office requires a great many other things, such as pylons, aerials, masts and wires and radio stations, and this is a highly specialised service in which the Minister of Works has not had so much experience.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has clarified this to the point of transparency I am not absolutely sure, but I should like to congratulate him on having given a much clearer and more coherent account of what this clause means than anybody managed to extract from the Government during prolonged proceedings in another place.
LORD KENNET: It is earlier in the evening.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It all happened, I quite agree, as the noble Lord says, earlier in the evening. Having listened to his explanation, I do not myself believe that there is anything sinister here. There still remains a good deal that is mysterious; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, agrees with

681
me in that. But this phrase "necessary for the public service" has tradition behind it, and I appreciate that those who matter understand what it means. I appreciate that the Postmaster General needs to have separate powers, and it has now been made clear to me that the other Ministers who may wish to acquire land compulsorily have various Statutes relevant to their own work on which they can fall back. Consequently, subsection (1) of this clause is much less far-reaching and frightening than it would appear to be to the casual reader.
I should like to go over again in Hansard what has been said, so as to make sure that it really is compre-
682
hensible now. Perhaps at an earlier time of the day it may become more comprehensible. But I do not wish to press the matter further now; indeed, I rather hope that the Government will agree that, with the assistance of the Opposition, they have made good progress with the Bill tonight. We have managed to complete 28 Amendments and 27 clauses by ten past eleven and I think that is good going.
Clause 27 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.