Lords Sitting of 22 July 1969

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

V-BOMBER FORCE: NUCLEAR ROLE TRIBUTES
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: 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 any message of gratitude was sent to the officers and men of the V-bomber force on relinquishing their responsibility for nuclear deterrence; and, if not, why not.]
THE Lord PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, on June 30, 1969, when the responsibility for the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO's strategic nuclear deterrent forces was transferred from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy, the Chief of the Air Staff sent a congratulatory signal to Strike Command. He referred to the maintenance, at all times, over a long period, of the highest state of readiness which the Royal Air Force has known in peace time. He congratulated the personnel of the V-Force on their unsurpassed demonstration of professional skill, dedication and tenacity and reminded them that the long hours of arduous duty in cockpits, crew rooms, dispersals, hangars and operations rooms had brought the reward of knowing that a vital task had been successfully concluded. On July 3, in another place, the Secretary of State for Defence also paid a similar tribute. I am sure that noble Lords would also wish to add their congratulations.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that most satisfactory Answer, which I am certain will meet with the greatest approval in all parts of the House. I wonder whether he would agree that the
762
contents or the substance of this message are very little known to the public, and the services these young men have rendered have been done in conditions of considerable obscurity so far as the general public is concerned. Would he consider giving this message a rather higher degree of publicity, if possible, so that its contents could be known to the nation at large?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the particular point of publishing the message, it was of course intended for the air crews and the other people concerned and was circulated directly to them. None the less, I agree there is merit in the noble Earl's suggestion. I think that one way in which this message could be known more widely is if, arising out of this Question, I were to circulate it in the Official Report. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has said about these men. I have seen something of the V-Bomber crews and they were the most extraordinarily dedicated and efficient body of men, and no praise can be too high for their devotion to duty.
Following is the text of Congratulatory Signal from the Chief of the Air Staff to H.Q. Strike Command, sent on 30th June, 1969:
"For AOC-in-C from CAS. As you know the last white paper announced that this year the Royal Air Force will transfer to the Royal Navy the responsibility of providing Britain's contribution to the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent. I think it appropriate to remember that this task has meant maintaining, at all times throughout seven years, the highest state of readiness which the Royal Air Force has known in peacetime. The way in which QRA has been performed and the reaction of the Force to the operational demands of our plans and those of SACEUR has been an unsurpassed demonstration of professional skill, dedication and tenacity.
"The long hours of arduous duty in cockpits, crew rooms, dispersals, hangers and operation rooms have brought the reward of knowing that a vital task has been successfully completed. I send my congratulations to you and all under your command who have been connected with this very heavy responsibility over the years.
"But when QRA by the medium bomber force ends it does not presage a general relaxation in our readiness for operations. The future roles of the force will call for the same determination as you have shown in the past and the maintenance of high generation rates. When you set about your new and continuing tasks you can look with justifiable pride upon your past achievements and from them find inspiration for the future."

CHURCHILL MEMORIAL: PARLIAMENT SQUARE SITE
2.38 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To asked Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the erection of a memorial, in Parliament Square or elsewhere, to Sir Winston Churchill.]
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would be happy to make a site available for the statue in Parliament Square if sufficient money were forthcoming from public subscription.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that and I thank my noble friend. Would the Government provide an area sufficient not for a mere statue in the corner of the Square, but for a memorial which could be both suitably grand and exciting?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, quite an amount of consideration has been given to this matter. As noble Lords know, there are statues at Woodford, in the Guildhall and in Churchill College; the memorial stone in Westminster Abbey; a plaque commemorating the lying-in-state; and another statue is shortly to be erected in Westminster, in Parliament itself. The attitude of the Government on this matter is certainly one of sympathy. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that it is a question of the extent of further public interest. A voluntary committee is at work, and in the light of that committee's success the Government will certainly cooperate. I myself should hesitate to start specifying the form of a memorial. That is the kind of area which gives rise to controversy. Some noble Lords will have seen the correspondence in The Times. The Government really wait on events, sympathetically and willing to co-operate over Parliament Square.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask what the noble Lord means by"sufficient money"? How much money would have to be raised before the
764
Government would consider making a site available?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not honestly know; it depends on what is proposed. A Committee is dealing with this question and there is an early-day Motion in another place. There is a Committee which I think the honourable Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, is connected with or is responsible for. First of all, the plans must go much further before one can say what it would cost, and presumably the amount of money that is collected may determine this.
The MARQUESS of ABERDEEN and TEMAIR: My Lords, is not the most appropriate place elsewhere, in Westminster Abbey? Is not a place waiting there for a statue of Sir Winston Churchill, in the Northern transept, where many Prime Ministers' statues appear? A column there is completely vacant opposite to the statue of Sir Robert Peel, and if it were occupied by a statue of Sir Winston Churchill it would complete most satisfactorily the aisle, which is full of statues of Prime Ministers. Is it not the case that a statue of Sir Winston Churchill would be very appropriate opposite that of a similarly important Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, of course this is not really a matter for the Government; it is for the Abbey authorities. I think there must—I say this with the greatest respect—be a limit to the number of statues. There is the very fine memorial stone in Westminster Abbey. Here again, this is why I think it is important to get public opinion and feeling on this matter. But no doubt the Westminster Abbey authorities will have noticed what the noble Marquess has said.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether this is the appropriate occasion to mention it, but I wonder whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the portrait of Sir Winston painted by Graham Sutherland, which was given to him by both Houses of Parliament, should finally find its way back to somewhere in this House?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think that point arises on this Question, and I believe the late Sir Winston Churchill was not particularly

765
keen on the portrait—I still remember his very cryptic remark on the subject. But I have taken note of what has been said, and again I think this is a matter for the House authorities.
Lord SORENSEN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the statue of the right honourable gentleman which exists in Woodford is in his own constituency, and is not nearly as good as it ought to have been?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I really cannot answer for Woodford.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I do not mind how many statues are put up to the late Sir Winston Churchill but I think we should remember that he did not win the last war by himself. He had men like Clem Attlee and Ernie Bevin. Not only that, but it is nice to see the adulation from the Conservative Benches—the Party which kept him in the wilderness throughout the whole of the 'thirties.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, these are all apt remarks in the atmosphere of the debate we had yesterday. I think Sir Winston Churchill was the first of all people to acknowledge the services of his colleagues and the achievements of the British people.
Lord ILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would consider siting the new statue in the Cromwell Garden and removing the statue of Cromwell to a more appropriate place?
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, is there a body in existence which is in a position to make an appeal for the money which is required? I was not quite clear from the noble Lord's original Answer. It is not possible for people to bring out plans for a statue or a memorial until they know how much money will be available; and somebody must appeal for that.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understand that there is a committee in existence and I think the best person to get in touch with is Mr. Tilney. However, if there is any further help I can give to your Lordships' House on the matter, I will give it. As I understand the position, there has been no public appeal as yet, and this is really what the Government are waiting for. If this is to
766
come about it should be as a result of some further spontaneous action, with the Government giving full co-operation.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL
2.46 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: 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 any further steps have been taken to meet the long-standing and serious need for some direct and easy connection between the London Underground system and the West London Air Terminal.]
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the London Transport Board and British European Airways have in the past jointly considered very carefully the possibility of providing a direct subway including, perhaps, a travellator—between the Underground station and the Air Terminal. Even without the travellator the cost would be at least £1 million. The high cost reflects the engineering problems that arise through the station and Terminal being some 400 yards apart and at quite different levels. In view of the relatively limited use that would be likely to be made of such a subway, the Government do not consider such expenditure would be justified. Other proposals have also been examined but all of them are considered to be too expensive, in relation to their benefits, to be justified in present circumstances.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that many tourists who arrive in this country have to carry their bags to the station, the noble Lord does not feel that the possibility might be considered of putting a new station underneath the Terminal itself, on either the Circle or the District Line? Also does not the noble Lord agree that the distance between that station and Gloucester Road station would be no more than, for example, that between Marylebone Station and Baker Street Station, which are a quarter of a mile apart, as are many other stations?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the suggestion of a new station was considered in your Lordships' House some 12 or 18 months ago, and I then pointed out that one of the difficulties is the very limited space for the provision of such a station. Also at that point there is a critical position in regard to the crossing of lines, some of them carrying fairly fast traffic, and this would have a major effect on the whole of the Underground system. Another point we have to bear in mind is that the Gloucester Road area is now being considered by the Greater London Council for major development, and it may well be that as a consequence of that major development some changes could be made to the Gloucester Road station, perhaps dealing in some part with the present difficulty.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are disappointed with the first part of his Answer, because it is the same reply that has been received on more than one occasion in this House? The second half of my noble friend's Answer is extremely interesting, and we hope that something may take place. But can he say whether there is any prospect of the Railways Board or the London Transport Board taking a rail service—either Tube or overhead—out of London Airport itself? Some publicity has been given recently in articles in the Press to reports that this proposal was under consideration. Is my noble friend able to give any indication whether this is a "starter" or not?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry that I disappointed my noble friend, but at least I think he will agree that I am being consistent with the facts. My noble friend has drawn attention to the question of the building of a rail link from London to Heathrow. These proposals are now being considered by my right honourable friend, and naturally such a rail link would have a major effect upon the B.E.A. Terminal itself.
Viscount ADDISON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he will be willing to approach the London Transport Board again in order to have another look at the problem of building a platform, or two platforms, either on the Circle Line or on the District Line between Gloucester Road and Earl's
768
Court, both of which lines run underneath the terminal at Gloucester Road?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have already pointed out that this is a position where a number of lines cross and they carry very heavy traffic, some of it fast, through-traffic. This is a critical point and any change there would disrupt the whole of the Underground service. If my noble friend asks me to approach the London Transport Board naturally I shall be willing to do so, but I think the answer I shall give will be the same.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, can the noble Lord say if an estimate has been made as to the loss of revenue to the airlines due to the late arrival of buses from the Terminal owing to congestion on the roads at certain times?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is an interesting supplementary question though I hardly see how it arises from the Question on the Order Paper. However, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, am I right in thinking that there is a review going on about the whole question of transport between Heathrow and Central London, in which case schemes like a monorail should be discussed and considered before any railway is decided upon?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord must be right, because this is what I said to my noble friend Lord Popplewell.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, might not the Government investigate whether, in view of the very large hotel development directly opposite the Terminal, it might be in the interests of the developers themselves to share the cost of any pause at the Terminal?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to an earlier supplementary question I said that the Greater London Council are considering a whole major scheme of redevelopment in the Gloucester Road area. This is a factor which I said would be borne in mind.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I did not realise that the hotel was automatically part of that redevelopment.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, arising out of Lord Popplewell's supplementary

769
question, could the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, tell us when we can expect to learn the results of the proposals for a direct railway between Victoria Station and Heathrow Airport?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a very involved question. My right honourable friend is giving urgent consideration to it, because, of course, many people are very interested in this matter. If there is any information I can give to the noble Earl, I will write to him.

SOUTHERN YEMEN GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS
Lord TREVELYAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will be responsible for the pensions of the indigenous civil servants formerly working in the Colony of Aden and the Protectorate of South Arabia.]
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's consistent policy over many years is to regard overseas Governments as responsible for the payment of all public service pensions, including, in the case of independent Governments, the obligations of their predecessors. Consequently, responsibility for the payment of these pensions rests with the Southern Yemen Government.
Lord TREVELYAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that not very informative Reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that the British civil servants from South Arabia are being paid their pensions by the British Government; that this is probably the first occasion when British and non-British civil servants of a Colony attaining its independence have not been treated alike, and whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give sympathetic consideration to the claims of men who have served the British Government loyally and who, as a result of that service, have either had to leave their country or been dismissed without pension by the successor Government? Finally, is it not time that the British Government made up their minds on this question?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a matter which naturally gives the Government and the Ministers immediately concerned considerable anxiety. On the other hand, we must maintain this principle that the pensions of overseas servants—that is, servants who have been employed on overseas government—should be paid by the responsible authority. If we were to break this principle, we might put in jeopardy many thousands of other servants who are in a similar position, and perhaps put in jeopardy, too, other civil servants who now are in colonial territories which may shortly receive their independence. We have a special obligation to our expatriate civil servants, and that is why special arrangements have been made for them. I am well aware of the noble Lord's concern, and I looked into this matter carefully this morning. If the noble Lord would allow me, I should like to take further steps with my right honourable friend to see whether something further can be done, without breaking the. principle of which I have spoken.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, would the Minister consider, at the same time, while maintaining the principle which he has stood for that it is the local Government which ought to pay, that, after all, the moral obligation certainly is on Her Majesty's Government? Could not Her Majesty's Government look after these civil servants and then itself look to the foreign Government and insist that they pay the British Government?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords if we did what the noble Earl has suggested, it would, I think, encroach upon the principle which I have put before the House. I have said that I will look into the matter with my right honourable friend, and I suggest that perhaps the matter should be left there.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, to put down another Question when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has looked into the matter, so that the whole House may know exactly what the position is?'
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is for the noble Lord himself to decide what to do. This is a very delicate

771
subject. Perhaps the House should leave it for the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, and myself to look into it, and then, if the noble Lord is not satisfied, he can use Question Time again for this purpose.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the final settlement with the Protectorate of South Arabia was only one sixty-fourth part of the sum originally demanded, would it not be a generous gesture on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make some provision for these indigenous civil servants, particularly when they happen to be political refugees?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am rather sorry that my noble friend has not taken the hint as to the delicacy of this matter and has sought to pursue it. I hope I have indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, my concern and that of the Government in this matter, and I hope the House will leave it there.

APOLLO 11 MOON LANDING: MESSAGE TO UNITED STATES SENATE
2.57 p.m.
Lord ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice:
To ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the unique and inspiring achievement of the moon landing by the American astronauts and its importance to human history, it would be desirable for this House to convey their admiration to the Senate of the United States of America?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope the House will agree that I was justified in allowing this Question on grounds of urgency, and certainly in relation to timeliness. Speaking personally, I very much welcome the noble Lord's suggestion. He and I have both had a great interest in this subject for many years, so he is perhaps not surprised that I should be so much in agreement with him. Strictly speaking, what he proposes would probably best be done by a Motion on the Order Paper. On the
772
other hand, if the House is in general agreement and there is no dissentient voice, I would certainly be willing to make the feeling of the House known by conveying a message to the Vice-President, who is the President of the Senate, to indicate our great admiration for this achievement. And whatever anyone may think about the best way of spending the money, I personally hope that this will be a real and vital unifying force for the whole of humanity.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I am quite sure that my colleagues on these Benches would wish to be associated with the action that the noble Lord has proposed.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, I am certain that what the noble Lord has suggested would equally meet the feelings of all our colleagues on this side of the House in admiration for an extraordinary technical and extraordinary human performance.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, I should like to support this suggestion, if I may, speaking as one whose belief in the future of space exploration is not unqualified. Nevertheless, I suggest that this is probably the most remarkable single technological achievement yet made by man, and also an example, which is more important, of really astonishing and enduring human courage, which helps to make us for once feel proud of belonging to the same species. I hope that this particular pride may give us the courage to attack more mundane problems, such as too little food and too many people.
Lord ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his response, which does not take me entirely by surprise, I wonder whether I might add two observations which I did not think appropriate to include in the substantive Question but which I hope will be allowed under the Rules of Order. First, I should like to say how particularly and personally pleasant it is for me to have been able to address this Question to the Leader of the House in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, knowing and sharing with him, as I do, his philosophical and cordial enthusiasm for this kind of endeavour, especially when it is crowned with triumphant success as in this case. Second, the universal nature of

773
the achievement was most beautifully expressed some years ago in certain words themselves a reflection of Zen Buddhism, which I beg leave to repeat:
"One moon and one only is reflected in all waters,
All moons in the water are one with the one moon".
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. We have gone so far out of order on this occasion, when clearly the House is tolerant in this matter, that I think I should be safe in saying that there will be no dissentient voices. I therefore greatly welcome the noble Lord's initiative. It is not for me to discuss what the future space policy of this country should be, but I noticed yesterday that at the time the astronauts blasted off from the moon a certain Member of Parliament, quite properly called Mr. Moonman, was on his feet in another place. I will certainly convey in the warmest way possible the feelings of your Lordships' House.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
3.2 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the extension of the Ombudsman principle at a convenient moment after half-past three. This will be followed by a Statement on the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles by my noble friend Lord Brown. May I also remind your Lordships that dinner will be available again this evening between 7 and 8.30 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is it intended that the House will rise for a break during that time, or continue sitting?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I did not mention that, nor was it the intention of the House, as I understand it, to break.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ESSEX RIVER AND SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
3.5 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: 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 Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Financial assistance for B.E.A by reduction of indebtedness and transfer of stock]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of KINNOULL: I wonder whether I may raise one point with the noble Lord this afternoon on Clause 1, which covers what B.E.A. is to receive. That, of course is the principal purpose of the Bill. As the Committee will know, this clause came under a good deal of criticism in another place on two issues. The first was the total secrecy of how the sum of £37½ million of compensation is arrived at between the Board of Trade and B.E.A. The second is the fundamental issue: is it right for the State Air Corporation to receive a public subsidy for the purchasing of British aircraft when others in the same industry purchase and operate, with profits, the same aircraft in direct competition and without subsidy?
May I turn briefly to the first issue, that of secrecy. As I have said, this matter was debated at some length in another place and I do not intend to

775
repeat all the arguments. The Government's reply in another place was that the sole reason for secrecy was to protect B.E.A.s commercial interest. As the debate went on, it was shown that in America the fullest information on types of aircraft, on routes and on airline operators, is given by the C.A.B. I understand that all this information is published monthly, and in no way does it appear to harm the operators commercially. Indeed, it does the exact opposite; it sharpens competition and it aids market research.
The damage of secrecy is something which we should feel worried about. It is certainly harmful as regards the aircraft involved; that is, the Trident 3B and the BAC 1-11 500. To foreign operators and possible purchasers it must appear that these aircraft must be secondclass aircraft which are uneconomic to run and a bad buy. This damage is suffered by the manufacturers in the aircraft industry, in this case Hawkers and BAC; but they, of course, receive no compensation. The worst of it all, as the Committee know, is that these aircraft are some of the finest British aircraft that have ever been produced, and it is only because they were the second choice of B.E.A. that they were condemned to this cloud of uncertainty.
In the debate in another place, during the Committee stage the Government appeared swayed by the continual arguments in favour of more full information; and Mr. Rodgers, answering for the Government, said when winding up on Third Reading on July 7:
"Secrecy is the enemy of wise decisions at all times, and I hope that we shall move increasingly in the direction of knowning a good deal more about why decisions have been made."—[Official Report, Commons, 7/7/69, col. 1117.]
He then went on to say (col. 1117):
"Perhaps I may add, in passing, that honourable Members who were on the Committee will remember the discussion on the question of B.E.A.'s accounts. I then said that I will be in touch with Sir Anthony Millward and convey to him that the Committee wished to urge him and his board to move in the direction of increasing disclosure, … and I think that this remains so, though the circumstances must be minimal. Hon. Members will be glad to know that Sir Anthony has readily responded to this approach, and despite the fact that the accounts for 1968-69 were already in an advanced state of prepara-
776
tion B.E.A. has undertaken to incorporate additional material."
Perhaps the noble Lord could go a little further to-day and tell us whether the Government will, in future, implement Mr. Rodgers' desire of publishing further information if and when compensation of the nature we are discussing today arises again. Secondly, could he advise us what further information B.E.A. are going to give us in their new Report?
The second fundamental issue is whether an Air Corporation should receive a subsidy on aircraft which others in the industry operate commercially successfully. The question that comes out of this fundamental issue is, what is happening to the subsidy? Is it being diverted to a less profitable area of the Corporation? The subsidy under Clause 1 covers the compensation payment for operating the BAC 1-11 as regards foreign sales the most successful civil aircraft since the Viscount. Can the noble Lord tell us this afternoon if, say in four years' time, with the benefit of hindsight, it can be shown that no subsidy has in fact ever been required, the Government will take powers to recover the subsidy?
I turn briefly to the amounts of subsidy. The Committee will be aware that there has been a good deal of criticism that the compensation (that is, the £25 million already committed and the £12½ million due to be committed in 1972 to 1975) is far too large. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us to-day about the £25 million which has already been committed; how much is to be paid out every year over the next four-year period and can the sum vary at the Government's discretion? Turning to the £12½ million additional payment to be made during the period of 1972 to 1975, could the noble Lord give us a clearer picture of on what criteria or basis this additional sum will be made available by the Government to B.E.A.?
While the noble Lord is answering these points, and perhaps looking through his brief, I wonder whether he could also reply to a further point which strictly has nothing to do with this clause but which I believe is of general interest. The question I should like to put to him concerns the appointment of the new Chairman of B.E.A. We have arrived

777
at a situation when we have a permanent Chairman of B.E.A. due to retire next March, and a temporary part-time Chairman of B.O.A.C. ready to give way at any moment. I do not believe that this situation is either good for management or for the Corporations. Could the noble Lord tell us what is in the Government's mind as to a statement on this subject, which I believe is long overdue.
3.14 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: It appears as though we are going to take this question of compensation on Clause 1, so, by leave of the Committee, I would put some points similar to those made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and perhaps press the Government for a little more clarification of this figure of what I understand to be £27 million plus an optional £12½ million to be paid to B.E.A. to compensate for the Government's insistence that they operate the Trident 3B. First, I understand, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to confirm this, that the compensation is directly related to the Trident and is not related to the BAC 1-11. I think there is no suggestion that B.E.A. were denied the opportunity to buy any aeroplane in place of the 1-11. Indeed, I understand that that aircraft was their first choice and that they are now very satisfied with it, although it is true to say that they had to wait until the stretched version was available. It may be, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would like to ascribe some of the subsidy on that account.
As I understand it, B.E.A.'s argument in favour of this subsidy was that the delay in delivery of the Trident 3B was such that they would be at a competitive disadvantage on some of the routes that they operated compared with their competitors, and for this reason they had to have a subsidy. I find that argument incredibly difficult to follow. If we accept that the Trident 3 will go into service, say, two years later than the Boeing 727, the stretched version, would have gone into service had they been allowed to order it, we then have to ask why it is that B.E.A. were at a competitive disadvantage in having to operate the smaller Trident l's and 2's on the routes on which they would otherwise have operated the 727. As I have said, I fail to see this competitive disadvantage, because if they are able to operate a smaller
778
aircraft on the route, then surety they will be able, within the maximum number of seats that they are allowed to offer, to operate a greater number of services per day, and thus surely offer a better service to the customer and perhaps be able to attract more custom on that account.
However, apparently that is not the situation. Indeed, in accordance with their request the Government are to make available these immense sums of money, simply because for two years they had to operate a smaller aircraft and thus apparently were not able to compete with the other carriers. I have often heard quoted the example of the London/Paris route, on which Air France operate the stretched Boeing 727, and B.E.A. have to operate—up to this time at least—the Trident l's and 2's. I fail to see how it is that B.E.A. are at a substantial competitive disadvantage—at least to the extent that they claim.
One other point I should like to make concerns the question of fuller information. I think it is widely and completely accepted that air carriers in general—not B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. in particular—ought to provide more information on the performance of their services on particular routes. We all know that in the United States this is already the case, and has been for many years, and has met there with widespread success and approval. The simple answer surely is not so much to obtain more detailed statistics through the medium of the Board of Trade, but for the Air Transport Licensing Board to issue licences on the condition that proper and regular returns, in the form that may be prescribed by the Board, are made. This would not require any additional legislation because the A.T.L.B. are already empowered to attach such conditions to licences, and indeed if they really wanted to do so they could vary all licences now to that effect.
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to clarify the sum that has been agreed with B.E.A. to be paid by way of subsidy for this Trident operation, and ask him whether he will explain how this figure was arrived at, because I think this is the crux of the matter.
Lord BESWICK: Which figure?
Lord TREFGARNE: The figure of £27 million which we understand the

779
Government have agreed to pay B.E.A. by way of compensation for having to operate the Trident 3B aircraft. Was it simply the case that B.E.A. sent in their invoice for £27 million and the Government in no way questioned it? I hope the noble Lord will be able to clarify this point because it is a point of great importance.
Lord BESWICK: The two noble Lords, the Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Trefgarne, asked some very good questions. I cannot honestly say I am glad they have asked them because they are just a little difficult to answer—at any rate in this context. First of all may I say, and I hope they will take it as something that I say sincerely because I have said it so often and over such a length of time, that I agree with them that the maximum amount of information should be given on these matters. That is absolutely certain. This is something with which the present Ministers also agree, and the noble Earl quoted something which a Minister had said in the other place.
However, we are here dealing with a somewhat different situation. I believe it is not the kind of situation in which an air transport operating company should give the maximum possible information about its revenues and traffics to the new Air Transport Licensing Board. Here we are dealing with a position in which the Corporation wished to buy American aircraft. The Board of Trade, looking at the matter as a whole with all the national interests involved, decided that it was better that they should be asked to buy British aircraft. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, agreed with the decision that British aircraft should be bought. But, if we are to justify that decision, it is a little difficult to justify giving all the details if we are not going to say something which could be used in the markets of the world to disparage British aircraft. That is where the real difficulty and the real delicacy came in. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that the Minister in another place has not found it possible to say precisely how these sums were arrived at. It is a little disconcerting to have a public meeting on the Benches opposite, when I am trying to
780
explain the problem to the noble Lord whom, I hope, I shall convince in the end.
It was a little difficult to give the detailed sums. I do not understand the £27 million about which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, talked. It was, in fact, £25 million plus £12½ million possibly from 1972. We were talking, in the first place, of £37½ million. The noble Lord and the noble Earl are both concerned lest the Board of Trade are too generous to the Corporation. Now in order to meet this possibility, it was decided, instead of a sum of money of £37½ million over seven years, that it would be broken up into two tranches, one of £25 million over four years, with the possibility of a further one of £12½ million in the period of three years following 1972. This means that there is a greater control of this money. Nor was the £25 million to be given in one year; it was to be given in four separate amounts of £5 million, £4 million, £8 million and £8 million.
In answer to the noble Earl, there is provision in subsection (6) of Clause 1 for varying the amounts which were originally agreed. The idea of varying the amounts is to ensure that there would be a fairly even result over the four years. What we want to do, instead of making it possible to make a heavy profit in the one year, probably a less good profit in the second year, and a doubtful profit in the third year, is to even out the advances so that we get a fairly even return over the four years.
On the question of whether or not we are being too generous, may I say that this is not really a matter of new money. No new capital is being infused into the Corporation. The only real cash advantage to the Corporation would be the saving of interest on these sums. The £25 million is really the old capital which is being converted into a special account, and which will then be used as income over the four years in the amounts to be determined by the President of the Board of Trade. So again I think noble Lords were being a little over-apprehensive as to the generosity of the Department.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked whether any compensation at all was due to the Trident 3B, rather than to the BAC 1-11. Of course, the Trident 3B will come into operation later, whereas the American aircraft would

781
have been available almost straight away. The loss of revenue will of course be greater in the case of the Trident 3B, if for no other reason than that it will be introduced three years later than the aircraft which B.E.A. originally wanted. Moreover, it will be a smaller aircraft than they originally wanted. It was on the basis of those considerations that the figure of £25 million was reached.
Lord TREFGARNE: Can the noble Lord confirm that no part of this £25 million is ascribed to the BAC 1-11 500 series, which B.E.A. have just now taken into service?
Lord BESWICK: I cannot confirm that. I think it would be wrong for me to say precisely how it is allocated. This is part of the commercial considerations which it was thought better, in the interests of the aircraft manufacturers, to keep out of publication. I am sorry, but I cannot give the noble Lord that information. But it is fair to assume that the greater part of it is due to the Trident 3B which, as I said, will come along much later than the Corporation originally wanted.
I have been asked about the £12½ million. The £12½ million, for which provision is made in 1972, will be advanced if it is thought that the competitive position of B.E.A. is still worsened by virtue of the fact that they have had to wait so long for these aircraft. But if things go well and if their returns justify it, it may well be that the £12½ million will not be advanced at all. I have been asked why it is that as from this date we make provision in the Bill for the possibility of an advance in 1972. The answer to that, as I have said, is that originally the sum of £37½ million was to cover a seven-year period, but it is now to be in two periods of four years and three years, and 1972 is the beginning of the second, the three-year period.
I was asked about the possibility of recovering any of this money in the event of things going very well. The answer to that is that, in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3, there will be power under this Bill for the Board of Trade to recover from the Corporation sums in the reserves which are thought to be excessive. So with that additional power, I think noble Lords will feel on consideration that the Board of Trade are being very reasonable
782
in protecting the interests of the taxpayers. However, as I said, the taxpayers will not really be providing this money as cash, because they are only agreeing to an arrangement under which part of the old capital structure shall be used as income. With that explanation, I hope that we can now decide to agree to Clause 1.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Can the noble Lord say anything about the appointment of the new chairman?
Lord BESWICK: I had not forgotten that, but I thought we could probably return to it on a later clause, when I have had time to consider it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to provide for investment of public dividend capital in B.E.A.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I ask the noble Lord one or two questions on this clause. The Committee will be aware that this clause led a somewhat disjointed life in another place. In fact, it parted company with the Bill during the Committee stage, and I believe most of us thought that the Government had, for once, removed their dark glasses and seen the clear logic of the uselessness of this clause. But, to one's disappointment, on Report stage this clause was reinstated. It deals with the introduction of public dividend capital into B.E.A. on or after 1972; in other words, in four years' time.
Now public dividend capital is a subject which is rapidly becoming a hardy chestnut in all the new State Corporation Bills the Government introduce. I think that my noble friend Lord Bessborough will in fact be referring to this point some time later on to-day in relation to the Iron and Steel Bill. But there are, I think, four pretty valid and sound reasons why many of us object to its purpose as regards Clause 2 of this Bill. The first is that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries came down heavily against its inclusion as regards B.E.A. only two years ago, and they had a pretty good number of reasons against it. Secondly, it was clear at that stage that the Treasury, too, were against it. Thirdly, the introduction of public

783
dividend capital into B.O.A.C. was made, in 1965-66, only, as the Government then said, on a trial basis of five years. Fourthly, this clause asks us to agree to something which will happen in four years' time. All these, I believe, are sound reasons why, in their Committee stage, another place rejected this clause.
I think that to-day we are entitled to ask the noble Lord for a pretty full justification of the inclusion of this clause. Why, for instance, have the Government ignored the Select Committee's Report and recommendations, 1967? Why have the Treasury changed their mind? Why do we have to include this clause now, when it will come into operation only in four years' time? Why cannot we consider it in four years' time? What evidence from B.O.A.C.'s trial run is there to justify this Clause for B.E.A.? Finally, what good results will it bring about for B.E.A.?
3.33 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: I am asked to justify the provision of public dividend capital for B.E.A.; but, of course, this is not what the Bill does. The Bill makes provision for public dividend capital only if later, in 1972, it is agreed that this should be done. We are not here discussing the merits of public dividend capital or otherwise. We are discussing whether in this Bill, as there is a Bill going through Parliament, we should make provision in this way. I should have thought that it was reasonable so to do as, of course, the Bill deals with the reorganisation of the capital structure of the Corporation. This seems to be eminently sensible and efficient. The merits of public dividend capital—a fascinating argument which we might enter into at some later date—really do not arise on this question. The reason it is being done now in this way and why it was not done before is that it was thought we ought to experiment with B.O.A.C. first. That experiment has not been sufficiently long to enable us to come to any final conclusions. It is still at an initial stage, and we shall be in a better position to see what the experience is by 1972, when the provisions of this Act will require us so to do. I am informed, incidentally, that we are not ignoring the Select Committee. They were not really coming down against public dividend capital: they simply said
784
that in this case they did not think that this was the right way to do it.
There is one further point. The noble Earl asked me about the future position as regards the Chairman of B.E.A. I am sorry, but I am not in a position to give him any information about that; and I suppose he is not really expecting me to announce now who the next Chairman will be. The difficulty here, as I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate, is that we are now considering the future structure of the two Corporations in the light of the Edwards Committee's Report, and until decisions are made about the Edwards recommendation we shall not be in a position to say what kind of Chairman will be required for B.E.A. The situation will be rather different if B.E.A. is to be a completely separate Corporation from what it will be if B.E.A. is a part of the British Air Holdings Council or Board, as Edwards recommends.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed briefly to say at this final stage (and I am sure that many of my noble friends would agree) that the past achievements of B.E.A. do not go unrecognised, at any rate on this side of the House. The dominant share of the European market which they have built up against stiff competition from foreign operators is a tribute to their commercial enterprise. Their safety record is another factor which we all admire and are grateful for, especially those of us who travel with B.E.A.; and it operates, as we know, short-haul, often on an average fare of as low as £10, which in itself demonstrates the problems of management. If this Bill succeeds to help them to continue their course of success I, for one, can only wish them well.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for what he has said, and associate myself with the congratulations which he offers to the Corporation? Undoubtedly, as the Edwards Committee said, the Corporation's standing is very high in the aviation world, and I am sure that all of us are pleased to see that and are pleased to give them every encouragement and support, no matter what eventual decision is taken on the recommendations of the Edwards Report. May I also take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the co-operation of noble Lords opposite in dealing with the Bill in the way in which we have been able to deal with it, so that it can go forward and the necessary provisions can be made for the Corporation.
On Question, Bill passed.

NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
3.39 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: 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.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Death grant]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 41, after ("deceased's") insert ("uncle, aunt,")
The noble Lord said: With those short words from the Lord Chairman, we have disposed of the great bulk of the Bill. But we now come to a very small matter in terms of money; although it could be important in certain circumstances. We have dealt with the £430 million and we now come down to something that could
786
amount in any one year to an extra expenditure of, at most, a few thousand pounds. Even so, it could in certain circumstances be important to those concerned. The point is that here we are dealing with an increase in death grant, in partciular the extension of death grant in respect of a person over 19 years of age who has been, to quote the Bill
"by reason of illness or disability of mind or body incapacitated for regular employment … "
and who then dies. The point of the Amendment is to extend the list of those entitled to death grant in respect of that person.
The Bill as drafted limits those to the deceased's parents and remoter issues; that is, grandparents and to any one of these with whom the child or person may have been living: the deceased's stepfather, stepmother, stepchild; the deceased's brother, sister, half brother, half sister, step brother or step sister. The point of this Amendment is simply to add "uncle or aunt". I have known of a case, and I have heard of others, where a child has been passed at an early age to an aunt or uncle to look after. The aunt or uncle has borne the full brunt of looking after the child. Sometimes these are very difficult cases. Sometimes the children grow to an abnormal size and are difficult to handle; and all too often in their early twenties they die quite suddenly. I should have thought that in such cases those who had been looking after the children all those years and above all, were taking the financial responsibility should also be included in the list. The parents may be dead or may be abroad; or they may have abandoned the child. This is a simple Amendment. I do not think I need say more about it. I beg to move.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for moving this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that the categories of relatives specified in the Bill are in fact those already included in the Unemployment and Sickness Benefit Regulations which set out those relatives for whom increases of unemployment and sickness benefit in respect of adult dependants may be paid. The proposed list is therefore one which has for long been in use in the insurance scheme. If one steps outside these categories there is no obvious limiting

787
criterion. It is important to be clear about what is being attempted in Clause 4. The problem of death grant for handicapped adults who have never been able to work and pay contributions has been a point of concern and criticism since 1949 when the grant was first paid. Despite very sympathetic consideration by all concerned, it was not thought possible to provide an insurance benefit accruing to someone who had never been insured. Lord Drumalbyn himself was one of those who examined this problem when he was a distinguished Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. A solution is feasible only through a different approach based on the view that it is not the handicapped person himself who needs an insurance cover towards meeting the cost of burial but the relatives who must bear the expense, since in these cases it cannot normally be met by taking out a private insurance policy or from assets acquired in life by the deceased. The Government are therefore extending the cover in this way.
Wherever the line is drawn, it will be possible to think of a potentially hard case. I do not doubt the facts that the noble Lord has given to-day are those of a hard case. The noble Lord cited cases of parents who went abroad and left the child. Clearly, in such cases the parents were responsible. It is their insurance and not the aunt's which is appropriate. It may be that circumstances would enable the adjudicating authorities to regard this as a temporary absence which could be ignored in determining whether the deceased was residing with his parents. If it was a long-term situation, the authorities would have to consider whether the deceased would have been residing with the parents if not living at school, hospital, or recognised home. While having every sympathy with the case that the noble Lord has given, I ask the Committee to consider that wherever the line is drawn there will be hard cases. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I know how difficult it is to depart from a recognised rule in these matters. But in this clause we are departing from a recognised rule: indeed, the whole point of the Clause is to depart from a recognised rule. I thought it might be possible to make a
788
special concession in the list in this way. It seems to me that the child in these circumstances is more likely to be dependent on an uncle or an aunt than in the generality of circumstances covered already by the Act. Obviously, it would be absurd to press this. I have an inkling that sooner or later there will be a concession on this point—one rarely gets it the first time. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Decimalisation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord REDMAYNE: Your Lordships will see that there is an italics Amendment in my name to leave out Clause 8. I have written to the noble Baroness to explain my reason, and I will briefly give it now for the Record. It is concerned with the need for employers to be able to express every social security contribution in terms of decimals at an earlier date than D-Day for decimalisation (which is in February, 1971). Many of them need, for good reason, I think, to be able to decimalise their pay slips by the beginning of the financial year 1970-71; that is, by April 6, 1970. Therefore it is important that in respect of the deductions for social security the Government should give the lead in expressing those contributions in terms of two places of decimals as from that date.
As some noble Lords will know, my particular interest in this matter is in respect of the distributive trades. Traders generally, and retailers in particular, want to take a lead in this matter by printing their pay slips in decimals from April 6, 1970, although they will continue to pay in sterling. The reason for doing so is obvious; for they, with the banks, transport and other service industries, have to take the lead in educating the public in handling decimal currency. It is their staffs, the employees of the distributive trades, who must first become familiar with decimalisation. Certainly in my opinion much benefit may be obtained by imposing on those staffs the painful necessity of reading

789
their pay slips in decimal terms, even though, as I say, they are paid in sterling. It will give them at least ten months before D-Day to become, in one sense, familiar with this problem.
I should like to say, because I think it is worth saying, that any paymaster, any personnel manager—any employer for that matter—in any industry will gain by adopting the same policy and will thereby avoid the many anomalies which can arise from a change in pay systems during the tax year. If they do not change at the beginning of 1970 they will be, practically speaking, forced to change in the middle of the financial year.
Most entries on a pay slip can be adjusted for adaptation to the decimal system by administrative action within a company, but these changes have to be put in hand now—changes in overtime rates, in discounts, in bonus rates, in subscriptions to sports clubs and so forth. All these have to be brought into line so that they may be expressed in the terms of a decimal equivalent. One has to start on that now, so that by April next year one is ready to convert all these factors into the new form.
The most complicated and, one might say, the most haphazard deductions of all are those arising from social security, and help from the Government in this matter is urgently needed. In part, the Government have been forthcoming. In another place it was clearly stated. In Standing Committee E on July 8, reported in column 151, the Minister said
"… it is intended that the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contribution) Regulations"—
and so forth—
"should be amended with effect from 6th April, 1970."
That is very helpful so far as it goes, but we are concerned with the rest of the contributions. In a letter to me, dated only a week or two ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I will read one paragraph:
"The Department of Health and Social Security will, of course, do all that they can to assist employers with the transition—"
to decimalisation—
"and during the course of the legislation for the new rates of social security benefits and contributions the decimal equivalents or near equivalents of the new contributions will be announced so that employers will know, when
790
they alter their pay rolls for the new £s. d. rates, what the decimal rate will be."
That is encouraging. As this is the last stage of this Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness is armed with these answers.
I was not so encouraged by a previous comment in the Newsletter of the Decimal Currency Board which, in respect of flat-rate contributions, said, in the February, 1969, issue:
"Planning is on the basis that from D-Day there will be a fresh range of flat-rate rational insurance contributions expressed in £p … "
That did not seem to anticipate that we should have information about the equivalent from the beginning of next year. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell me that the issue of that document is now out of date. Having put this matter as clearly and as briefly as I can, I now hope to have a favourable and informative answer from the Government Front Bench.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, that I am very relieved by the fact that at one stage I taught mathematics. I cannot imagine more of a nightmare than trying to talk about contributions to social security expressed in decimal currency. I take the point made by the noble Lord about the advantage for employers of setting out in decimal currency the amount of flat-rate contribution in advance of February 15, 1971. The regulations to enable flat-rate contributions to be expressed in decimal currency as from February, 1971, will of course be made well in advance. They will be published by this autumn. But there are difficulties in sanctioning too soon the deduction from wages of flat-rats contributions in decimal form. It would mean, for example, that slightly different rates would be payable by employees, depending solely on whether the employers were maintaining records in decimals or pounds, shillings and pence in the period before Decimal (D) Day.
I did a little calculation to get some sort of example; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, will have done a large number of these. Taking the normal and most average contribution of an employee at 17s. 8d. I would point out that if this were expressed in decimals it would of course be £0-883. If the employer worked to three decimal places

791
—we are talking about the intervening ten months—he would in fact lose very little on the difference. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, will tell me that this is in relation to a very large number of employees and that the fraction is a very small one. May I say to the noble Lord that the Government are anxious to be as helpful as possible to employers, but there are a number of interests to be consulted, and I hope that he will appreciate that the Government are very concerned about making the position as straightforward as possible for employers in the position in which the noble Lord is.
I might help him a little by saying that in the Newsletter to which he referred there is a misprint. The paragraph he mentioned should read:
"Planning is on the basis that from D-Day there will be a fresh range of flat-rate national insurance contributions expressed in £-p. These will be exact or near equivalents … "
instead of "There will be exact or near equivalents … "That is some small comfort and it may clear up one small misunderstanding. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that the Demical Currency Board and the Department are anxious to smooth this period, and that therefore he will agree to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend deals with this matter further, may I ask this question? This Clause is couched in a negative form. It says:
"Regulations shall not be made under this section so as to take effect from a date earlier than the 15th February 1971…."
But the regulations could, of course, be laid very much in advance of that date. This, I think, would go a long way to meeting the point made by my noble friend. I think that what he had in mind was to make certain that the regulations are laid in very good time, even though the regulations have to comply with subsection (3) of the clause.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I appreciate the point, and therefore I think it useful for the Record that I should say that these regulations will be dealt with in good time. This, in fact, constitutes something of an assurance.
Lord REDMAYNE: I do not wish to delay the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is seized, of course, that "in good time" means before April, 1970, and nothing else. When she says that it seems likely that there will be a slight difference between the sterling contribution and the decimal contribution, will she accept that if all paymasters throughout commerce and industry paid in decimal coinage from April 6, 1970, they would be very much better off—not in money, but in terms of coping with quite a large problem? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Provisions to be substituted in Schedule 4 to National Insurance Act 1965]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall be agreed to?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask one question on Schedule 3. I wonder how long the Government are proposing to retain the subdivision:
"(d) over the age of 18—
(i) if on 5th July, 1948, that person had attained the age of 55 in the case of a man or 50 in the case of a woman, "
Death grant is to be paid of exactly half as much as the grant "in any other case." I know that the theory here is that because of their age in 1948, they could pay only 10 years' contribution and so are entitled to a smaller death grant, and that the longer this goes on, the thinner it wears because of continuing escalation. This is known to be an irritant, and I hope that at some time or another the Government will make up their minds to abandon it.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I would remind the noble Lord that the grant is not intended to cover the complete cost of a funeral; it is intended to help. But I take the point he has made and I am sure that when further amending legislation comes forward, we will return to this point again.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Commencement and transitory provisions]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 6 shall be agreed to?
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask one question on Schedule 6? I am sorry that I have not given notice of this question to the noble Baroness, but I think she will be able to answer it easily. Part I of this Schedule deals with the date of commencement of the various provisions of the Bill. Considering that some dates at least are known, I wonder why they have not been put into the Bill. The date of coming into operation for benefits is November 3, and I understand that the date when contributions will come into effect has already been decided. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would tell the Committee when these provisions are intended to come into effect and to indicate why these dates have not been stated in the Bill.
Baroness PHILLIPS: The noble Lord has said that it would be simple to give a reply to his question, but I am afraid that it is not so simple. The date the noble Lord has given is the date referred to on Second Reading. I hope I am correct in assuming that the time when a Bill is introduced constitutes some statement of intent in relation to dates, and this may be the reason why they are not in the Bill. But I would not give this as other than my own personal opinion in this connection.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass, I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy of noble Lords, particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which has enabled us to examine the Bill so carefully, and I ask your Lordships to accept the Motion that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH SERVICE: OMBUDSMAN SCHEME EXTENSION
4.4 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement on the extension of the ombudsman principle which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in answer to a Question in another place.
The Statement is as follows:
"At Questions on June 24 I told the House that the Government were considering urgently whether there should be an ombudsman for local government and also what similar arrangement might be considered for the National Health Service, and that I hoped to be able to make a statement shortly.
"I am now able to inform the House that the Government accept in principle that an ombudsman system should be by law established for investigating complaints of maladministration by local government. The activities of local authorities impinge upon the daily life of the citizens directly and over a wide range and the introduction of a system analogous to that of a Parliamentary Commissioner into the local government scheme would be a major extension of the citizen's right to seek redress. We envisage hat a local ombudsman system would be separate from the Parliamentary Commissioner system; that its scope in relation to local government affairs would be similar to the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in central Government affairs; and that the independent reports would be considered by the appropriate local authority.
"The Government will therefore enter into discussions with the local authority associations and other bodies concerned with a view to introducing the necessary legislation; and will then present detailed proposals in the context of local government reorganisation.
"As to health service administration, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services informed the House on May 19 that he

795
was convinced that there was a substantial case for a health commissioner, though such an office should not be confused in its functions with the new hospital advisory service he is now in process of setting up. It will be necessary to consider, in consultation with the professional and other interests, how far the new service, when it is established, meets one side of the problem; the relationship of any commissioner to the new service; and also other problems of definition, for example where complaints may involve clinical matters. These are questions which the Health Ministers will be considering as part of the proposals now being worked out for the future administrative structure of the health service.
"I think that the House will be glad to have this Statement of the Government's intentions in this matter, which represent a further important step in the consistent line of policy which we have followed on grievance machinery for the citizen."
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I am glad to hear that the Government are going ahead with the idea of a Health Commissioner. May I put two questions to the noble Lord on the extension of the ombudsman system to cover possible maladministration in the field of local government? In the first place, could the noble Lord explain rather more fully why it is intended to separate the local ombudsman system from that of the Parliamentary Commissioner? There may of course be very good reasons for this: it may be inevitable. But on the face of it it would seem to be rather a pity that it is not possible to graft the new system in some way on to the office of Parliamentary Commissioner, especially in view of the prestige that the office has acquired under the administration of Sir Edmund Compton.
Secondly, it is said in the Statement that detailed proposals regarding the introduction of the system of a local ombudsman will be presented in the context of local government reorganisation. Does that mean, as I take it to mean, that we shall not get the local ombudsman
796
until we get Maud? If that is so, without back-tracking on all the arguments of the last few weeks, I would only remind the noble Lord that we may be waiting for the local ombudsman for quite a long time.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I am particularly interested in the proposal for a local authority ombudsman. I think that I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Wade proposed such a post quite a long time ago, but there was then thought to be some objection to it. I am very pleased to find that any objections have now been overcome, and that we shall see our local government ombudsman in time. But I share the noble Earl's fear that, if we are going to wait until the recommendations of the Maud Committee are implemented, it may be quite a long time.
I am interested to hear about the ombudsman for the Health Service. I have never myself been particularly happy about the way in which matters are handled at the present moment; from the point of view of the person making a complaint, there is not a very satisfactory method of doing this. I am pleased to see that in future a person making a complaint will be able to feel that his case will be considered by somebody not directly involved. I am sure that this will make for better relations between the Health Service and the person most concerned—the patient.
4.12 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first, as is customary, with the questions from the two Front Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked: why not give the work to the Parliamentary Commissioner? I agree with him that this is, on the face of it, a simple and attractive idea. We discussed this at considerable length when the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was before Parliament. It was always envisaged that at some stage this ombudsman principle would be extended more widely. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, in passing, that the Government have never been hostile to the idea. We merely wanted to proceed by sensible stages, and I think most noble Lords would agree that it is right to carry it out in stages. It will be some time, because this will mean a great deal of adaptation. The basic fact

797
is that reports of maladministration must be made to those who can put right what is found to be wrong; and in this case it must be the local authorities, who are responsible to their electorates and not to Parliament for their administration. This is the basic principle; but clearly there will have to be a lot of discussion to make the machinery satisfactory. It is to announce the beginning of these consultations that we are making this Statement.
As to the date when this extension will begin, I do not think one can say more than is in the Statement. I do not think that I shall be able to convert noble Lords opposite in their obstinate refusal to believe that it will be possible to introduce Maud at a reasonably early date. They have their date, and we have ours. But, without going over all the arguments on that, clearly, if there are to be these major reforms it will be much easier to apply the system on the basis of these unitary authorities, and it fits more naturally and easily into the Maud concept of local government. That is the Government's thinking in this matter.
Perhaps I should say one further word with regard to the Health Service. There is a substantial case, we believe—and the Secretary of State for Social Services has said so—for a health commissioner. But that does not imply that a final decision has been taken on it at the moment. The precise role must be worked out in relation to other developments, like the new hospital advisory service, the general procedure for handling complaints and the new administrative structure of the Health Service, on which the revised Green Paper has been promised. Consultations will be necessary with the doctors, nurses and others, and these must be held before a decision is announced, because difficult clinical issues could be involved.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, but could I clarify one point with the noble Lord the Leader of the House? As I said, I did not wish to bring up the Maud timetable again. All I was anxious to establish by my question was whether the mention in the Statement that detailed proposals regarding the local ombudsman system would be presented in the context of local government reorganisation meant that we should not have the local ombudsman until the new
798
Maud local authorities are set up. The noble Lord in his reply has, I think, confirmed that that is the meaning of the Statement. Am I right in thinking that that is so?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to be too definite, because we shall have to see how the discussions go. It is too early to give a definite answer, but the intention is that the Government will pursue consultations as a matter of urgency and introduce legislation as soon as possible. I should not like to be absolutely hard on this point. Obviously, if there were a change of Government things would be different—
Earl JELLICOE: A lot might be different.
Lord SHACKLETON:—but this is the Government's present intention in this matter.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Scottish local government will come within the scope of these proposals?
Lord SHACKLETON: Yes, my Lords. I understand that this will be a general proposal covering the whole of the United Kingdom, except Northern Ireland, where, of course, they have already advanced far along the line in setting up an ombudsman for local affairs. But, here again, there will have to be a great deal of discussion.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, following on that question, is it intended that there will be a separate ombudsman system for Scotland, and possibly a separate ombudsman system for Wales, or will it all be one single system?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is a question that I cannot answer at this moment. There are a number of ways in which one could set it up. It is even possible that if the Provincial Councils were set up (and no decision has been taken), there might be some link there. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not speculate further; but obviously what he has said sounds like natural development.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, even if this is early notice, his Statement will give great satisfaction? Is he

799
further aware that this was the one sphere—and I refer to the local authorities and the National Health Service—which many of us felt was missing from the responsibilities of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Lastly, is he aware that we are glad that the apparent willingness of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when this subject was discussed some two years ago, to say that it would be looked again in so far as local authorities and the Health Services were concerned, has borne fruit? We are most grateful.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness, especially in view of her position in relation to the Council on Tribunals. I am grateful to her for reminding us—because memories are short in this matter—that my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has played a big part in driving forward in a direction which the Party opposite had previously rejected.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I sat for a good many years for a constituency which included seven local authorities in a new town, and none of them, therefore, was a large authority. I think this proposal is a very good one indeed and that it requires a lot of political pluck to do this at the moment. I hope that, so far as possible, the various Parties will try to co-operate on a matter of this kind, which does not seem to me to touch directly on Party politics but which does affect the good government of the country and, to a large extent, the lives of the ordinary men and women in the country. I speak with all the impartiality I am capable of but do not always show, and I say to the Government that I am very glad indeed that they have the pluck to do this.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, could the Leader of the House say whether the proposed health commissioner is likely to have powers to deal with clinical trials, disciplinary and pay matters concerned with the National Health Service? If so, will there be discussion with the Regional Hospital Boards, and the Whitley Council so that all these bodies can be consulted before action is taken?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his
800
question because it indicates that I had not made clear what I thought I had made clear; namely, that there will be the most exhaustive discussions in what is a very complex and difficult area, and I am in simply no position to say what pattern will finally emerge. No final decisions have been taken in this area. I welcome this question, because I think it is important that all those concerned in this matter should not get the idea that everything is cut and dried. Nothing in this particular area of the Health Service is cut and dried, other than the statement of the intention to proceed in this direction by discussion.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask one more question, which I think is a crucial one in setting up an ombudsman? Have the Government yet decided what the channels of communication are going to be? Will they be through Members of Parliament and local councillors, or what?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, these are all fascinating questions, and I wish I knew the answers to them. In this matter the Government are right to come forward, state their approach and the principles, and allow discussions to take place. This is part of the right approach to participation in this area. There are a number of possible solutions. I have my own ideas, but it would be a mistake to refer to these until we can see how the structure and procedure can be worked out. The Government would be very interested in the views of local authorities, and of any noble Lord who has views on this matter. There is no doubt that at a suitable moment we shall come forward with proposals, which I hope will be the subject of discussion and examination, rather than a dikt-at in this matter.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the possibility of Members of your Lordships' House being a very useful channel for communication when the ombudsman is concerned, certainly in local affairs?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is an area where there are a large number of willing candidates. I fully accept what the noble Lord has said about the experience of noble Lords in this matter. In relation to Scotland, my right honourable friend the Secretary of

801
State for Scotland will be very thorough in his consultations. These consultations will take place direct with the local authorities and the local authority bodies. If any noble Lord wishes to put forward ideas they will be welcomed; and we can even, in due course, debate the matter in this House.

TEXTILES: IMPORT CONTROLS AND FINANCIAL AID
4.23 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, BOARD of TRADE (Lord Brown): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has made in another place on the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles. It is as follows:
"The Government have now completed their examination of the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles. The Report addressed a number of recommendations to both the Government and the industry, and these have been the subject of continuing consultations with the Council.
"The recommendations to the industry concerned in particular the need to increase the rate of re-equipment, to extend multi-shift working, and to develop closer technical and commercial links between the different stages of production and marketing. I attach great importance to these three requirements, and I am working closely with the Textile Council on their implementation.
"The main recommendations to the Government concerned future policy on imports and financial assistance to encourage re-equipment.
"On import policy, the Council recommended that the present quota system should be replaced by a tariff on imports of cotton textiles from the Commonwealth preference area at a rate not less than 85 per cent. of the most-favoured-nation duties. On cotton cloth, the main item of trade, this would mean a duty of 15 per cent. The Council believe that a tariff would be a better solution both for the industry and the country than a continuation of quotas. It would offer a margin of protection that was both stable and
802
predictable, so enabling the industry to plan ahead with confidence. A continuation of quotas, on the other hand, would not give the industry the confidence or the incentive to undertake the investment needed to make it more competitive.
"Imports of cotton textiles into Britain, the greater part of which enter duty-free, have now reached 53 per cent. of total domestic consumption. This is a far higher proportion than in any other major developed country. In these circumstances we have the alternatives of re-negotiating the present unsatisfactory quota arrangements, or adopting a tariff which would be broadly in line with those of other developed countries. The Government have decided that the right course is to introduce, as from January 1, 1972, a tariff on imports from the Commonwealth preference area on the lines proposed by the Textile Council. From that date the existing general quota system would be terminated; and the Government would consider the use of quotas only on particular products under the Long Term Cotton Arrangement of the GATT, and only if total imports of cotton textiles rose significantly above the present level and caused disruption to the market in those particular products. These decisions would, of course, be subject to any modifications that might be required if we joined the E.E.C.
"In reaching this decision I have taken account of the fact that a number of countries in the Commonwealth have rights to duty-free entry into the U.K. market; and I shall now initiate the necessary discussions with the Governments concerned. I am equally conscious, on the other hand, that cotton textiles have long been treated internationally as a special case; and this decision will not create a precedent for further departures from our traditional policy on Commonwealth trade in advance of any general charge of system which may be required by our entry into the E.E.C.
"The effect of the new arrangement should be to reduce imports from the developed countries which have benefited markedly from the existence of quota restrictions on imports from

803
the developing countries. There is no reason to think that, with the possible exception of India, the developing countries of the Commonwealth generally will be able to export less to Britain over a tariff of this amount than they would under a continuation of the quota system. So far as India is concerned, the Government will, when the time comes to determine the level of aid to India after 1972, take into account, against the background of India's general aid requirements at that time, any adverse effects on her exports arising from the tariff.
"I turn to the question of financial assistance to the industry. The Textile Council proposed that firms in the traditional textile areas should be offered the 40 per cent. rate of investment grant which is payable in the development areas. The Government have decided against this both on general grounds of regional policy and because in present circumstances, including in particular the position on public expenditure, we would not be justified in singling out this industry for financial assistance on such a scale.
"The Council also proposed that plant worked on a multi-shift basis should qualify for a higher than normal annual allowance for depreciation. The Government attach importance to any proposal which might increase the utilisation of new machinery, and the Inland Revenue are prepared to consider an application by the Textile Council for an increase in the depreciation allowances on textile machinery.
"In addition, the two consultants whom I have appointed to advise me on mergers between medium and small sized firms in the industry are in close touch with the I.R.C. They have seen more than 70 firms, and enough progress has been made to enable the I.R.C. to begin discussions on prospective mergers.
"The proposal to replace quotas by a tariff forms an essential part of a developing policy designed to help this industry to survive and compete in an international environment. I have already announced decisions on the structure of the industry which should give the large firms the stability they
804
need to proceed with their internal reorganisation and integration, while encouraging a much-needed process of amalgamation among the small and medium firms. To-day's decisions carry the policy a crucial stage further. Successive Governments have failed to come to grips with the industry's basic problems; and the industry itself has failed to adapt sufficiently to changing circumstances. I hope that the decisions that I have announced, provided they are accompanied by a clear determination on the part of both sides of the industry to carry out the changes recommended by the Textile Council, will enable the Lancashire textile industry once again to take its place in the forefront of British industry."
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. I am sure we shall all echo at any rate his last sentence. It is an unusually long Statement. I do not complain of that, because it deals with a very complicated matter, but I am sure we shall all want to digest it before commenting upon it in any detail. However, may I ask the noble Lord one or two questions? I am sure we were all glad of his assurance that the substitution of import duties for quotas in this case will not create a precedent for further departures from our traditional policy on Commonwealth trade. Of course, a very considerable change is involved here in Commonwealth Preference, and we are glad to have that assurance.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would also give an assurance that, in moving over to the policy of duties in place of quotas, he is aware that this is going to place a very great deal more importance on what I think is called the Customs Duties (Dumping and Excise) Act, and it would be more important to make certain that that Act is used wherever appropriate. It has recently been amended and is important in this context. Thirdly, I should like to ask about the effect of these moves on the consumer of textiles. Can the noble Lord give any indication of what a duty of 15 per cent. on this very large proportion of cotton textiles is likely to mean in terms of the consumer? I think I will leave the noble Lord to answer those questions before I ask any more.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, with regard to the point about the substitution of tariffs and the implementation of a tariff policy against Commonwealth imports, I should like to reassure the noble Lord that it is very specifically not intended as a precedent. On the second point, the Board of Trade has now had nearly a year's experience of the new antidumping regulations and feels quite satisfied that these are adequate for the protection of the industry against unfair practices in this respect. We have gained experience and are already able to deal with these matters with even greater expedition than we have been able to deal with them in the past. We are not concerned on that account. On the question of the consumer, these are of course predictions, and the noble Lord will understand how difficult it is to make these predictions, but the experts have examined this matter and the economists have looked at it, and it is believed that the prices of imports from Commonwealth sources, which will now have to bear tariff, will drop by about the amount of the tariff. In other words, there is not expected to be a rise in prices resulting from this change.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask another question. The noble Lord has told us that it is expected to make this change in the system from quota to tariff on January 1, 1972. I assume from what he has said that it is not going to be necessary to adjust the quota, or certainly to renegotiate the quota, in the meantime. Is this so? Will the quota stay at its existing level until then? May I lastly ask a question about the noble Lord's statement that the Inland Revenue are prepared to consider an application for an increase in the depreciation allowances on textile machinery? Has this already been examined and is the level of the application to be made already known? Is this in fact saying that the Inland Revenue will agree to something that has already been decided on?
Lord BROWN: My Lords, the present quota arrangements expire in 1970 and will have to be renegotiated, therefore, in the interim period to fill the gap until January 1, 1972. We do not regard this as a difficult operation. On the question of depreciation allowances, I think it is
806
known that the authorities already have statutory authority in special cases to increase annual depreciation allowances up to 25 per cent. I understand that the present maximum depreciation allowance for three-shift working in the textile industry is 20 per cent., with lower amounts for two-shift or one-shift working. I cannot give an undertaking that the Inland Revenue will accede to the demand for 25 per cent., but the matter has been one of discussion and I leave the noble Lord to read the music behind the words, if I may put it in that way.
4.37 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, the Statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was very comprehensive, covers a lot of ground and contains some startling suggestions. It will need a good deal of study by those who are familiar with the textile industries. I have no particular knowledge of the cotton textile industry because, as the noble Lord will be aware, the wool textile industry have elected to refrain from taking part in the Textile Council; but of course it is an allied industry, and whatever is decided for the cotton textile industry may have repercussions on the wool textile industry. It is quite a startling move that you should go from quotas to tariffs. It is one which I do not deplore—
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The noble Lord is beginning to debate this Statement. We are fairly relaxed about this sort of thing, but I think this is becoming rather a debate. Could the noble Lord put questions?
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I readily accede to the request of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. However, the question which I was going to put with regard to obsolescence allowances required a preamble, otherwise one could not make the question clear. The point I want to emphasise is that the textile industries have been the subject of an altitude that they have been expendable, and this is now an attempt to improve the situation. The noble Lord made a distinction with regard to the obsolescence allowances. The point of my interjection is to ask him, if he will, to give particular thought to and to make recommendations with regard to, this fact. Although he said there was going to be increased obso-

807
lescence allowance for three-shift operations, it has long been the case in the textile industry that the obsolescence allowances, or the statutory allowances by the Inland Revenue, are far below what they should be if they are to permit a proper replacement of machinery.
With due respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I think this is a proper moment to bring up this question, which has long been a matter of great disadvantage to the textile industry. When the development of new prototypes is so rapid, there should be a higher obsolescence allowance. That is what I want to take the opportunity of saying on this very long Statement. It is unusual for a Statement to be so long and it takes time to digest, but I do not want the point I have raised to be overlooked.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's question was: would I take note of the situation in the woollen industry, and the answer is that certainly I will take note. It will be a matter for consideration by the Board.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
4.41 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 22, after ("(e)") insert ("0')")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the concession which on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, undertook to make if I withdrew my Amendment to Clause 6 (1) (j). I am sure noble Lords will remember that I accepted the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but since then, from a letter I have received from the Minister of Transport, I understand that difficulties have arisen through the advisers in the Ministry of Transport changing their minds and now giving the opposite advice to that which they gave the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he made the concession to me. No doubt
808
the noble Lord will be able to explain what has happened. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in considering Amendment No. 1 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the Amendments which are consequential to it; namely, Nos. 4 to 10. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, drew attention to the fact that the manufacturing powers of this new authority were not guarded by what are broadly referred to as the commercial requirements—or commercial clauses—of previous legislation; that is, that under the Bill the new authority, when they exercise their power to manufacture, should operate as though they were a commercial organisation.
In my reply to the noble Lord I said that in my view such a provision should be in the Bill. I think I should be frank with the House and say that my conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, were earlier than he has disclosed, because I had an opportunity before the Committee stage of drawing his attention to this particular omission. I suggested that if I were prepared to accept it, it would at least meet him halfway and perhaps we could avoid an unnecessary Division. Therefore I feel under an unusual obligation to the noble Lord in this matter.
I based my offer upon a brief that was made available to me, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will clearly understand that, apart from being highly complex, this is a Bill which has nothing whatsoever to do with my Ministerial duties; and it is a Bill which was, I think, received on Friday as we were to take the Committee stage the following Monday. But at least over the weekend I had an opportunity to read my brief, and it was after having read it that I made my offer to the noble Lord. I think where I went wrong in making my offer to the noble Lord was that I had not taken fully into account the question whether the manufacturing powers were for external purposes or for internal use.
In his Amendment the noble Lord suggests that paragraph (j), which is the only manufacturing power in the Bill, should be treated in a similar way to paragraphs (e) and (k), which in fact provide for the new authority to provide services to outside organisations or private individuals. Paragraph (j). which we are

809
now talking about, provides for the manufacture of goods for the Executive itself or any other national transport authority, or for the purposes of the Council. The commercial obligation on the nationalised transport authority under Section 134 of the 1968 Act—and I referred particularly in my speech to that Act—applies only to the manufacturing activities under Section 48 (2), that is to say, to the general powers of manufacture for the outside market, conferred by that section. It does not apply to the internal manufacturing activities of the nationalised transport authority; that is, manufacture for their own purposes and for those of any other member of the nationalised transport family.
These powers, which derive from Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962 have not the commercial obligation applied to them, but I must make it dear that in the view of the Government, given that the manufacturing activities of the new Transport Executive are basically of an internal nature, akin to those of the nationalised transport authorities, and they have no general power to manufacture for the outside market, it would not be in accordance with the Transport Act at present to apply these commercial obligations to those activities.
In Committee I also mentioned the Iron and Steel Act. In fact this does not place a commercial obligation, as such, on the British Steel Corporation, but it provides for the publication in detail of the accounts of any non-iron or steel business of the Corporation with an annual turnover of more than a quarter of a million pounds. This obligation, placed on the Corporation, while not identical with what I am proposing in the Government Amendments to Clause 12, is nevertheless to some extent relevant. It is also worth noting that the Post Office Bill, which recently received its Third Reading in Your Lordships' House, imposes a commercial obligation on the Post Office in respect of its manufacturing activities for the outside market but not for its own internal purposes. I must concede that the Post Office is slightly different from the various transport bodies, in that it is alone in its field and belongs to no family of authorities engaged in basically similar enterprises for whom it can conveniently manufacture. But this does not
810
remove the point that the Post Office Bill distinguishes clearly between the external manufacture, where the commercial obligation applies, and the manufacture for the purposes of the Post Office, where no such obligation obtains.
Given these circumstances—and I thought it right to explain at some length the position as the Government see it—I have not felt able to put down an Amendment in precisely the form which I indicated to the Committee and which the noble Lord himself has now put on the Marshalled List. However, . [ was extremely anxious, as was my right honourable friend, to fulfil, in as concrete a form as possible, the spirit of the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord on that occasion. It was with this in mind that the Amendments to Clause 12 have been tabled.
Their effect is to oblige the Executive to publish in their annual reports details of their own or any subsidiaries' manufacturing activities, showing the turnover, the gross contribution to profit or loss, the method by which these calculations were arrived at and any other information about the activity which the Minister directs them to furnish. And this a tracts with it the further provisions that if the Minister then considers that the Executive's charges are too low in relation to that cost he can direct the activity in question either to be modified or to be discontinued. It will be open to any person who suspected the Executive of indulging in improper trading activities to make representations to the Minister who could investigate the complaints. In the Government's view, these mandatory provisions, by compelling the Executive to disclose details of any manufacturing activity and by opening the door for Ministerial intervention at any time, will in fact ensure that the Executive are not tempted to act in a manner that is unfair to potential competitors.
I again apologise to the noble Lord for any misunderstanding, for which I am entirely responsible, and I hope very much that he will feel able to accept that the additional safeguards which we now propose to prevent unfair trading will finally allay the fears which have been expressed and, in the event, will show them to have been unfounded. I think that in some ways these Amendments go

811
further than the commercial obligations as such would have done. Furthermore, they do so in a way consistent—and I stress this—with earlier legislation which has been accepted by your Lordships' House, in that the obligation to publish financial results in annual accounts and the possibility of Ministerial intervention are closely akin to the arrangements which will apply under Section 48 of the Transport Act to all the manufacturing activities of the nationalised Transport Authorities.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will feel that I have sought to meet the point which he made in Committee, and which I supported, because I felt that some provision should be made in the Bill in this matter. There have been difficulties, as I have explained, as to the method of achieving it, but I believe that the Amendments to which I have spoken, Nos. 3 to 10, more than meet the fears that undoubtedly exist in the minds of noble Lords opposite as to the manufacturing powers of this new Executive.
4.54 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the great pains to which he has gone to try to make amends for this unfortunate situation; and let me say immediately that I fully accept his apologies and recognise that there is no reflection of any kind on him. He has certainly argued his case extremely well. I have had over the weekend an opportunity to study the Amendments to Clause 12 which the noble Lord has put before us, and to consider what their merits are relative to the concession which the noble Lord now has to withdraw and, indeed, to my original Amendment. This I would just like to discuss now before we reach a decision on it.
This issue affects the manufacturing powers of this public corporation, the new London Transport Executive, and this matter of the manufacturing powers is something which carries a great deal of political feeling, both on the noble Lord's side and on mine, as to what is the right balance between, on the one hand a public corporation financed by public funds, and subsidised as necessary by public funds, and, on the other, private
812
enterprise, where public corporation meets it in competition. This of course was the objective of my original Amendment—and indeed of my objective to-day: to try to get what I think is the right balance. I am well aware that the noble Lord's and the Government's view is not the same as mine. I am trying to get what I think is the best balance. No doubt the noble Lord is trying to do the same.
As I see it, paragraph (j) of Clause 6 (1), which contains these manufacturing powers, amounts to pretty well unlimited manufacturing powers, and certainly a great deal more than manufacturing powers for domestic purposes—that is to say, for sale to other nationalised industries. Under subsection (1) 01 the Executive is given power to manufacture anything
"required for any of the purposes of, or of a subsidiary of, the Executive or any of the national transport authorities or for the purposes of the Council".
That is what the Bill says. That would apparently confine the power to manufacture entirely to domestic purposes. But when we look at Section 48 of the 1968 Act we see in subsection (2) (b) that these nationalised transport authorities will have power.
"to sell to outside persons, and for that purpose to purchase, anything which is of a kind which the authority or a subsidiary of theirs purchase in the course of some existing activity of that authority or subsidiary."
So it is quite clear that, with the powers of the 1968 Act behind this Bill, one of the nationalised transport authorities could purchase manufactured goods from the London Transport Executive or a subsidiary and then sell them in the open market, if it wished to. Therefore, this is not just manufacture for domestic purposes: it could be, through one of the other nationalised transport authorities, sale in the open market, and therefore in competition with private enterprise.
It is for that reason that I feel that there is great significance in the point I am arguing here, and why I feel that the safeguard I am seeking ought to be better than what the noble Lord has offered me. If I may remind the House, the original Amendment which I moved on Committee would have required that the London Transport Executive or its subsidiary should, before going into manufacture, discover whether the open

813
market had similar goods; and, if so, should get them from there. That was my Amendment. That was the Amendment, indeed, for which the Greater London Council asked. If I had got that I should have felt completely happy that we had secured the right balance between public authority and private business.
In the event, the noble Lord offered me what might be regarded, as he himself said, as second-best—what is called, I think, in the technical jargon, the commercial definition. This means that where a manufacturing business is carried on in those circumstances it must operate as if it were a commercial business; in other words, it must not only cover its day-to-day costs, but it must cover also its capital costs, as a private business would do. That concession which the noble Lord offered me (although, as he rightly says, it was only halfway to what I wanted) I felt that I had to accept, and in the light of that I asked leave to withdraw my Amendment. But the concession which the noble Lord is now offering, in his Amendments to Clause 12, obviously does not go anything like so far.
The effect of making these Amendments would be to require that the London Transport Executive should publish in their annual report details of their manufacturing activities under this heading. Let me say right away that I recognise that it is of value that they should disclose what they are doing for all the world to see. But, at the end of the day, the London Transport Executive are under no obligation to have made both ends meet about a particular manufacture, to have covered its costs and if they need some subsidy in the process of doing it it is not in any way considered a fault. Therefore, this is a very partial safeguard.
Let me say again that I appreciate that it is of some value. Clause 12, as drafted, does no more than give the Minister a discretionary power to do this. Clause 12 (3) says that the Minister may do it if he wishes to. What the Minister, or the noble Lord on behalf of the Minister, is offering is that the Minister should bind himself to do that. The point I am making, however, is that, starting from the point of my original Amendment which I felt made the right balance, we are going by easy stages
814
to a point in this Amendment which the noble Lord has put down to Clause 12 and which really is a most attenuated safeguard compared with the one which I thought was necessary to get the right balance; and I must say that I do not think that it goes far enough. I appreciate that great efforts have been made to try to make a concession which would meet the case. I also appreciate that the noble Lord has taken immense trouble, and has argued the case with great skill to show that this does do it. But it really does not, and I think that I have revealed to the House just how far short it falls.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is particularly concerned about how other nationalised industries, at least other transport industries, could use Section 48. I wonder whether it would help the noble Lord if I were to repeat what the Minister said in another place in Standing Committee A on April 17, 1969, on this particular point. I quote from column 156 of the Official Report. He said:
"The fear which the honourable Gentleman expressed"—
which is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent,—
"in the course of his last speech is one which we can understand, but we think that it is not justified in practice. The London Transport Executive will be well aware of its responsibility, and will know that to use the provisions of the Act in this way would be wrong. None the less, it is right to make it quite clear that is not the intention of this part of the Bill. In exercising his powers under section 48 of the Transport Act, in relation to periodic approval of the National Transport authorities' proposals for manufacturing and other services under that section, the Minister would not consent to any such activities involving the London Transport Executive in this wav"
I wonder whether those last clear words of the Minister at least remove some of the fear that the noble Lord has himself expressed.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: I must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for trying to help me. I have indeed studied with great care these passages from the Committee stage in another place, and the subsequent arguments by my honourable friends who, in their own case, were not convinced that

815
the Bill was sufficient. The Minister's words are fine, but they are not in the Bill; and it is for this reason that I feel that there should be a better safeguard there than there now is. There is no doubt that the Bill, as drafted, combined with the 1968 Act would give the London Transport Executive power to manufacture goods to supply to another national transport authority, who could then sell in the open market; and the Minister could only catch up with that later. The Minister, in approving schemes under the later part of Section 48 which gives him power to approve schemes, would not know what these manufactured goods were going for. He may catch up a year or two later when he found out what they were doing: but certainly he would not be able to find out in the first place that that was what was going to happen to the goods.
There really is a chink here. I stress that I appreciate the trouble to which the noble Lord has been to try to meet me on this matter, and had I thought that his Amendment could in substance meet the point I was trying to make certainly I would have accepted it in good faith, especially after all the trouble which has been taken; but it really does not, and I think that the arguments I have produced show just how far short it falls. For these reasons, I am afraid I must tell your Lordships that in my view the Amendment on the Marshalled List ought to go in as a necessary safeguard to this particular clause.
5.7 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, particularly because his remarks classify the difference of opinion that there is between both sides of the House in this particular direction. Those of us who know something about London Transport know the difficulty that they have had in the past arising from the fact that they have not been able to manufacture; or, if they have sold some of their old buses, for instance, they have not been able to supply spare parts for those buses but have had to go to outside private people in order to provide them.
This is one of the publicly-owned undertakings that we often criticise for not, as it is termed, making a commercial suc-
816
cess measured in a profit or otherwise. This Bill, as it is, gives to this transport undertaking the opportunity to be commercially viable without putting on the tightening strings that are advocated by Lord Nugent, and usually by his colleagues. We have seen so much of this in the past.
A short time ago I had the privilege in Colombo in Ceylon of seeing how the public services operated. There one saw old London Transport buses still running under their red colouring, as buses do here to-day. When those buses were passed to commercial undertakings, who repaired and renovated them and sent them out to where there was a market, unless in the past London Transport have had a sufficient number of spares they were not able to supply spare parts when anything went wrong. Here in this Bill the London Transport Executive are given the opportunity to be commercially viable. Surely that is not wrong. If we accept the mixed economy of public and private enterprise in all these undertakings there is a case for public enterprises having the opportunity to make themselves commercially viable.
I think we cannot possibly bridge this difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent and I have had many arguments in this connection. I think he joined me at the Chiswick works of London Transport and saw what was really developing and what London Transport themselves were capable of doing, but they still could not put any of those improvements on to the market, to help. To take a case in point, it is surprising what London Transport research people have done in so far as oil for buses is concerned. But this must be a commercial secret, as it were, to London Transport. I am probably a little wide in mentioning this fact, but it is indicative of what some of these publicly owned undertakings are doing, and surely they should be allowed to exploit it to the maximum.
I think my noble friend has gone a long way in the series of Amendments which he has put forward, and with which I agree. I think that when any publicly owned undertaking, and I include London Transport, do anything of this description it is right that a full explanation should be given in so far as their accounts are concerned, and that

817
they should be carefully investigated. Of course this is right, but giving them the opportunity is quite different, and I am not yielding to the noble Lord on the other side, who would prevent them making a success of their job.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, primarily this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent seeks to rectify the view that the London Transport Executive should not manufacture on a commercial basis. Page 8, line 22, of the Bill, where my noble friend is seeking to insert his Amendment, specifically allows for this very thing. My noble friend Lord Nugent has described the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—which are being taken with this Amendment—as being only a partial safeguard, and I hope it would not be unreasonable to remind the House that under this Bill it is the taxpayers who are to be asked annually to pay the interest charges on the £270 million debt written off under the Bill. I am not seeking to be difficult when I ask whether Parliament can justify a burden like this, while allowing the beneficiary, the L.T.E., to manufacture in any way it likes.
After listening to what has been said, it seems that the argument turned mainly on the possible resale powers which may be attached to subsection (j). The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has repeated the undertaking which was given by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in column 156 in the proceedings in Committee. However, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, whatever the good intentions of the Minister, under this Bill there is no Ministerial control in this matter. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether it is the intention of the Minister to prohibit the outlet of L.T.E. goods through nationalised industries under Section 48 (4) (a) of the 1968 Act? Is that the exact point where the Ministerial control will come? If that is the Minister's intention, how can it be detected if the everyday goods—literally the nuts and bolts of life—which the L.T.E. are going to be allowed to make under this Bill, are finding an outlet thus?
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not complete the quote from column 156. May I quote the preceding paragraph,
818
where the Minister said, referring to the L.T.E.:
"It is not the job of the vendor to check the eventual use of every single item that he manufactures."
What I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is whether it is the job of the vendor. If under this Bill the Minister has no power to do it, whose job is it?
There is one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, led us on to. In paragraph (i)—and my noble friend Lord Nugent mentioned this both on Committee and today—the ability to supply spare parts for passenger road vehicles disposed of by the Execulive is given. This power is given if such spare parts are not for sale elsewhere. But this is a Transport Bill, and yet under paragraph (j), the paragraph we are discussing, the London Transport Executive will be able to manufacture anything and give a full spares after-sales service. But if the Executive wishes to dispose of old vehicles, the spares cannot be supplied if they are to be found on the market elsewhere. If the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, stands up, this is not unreasonable; if it does not, then paragraph (j), taken with paragraph (i), is not only inconsistent but absurd. It is true that this Amendment would not bring the two paragraphs in direct line, but it would at least make them understandable to both sides of the House.
On this side we suggest that the manufacturing powers given to the L.T.E. in the Bill as it stands will divert the Executive from its real objectives—one of them mentioned in Clause 1—to servo the transport needs of Greater London, and also to avoid the ghost of bankruptcy, which part of the Bill we welcome. Unamended these powers could be damaging to many other industries, and therefore it is to be hoped that possibly the Government may give this matter favourable consideration.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I would say one last word because I think that if I went beyond that I still would not convince the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is that I share with him the view that this new Executive

819
are going to have very big responsibilities and very many burdens to carry; and that is one of the reasons why we feel that they should be in a position to use all their assets to the maximum advantage. We have also put in provisions to see that they do not act unfairly, or trade unfairly, with private industry. My understanding is that under Section 48 of the Transport Act, if it was known by the Minister that such things were happening as the noble Lord has mentioned—that is that goods were being sent by the L.T.E. to a nationalised Board who were selling them on the cheap—then the Minister clearly would stop it. However, I just cannot contemplate these large nationalised organisations going into what I might call Petticoat Lane trading operations. I just cannot conceive of it. I do
not believe that a Bill could be drafted to prevent that happening if that is what some local manager or official decided to do. This Bill lays down the principles by which these authorities have to work. I have no doubt at all that those authorities will work within these principles.
I will not say any more because I do not believe, as on so many other occasions, that one can really convince noble Lords that their fears are merely fears of their dreams, and I must leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lambert, V.

Airedale, L.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Allerton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Amulree, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Atholl, D.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Audley, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Molson, L.

Barnby, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Falmouth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Rockley, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gisborough, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boston, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chesham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colyton, L.

Hawke, L.

Stamp, L.

Conesford, L.

Headfort, M.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Inglewood, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Vivian, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wolverton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archibald, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Arwyn, L.

Energlyn, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McLeavy, L.

Blyton, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Maelor, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Mitchison, L.

Brockway, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Moyle, L.

Brown, L.

Hankey, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Burden, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Chorley, L.

Hughes, L.

Raglan, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Royle, L.

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rusholme, L.

Silkin, L.

Walston, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Snow, L.

Williamson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Sorensen, L.

Willis, L.

Samuel, V.

Stow Hill, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Segal, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wise, L.

Serota, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 [Additional provisions as to control of Executive by Council]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("and consider any offer by that council to make a financial contribution to the Executive in respect of the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by the Executive's railways within, to or from that county")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by me during the Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. A county council may put forward a proposal to contribute towards railway passenger services run by the London Transport Executive to, from or within their county area. It is empowered to make contributions for this purpose under Section 136 of the Local Government Act 1948. This Amendment obliges the G.L.C. to consider such proposals from a county council before approving any submission from the L.T.E. for a substantial change in the general level and structure of their fares on the services in question. It is designed to focus both the G.L.C.'s attention on a possible reason for withholding approval of substantial increases in L.T.E. rail fares outside Greater London and the county council's attention on a possible means of influencing the G.L.C.'s decision. I beg to move.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, on this occasion I have much pleasure in accepting without qualification the Amendment which the noble Lord has kindly moved: it entirely meets the undertaking which he gave during the Committee stage. It will, I think, make a useful improvement to the Bill, and will be helpful both to the G.L.C. and to adjacent county authorities.
Clause 12 [Minister's power to prevent improper conduct of subsidiary activities]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 25, after ("on") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I put this and a number of the following Amendments down to meet the fears of the noble Lord on Clause 6. However, the noble Lord has divided the House this afternoon and, not surprisingly, with his majority in this House, he has been able to carry his Amendment. I am not quite sure now whether he would wish me to go on and move what he referred to as "half a cake" or "half a stage". If the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is willing to support me in these Amendments (which meet his point to a certain extent, taking into account the view that another place may perhaps take of his Amendment) I am prepared to recommend to your Lordships that the House should accept them. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I shall have much pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this Amendment, although it has not by any means the substance which I should have liked to see as a safeguard. I said in my earlier speech that I recognised that it made some improvement. I thought the noble Lord was rather overdoing the heaping of coals of fire on my head in moving this. He would be the first to recognise that, had he offered me this concession in order to persuade me to withdraw my Amendment on the Committee stage, I should never have accepted it. I should have been bound to press my original Amendment to a Division at that time; and the fact that I asked that the concession that he gave me should go into the Bill was, I would have thought, no more than

823
reasonable. However, I will let that pass.
As to this Amendment, it gives something of value. It removes the discretionary part of Clause 12. Whereas the Minister could order that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 12 shall apply to such activities as are mentioned in paragraph (j) of Clause 6, this will now be obligatory, and it will be there for all the world to see. This is a safeguard which will have some value and give some satisfaction, and I am very pleased to support it.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 are consequential on Amendment No. 3, which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would wish to see in the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 28, at end insert ("or
(b) of any business of a description which the Executive are authorised to carry on by section 6 (1) (j) of this Act,
subsection (1A) of this section shall apply to that business.
(1A) In the case of any business to which this subsection applies")
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("such business as aforesaid") and insert ("any business to which subsection (1A) of this section applies")
Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("made") to second ("the") in line 6 and insert ("by the Executive or subsidiary in the course of that business are unduly low having regard to the cost of carrying on that business")
Page 17, line 16, leave out ("subsections (1) and (2)") and insert ("subsection (1A)")
Page 17, line 17, at end insert ("of that subsection and subsection (2) of this section")
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("(j)")
Page 17, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Clause 36 [Control of off-street parking]:
5.34 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 46, line 4, after ("available") insert ("(not being less than the number available at any date on which such regulations are made)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the only one standing in my name on the Marshalled List which is in the same form as the Amendment I moved at an earlier stage of this Bill. It is in the same form because, when I came to read Hansard, and to consider the reasons which were put forward and which led me, with some misgiving, to withdraw the Amendment on the last occasion, I found them to be, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who gave voice to these thoughts, even poorer than I described them at the time. In fact, it seemed to me that the reasons for objecting to this Amendment did not in fact apply to the substance of the Amendment. Therefore, I thought I could return with this Amendment, at least, again.
Your Lordships will possibly recall that I said on the last occasion that the purpose of this Amendment was to ensure that the number of parking spaces made available in off-street car parks in any area to be designated by the Greater London Council as a controlled area under this clause would amount to at least the number available at the date on which the regulation was made. I think that is only reasonable because, despite the pressure of traffic control, nobody has yet abandoned the principle that it is highly desirable to provide as much off-street car-parking space as can possibly be made available at the present time to relieve our traffic problems; and I cannot see any possible justification for taking powers to reduce the number of those spaces. It is not as if they have grown up piecemeal and willy-nilly, or grown like mushrooms. They have all come about because of rights of operation which have emanated and stemmed from planning consents, and they have been approved by the local planning authority. It must surely be right that we make certain that we preserve all the spaces available at the present time.
The noble Lord said on the last occasion that this would make it impossible for the spaces concerned to be allocated, as the Bill provides, between different classes of user—short-term, long-term, contract, casual, and so on. My Lords, it does nothing of the kind. It merely seeks to preserve the number of spaces already there when they come under regulations in this way. It seems to me entirely reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, says, this Amendment is identical to one that he moved on Committee stage. It concerns the powers of the Greater London Council under subsection (6) (a) to lay down maximum numbers of parking spaces at licensed parking places for (a) all or (b) particular types of parking. The Amendment seeks to provide that these limits on numbers shall be not less than the numbers existing at the date of the making of the Greater London Council regulations. What are the purposes of Clause 36? I could not help reflecting, as I was preparing for this debate over the weekend, when the Americans were achieving one of the most fantastic technological projects it is possible to conceive, that of putting a man on the moon, that they were able to do all that yet they have not been able to deal with their own traffic problems in New York and other major American cities. We may not be able to deal with ours, either, but at least we must make efforts. We believe, and so do the Greater London Council, that controlling off-street parking is one of the ways in which traffic management is possible. We believe that the Greater London Council should have the power to say how off-street car-parking should be used. I do not accept, and I cannot personally conceive, that the Greater London Council will come to the view that the amount of off-street car-parking in London is sufficient, or that it should be reduced. I am quite sure they will take the view that it should be increased.
The Amendment should be resisted on two grounds. First—and this was fully covered in Committee—it would prevent reallocations of spaces at car parks in controlled areas or parts of controlled areas falling within particular boroughs in situations where the G.L.C. had no wish to reduce the overall number of parking spaces. To take an example, the Council might wish to reduce the number of spaces which could be used by commuters in certain central areas while at the same time increasing the allocation for shoppers or residents. It would clearly be most undesirable if this were to be prevented by the Amendment.
Secondly—and here perhaps it would be as well to enlarge on what was said in Committee—it would make it im-
826
possible for the Council to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in particular areas. Although in the event they might not wish to do this in particular areas one could visualise situations in which this power might be very desirable in the interests of traffic management. It might, for example, be necessary to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in a particular part of a borough while at the same time making provision for a corresponding increase in spaces in another part of the same borough where the increase in road traffic could be fairly readily accommodated on the existing roads. There is no doubt that it must be possible when and if circumstances dictate, for these licensing controls to be able to bite on existing as well as future car parks.
There is adequate protection for the interests of existing operators. They have the safeguard of the Minister's "call-in" procedure on the regulations (and the Minister would certainly be particularly interested in any proposals to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in particular areas), coupled with the ability of objectors to make representations about these regulations and the Minister's power to hold a public inquiry. Finally, there are the compensation provisions to cover situations where operators suffer damage as a result of licensing decisions. This, of course, raises the very practical consideration that the G.L.C. will not be likely to decide to make cuts in the numbers of car park spaces in particular areas when it knows that at the end of the day this is likely to lead to the borough or boroughs in that area being subject to probably quite substantial claims for compensation.
My Lords, I have spelled out the question of compensation and the Minister's powers to show that this is something which must be very carefully considered by the authorities concerned if they were to reduce the number of parking sites in a particular area. But in present circumstances I cannot conceive of the G.L.C. reducing the overall number of parking spaces in Central London. But it may need to reduce parking space in one particular area if only to increase it in another, taking into account the flow and use of traffic. I would ask the House not to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I was much struck by the noble Lord's analogy with the American achievement. We salute the moon programme; but I do not think that the Americans are unaware of their traffic problem. One thing they have not seen fit to do about it is to take powers of this kind—and neither has any other nation, so far as I am aware. Therefore I am right, and I think your Lordships are right, to be concerned about the introduction of these powers. I wish that the noble Lord had said something which had rather more regard to the facts of life and to the life of the individuals than: "Do not worry about this; because, after all, if the local authorities did this it would cost them an awful lot in compensation." I do not believe that this is a sound basis for legislation of this kind.
I cannot recall a single valid reason in his speech for not putting this Amendment in the Bill. The noble Lord churned out the same arguments as those produced in Committee—arguments which, as I said in moving my Amendment, had not convinced me in the slightest. They still do not convince me. I see no reason why this Amendment would prevent the changeover of spaces between commuters and short-term parkers; and I am not even sure that the noble Lord is correct in thinking that it could do so. I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.46 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: The purpose of Amendment No. 12 is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. He was concerned to ensure that where under subsection (7) of Clause 36 the local authority has reached a decision on a licence application, it should inform the applicant of the decision and the reasons for it at the same time. As I pointed out in Committee, I felt that the noble Lord's Amendment was slightly defective in drafting and I undertook to move an appropriate Amendment on Report. This is the Amendment. I hope the House will approve it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 30, at end insert ("at the same time as they inform him of that decision").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, what I have to say about this Amendment is such as to have made it doubly distasteful for me to have had to take the view I did of the previous one. With this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, meets an undertaking he gave on Committee. I am grateful that he has done so. The noble Lord has tabled other Amendments to meet similar undertakings. To save the time of the House, may I be permitted now to express my gratitude and appreciation for all of them. I acknowledge with appreciation the discussions which have taken place, and only wish that I could acknowledge with as full an appreciation in every case the results of those discussions. Those cases in which I cannot do so form the subject of a few remaining Amendments in my name. With the possible exception of Amendment No. 25 (to which I shall make a remark or two) I welcome these Amendments and in accepting them formally shall do so in a spirit of appreciation and gratitude.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In so far as any decision of a local authority under this section with which compliance is required by the operator of a public off-street parking place is to any extent in conflict with the terms and conditions of any lease, agreement for a lease or licence or contract entered into prior to the 22nd day of July 1969 under or by virtue of which the operator has or gives possession or right to the use of the premises or any part thereof at which the parking place is situate, then such terms and conditions shall to that extent be null and void, but damage as respects which a claim may be made to the local authority pursuant to paragraph 4 of Part IV of Schedule 5 to this Act by any person shall include damage suffered by that person by virtue of such annulment or voidance.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, of some size and substance, is similar to an Amendment I moved on the last occasion. There is an important difference which I will explain. This Amendment provides for the situation where compliance with the terms and conditions of a licence for off-street parking places is in conflict with the covenants and conditions attaching to the premises under any lease, agreement for lease or licence on which it may be held. There

829
are many car parks held under such agreements or licences or contracts, and those operating them could be put at considerable risk of frustration by the imposition of conditions under the regulations to be made under the Bill.
At the time when I moved my Amendment in Committee the noble Lord made the point that it would open the door to a great deal of potential abuse. That was the main and almost the sole piece of major advice that he gave to your Lordships; and your Lordships disagreed with the Amendment after a Division. I feel that if that Amendment had been in the form in which this Amendment now appears, your Lordships might not have disagreed to it. Therefore I thought that I should be justified in moving this Amendment in order to find out. The abuse which was foreseen by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was that if contracts could be frustrated and thereby attract compensation, people would create contracts in order for them to be frustrated. I think that the expression used by the noble Lord was to "fleece the authorities". No one wants that to happen and therefore I have included in this Amendment that its provisions would apply only to car parks operating under leases or contracts which are valid today. I have put in to-day's date to avoid any possibility of am/one being able to create a contract for the sole purpose of having it frustrated and therefore making themselves entitled to compensation. I think that the noble Lord had a point originally and that I have met it, and I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is virtually identical to the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, during the Committee stage and which on that occasion was lost by a short head—in fact by one vote. It seeks to provide that where any conditions imposed in a licence conflict with the conditions of any lease, contract, et cetera, under which the operator uses the car park premises, the conditions of the lease shall be null and void and the lessor entitled to compensation for any damage thereby suffered.
The Amendment as now drafted refers only to leases entered into before July 22, 1969, and to this extent it obviates the risk inherent in the earlier Amendment of abuse by entering into a lease or contract
830
in terms designed to undermine the whole system. I fear that this Amendment also is unacceptable and for the following reasons. First, we believe that no provision of this kind is needed. We think that the rules of law about the frustration of contracts would apply to the obligations with which this Amendment deals. This means that the operator would be discharged from future performance where this would conflict with the terms of his licence and the courts would have power to make financial adjustment under the Law Reform (Frustration of Contract) Act 1943.
Secondly, this question of conflict with the requirements of the lease or contract can arise in planning law. A discontinuance order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 could require a tenant to discontinue activities which his lease requires him to carry on. But there is no specific provision in the planning Acts for setting aside a lease or contract. Thirdly the question of possible conflict with obligations or restrictions in posed by a parking licence is in no sense limited to leases, licences or contracts. Conflict could arise over other obligations; for example, obligations under a restrictive covenant binding on a freeholder To make specific provision in relation to one kind of situation would cast very serious doubts on other situations where the same problem arose.
Fourthly, by limiting the provisions as to leases et cetera entered into before a particular date, the Amendment implies that subsequent leases could override the requirements of a parking licence. This is clearly unintentional. Nevertheless it is a major flaw in the Amendment. It could provide a way for getting round the controls which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself does not wish to see. In so far as the interests of a landlord or tenant are prejudicially affected by the decision of a local authority under Clause 36 they will, in appropriate cases, be entitled to compensation under the provisions of Schedule 5 to the Bill. In practical terms, operators have little to fear. The terms and conditions of any lease would, of course, be matters: hat a local authority would take into account, as would the Minister on appeal. A local authority might hesitate before laying itself open to the liability to compensate anyone with the sort of interest

831
in the land which would give him a compensation entitlement. For those four or five reasons I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that is a worthy thought on the part of the noble Lord. I wish that the House would rise to its feet and inform me that it thoroughly understands the five reasons why it should not accept the Amendment. If that happened I should take off my hat to the House. Frankly, there is a technique (I absolve the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, from deliberately using it) which is known as"blinding with science". The noble Lord shakes his head, but in point of fact that is what has occurred on this occasion, so far as I am concerned. Through the maze of the somewhat legal tangle which the noble Lord has given, I simply do not think I am capable of reasoning it straight back again, having heard it once across the Floor of the House. It is too complex for that. What am I to say? May I ask the noble Lord this? Despite all the information about non-performance and so on, for which one could apply, can he tell me whether what he said means that if an operator is prejudiced, put to loss or suffers damage as the result of this action he has under the law a claim for compensation in some way? Yes or no? If the noble Lord can tell me that this was what he meant in the rather long passage that he gave, I may feel happier.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I have made it clear in the past what is the position of operators when they feel that their business has been prejudiced by any of the consequences of this Bill. They have their appeal procedure. They have also, under procedures identical to the Town and Country Planning Acts, avenues for compensation within the law; means of obtaining compensation if it goes as far as that. If they have anything about which they feel they should appeal they have the procedure of appeal to the Minister. The Bill, in fact, as the noble Lord knows, goes further than merely the operator. A land-owner who may be prejudiced by this Bill also has protection and the opportunity for compensation. As I have said on many occasions, we have done our utmost to see that anyone who suffers as a con-
832
sequence of this Bill should, through the proper procedures, be properly compensated.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord answering, "Yes" to my question?
Lord SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords, I am sorry that I had to use so many words, but the answer is, "Yes".
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, on the assumption that the noble Lord has answered correctly—and I am sure he would not have said otherwise—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 47, line 26, after ("section") insert ("and to the provisions of Part V of Schedule 5 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and at the same time would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48, which are consequential. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. He was concerned to cover a gap in the Bill as drafted, whereby an operator who was granted a licence on terms and conditions unacceptable to him and who appealed against those conditions could not carry on operating on the original basis pending the outcome of the appeal. The Government accepted that there was a point here that needed putting right.
The Amendments now drafted go somewhat further than the noble Lord's Amendment originally suggested. They provide that an existing operator who, when an area first becomes a controlled one, is granted a licence on conditions unacceptable to him and who appeals against the conditions, may continue to function as he was doing before the control applied, pending the outcome of the appeal. They also make similar provision for the case of an operator in a controlled area who holds a licence for a limited period, makes an application to the local authority for a new licence—either limited or permanent—and is granted a new licence on conditions unacceptable to him. He also will be able, should he decide to appeal, to continue

833
to operate on the earlier conditions pending the outcome of the appeal.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 47, line 39, leave out from ("subsection") to ("proper") in line 40 and insert ("the court before whom he is convicted may, if on an application made for the purpose by the local authority the court is satisfied that it is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and at the same time speak to Nos. 16 to 19. These Amendments are again to meet a point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He pointed out, and the Government agreed, that the ultimate sanction of revocation of a licence for breach of conditions would more appropriately rest with the courts than with the local authority. I agreed with this in Committee. The Amendment to page 47, line 39, is the basic one that removes the decision from the local authority to the courts. It does so, which seems correct, on the basis that the court would be invited to act on the basis of an application by the local authority. The remaining Amendments are consequential.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 44, leave out ("revoke") and insert ("make an order for the revocation of")
Page 48, line 3, after ("licence") insert ("in pursuance of an order")
Page 48, line 6, after ("giving") insert ("notice of appeal from the order or, as the case may be")
Page 48, line 10, leave out from ("given") to end of line 11 and insert ("until the effectiveness or otherwise of the order or, as the case may be the local authority's decision is finally determined in accordance with the relevant procedure").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 48, line 28, leave out from ("modifications") to end of line 29 and insert ("as may be prescribed for the purpose, being modifications appearing to the Council to be necessary to ensure that the parking place is operated by or on behalf of the local authority with suitable provision as to the matters referred to in subsection (4) (b) and (c) (i) to (iv) of this Section in like manner as if it").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. Fears were expressed during the Committee stage of the Bill that the Bill did not in fact place a tight obligation on local authorities, in relation to the operation of their own car parks, to comply with the framework of the G.L.C. Regulations for a particular area. The fear was that local authorities would so operate their own car parks as to compete unfairly with private enterprise car parks, using a latitude which it was alleged the Bill gave them. In reply I emphasised that the Bill was in fact drawn completely tightly on this point, and that the fears expressed were groundless.
In the light of the debate, I have looked at the matter again. There is no reason to change our earlier opinion on the drafting of the clause, Nor, indeed, do the Government think that local authorities would in fact behave in this sort of way. Nevertheless, purely for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that any fears on the point are dispelled, an Amendment has been tabled to spell out more clearly in the wording of Clause 36 the obligations to be placed on local authorities. It must be emphasised that this involves no change of substance whatsoever or any alteration of these obligations; but it is of course desirable that there should be no misconceptions on this important issue. It is to be 'toped that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who particularly raised this point, will find this Amendment acceptable.
6.7 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 48. line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Not less than one month before publishing any proposal to make regulations designating an area in Greater London as a controlled area for the purpose of this section, the Council shall publish a report fully explaining its intentions and the reasons for the proposed regulations.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is akin to, but by no means the same as, the Amendment I previously moved. It is directed to the fact hat I believe that people should be better informed than they are. I have already said in another context to-day that these powers lead to regulations which have not been used anywhere in the Western hemisphere before, and I think we should

835
at least know what is happening. On the last occasion, I moved an Amendment to make the regulations subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, and this was furiously resisted by the noble Lord. Not unnaturally, I have not returned to that in view of what was said, but it is only right and proper that where these powers are taken people should know what is going on. These powers are wide and sweeping and are unprecedented. According to the noble Lord on the last occasion, they are subject to Parliamentary control—presumably through the Parliamentary Question procedure, because I cannot think of any other form of control here, and I do not think it is too much to ask that people should know about these measures when they are brought in.
I am not talking entirely about people operating car parks but also about people operating temporary, or what I might call unofficial, car parks, such as using a field as a car park to take advantage of a nearby football match, a practice which I believe occurs in the neighbourhood of Twickenham at times and elsewhere in the Greater London area. If they are not aware of these regulations they may be put in the position of committing an offence without knowing that there is an offence there for them to commit. I do not think that my Amendment is difficult of fulfilment and it should not impose any intolerable burden on the Council. I do not think that we can rely here on the Press or on reports of council proceedings, and something stronger is wanted. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, as a general principle, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord has said, but in the Government's view the Amendment is unnecessary, in that the arrangements already proposed in the Bill or dictated by the G.L.C.'s own internal machinery will ensure that the aim is achieved. In the first place, the proposed G.L.C. regulations would require Council approval, and thus a report would need to appear in the Council agenda. This is a public document, and secures substantial publicity in the Press.
Secondly, under an Amendment which I shall move in a moment, the Council are to be given a positive obligation in
836
respect of prior and formal—and, I stress formal—consultations on proposed regulations. What will these consultations be? We have clearly not specified them in Amendment No. 25, which we shall discuss later, because if we put in certain names there is always the fear that others not mentioned will be involved. It is clear to me that in this matter consultations are bound to take place between the R.A.C. and the A.A.; with the British Parking Association and, I should have thought, particularly when one thinks of the impact that certain regulations may have on particular shopping areas like Regent Street or Bond Street, with the Chamber of Commerce. These consultations would certainly cover major organisations representing users of the car parks and car park operators. There seems no reason why this consultation should not be entirely open, and will thus provide another opportunity for those interested to become aware of what is going on.
Thirdly, once the draft regulations are formally published, there is a six-week objection period during which anyone concerned may make representations on the regulations. All objections have to be transmitted to the Minister, and he may, if he thinks fit, call in the regulations; and, if he does so, he can order a public inquiry. This is the major opportunity for all relevant points to be thoroughly ventilated.
In these circumstances, the Minister feels that the Amendment is not required, and, indeed, places an unreasonable extra obligation on the G.L.C. The matters it seeks to cover will be fully met by the procedures that will in any case have to be gone through. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will not accept this Amendment.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a long expose of certain things that are true in regard to other things, but I fail to see that they have anything to do with this. He has given us a long talk on what might be the object of Amendment No. 25, but in my view this does not in any way go to meet the point that I have tried to make in this Amendment, and this I should have thought the noble Lord would appreciate. I do not know, because the noble Lord did not say so, where else in the Bill this matter is covered. It

837
simply is not good enough to say that the public who need to be informed will be informed because it will have to go on the G.L.C. agenda, which is a public document. I do not know what the readership of the G.L.C. agenda is—perhaps it would be interesting to know that. The public at large do not study regulations when they are published.
I am delighted, of course, to hear that under another head the Council will consult my own organisation, and the A.A., and so on, from which I take it that it is proposed to leave this matter to those with whom the Council see fit to consult in due course. But I do not think that any of the bodies which are liable to be consulted are necessarily publicists in areas where there are people of many different kinds who wish and need to know that these regulations are to be made, and who may be put in a position of some personal jeopardy by innocently operating what I call an ad hoc car park, taking advantage of somebody else's event, without knowing anything about it. I cannot see any reason why this should not be publicised by such a report as I have mentioned.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word or two on this matter. I wonder if my noble friend Lord Chesham is not taking a rather limited view of his Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has told the House what his Amendment No. 25 will do, which is most valuable in terms of consultation. But on the point my noble friend Lord Chesham picked up, that this would appear on the agenda of the G.L.C. and be in their report, the Press are present on these occasions and pick up anything that is of general interest; and there is no doubt that if anything new in this way is proposed by the G.L.C. the Press will pick it up and give it full publicity.
One is always up against the problem, with any innovation of this kind, of how to tell everybody. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, agreed that the G.L.C. should publish a report, there is no certainty that everybody would read it. We should be no further forward. I should have thought the fact that the G.L.C. themselves will have their proceedings reported, and that there is then this specific consultation, which means that those directly interested will be brought
838
into it, has gone quite a long way to meet my noble friend's point. I should have thought that he had done rather well in persuading the Government to go as far as they have. He seems to have done rather better than I have done on most points. I rather hope that he might accept this.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.18 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 48, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Before imposing any conditions in regard to the granting of licences to permit the operation of public off-street parking places, which relate to the matters described in subsections (4Xc) (i) (ii) and (iii) of this section, the local authorities shall require he applicants to display notices concerning the proposed conditions at the parking places of not less than thirty days.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the same sort of subject, but brings it down to a matter of more local detail. Where it is necessary for the local authority to publish details of their intended scheme, which is to be found in paragraph (1) of Schedule 5, you find the words, "together with a summary of their effect". I think that where a motorist is using a car park, and there are to be major changes in the conditions under which he may use it—they may be of time, price, hours of opening and so on—it is only right that he should know about it.
A similar Amendment that I put down I on the Committee stage introduced what I understood was an objectional principle, in that it brought in a statutory right to complain. This I have now removed, but I am after information. I have cured that problem, and it is at least reasonable that one should make certain that users of car parks are informed in advance of changes and alterations which may have an injurious effect upon their lives and their fortunes. I beg to move.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I have been here recently for quite a time. I was wondering when anybody was going to say anything about Schedule 5. What the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has done is to give us a little extract from Schedule 5 and to omit the part which I should have thought answered his difficulties. Not

839
only must there be a summary, which I should have thought would give anybody warning that something was happening—and the specific kind of things happening—but there must also be a place where someone who is interested can go and read the draft regulations. Surely, one cannot do any more than that, can one?
Lord SHEPHERD: I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend. I would accept that users have a perfect right to know what is going on and, if they have views, to put those before the appropriate authorities. As I have said before, these regulations will receive wide publicity; they will be required to be printed in anewspaper. I will refresh my memory on this point, and draw the noble Lord's attention to Schedule 5 which refers to one or more daily newspapers circulating throughout Greater London and says that in this newspaper or newspapers shall be published a notice stating what is proposed in the regulations. Local papers reporting matters concerning a smaller locality than Greater London are bound to take up such regulations and the effect they will have upon local users. If motorcar users have a complaint they have their own organisations, the R.A.C. and the A.A., or any other association. I see that the noble Lord is screwing up his face, but we have put these special organisations into the Bill to meet this particular point. The noble Lord wanted these user-associations to be consulted, and now the noble Lord screws up his face as though this does not meet the point.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will let me finish my remarks, may I say that we clearly must have some limit to how far one goes in circulating information. In my view, we have gone in the Bill as far as is practicable or reasonable. I see no reason at all why users will not know about the effect of these matters. At the end of the day, the issue will not be between the users, although they are clearly involved; the issue will be between the two parties alone; that is, the local borough and the car park operators. If there is any question of changing the number of places that are available in a car park that will not be done to cause incon-
840
venience to the users of that car park, but only because the local authority and the Greater London Council believe that changes are necessary in the light of traffic management.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am bound to say that I do not feel very satisfied with the reply the Minister has just given. I should have thought that it stuck out a mile that the proper place to put up a notice about changes in carparking arrangements was at the car parking places concerned, quite apart from publishing information in newspapers. In exactly the same way, the proper place to put notices about British Railways' by-laws is on the platforms of the railway stations. That is where people who travel by rail can conveniently read those regulations if they want to. It would not be an answer to say that from time to time British Railways have their regulations published in advertisements in newspapers, because not all travellers by train read those particular newspapers.
Surely it is not unreasonable to have an Amendment down which says that arrangements for changes at car parking places shall be displayed in notices at those particular parking places where the people who use them will be able to read the notices, and know what is going to happen. I have never found a more sensible-looking Amendment to any Bill than this one, and I do not think we have had a satisfactory reply from the Minister.
6.27 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I should not like the noble Lord to think that any facial expression I may have assumed was at something he directly said. Any expression that may have crossed my face I can assure him was occasioned by the most appalling width of the margin by which he completely failed to understand the object of the Amendment. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but what he has said indicates that this is so. I am asking that the time table should be put at the station. The noble Lord says that this is not necessary and that it can be put in the local papers. That is not the point. We have dealt with that under the previous Amendment. What I am asking for in this Amendment—and it is a perfectly right, reasonable and proper thing to ask for—is that people who use car parks where there are to be changes,

841
where they are no longer to be allowed in at certain hours, where the prices are going up or down, or where the time they may stay is being altered, should be specifically told.
It is no good the noble Lord saying that it has been published in the newspapers, because I am perfectly certain that whereas regulations, and the proposals to make them, will be published in newspapers, they will not publish definite announcements such as, "that the so-and-so car park in so-and-so street as from 12 p.m. next Friday it will cost you 4s. 6d. an hour to be there instead of 3s. 6d.
6.38 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 48, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) If the imposition of any condition in regard to the granting of a licence under this section to permit the operation of a public off-street parking place prevents the continued enjoyment of any contractual rights obtained prior to 22nd July 1969 in regard to the use of the parking place, the local authority shall
as previously. Furthermore, unless you have a local resident's permit, or some kind of qualification, you will not be allowed to come in before 9.30 a.m.", and so on. Those facts will not be told to people, and even if they are circulated, people using car parks do not all live in the area in which the car park is situated. I think this is a most reasonable point on which I am not prepared to let go.
6.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amulree, L.

Falkland, V.

Lambert, V.

Audley, Bs.

Fortescue E.

Lauderdale, E.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Boston, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Hacking, L.

Sandys, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L.

Kilmany, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Rusholme, L.

Archibald, L.

Headfort, M.

Sainsbury, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Burden, L.

Silsoe, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Sorensen, L.

Chorley, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Energlyn, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Tayside, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Raglan, L.

Wise, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wooton of Abinger. Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

pay compensation to any person suffering loss or damage as a consequence thereof. Any question as to the right to, or the amount of, compensation payable shall be referred to and determined by a county court or the High Court.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 relates once more to the position of a user of a car park where, in a rather similar fashion to that relating to the previous Amendment, his interest is in some way damaged by the frustration of a contract that he has

843
made for the use of a car park. This is not an unusual kind of occurrence, both for private individuals and in business. The Amendment is designed to provide for a position where the user of a car park (as against the case in the previous Amendment which related to the operator) is damaged in some way by his contract being frustrated by the regulations, as and when they may be brought in. Here, again, I have endeavoured to provide against the abuse which I understood a previous Amendment on the same lines could have created, and I hope I have adequately done so. I think that in the circumstances it is quite wrong that if individual users, of whatever kind, suffer in this way they should not be adequately catered for.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in what he finally said about a previous Amendment somewhat let the cat out of the bag, I thought, when he said that one must remember that the making of these regulations is a matter between the local authority and the operators. The implication is that this is something in which the user does not have any stand. If words mean anything, what his remark must have meant makes me doubly keen to move this Amendment, as I now beg to do.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment is to provide that, where any condition of a licence frustrates any contractual right in connection with the use of a parking place, then the local authority shall be liable for compensation to any person suffering loss or damage thereby. The sort of case in mind is where someone has a contract with a car park operator for a particular number of spaces at the car park, and this proves impossible of fulfilment because of the terms and conditions of the licence. This Amendment is unacceptable. It reflects, although in a different form, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. Admittedly the new Amendment rules out any question of abuse by a car park operator deliberately entering into a contract for the provision of parking space with the intention of frustrating the system, but in so doing it imports a basis for compensation that is quite new—and I stress this—in terms of the
844
related town and country planning legislation.
The concept is that the local authority shall be liable for any damage caused by the frustration of an existing contract for the provision of parking spaces. No such provision applies to a contract frustrated by the discontinuance of the town and country planning legislation; nor indeed, so far as we know, elsewhere in the general law. The existence of such a contract will of course be taken into account by the G.L.C. and by the Minister, on appeal, but the Government cannot accept that if, in the event, it is decided that a particular contract must be avoided in the overall public interest, this decision should carry with it compensation requirements of the kind that the Amendment provides. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must join in on this Amendment because, unlike the replies given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the other Amendments to Clause 36, I am afraid that his reply here does not entirely convince me. It would be impossible for us to examine here all the ramifications of town planning law; nor would it be fair to expect my noble friend Lord Chesham to deal with it all. Nevertheless, I think my noble friend has made out a good case that where, for instance, some private person has made a contract—let us say for a year, for three parking places in a particular garage—and then, for good reasons, the G.L.C. decide that this particular parking site must be closed down, or reduced, so that the contract has come to an end, it seems to me that the contractee, having paid in advance, is entitled to some compensation for losing the benefit of, say, six months—or it might be nine months—of his contract, where he has paid out quite large sums of money in order to reserve those places.
This is a perfectly reasonable case in which to ask for compensation, and I cannot understand why the noble Lord has been given advice to the effect that it just cannot be considered. I should have thought that the noble Lord's advisers in the Ministry of Transport might have looked at it further. It is just common sense that there should be compensation in such a case, and to provide for it in some

845
way. I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to look at this Amendment again.
Lord M1TCHISON: My Lords, I rise only to say that I should have thought the answer was again to be found in Schedule 5. There is a long series of provisions about compensation, headed "Right to compensation in certain circumstances". I may have the sense of the Bill all wrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, may have it all right; but it looks to me to be very odd to put in an entirely independent right to compensation here, and in very large terms. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has really considered what addition is made by his Amendment to Part IV of Schedule 5?
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I hope the House will accept that I should not be quite so incompetent as to put this Amendment down, and to put this amount of effort into moving it, if I thought the situation was adequately provided for in the Schedule. Therefore I will return to the Amendment. As I have said, the whole of the emphasis here—and this makes me, for one, pretty annoyed—is that in this transaction the user does not count. I do not like that attitude, and I do not suppose that many of your Lordships will like it. But the noble Lord has, perhaps rather innocently, confirmed this and we have now had it confirmed all through these Amendments: that the attitude is: '"We do not want the user to be informed of what is to happen in principle or in detail; we do not want him to be compensated." The noble Lord has now confirmed that this is a matter between operators and the local authorities in the interests of traffic control, and the user is to be regarded as a nonentity—as non-existent in the matter. Clearly I shall get nowhere with this Amendment, but I will not withdraw it.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to refute what the noble Lord has said. All through this Bill we have sought to protect the position of the operators and land owners, and anyone who may be involved in the property. But, clearly, in a matter like this one cannot go too far, in the course of either compensation or even, perhaps, consultation—in the sense of consultation with any individual who may park a car in a particular car park. But later on in the Bill we have included special statutory
846
provision for consultation with organisations that represent users. For the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to say what he has just said either shows ignorance of the Bill, deafness to what has been said in this House, or he is prepared to put before this House a travesty of the truth.
6.49 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, we are on the Report stage, and the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has made the two speeches to which he is entitled and then the Minister, having made one speech (to which he was entitled), without seeking leave of the House made not just another speech but a speech in which he attacked the noble Lord who moved the Amendment with a charge of ignorance. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has exhausted his opportunities for reply, and I think that is rather unfortunate.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I speak again with the permission of the House? If I did not seek permission on the second occasion then I ask the House's forgiveness. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself knows—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not—when one is a Minister dealing with a Bill at Report stage one is often obliged to get up and down, and perhaps on occasion one tends to forget that one should seek the consent of the House to speak a second time. So far as attacking the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is concerned, if I did, I have known him long enough over many years in your Lordships' House to know that he will not take any offence.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I need it, which I think I do, I would say this. I hope my shoulders are broad enough and my understanding of the noble Lord deep enough to be able to resist his attacks, which have always been quite welcome. What I said was based on what be himself has recently said and which he will find when he comes to look at Hansard to-morrow morning. Therefore, I was justified. If this be thought a counter-attack, I would say that I think he is entirely wrong and misguided to keep confusing it with the Amendment on consultation, with which it has nothing to do; it is nothing to do with the case at all. If I have said a wrong thing, then he has laid a red herring.
Lord SILKIN: My Lords, we have a very long agenda and we have gone through less than half of it. May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to set a good example and adhere to the rules of the House, and confine himself to the number of speeches to which he is entitled and not ask the House for permission to make further speeches? Otherwise, we shall have an all-night sitting.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule 3 [Disposal of certain statutory functions of London Board]:
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, I will move this Amendment very briefly. It is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 31, leave out from ("under") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("section 25 of the London Transport Act 1969".—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Control of off-street parking]:
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I undertook at Committee stage to say whether provisions could be put into the Bill that the Greater London Council should consult with representative organisations before regulations were made. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement my promise. I could make a much longer speech, but in view of the situation I hope the House will accept this Amendment with these few words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("they") in line 20 and insert ("Before deciding to propose the making of regulations under section 36 of this Act with respect to any matter, the Council shall consult with such representative organisations as they think fit and, if after such consultation they decide to make such a proposal").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly thank the noble Lord, as one of those who pressed him to make this concession. I think it is a very valuable one and I am most grateful to him for making it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 71, line 28, leave out ("thirty days") and insert ("six weeks").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. The Government cannot go quite as far as Lord Chesham asked. We are anxious that the process of considering the regulations should not be unduly protracted and thus delay the whole process. But we can accept that some extension would be reasonable, and the Amendments provide for the periods in question to be extended to six weeks and 12 weeks respectively. I beg to move.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I want briefly to acknowledge what the noble Lord has done. This is obviously a case where politics is the art of compromise, a compromise I am happy to accept. I would apologise to him that my attention was momentarily diverted when he moved the previous Amendment. Although it does not go quite as far as I hoped, or even as the noble Lord claims. I am grateful, none the less.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27. 28 and 29.
Amendments moved—
Page 71, line 39, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks")
Page 72, line 2, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks")
Page 73, line 3, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this series of related Amendments are tabled to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. The point at issue raised by the noble Lord's Amendment was that where under paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 a holder of a licence had discontinued making parking spaces available to the public for a period of not less than two years, the local authority's power to revoke the licence should only be exercisable immediately after the expiry of that period—that they should not, in other words, be able to

849
come in at a later stage when the provision of normal parking has been resumed, and hold the earlier failure against the operator. The Government accept that this is a valid point, not only in relation to the provisions of paragraph 9, but also in relation to the provisions of paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 (1) where, again, as the Bill is at present drafted a similar situation could in theory arise. The effect of the Amendments is to provide that in each case the notice of revocation is of no effect unless it is served within three months of the end of the relevant period. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 74, line 5, at end insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 12, after ("licence") insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 20, leave out from ("satisfied") to first ("the") in line 21 and insert ("at any time that for a period of not less than two years beginning with that date")
Page 74, line 24, after ("place") insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 29, at end insert ("subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 30, leave out from ("if") to ("begun") in line 31 and insert ("there has been a period of not less than three years since that date without that development being")
Page 74, line 33, leave out from ("if") to ("completed") in line 34 and insert ("there has been a period of not less than seven years since that date without that development being")
Page 74, line 35, leave out ("at the expiration of the period of") and insert ("for a period of not less than")
Page 74, line 47, at end insert—
("12A. Where notice under paragraph 9, 10, 11 or 12 (1) of this Schedule is given after the expiration of the relevant period referred to in the paragraph in question the notice shall be of no effect if it is given more than three months after the expiration of that period,").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on Committee stage raised the question of surface sites and I had to indicate to the noble Lord that we could not accept his Amendment. In considering the debate, however, it appeared to the Government, on looking at the provisions of paragraph 19, that there was perhaps
850
one case not covered: that of the situation where no actual work on the development had started but a contract had been let. The Amendments are designed to meet this position and to correct what would otherwise have been an anomaly in terms of related legislation. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
Amendments moved—
Page 77, line 34, after ("(iii)") insert ("either")
Page 77, line 37, after ("out") insert ("or a contract (other than a lease) has been entered into with a person carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of the execution of building operations or of building operations and engineering operations whereby that person has undertaken to erect in the course of that business at the said premises a building or structure as a place for the provision of parking spaces for motor vehicles.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
7.0 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet, although in alternative form, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He sought to secure than the period within which an operator was able to lodge a claim for compensation under paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 should be extended from six to twelve months. I made it clear that the compensation provisions were closely akin to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Acts; that this analogy was in the Government's view right, and that the Amendment should thus be resisted. In the light of Lord Chesham's arguments, we have looked at the position again. The Amendment now tabled goes a long way to meet it, and does so within the framework of town and country planning legislation. It provides that if within the sixmonths period a claimant makes an application to the Minister for an extension of time the Minister may, if he thinks fit, grant it. This gives the Minister discretion to allow for particular circumstances without giving an overall extension of the period. The Amendment follows a broadly similar provision in Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1969. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 78, line 36, leave out ("six months of") and insert ("the period of six months or

851
such longer period as may be allowed under sub-paragraph (1A) of this paragraph beginning with').
Page 78, line 48, at end insert—
("(1A) If within the period of six months preferred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph any such person as is referred to in that sub-paragraph has made an application to the Minister for that purpose and has given notice to the local authority of the making of that application, the Minister may, if he thinks fit in the circumstances of the case, direct that the said sub-paragraph (1) shall apply in relation to the decision in question as if for the reference in that sub-paragraph to six months there were substituted a reference to such longer period as the Minister thinks fit.").—(Lord Shepherd)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and I would speak also to No. 47. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in the Committee stage. He pointed out that as the Bill was drafted the provisions of Part V of Schedule 5 dealing with permitted unlicensed operation pending appeal did not cover the case of an operator who had appealed to the High Court on a point of law under paragraph 17 (2) of the Schedule. This applies both in the case of an existing operator when an area becomes subject to control and to the case of an operator who holds a limited period licence and applies for a further licence. These Amendments rectify the position. They do so by providing in each case a reference to the local authority's decision becoming finally effective under the procedure in Part III of the Schedule. This form of words sweeps up the possibility of an appeal to the High Court on a point of law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 2, leave out from ("thereafter") to end of line 4 and insert ("until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or the licence is granted").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have already spoken to the remaining Amendments, Nos. 45 to 48. With the agreement of the House perhaps we can take them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 81, line 4, at end insert—
("24A. Where in pursuance of the application referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 24 of this Schedule the person referred to in that paragraph is granted a licence, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (10) of the said section 36 by reason of contravening or failing to comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in the licence under subsection (4; (b) and (c) of that section—

(a) at any time before the expiration of the time for giving notice of appeal under Part III of this Schedule from the decision of the local authority as to those terms and conditions; or

(b) if such a notice of appeal is duly given, at any time thereafter until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or (he terms and conditions specified as aforesaid in the licence are varied as a result of that procedure.")

Page 81, line 13, after ("expiry)") insert ("(i)")
Page 81, line 25, leave out from ("thereafter") to end of line 27 and insert ("until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or a new licence is granted").
Page 81, line 27, at end insert—
("(ii) where he is granted a new licence in pursuance of the application aforesaid, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (10) of the said section 36 by reason of contravening or failing to comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in that new licence under subsection (4) (b) and (c) of that section—

(a) at any time before the expiration of the time for giving notice of appeal under Part III of this Schedule from the decisions of the local authority as to those terms and condition; or

(b) if such a notice of appeal is duly given, at any time thereafter until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or the terms and conditions specified as aforesaid in the new licence are varied as a result of that procedure.").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass I would only wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Chesham, who have, at least from their side of the House, borne the weight of this Committee. I should like to express grateful thanks for the manner in which they have conducted their business. We have dealt with a large number of Amendments in, in my view, a relatively short time, particularly taking into account the technical nature not only of the Bill but also of the Amendments. I thank both noble Lords and also the House for the way in which this Bill has been expedited.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and thank him for the patient and expert manner in which he has dealt with the many technicalities, and the many Amendments which were moved, both in Committee and on Report, and also for the successful way in which he deputised for his noble friend Lord Winterbottom, whom I hope is now recovering. Had his back had to stand this Bill as well he would truly have been in trouble. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for all the trouble that he has taken.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It might have been thought from certain exchanges this evening that I had not received considerate treatment, so far as my Amendments were concerned; but I should like once more to express appreciation of the way that many of my points have been met, although, naturally, perhaps not to the fullest extent that one might have wished, and some not at all. But I appreciate what has been done on this Bill, and I wish that I could say "Hullo" to the regulations that are liable to transpire as enthusiastically as we shall say "Goodbye" to the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.9 p.m.
The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lord Hughes): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved to add to the Schedule:
Page 61, line 11, at end insert—
("The Post Office Act 1969 (c.)
48. In paragraph 83 of Schedule 4 (adaptation of enactments)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after the words "1966" there shall be inserted the words "or Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "51 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966" there shall be substituted the words "14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969";

(c) in sub-paragraph (3), for the words "51 (4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966" there shall be substituted the words "14 (4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969", and for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment amends the Post Office Bill, in the light of the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Paragraph 83 of Schedule 4 to the Post Office Bill at present contains certain protections for Post Office apparatus affected by procedures under Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966. Since the provisions relating to clearance areas in Part III of the 1966 Act are being repealed, it is necessary to insert references into the Post Office Bill to housing treatment areas which the Housing (Scotland) Bill introduces. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41, hiving been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I should like to pay tribute to the way in which it

855
has been dealt with by your Lordships on both sides of the House. I can recall few measures, and certainly no other Scottish Housing Bill in recent times, which has met with a warmer reception and been given such a speedy and unruffled passage through this House. The changes that we have made have been small, but they should all serve to improve the Bill. I hope that the welcome which the Bill has received generally will be a good omen for its effectiveness as an Act. I do not need to stress further the importance which the Government attach to the problems with which the Bill needs to deal. Legislation cannot by itself, of course, solve the problem. Our hope must be that the Bill can provide a framework for co-operation by all concerned—local authorities, owner-occupiers, private landlords, tenants, the building industry and housing associations—in ensuring that we make real progress towards getting rid of the slums which have been with us far too long in Scotland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes)
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dundee was extremely sorry that he could not be here for the Third Reading. He wished me to say how very much obliged he was to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the very great care with which he has dealt with this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING BILL
7.11 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord STONHAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stonham)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 32 [General powers exercisable by local authority in general improvement area]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
856
Page 18, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert ("Where a local authority have declared an area to be a general improvement area they may, for the purpose of effecting or assisting any such improvement as is mentioned in section 28 (1) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I think I can probably, with common agreement, expedite the proceedings of the House. Let me explain. I tabled an Amendment to Clause 32 in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough to accept the idea underlying my Amendment in principle, but said that it could be better drafted. At his suggestion I withdrew my Amendment. I should like to express my gratitude to him for having assisted me with the drafting of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. So far as I am aware they fully accomplish my object, and I understand that the draftmanship is much more satisfactory to the Parliamentary draftsmen than my poor effort. That being so, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his remarks, and for the understanding way that he has dealt with the matters of immediate moment. As the noble Lord said, this Amendment arises out of the point that he raised at the Committee stage, and there has been collaboration with regard to the drafting. As the drafting is impeccable, and the sentiment was already accepted, I would advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11. leave out from ("acquire") to end of line 12 and insert ("compulsorily any land within the general improvement area or adjoining that area").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Payments to owneroccupiers and others in respect of unfit houses purchased or demolished]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 40, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

857

("(a) the house was purchased or vacated after 23rd April 1968, in pursuance of an order within the meaning of paragraph 4 (1) of that Schedule; or

(b) the house was purchased after that date in pursuance of an order made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act 1961;").

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I fear that the House may get into greater difficulties. This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 8. These two linked Amendments were briefly discussed in Committee, and the reason I have tabled them again for the Report stage is because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in Committee that he would look at the point again, I feel sure that he will have done so, but unfortunately he is not here to give us his observations after his re-examination of the point.
This is a highly technical matter, and I have a feeling that I might be wasting the time of your Lordships by explaining it in detail when the noble Lord is not here. My main purpose in moving it is to re-examine the subject of the Amendment with his help. If your Lordships wish I will continue, but it may be that if the noble Lord arrives I shall have to repeat parts of my speech.
We are dealing here with an agreed improvement—I mean agreed between all parties and all concerned—in the compensation payable to owner-occupiers of houses which are declared to be unfit. The point at issue is to get the right dividing line in time between those houses which will benefit from this clause and those which cannot benefit because they are, so to speak, too late. I say that it should depend on whether completion of the purchase of the houses by the local authority, or the vacation of the house by the owner, whichever it might be in the particular case, had taken place by April 23, 1968, which I believe was the date of publication of the Government's White Paper on which this Bill was founded. This is a clear-cut event. It is well understood by all those who will be affected. The owner has no doubt when the purchase of his house was completed, or when it was unavoidable that he should vacate it.
At this stage I should like to pause to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to your Lordships' deliberations. I fear
858
that in all the circumstances, if the noble Lord will give me his attention, I must briefly repeat what I have been faying, because I think that is the only way to do justice to the point at issue. I trust that I shall not be out of order by being guilty of repetition—certainly no: vain repetition, because I want these Amendments accepted.
I had explained before the noble Lord was with us that Amendments Nos. 3 and 8 were briefly discussed in Committee. I have tabled them for the Report stage because the noble Lord said in Committee that he would look at the point again. He will be aware of the point at issue. It is to get the right dividing l: ne in time between the houses which will benefit from the new arrangements in Clause 68, and those which cannot benefit. I am saying that it should depend on whether completion of the purchase of the house by the local authority had, or had not, taken place by April 23, 1968. I was saying that that was a clear cut event. The date on which the purchase was completed, or the date on which they vacated the house under a clearance scheme, is well known not only to the local authority but in particular to the owners of the houses. The Government say that there should be a different dividing line, and that is what is in the Bill at present. The Government say that it should depend upon whether the proceedings leading to the purchase, or vacation of the house, have, or have not, commenced by April 23, 1968.
My proposal, of course, would cost the local authorities more money, but it is the course which the local authorities want Parliament to take, because they see that the course proposed by the Government will be demonstrably unfair as between one owner and another. My proposal to amend the Bill has the backing both of the Greater London Council and the Association of Municipal Corporations; and those two bodies, between them, must be concerned with by far the greater part of all the houses likely to be affected by Clause 68.
There are many areas which were declared clearance areas before April 23, 1968, but in which few houses, if any, have so far been acquired. That has happened through sheer pressure of work in council offices and in town halls, and we fully understand that. If the Bill stays

859
unamended, all those owners whose houses have still to be purchased will be denied the benefit of the new compensation terms. They will not be able to question why, when they find neighbours whose houses are bought on the very same day getting the benefit of the new compensation terms, simply because their area was declared just after and not just before April 23, 1968. No solution of this problem can be guaranteed to eliminate all anomalies everywhere. That is common ground. But what I am proposing would ensure that there was no possibility of any anomalies arising in respect of any houses that have been purchased or vacated under a slum clearance scheme, after the date of the White Paper. That is what the local authorities want, and it is they who will have to pay the extra money. So I urge the Government to agree to these Amendments. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HOUSING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Lord KENNET): My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place when the Report stage of this Bill began. I think there has been a breakdown in the electronic arrangements by which we are summoned according to the course of business in the House. I hope that the House will accept my apology.
The noble Lord's Amendment, which is at present before the House, affects the transitional arrangements bringing into effect the major part of the scheme which comes in the Schedules, and I know he will agree with me if we discuss now the merit and substance of his later Amendment to Schedule 5.
At an earlier stage he asked whether the Government would have another look at this matter, especially in view of the fact that the larger authorities, the Greater London Council and the Association of Municipal Corporations, wanted an Amendment of the sort which the noble Lord has moved. This we have done, and we find continued difficulties in accepting this approach to the matter. It seems to the Government that the date proposed in the Bill is the most logical and defensible one for the introduction of the change; that is, on the declaration of the compulsory purchase
860
area as a whole. To go further back would certainly have capricious effects.
If everything turned on the timing of the purchase of the unfit houses themselves, owners of houses in the same compulsory purchase order would get quite different treatment. Houses in orders confirmed many months before April 23, 1968, would become eligible if the owners, for one reason or another, had been successful in spinning out the negotiations for purchase. They could have done this by appealing to the Lands Tribunal. The lucky owner-occupiers would be those who had been obstinate and had opposed the local authority at all stages, employing whatever delaying tactics they could. The unlucky owner-occupiers would be those who had co-operated with the local authority and had perhaps not opposed the order, or had been willing to sell by agreement. It would obviously not be right that owners of property in the same slum clearance area should be compensated on a different basis, especially if those who get the better deal are those who have been spinning things out and making difficulties, while those who get the worst deal are those who have been going along with the process of housing rejuvenation which is involved in all this.
It is true that the larger local authorities would like to do what the noble Lord proposes in his Amendment; they would like freedom to be more generous in this respect. The smaller local authorities, however, would not. It is of course the duty of Parliament to look after everybody, both the smaller authorities and larger ones, and the poorer local authorities would find real difficulty about this. We are talking about quite a large issue. The best estimate I have been able to obtain is that there are as many as 10, 000 owner-occupiers who would be affected by this Amendment. So this is a substantial matter.
In conclusion, I should not fail to remind your Lordships that since there is Exchequer subsidy involved, by reason of the cleared land subsidy where there is new housing to be built, this Amendment would involve a charge on central Government funds. No doubt the noble Lord will consider whether it would be right for this House to make an Amendment which would change the amount of

861
money which central Government are bound to provide to achieve the purposes of this clause. Having said all that, I should like to sum up by saying that we have had another look at this matter, and the difficulties seem as great as they did the last time round. The problem is really that the Amendment would introduce capricious differences between one owner-occupier and another. I really think that this would not be a good way to go about this matter and, on hearing what I have had to say this second time, I hope that the noble Lord may agree with me.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having carried out his promise to look at this matter again, even though his further look has been noticeably unfruitful. He thinks that the effect of my Amendment would be capricious. But I think that the effect of the Bill as it stands will be capricious. I have the local authorities in general on my side. The noble Lord takes the view, which is a common view in Government Departments, that those owners who have not instantly agreed to all the terms of compulsory purchase orders are rather bad men, who ought not to have as favourable treatment as those who have instantly signed along the dotted line. I do not think one can make those moral distinctions at all. However, I quite see that the Government are not prepared to yield on this matter, and in the circumstances I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.27 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 81 insert the following new clause:
Price payable on enfranchisement of leasehold house, 1967 c. 88
". The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if in section 9 (1) (which provides for the price to be paid by a tenant on an enfranchisement under the Act to be calculated on certain assumptions, by reference to a sale of the reversion in the open market by a willing seller) there had been inserted after the words 'a willing seller' the words '(with the tenant and members of his family who reside in the house not buying or seeking to buy)', and as if at the end of section 9 (1) there were
862
added the words 'The reference in this subsection to members of the tenant's family shall ne construed in accordance with section 7 (7) of this Act':
Provided that this section shall not have effect where the price has been determined (by agreement or otherwise) before the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this proposed new clause would reinsert into the Bill the clause providing for the exclusion of the tenant's overbid from the assessment of the price of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act. The Clause is in an improved form, excluding the bid not only of the tenant but also of members of the tenant's family living with him. At this stage I do not want to run through all the arguments which we had both on Second Reading and in Committee on this difficult and contentious matter. I should simply like to remind your Lordships of the main lines of the situation.
A Great many freeholders have been asking more than they had been before the recent decision by the Lands Tribunal in the Custins case. Some have been putting up their prices by a very large sum, several hundred pounds—in one case even £1, 000—no doubt relying on the expense of bringing an appeal to the Lands Tribunal to deter the tenant from appealing. But, quite apart from those large increases, there have been a great many other cases in which the prices have gone up by smaller sums as a result of the Custins decision. These cases have been not only of individual houses but also of estates owned by large freeholders where houses covered by an enfranchisement notice have had their prices put up by reference to the Custins decision, no doubt following professional valuation advice.
It may be that the cases which have been brought to my right honourable friend's attention are those where the increases which are being asked are above the average, but in this connection I think it is relevant to remind the House that a Queen's Counsel who spoke on the Opposition side in the House of Commons, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, thought that the tenant's overbid would be very slight. I also cannot help remembering that Lord Silsoe said in this House on Second Reading that the clause as I then moved it would produce tiny benefits. Such

863
amounts are one thing, but the heavy increases being asked for by some landlords following the Custins case are another thing.
I said before that I did not mean to go too deeply into the matter and at this stage I shall not. The situation is the same as it always was. The law was going along in one way, enfranchisement prices were at a certain level, there came a decision in the Lands Tribunal and the prices suddenly jumped up. In the view of the Government, that was a matter to be regretted. This clause was therefore inserted into the Bill in order to maintain the leasehold enfranchisement prices at about the level at which they were before. The way the Government conceive is the right way to do this is to ensure that the tenant's bid over and above the open market price for the merger value should be excluded, and that is what this clause does. We believe that this is fair—no more than fair and no less than fair.
I am therefore moving this clause again, which was inserted in another place and was deleted here by a majority of one on Committee stage. In the course of so doing I am incorporating in the new clause which I am proposing to move back a small Amendment suggested by the Opposition side in the House of Commons. It is my hope that since our lively debate last week the noble Lord and his friends, having thought about this subject again, as indeed we on our side and the Government have, may have come to the conclusion that it will be tolerable to continue the basis of these valuations as it was before the Custins case, and will now be prepared to accept the re-insertion of this clause with one minor amendment in it. I beg to move.
7.33 p.m.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, I am afraid I have already spoken three times on this clause and I should have liked very much to say that I had nothing to add; but there are a number of your Lordships here who have not been present on any of the other occasions, and so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave a reasonably short explanation of what the Clause is about. The major difference between my own views and those of the Government is as to what this is about. The noble Lord, Lord
864
Kennet, has this evening talked about people asking for more money since the Custins case. I am sure there is some evidence, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that attention has been drawn to the more obvious and large instances.
May I just remind your Lordships—I am afraid I have not the exact figure in my mind, but I am not very far wrong in what I am going to say—that in Custins case itself, which concerned a house of considerably larger value than the values generally applicable in, for example, South Wales, figures were given. One of the things the Tribunal did in the course of their judgment was to pronounce on certain disputes between the tenant's view and the landlord's view, and they set out in detail what, in their view, the adjusted figures were, as explained by the tenant and the landlord. The tenant, it will be remembered, was asking for the tenant's bid to be excluded, but when that was adjusted by the Tribunal the difference between the two figures as between the tenant and the landlord in that case was of the order of £50.
I cannot accept the view that there has been any justification for large increases in figures because of this decision. What I can say is this: that if the decision is that the tenant's bid—I leave out for the moment the family—is removed, the figure which is payable by the tenant for his freehold, the site value, will be less. But there is no possible justification in anything in that judgment for increasing the figure. Indeed there is no evidence that any case has gone to the Lands Tribunal since. Greedy people, it may be, are asking for more—I know not—and no doubt the Minister has heard of such cases; but to think that there is any justification for an increase since the Custins case is wrong. What this Amendment is about is not that there would be an increase, but that there would be a reduction if the Amendment was carried.
That is my first point; and I have said right the way through that it is very difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the Government, and still more difficult for me, to prove anything in this matter because no one has any statistics and no one knows whether there has been a case. I think there has not been a case at the Lands Tribunal since. So I start

865
in that way by saying that, from my experience, any idea of an increase because of Custins case is right out, and if anybody went to the Tribunal they would soon be told so.
But I am not asking for this Amendment to be rejected on the ground that it is, if I may rudely put it, a small baby or a large baby; I am asking for it to be rejected on quite wide grounds of policy and fairness. I speak with apologies to those who have been kind enough to listen to me before, but the main principle of the Act (which I consider, with all due respect, is binding upon this House) is that the landlord owns only the site and the tenant owns the bricks and mortar. I had not heard anybody, least of all myself, try to argue, in this House, or in the House of Commons, or in the Lands Tribunal, that that principle has been breached. What was being decided in this case—and it is this which has boiled up in this great excitement—is what was the site value of this house in North London. My Lords, just to put this question in perspective, what did the Tribunal say it was? The Tribunal said that it was £500. It also found that, but for the Act of 1967 the figure would have been over £3, 000; so the landlord has lost quite a lot of money by virtue of the Act, and I cannot attack that in any degree. But now the argument is: should it be £500 or, say, £450? There is no case, I repeat for the third time, for going up.
If I may follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I will not go through all the points, but there are two major points on this clause that I should like to raise. The first is that it was thought by the Government that the Tribunal were breaching the principles of the Act of 1967. The Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales, said so; the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry said so. I have ventured to say already that they have not breached it in any way whatever. This is a Tribunal which is now always used by Government and Opposition alike in every case concerning disputes on land values. When the need arises, in an Act of Parliament, for the provision of a body to arrive at fair settlements between members of the public over the value of land, there is no alternative suggested by Government, Opposition or anybody else, to the Lands
866
Tribunal. And the Lands Tribunal have said in their judgment that if this Amendment is moved and carried (again the noble Lord will perhaps allow me to leave out the family for the moment) the terms of compensation will not be fair. They have said so in unambiguous terms.
The Amendment asks that the bid of the tenant should be removed from the consideration. The Tribunal dealt expressly with that point; they decided, as a matter of law, that the tenant's bid ought to be included. But they decided also—quite apart from law—that if that bid was excluded the terms of compensation would not be fair terms. Section 1 (1), the very first section of the Leasehold Reform Act provides that the tenant may a;; k for the freehold on "fair terms" of compensation. Those very words, "fair terms", are in the very first subsection of the Act. It seems curious to me that when that judgment has been given by this very distinguished and experienced Land Court (if I may call it that), the Government should go out of their way to move an Amendment in direct contradiction to that Court's findings—and in exactly opposite terms with the addition of the word "not".
It is because of that point that I venture to say that this House ought not to have second thoughts: that it ought to follow the decision arrived at in Committee, however small the Committee that made the decision and however small the majority. If I may say so (having had little experience of these matters), we who support this view have had rather bad luck whenever the matter came up for discussion. Last time there were only 45 Members in the Committee. I do not know how many noble Lords are present now; but obviously there are not a great many. None the less, having regard to the fact that the Government are deliberately inserting that which the Court—the only Land Court in this country—has said would produce unfair results, I do not feel that I can give way. I cannot say that I will have second thoughts unless the noble Lord in his final reply gives some better reasons than before. I understand that I can speak on Report stage only once. I shall keep to the Rules, but I hope that, if by any chance something comes up that I have not dealt with, somebody

867
else will take up the point for me. If necessary I will ask for leave of the House to speak again. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was for many years my "boss". He will, I think, speak up for my view. I worked under him for a great many years on these matters. I will not, if I can avoid it, ask for permission of the House to speak again. As this will be my last remark, I would say that I cannot see my way not to divide the House.
7.44 p.m.
Lord SILKIN: I am sorry to have to disagree with my former assistant; but this is a very simple issue. The question is: What was the intention of the Government in passing this legislation? What did they lead the House to believe? I am quite prepared to accept that the Act was inadequately drawn and did not altogether express the views of the Government, so that the Lands Tribunal were in a dilemma and had to interpret the Act as best they could. But as I understand it, what they had to do was to put a value on the site.
If you are going to include the owner of the site as a bidder you are going to get an artificial value. It will become artificial for two reasons. First, because an owner in possession will naturally tend to bid considerably higher for the freehold than an outside person who is buying it at market value. He will gain security and he will have the benefit of having a freehold instead of a leasehold. Secondly, he will gain by the fact that some of the values of the ground rent and the lease are always less than the value of the freehold. In other words, a person acquiring a freehold gains considerably more than the mere price he has paid for the ground rent. Therefore, a lessee will tend to give considerably more—and it will not be a matter of £50—than the site is worth. Sometimes he will tend to bid, and be forced to bid, considerably higher. Very often he will be forced to pay considerably higher than the true value of the site.
The purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to ensure that the owner, the lessee, is paying merely the true value of the site. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, referred to experiences. There have been no cases before the Lands Tribunal; but
868
it so happens, strange as it may seem, that I am still in practice, and I have had quite a number of these cases before me. I can assure the House that a great many landlords are asking far higher prices for a freehold than could be justified in any circumstances. But for the fact that my clients get good advice from me they would be forced to pay dearly in order to get the freehold. In some cases I have known landlords to ask twice as much as the freehold is worth.
I think that the Government are doing the right thing in putting forward this clause, ensuring that their intention is being carried out and that the lessee will be required to pay no more than the value of the freehold. I am not commenting on the merits of the Bill. I had my doubts whether it was fair to assume that the bricks and mortar belong to the lessee; but that is not the issue. The noble Lord accepted that in Committee. If, therefore, the freehold is the only thing we are valuing I ask the House to agree that it should be valued fairly and not on a scarcity or arbitrary value.
7.49 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is setting himself up against a judicial tribunal. There has been a firm determination by the Lands Tribunal (which is the highest judicial tribunal to which the matter has so far been taken) because the Government stepped in without waiting to see whether there would be any appeal against the Lands Tribunal's judgment. But there was none.
I realise that the decision of the Committee last week was taken with very thin numbers. I do not in any way criticise the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for again putting down the Clause in a somewhat altered form so as to get a decision in a fuller House. I do criticise him in that he was reported over the week-end to have said, in connection with last week's vote, that there had been an extraordinary use of hereditary privilege in the interests of the great landlords. He may have been misreported, but he was reported in two national newspapers as having used words to that effect. It seems to me a most extraordinary interpretation of the votes that were cast here last Wednesday evening. I really

869
do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, or the noble Lord, Lord Holford, who both spoke strongly against the Government, were actuated by a desire to assist the interests of the great landlords. I am quite sure that my noble relative, who also voted, was not. Indeed, it really is an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the public if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, thinks it right to insinuate that a vote such as that was taken in the interests of the great landlords.
While I say that the noble Lord is acting wholly reasonably in putting down this Amendment again, it appears to me that in the light of the decision of the Lands Tribunal it would not be complete unless he added to the clause a provision that in Section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 the word "fair" should be left out and the word "unfair" should be inserted. What that Section says is:
"This part of this Act shall have effect to confer on a tenant of a leasehold house, occupying the house as his residence, a right to acquire on fair terms the freehold or an extended lease of the house and premises—"
and so on. Now, of course, the question arises, what are "fair" terms? Fortunately for us that has been decided by a judicial authority. In its decision the Lands Tribunal said:
"We do not think that the exclusion of the tenant would result in a fair terms sale, because a price which was calculated on a basis which ignored the price which a tenant would be prepared to pay would not be on fair terms."
That is the judicial judgment on this matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was anxious to assert last week, Parliament can, of course, alter the law in any way it thinks fit. But it cannot alter these decisions about fairness and unfairness so as to create an inconsistency. We have a judicial decision that "fair terms" means including the willingness of the tenant to buy. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is reintroducing this clause, the purpose of which is to get the price fixed with the exclusion of the tenant or members of his family seeking to buy. That has been stated by the Lands Tribunal to result in a sale that would not be on fair terms. The Leasehold Reform Act requires that the sale should be on "fair terms". It seems to me, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is quite right in criticising this clause as he has.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, last Wednesday evening I begged noble Lords opposite not to vote in favour of excluding Clause 80. My appeal was in vain; we were defeated by a majority of one—a fluke Division—because there were only 45 Members of your Lordships' House present. I am going to repeat my appeal to-night more earnestly than I did on Wednesday, for two or three reasons. I speak as a Welshman, and we Welshmen, particularly those of us in South Wales, are very interested in this debate; far more interested than we were in what took place in this Chamber last night, because Welshmen in South Wales have suffered the iniquity of this system for so long.
Let me give one example which is common in South Wales. A terraced house in Swansea was bought by a working man for £1, 000. He spent £800 on providing modern amenities. At the end of the leasehold he received only the £1, 000 that he paid for it originally, and so he was literally robbed of £800 If I robbed any person of £800, I am sure that I should be sentenced to many years of imprisonment. But here is daylight robbery, and it has happened in Swansea, not once or twice, but hundreds of times. I could give example after example.
I beg your Lordships to support the Amendment for another reason. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, say on one occasion in this Chamber that the Conservative Party in the House of Lords would never reject anything that was mentioned in the Labour Party Manifesto in the 1966 Election because obviously the people had voted for it by giving a majority to the Labour Party in the other place. This matter was mentioned in the Labour Party Manifesto. I. was definitely declared that this Housing Bill would be introduced in the House of Commons. Therefore I am going to beg noble Lords to be true to their own Leader.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not present this evening, but I am sure that noble Lords will recollect what I have just said regarding what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. I am quoting from memory, but the noble Lord said, very definitely, that if there was anything in the Election Manifesto, and if the people had voted in favour of it,

871
then on moral grounds they could not reject what the Government proposed to do. The Government have promised that they would do this and so, on the grounds given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I say to-night that noble Lords opposite have no moral grounds for rejecting the Amendment proposed by my noble friend.
Thirdly, we all believe that the Government must have been hurt last night as a result of what took place here. But they will be hurt far more if this Amendment is defeated. We had a hint of that from the Prime Minister in his speech in Durham last Saturday evening. Are we going to repeat what happened last night? Are we going to anger the Government unnecessarily into taking a certain action? If so, I can only say that, at some date, children in the schools of this country will be asked, "What happened in the last week of July, 1969?" And the answer will be "Man went to the Moon for the first time—and the Tories in the House of Lords committed suicide."
8.0 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I may have another word on this matter before the Question is put. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has said that he is not too happy about this proposed new clause and he wishes to divide the House against it. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that he thought the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, was quite right. I deduce, therefore, that if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, pursues his intention of dividing the House against this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will advise his noble friends to follow the noble Lord into the Division Lobby. If I am wrong about that, I hope the noble Lord will interrupt me. It may be he has in mind that I might say something that would affect his judgment in this matter. I am anxious not to say anything which would provoke the noble Lord into this course, if he did not already have it in mind.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, presses this Amendment, I shall follow him into the Lobby. My noble friends will do what they wish. I do not think, however, they will be influenced by the awful threat that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has just uttered, indicating that
872
it is a most unforgivable thing for the Opposition to provoke a Government.
Lord KENNET: No doubt they will be much influenced by the direction in which they see the noble Lord walking. For the third time round on this point, the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, said that there has not been a case relevant to this matter before the Land Tribunal since Custins.
Lord SILSOE: I said that I hoped there were not. Perhaps I am wrong.
Lord KENNET: Perhaps I can correct him. There have been two. There has been Hall's case where the Tribunal came roughly to the same conclusion and there was a third case last week. I have only seen the full report of the judgment this morning and so I should not comment on it but, at first glance, it appears to fall into line with Custins. This is the interpretation which is being given by the Lands Tribunal to the law as it stands at present. The Committee will not want me to repeat for the third or fourth time that there is no possible criticism of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, also said that there was no excuse for increased enfranchisement prices due to the Lands Tribunal decision. It may be that he is right. I do not know; I cannot judge about this. A Goverment should not survey the social scene and say for what feature of it there is an excuse. It has to survey the social scene, see what is happening, see that it is in accordance with what it conceives to be social justice; and if it is not in accordance with that, it must propose to Parliament that the law should be changed. Maybe there is no excuse for increased prices since Custins but there are increased prices. The City of London Corporation, no doubt acting on professional advice, and the professional advisers no doubt with copies of Custins in their pockets, have been putting up prices on at least one whole estate by between £100 and £200 per house since this decision, and no doubt as a result of it. I have already quoted odd cases of prices going up £1, 000. There is absolutely no doubt that this is happening. Whether there is an excuse for it, I do not know. I cannot take that into consideration. What concerns me and must concern Parliament is that it is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe,

873
said that the Government were deliberately inserting into the law something which the Lands Tribunal had said would have unfair results. Here we come back to the basis of the whole matter. The law says that the Tribunal shall make a fair settlement. The Tribunal has made two or three settlements now and this shows their interpretation of the word "fair" and its validity as written in the Act. The result has been that prices have gone up, that the leaseholder is disadvantaged and the freeholder is advantaged. Therefore the Government come to Parliament and invite Parliament to change this. That is the result of the word "fair". I am not saying that we want to write into the law something which, because it no longer uses the word "fair", is unfair; that would be absurd. I merely say that the result of injecting the word "fair" in its context of the words in the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act is something which the Government consider socially undesirable and invite Parliament to share their view. They therefore propose instead a more precise definition. This word "fair" is vague.
If, on the other hand, it is laid down in law that a hypothetical bid by the sitting tenant, the leaseholder, and his family living with him, is not to be taken into account in assessing the price for enfranchisement, then we are laying down something which Parliament has not only a full right to lay down but also something more precise. What I am advancing here is an increase in precision for the guidance of the court. My noble friend Lord Silkin, with his vast experience of these matters, said that if we included the owner in the market, we shall get an artificially high value. That is the nub of the matter. It is precisely in order to get rid of that artificially high value that the Government now propose to exclude the owner from the market.
To come to the main point, let us stand back for a moment and consider what has been happening. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill was introduced with a certain formula for settling this matter. It ran in a certain way for a certain length of time. Prices were set, enfranchisements took place and a fair level was established. There was then a case before the Lands Tribunal, the Custins case, followed up by two more,
874
as a result of which prices went up. The Government then proposed to charge the law by an Amendment in another place. The Amendment was not opposed by the elected Members of the Opposition. Indeed, the only criticism they had of it was that it should have been introduced earlier and they added a refinement to it, which would make it even tougher—this question of families, which on the invitation of the Opposition in another place I have included in this Bill. The Bill came here. The Opposition moved against it and succeeded in throwing it out by one vote at Committee stage.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Opposition moved against it. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, moved againstant and the Opposition Whips were not on for that Division.
Lord KENNET: I accept the noble Lord's correction most willingly. Of course, the Opposition did not move against it: the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, moved against it and the Opposition supported him in his move and went into the Lobby in his support, and thereby achieved its rejection by a majority of one vote.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that an effort by an independent person in winning at all is rather fine? Whe does he run down one vote?
Lord KENNET: Nothing could be further from my intention than to run down the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. My battle is with the Opposition. The noble Lord moved as he thought fit. The Opposition have supported him. I am taking issue with the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has taken me to task for using the words "an extraordinary use of hereditary privilege" and asked me whether I wanted to duck out of it. I do not, and repeat it. It is true, no doubt, that among the Opposition Peers who went into the Lobby against this Amendment and in support of the freeholders last week there were those who are not here by hereditary right; but I believe there was more than one who is here by hereditary right, and since the Amendment was carried by one vote then I assert, without fear of contradiction, that it was carried by hereditary privilege.

875
What happens, therefore, is that the Opposition come out at this point in defence of the great freeholders against the leaseholders of this country, against the Labour Party in another place and against the Labour Party in this House, none of which is surprising, but lastly, and this I do find astonishing, against the kind of Conservatives who can get themselves elected to another place and who welcomed this change in the Bill
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.20 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 81 insert the following new clause:
At the end of section 6 (4) of the Rent Act 1968 there shall be added the following:
". Provided that for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that if the said alteration has effect under section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 only as from a date later than the appropriate date and a certificate as to the manner in which the hereditament
when it was introduced there—perhaps I am going too far and should say, the kind of Conservatives who omitted to oppose it and suggested improvements to this change in the Bill when it was introduced in another place.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton. L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bowles, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burden, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Chalfont, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Mitchison, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Walston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Energlyn, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Raglan, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Merthyr, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Monson, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Burton, L.

Headfort, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Chorley, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Holford, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Silsoe, L. [Teller.]

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Strang, L.

Crowther, L.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

in question should have been treated in the valuation list has been obtained by the rating authority from the valuation officer under section 9 (3) of the General Rate Act 1967 and applies to the appropriate date, the rateable value shall be as stated in the certificate (if so stated), for the purposes of all proceedings instituted whether before or after the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come from the realms of broad controversy into a highly technical matter. I will explain the Amendment to your Lordships as briefly as I can. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be familiar with the point at issue, and

877
I trust he will correct me if I make any slip in my explanation in view of its complexity.
The Rent Act 1965, which has now been consolidated into the Rent Act 1968, made rent regulation and all that goes with it, including security of tenure applicable to houses and flats whose rateable value on March 23, 1965, was under £400 in Greater London, or £200 elsewhere. There was a general revaluation for rating purposes which took effect on April 1, 1963. But, of course, there is a procedure for appeal against rating assessments, and at any given date there will always be a lot of rating assessments subject to appeal. I would ask your Lordships to consider an appeal initiated in May, 1965. That might well be a proposal claiming that the 1963 valuation was wrong and had been wrong from the beginning; that is, right back to April, 1963. The appeal might succeed. That would then establish that the assessment ought to have been lower ever since April, 1963. But so far as recovery of overpaid rates is concerned, that would have retrospective effect, under the law, only back to April 1, before the date of the appeal. So a person whose rating assessment was raised in 1963 to something like over £400 in Greater London might appeal in 1965, and might have the assessment reduced to something under £400.
Then the question arises whether his property is subject to rent regulation or not. Though the assessment has been found to be wrong from April, 1963, for rating purposes he would benefit only from April 1, 1965. But how should the property be treated for Rent Act purposes? In Section 6 of the Rent Act 1968 the critical date is March 23, 1965, nine days earlier than when the new valuation comes into effect so far as payment of rates is concerned, in the hypothetical case that I have mentioned. But the finding on appeal shows that the valuation has in fact been wrong ever since the new valuation lists first came into effect in 1963—two years earlier. That being so, it would seem just that for Rent Act purposes the assessment should be treated as having been under £400, and not over £400, on the critical date in the Rent Act; that is March 23, 1965. The purpose of my new Clause is to put that beyond doubt. I am sure
878
it is the course of justice, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, On the surface there is so much to be said for the noble Lord's Amendment, but there are difficulties about it. Let us look first at the purpose of the 1965 Act, which created the rent-regulation system. This was, as Mr. Crossman said on Second Reading in the other place, to restore protection to those who had lost it through the 1957 decontrol. Rating revaluation having intervened, the old rateable value limits (£100 in Greater London and £75 elsewhere) were no longer applicable, and new limits had to be set. These limits—£400 in Greater London and £200 elsewhere—were deliberately set high to preclude any risk that any dwellings decontrolled in 1957 might not be covered by the new limits. In other words, a safety margin was allowed.
We realised that this margin would bring within protection some dwellings which had never been subject to control, but we thought that this was preferable to risking the exclusion of any which had been controlled. So a number of tenants of dwellings within the new limits which were never formerly controlled have obtained Rent Act protection by luck, and not of purpose. My right honourable friend has received no evidence to suggest that the chosen limits have failed or are failing to achieve their object. That is, any dwelling formerly subject to control and not in the meantime structurally altered or improved is still outside the Rent Act protection.
I come now to the question of the appropriate day for determining whether the dwelling does or does not fall within these limits. This, as the noble Lord has said, is March 23, 1965, the publication day of the Bill. I should like to stress that on that date the current valuation lists had been open to the public, for the purpose of varying the proposals, for two years. Anybody who thought his dwelling had been over-assessed, and to whom outgoings on accommodation mattered enough for him to wish not to pay excessive rates, had had ample time to ascertain his rights under rating law and to put in proposals for re-assessment. It was never the idea that people should be enabled to seek variations in

879
rating assessments for the purpose of getting dwellings inside or outside Rent Act limits.
When the Rent Bill of 1965 was introduced it contained the provision—as indeed did the noble Lord's Rent Act of 1957—preventing any re-assessment applied for after the introduction of the Bill from having effect for Rent Act purposes. So in each case the appropriate date was the date of the Bill's introduction. Although during the passage of both Bills this restriction was slightly modified, in both Bills it was still deliberately left impossible for anyone to alter his Rent Act position by applying for a re-assessment. So what is proposed in this Bill, as unamended, is in this respect the same as was proposed and carried through by the noble Lord in his 1957 Rent Act. Houses and flats assessed at something above the £400 and £200 limits, which on re-assessment might come below them, are in point of fact houses and flats of which there is little scarcity, and the person who is able to afford the market rent of such dwelling should have little difficulty in finding other accommodation at about the same value.
Moreover, at the time the 1965 Act was before Parliament, and when it came into force, there may have been—and I am sure there must have been—a number of tenants of dwellings of this sort who would have liked security of tenure but who, recognising that the Act would not or did not give it to them, accepted that fact, and have since vacated their homes on the expiry of their tenancies. These people might well reasonably feel aggrieved if the Government were, four years later, to turn round and reverse the position.
What we are being asked to do is to alter a considered provision in rent legislation at the last minute, and in the utmost haste. No Amendment was proposed on the Committee or Report stages in the other place, or on the Committee stage in this House, and this Amendment appeared for the first time on yesterday's Order Paper. What we are being asked to do is to alter the position in rent law in order to extend the security of tenure to a few people who, if they had obtained it in 1965, would have done so only through the luck of the safety margin,
880
and whose failure to benefit from that margin resulted from their own previous lack of concern with the rateable values on their dwellings.
I do not think this would be right and, whether it is right or not, I am sure the noble Lord will realise that with the timetable we have—the Bill going to the House of Commons to-morrow or the next day and back to us in two or three days—it would really be impossible to consider all the ramifications of this Amendment, which I think run rather wide. They would run into leasehold reform law and they might run wider. It would take longer than the two or three days we have on the timetable we all agreed, to see whether this would be acceptable for other reasons outside the immediate purpose for which it is moved. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord may agree that the matter should wait to be pursued, if it should be pursued, which I very much doubt, on some other occasion because it is simply too late to do it now.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will think that the noble Lord has confirmed my original statement that this is a technical and complex matter. I trust he will not hold it against me that it has been raised at the Report stage of this Bill. Of course, I recognise the inconvenience in that to the Government. But I am sure he will accept my assurance that it was brought to my notice only at a late stage last week, and there was no case of my holding it back and springing it on the Government. It was brought to my notice, and it appeared to me to be an important matter which Parliament should consider in the context of this Bill. I will of course examine very carefully what the noble Lord has said and consider what to do next if he states firmly that nothing can be done about it in this Bill.
I am not inclined to accept his argument that, because a house was valued at over £400 in Greater London in the 1963 valuation, that necessarily proves that it had not been under rent control at an earlier stage. The noble Lord will, I am sure, be aware from his London experience that there were some very large increases in valuation when the 1963 revaluation succeeded the 1939 one.

881
I accept of course that a well-informed and well-advised person would have considered whether to appeal against the 1963 valuation at an earlier stage than 1965, but the noble Lord is as well aware as I am that there are masses of people who do not immediately turn to a solicitor or to a valuer when a new valuation comes out, and are somewhat slow in investigating what their rights of appeal are until it may happen that somebody comes along and in conversation they discover that they have a right of appeal of which they had not previously been even aware.
I appreciate that if this change in the law were to be made it would go more widely than the terms of my Amendment. To seek to press this Amendment might only add to the complexity of matters by putting into the law something which went half way and not the whole way; and I quite appreciate that the Government in another place would not be able to accept that. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that I am not prepared to go all the way with his arguments, which to my mind gave less than full value to the merits of the proposed clause, and more than full value to the difficulties in changing the law. But I accept at once his argument that it would be almost impossible to get any amendment of the Bill to this effect completely right in the very short time we have; and there is common agreement that it is desirable that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent before the Recess. In these circumstances, while I am not dropping my interest in the matter, I am willing to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 50, line 20, leave out ("and 81") and insert ("to (Price payable on enfranchisement of leasehold house)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage of this Bill we agreed that the provisions affecting leasehold law should be brought into effect immediately, rather than to wait for the usual month for the drawing up of circulars and regulations. Since we have just carried back into the Bill a provision affecting lease-
882
hold law, I should now move an Amendment, which will bring that leasehold provision into line with the other ones—that it should come into effect immediately, rather than waiting for the customary month. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Savings and Transitional Provisions]:
Lord KENNET: My Lords, this is a highly technical and complex matter. It affects transitional provisions and it is the sort of thing that comes to light during the passage of a Bill through Parliament and the sort of thing for which we have several stages for consideration of the Bill. I think there can be no doubt about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 34, at end insert—
(". The repeal by this Act of sect on 49 of the Rent Act 1968 does not affect the operation of that Section in relation to any dwellinghouse while such a condition relating to the rent of the dwelling-house as is mentioned in that section requires to be observed.").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 laving been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14): Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NORTHERN PENNINES RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD ORDER 1969
8.37 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on July 1, be approved. Part III of the Agriculture Act 1967 provides the power to set up these Boards. It was announced initially that there would be only one or two Boards, and this will be the first. The powers and the functions of a Rural Development Board are set out in Sections 45 to 55 of the 1967 Act. The area chosen for this Board is some 3, 000 square miles of hills and uplands stretching from the Scottish Border to the Skipton Gap. It is a sparsely populated area, containing no town above 2, 500 in size. Agriculture

883
of an upland rearing character predominates; but out of some 6, 000 farms less than one-third are up to the commercial level of size as defined in the Act. Forestry is active in the North of the area but much less so in other parts. The area also includes two National Parks, and I am sure we can look forward to useful co-operation between these bodies and the Board.
If the House approves the Order, the intention is that it should be made to come into operation next month. Certain of the Board's powers will not come into effect until three months later. This breathing period should permit the Board to ensure smooth operation and to avoid delays. I hope that all of us will wish well to this new Board, and, under the chairmanship of Mr. T. J. Cowen, M.B.E., I certainly wish it every success. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Northern Pennines Rural Development Board Order 1969, laid before the House on July 1, 1969, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
8.39 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I certainly think that we should wish this Board well. It is going to affect the lives of a great many people and have very wide responsibilities. I shall be only brief now, as the noble Lord who introduced the Motion was brief, but it would be wrong to assume that because there has been much less official opposition to the setting up of this Board than we have seen in Wales, it has received a general welcome locally; because that is not so. It is not just something of concern to local authorities, the National Farmers' Union and those who may receive grants; it is something which will affect a great many people, and many of them are apprehensive about how it will work in practice. It appeared to us, when we debated the provisions of the Agriculture Bill in this House, to be a very elaborate way of doing a number of good things and a number of less good things.
I do not think I am alone in disliking this ever wider spread of Boards which are projections of the central Government, over which local people have no control or say whatever, unlike their
884
county councillors. And here may I say, in passing, that four more such Boards are being set up under the Development of Tourism Bill which we shall be discussing in a few minutes. Think of the patronage which is spreading ever wider across the country! Having said that, I should like particularly to commend the noble Lord on the appointment of the chairman. I think that here we have a man who commands general respect, and we are much more fortunate than in the appointment which has been made in Wales and which has attracted so much criticism.
I am sure it is right to look at these Boards as something coming with great good will on the part of the late Minister of Agriculture, whose brainchild they are; but, none the less, they are very political in their whole framework. It is a pity that this particular Board should have had its boundaries drawn so as to build its area up to 3, 000 sq. miles. This is an enormous area, and it includes a number of corn-growing farms and considerable areas of lowland which in fact bear no relation to hill land at all. An area of that size is bound to throw up a large number of administrative problems. I conclude as I began. I wish it well, I appreciate the difficulties and I think the Government underestimate them. I hope indeed that one or other of the ombudsmen will be responsible for looking after the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in this particular field.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to learn that the noble Lord, who knows this area very well and whose feeling for it I know and appreciate, wishes well to this Board. To some extent I can understand the apprehension that he voiced. This is a far-flung area, far removed from Whitehall, and I can well believe that many people living up there feel that Whitehall is getting a little nearer to them. They may be somewhat apprehensive, but I think their fears are not firmly based. As the noble Lord has said, the local authorities were consulted and they gave positive support, or they expressed no strong view either way. The Farmers' Union, which after all ought not to be ignored in this matter—
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene very briefly? I think the local

885
authorities were much moved by the fact that this Board would have a certain amount of finance, which they have not got, and would bring something into then area and undoubtedly do some good.
Lord BESWICK: The noble Lord is explaining why they welcome it and give it positive support.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, that is another side.
Lord BESWICK: I am also saying that the National Farmers' Union were in favour of this Board, and whatever the reason—and I think it to be a good reason—the noble Lord should not overlook that. I am glad that the noble Lord commended the appointment of the chairman, but I hope he does not mean by that commendation that he does not approve the appointment of the other members of the Board.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not know who they are.
Lord BESWICK: Without exception they are local people who will have the interests of the local people at heart, and if the Board is to be successful then certainly it will have to take into account the feelings of local people up there. The noble Lord, as is his custom, has voiced his opinion very strongly. When I read it I am sure I shall read much more carefully the fact that he welcomes the institution of this Board and that he wishes i it well. And that, I hope, will be echoed by all others in the House by giving this Motion their unqualified approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL
8.45 p.m.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Champion in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General Functions and Powers]:
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("but subject to subsectons (2A) and (2B) of this section").
The noble Lord said: I hope it may be acceptable if, in moving Amendment No. 1, I speak also to No. 3. I propose to speak briefly, giving a longer explanation later if it proves to be necessary. The effect of these two Amendments would be to change the conditions under which national Boards are permitted to advertise overseas, from the existing situation in the Bill, where they can do it with the agreement of the British Tourist Authority, to the new situation (if the Amendments are passed) where they would advertise overseas on behalf of the Authority. The reason for this is that it seems sound that the Authority should be regarded in the eyes of the outside world beyond our shores as the body responsible for attracting tourists to this country. It would permit the national Boards to approach the Authority, and it is agreed that they should take part in these special forms of advertising particular to their own areas on behalf of that Authority. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: We are grateful to the noble Lord for having put down these Amendments, which go a long way towards meeting points that we made in Committee elsewhere. I think perhaps in talking of advertising he is drawing it a little too narrowly. After all, what we are here talking about is encouraging people to visit Great Britain as a whole. But we take his point entirely, and I do not think we need delay or ask him for a further explanation. Those of us who were on the Committee know what he is talking about, and if anyone else wishes for an explanation I am sure the noble Lord will be willing to give it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) to establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions;").
The noble Lord said: This is a point that we discussed in Committee elsewhere. Subsection (2) gives the Tourist Board power to do anything for the purpose of discharging the functions conferred on it by this clause, or which is incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions. Then it goes on to mention three powers which they could not possibly do without and which, therefore, it seems somewhat unnecessary to mention. To these I am adding one which they could do without but which I believe they ought to exercise. We attach a great deal of importance to it.
May I refer to the Countryside (Scotland) Act. I am afraid that I do not have the comparable Act for England, but I am more familiar with the Scottish Act. Clause 4 says, much more elaborately:
"The Board shall have the following powers"—
and (a) is the most important one—
"(a) where it appears to the Commission that it would assist them in the exercise of their functions to establish, promote or assist in the establishment of committees or other appropriate bodies to promote a system… "
I have put down this Amendment in the shortest possible terms. If the noble Lord would prefer me to say:
"to establish, promote or assist in the establishment of committees"
I would willingly move a manuscript Amendment for that purpose. But it seems to me that this is an Amendment which we ought to move because we think it ought to be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord GEDDES: Much of the concern in the travel industry arising from the presentation of this Bill to Parliament has been that the new British Tourist Authority might live in an ivory tower remote from the industry itself. It is of the greatest importance in the running of the tourist industry that there should be constant contact between the authority responsible and the trade as a whole.
I am sure that this Amendment, if approved, would give a great deal of encouragement to the industry that they will be brought into consultation and still be a part of the machinery directing the industry of which they are a part. I support the Amendment.
Lord BROWN: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. We are all agreed that the Tourist Boards will need to maintain very close links not only with interests concerned with providing tourist facilities and amenities, but also with a wide range of trade, travel and, I should emphasise, consumer interests. For this purpose, the Tourist Boards will obviously have to establish appropriate consultative and advisory machinery. In fact, it would be impossible for the Tourist Boards to carry out their functions effectively without wide co-operation and generally accepted consultative machinery. It was with this point very much in mind that subsection (4) was added to the Bill in another place, which calls upon the Tourist Boards to establish consultative machinery.
If we are not careful other Bills which do not give power will be construed as producing a situation where the body concerned is not permitted to set up committees. It is quite clear, and I do not think noble Lords on the other side are arguing, that the Boards have power to set up committees; there is no argument about it. I take it that the object of the Amendment is to make it amply clear that they can set up committees, but if one has to put into every Bill where people have powers a special clause to say that they have, I suggest we are embroidering the legislation unnecessarily. I hope we can avoid a Division on this and get on with the rest of the Bill, because it is really unnecessary. That is my total plea against this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord has to some extent hoist himself with his own petard in this argument. As I have shown we have already something in the Countryside (Scotland) Act; and I have no doubt in the Countryside Act as well. If this is the argument, we ought to put it in the Bill, because it is in the Countryside Act and unless it is in the Bill it may be thought that they do not have the powers here. So the noble Lord's argument rather recoils on him, but I quite understand that his brief was written before he had heard my argument.
I think the noble Lord ought to give way on this. There is no reason why he should not. It may be that, strictly speaking, the words are unnecessary, but

889
so are (a), (b) and (c)—"to promote or undertake publicity in any form"—how could they do without that? "To provide advisory and information services"—how could they do without that? "To promote or undertake research"; that is of the very essence. We are asking for something that we think it is important to highlight. We think it is something they may not be ready to do unless it is in the Bill.
It is not true to say that subsection (4) covers this. That talks about consultation with persons and organisations. They can do that one by one. We want to have something similar to the British Travel Association, which is a very widely based body representing any number of different interests. We want a similar body in each of the three countries. We cannot for the life of us see why the noble Lord should be so obdurate about this. I am sure the noble Lord will make very much better progress if he can give way occasionally on points like this. He may say that it is unnecessary. He must admit it will do no harm. We think it important. Surely he can give way.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, knows, I feel a great deal of sympathy with a number of the Amendments down in the name of himself and his noble friends, but in my view this is not really important one way or the other. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that the Boards have powers, and that they will use them. The Amendment does not make the powers mandatory; it does not mean that they are any way more likely to be used because they are in. Judging by the fact that the Government quite clearly see that committees should be established, and presumably will pass their views on, even if they are not read in the Reports of our proceedings and those of another place, I with great respect urge the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that we might drop this and move on to some of the really important matters in the Bill.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I am sure that the trade would greatly appreciate the inclusion of these words, and those men and women who are going to be asked to sit on these Committees will feel, human nature being what it is, if these
890
words are in, that they are being asked to do something more important and they will take more trouble, and it will be of great advantage to everybody.
Lord BROWN: To end the argument I am prepared to give way. It does not make the least difference to the Bill. I was trying to prevent something quite unnecessary going in. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, says, it is not mandatory. I just do not believe that it will make a whit of difference to those who sit on these Committees; I doubt whether anybody who sits on Committees looks to see if the Bill appointing the statutory body has powers to do it, let alone a permissive power like this. If others are agreed, I am prepared to accept the Amendment in order to get on to the more important parts of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("none") in line 10 and insert—
("(2A) Only the British Tourist Authority shall have power by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Great Britain or any part of it but this subsection shall not prevent the other Tourist Boards engaging in such activities on behalf of the Authority.
(2B)").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN: I will deal with this Amendment, No. 4, very briefly and give a longer explanation if required. Subsection (4) of Clause 2 requires all four Tourist Boards to have regard to the need for appropriate consultations with other persons and organisations, including regional and area travel associations, when exercising their functions under Clause 2. This Amendment takes account of the criticism in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that subsection (4) of Clause 2, as drafted, could not be taken to cover consultation between the Boards themselves in addition to their consultations with other organisations. This Amendment will meet his point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, after ("consultation") insert ("with the other Tourist Boards and").—(Lord Brown.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: I would say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, and for accepting the last Amendment. It is very gracious of him and we thank him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 27, after ("with") insert—
("(a) the other Tourist Boards, and any of the Tourist Boards may agree together to establish common services, where it appears to them desirable in the interests of economy or efficiency or for the maintenance of common standards throughout Great Britain;
(b)").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will see that the first words of this Amendment as printed are identical with those that have just been inserted, but the Amendment goes on further. I hope that perhaps the Deputy Chairman will be good enough to assist us by accepting a manuscript Amendment to delete the words that we have already inserted. This Amendment would then read:
"(a) any of the Tourist Boards may agree together to establish common services, where it appears to them desirable in the interests of economy or efficiency or for the maintenance of common standards throughout Great Britain;".
We were agreed in Committee that there would be need for common services to be established, but (I paraphrase the Government's objections; the noble Lord may even think I parody them a little) the Government objected to the Amendment we put down on the ground, first, that it was unnecessary because the power to establish common services already existed in the Bill; and, secondly, that somehow or other it was derogatory to the authority and the independence of the three country Boards to mention common services at all.
My noble friend Lord Geddes moved an Amendment which would have allowed the four Boards to establish common services by agreement between each other. This of course implied that all the Boards would have to be involved in each such common service. My noble friend established that some common services will be
892
desirable, and I think that this was accepted. There is however a danger that the Boards, in their desire for independence, will fight shy of establishing any common services. This is a danger. We think they should establish some of the common services to which my noble friend referred in Committee, and that it is right to say so in the Bill. This is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Champion): I think I should tell the noble Lord that I can accept a manuscript Amendment only if in fact I have a manuscript in my hand. I think the first thing I had better do is to put this Amendment and then accept the manuscript Amendment as an Amendment to this particular Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord opposite speaks, I wonder whether I can ask for guidance, because the unfortunate thing is that we have just carried an Amendment. Ought the Amendment to relate to the Bill as it is now, after we have just amended it or to the Bill as it was before we amended it?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Clearly, we can only amend the Bill as it has already been amended. So that any manuscript which the noble Lord hands in must have relevance to the Bill as it now stands.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether we could have a little give-and-take over this. I have just moved an Amendment in response to comments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to draw attention to the need for the Boards to consult together. I do not think there is any dubiety or argument at all that there is under the Bill as it stands a situation where the Boards, with or without this Amendment, may indeed get together to run common services. That is not in dispute. So that we have a similar sort of point that we had on Amendments Nos. 1 and 3; it is a question of whether we should put it in the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord would not think it better to leave it to the common sense of the Boards to get on with it.
As we have already agreed to put into the Bill words saying that the Boards

893
may consult together if they so choose, would it not be sufficient to leave it at that and not further to embroider the Bill with another permissive clause drawing attention to something that common sense will dictate they will do, especially with a bit of nudging from the Authority on which the Chairmen of the four Boards sit together, if they think this seems appropriate? They have only to read this debate to know that it is entirely in order for them to provide these common services. I think that if we are going to get sensible members of these Boards it will at once occur to them to do so. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would not see fit to withdraw the Amendment so that we can get on with the more serious part of the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: To put ourselves in order, I am quite prepared to move as an Amendment to my Amendment, to leave out "the other Tourist Boards and". However, I think that on a little give-and-take basis we can agree not to press this. We have made it clear that the Boards will be expected to set up common services. After all, I take it that at the end of the day the appropriate Ministers can get together and make the Boards get together and set up common services by direction. In these circumstances, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General schemes of assistance for tourist projects]:
9.5 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 42, after ("Board") insert ("and with such organisations as are mentioned in subsection (4) of the preceding section").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a point that arises out of an Amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther. In Committee he wanted to know with whom hotel proprietors would have to deal in regard to general schemes for tourist projects. It emerged that after the schemes were made they would have to deal with the appropriate Tourist Board, but it was still not clear how they would be consulted when the British Tourist
894
Authority had a general scheme under consideration under this clause.
Clause 2 (4) says that the Tourist Boards
"shall have regard to the desirability of undertaking appropriate consultations with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in, any matters aflecting the discharge of those functions"
This Amendment would place an obligation on the British Tourist Authority to consult those organisations, including those mentioned in subsection (3); that is to say,
"organisations discharging functions corresponding to those of the Boards in relation to particular areas within the countries for which the Boards are respectively responsible."
The Authority would be placed under the obligation to consult those organisations "who have knowledge of, or are interested in," the particular tourist project under consideration.
This is the purpose of this Amendment. We think there should be such a duty, because we do not see how the British Tourist Authority is going to be able to prepare these schemes without such consultation; and we think that it is right to lay down in the Bill that, just as they have to consult with the three Country Boards, so they should have to consult with the national organisations, as well as with the country organisations concerned, if it comes to that, if they are separate from the national organisations. I think the Amendment makes sense, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: This is a rather more serious matter. Again I will speak shortly. This Amendment imposes on the Authority a requirement to consult, and they would have to consult an extraordinarily wide range of bodies since there would be an obligation to consult any and every organisation with knowledge or an interest in anything affecting the Authority's proposals, regardless of whether particular organisations in fact wished to be consulted on this particular matter. It is the word "knowledge"—
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I intervene, just to ask the noble Lord whether that would be so in every case? He is saying that in this particular case the British Tourist Authority would have to consult everybody who is interested in

895
any of the matters affecting the discharge of their functions. That cannot be the meaning. That cannot be the meaning of subsection (4). It must mean that in each case the Authority would consult on a particular issue with those interested in that particular issue.
Lord BROWN: If you talk about the Tourist Boards you have to read Clause 2 (4). That does not lay an obligation, but by the terms in which this proposal comes forward there would be an obligation. It is a rather serious matter to put the Tourist Authority in a situation where they would have to choose among the organisations. They could not see them all, and it would then be open to one which they had not consulted to claim that the authority was ultra vires. I am warning the noble Lord that this could be serious. Clause 2 (4) is a permissive power, but this Amendment imposes an obligation, and I suggest that it is rather a serious thing for the British Tourist Authority, when it comes into existence, to be saddled with this obligation. I think it will cause them a great deal of bother. The wise thing is to leave the clause as it stands and leave the Authority to decide with whom to consult. I think we can trust it to do that.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I begin to think that we are in Alice in Wonderland in this Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has given way on an Amendment where one would have thought that any sensible person looking at the Bill would have known they could set up committees. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given way on what seemed to be a much more important point, and not so obvious at all, about consultation in regard to setting up joint services, which is not by any means to be taken for granted. On this particular point it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is absolutely right. Clause 3, as amended by this Amendment, means that for any scheme provided for the giving of financial assistance, the Board have to consult all the organisations which have been mentioned in a previous subSection in a purely permissive way. I urge that this Amendment be withdrawn.
Lord MITCHISON: With great respect, so do I. These seem to me to be entirely different matters. In subsection (3) of the previous clause the obligation
896
is only to have regard to the desirability of co-operating, and so on, but here we are dealing with general schemes of assistance and there is going to be an absolute condition in regard to that. It is really a fantastic condition. It is reasonable to provide that you ought to have regard to the desirability of cooperation with organisations, and so on,
"undertaking appropriate consultation with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in … "
but if you are going to make that a condition of taking action you will spend all your time consulting with organisations who may be said to have some quite slight interest in the matter. I suggest, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that he is asking for something which is practically impossible. I am sure he and his noble friends want to see this Bill through and want to make it workable, and they left it quite workable so far as Clause 2 is concerned. In my submission this would make Clause 3 quite impossible in a large number of cases.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have listened to these arguments, and it seems to me that this Amendment has been drafted rather too widely. I hope the noble Lord, however, has taken the point of it, and in deference to the arguments that have been put I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Execution of particular tourist projects]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 9, after ("except") insert—
("(a) after consultation with the company in which the shares or stock are held, and
(b)")
The noble Lord said: This is a matter that we discussed on the Committee stage, and the Amendment we then put down was thought to call on the Government actually to pass legislation which in fact was illegal. I appreciate that point. Subsection (2) says:
"Financial assistance under subsection (1) (a) of this section may be given by way of grant or loan or, if the project is being or is to be carried out by a company incorporated in

897
Great Britain, by subscribing for or otherwise acquiring shares or stock in the company, or by any combination of those methods."
Subsection (4), which this Amendment seeks to amend, says:
"A Tourist Board shall not dispose of any shares or stock acquired by it by virtue of this section except with the approval of the relevant Minister and the Treasury."
The point, which I am sure the noble Lord thoroughly appreciates, is that if for example a Tourist Board had taken shares in a company which amounted to, say, 25 per cent. of the equity, and was then proposing to dispose of them, it might be giving effective control of the company to the people to whom it disposed of the shares. After all, it does not follow that the shares would be sold on the open market; they might easily be disposed of in a block.
I thought of putting down an Amendment in more complicated terms, to say that if there were equity shares involved a special resolution of the company should be obtained, and that in any other case the approval of the company as well as of the Treasury should be required. But it seems to me that the least one can ask here is that there should be reasonable consultation with the company, to make certain that the Tourist Board is not going to embarrass the company by the way in which it disposes of the shares. One hopes that this would be the intention of the Government, in any case, but intentions do not always work out properly. I appreciate that in some cases there is a need for secrecy. On the other hand, it seems to me only fair that, as the money has been provided in consultation, there should also be consultation when the Government get their money back through the Tourist Board's disposing of the stock or shares.
I hope that, even if the noble Lord is not able to accept these words, he will be able to give us an assurance on this matter, because it could be of very serious concern to a company. It would be very odd if the Government had set out to help a company and then by the way in which they liquidated that help, were to do grave harm to that company. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: I think I can positively assure the noble Lord that the Government have a say in this matter, and that they will insist that if a Tourist Board owns shares in a company it should
898
discuss the disposal of those shares with the company before doing so, because that is obviously a sensible thing to do, even from a pecuniary point of view. With some little experience of business myself, I should never think of disposing of a packet of shares in a company without first going to the board of that company, because it might very well mean that one did a deal which was marginally above the market price. They might be prepared to agree to that in order to ensure that the shares were placed in hands which were friendly to the management of the company. I have absolutely no doubt that a Tourist Board will behave in this way, and if that assurance is satisfactory I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I think the assurance is very satisfactory, so far as it goes; but is there any reason why the Amendment should not be made?
Lord BROWN: I think that this is a very marginal matter and, in view of the fact that it has received further support from the Liberal Benches, I will say that we accept it. The only reason I had against putting it in is that it puts the Government in quite a different position from the ordinary equity holder in such a company, and puts an obligation on the agent of the Government to consult, which is not normal in the case of share-holders. However, it is a marginal point and I think it would be a good thing to insert it, so I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Grants for provision of new hotels]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("hotel") and insert ("project")
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which also follows a point raised during the Committee stage, when we on this side expressed doubt about

899
the phrase, "after the completion of the hotel". We are talking about the time when the person who has incurred eligible expenditure shall be entitled to receive a grant—and he is entitled to receive it "after the completion of the hotel". We expressed doubt about whether the phrase was sufficiently clear because we felt that an hotel might be built in several stages, and that the first stage might be sufficient to qualify for a grant. It is the first stage which is "the project" that we are talking about. Admittedly, of course, there has to be an hotel in being before grant is payable because of the way in which Clause 7 is drafted, and that is quite right. But the phrase "the hotel" suggests that the hotel must be in its final form before grant is payable.
This is not a point we have thought up: it is a point which has been put to us. The people who have put up an hotel which would have qualified for grant want to make certain that they will get the grant even although there are further stages before the hotel is finally completed. So we suggest that it should be sufficient to have completed "the project", and to avoid any confusion we should prefer to see the word "project" substituted for the word "hotel". I beg to move.
Lord CROWTHER: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask a question which I hope he will deal with in the course of his remarks. Objections were raised to another word in this clause, which at present refers to an entitlement "after the completion of the hotel". The point was made in Committee that the word "after", also, is rather vague, and the suggestion was made that it should be replaced by the word "on". The noble Lord, Lord Brown, undertook to look at this point as well as the other one. From the fact that there is no Amendment down in his name I deduce that his looking at it again has not led him to think that any alteration is necessary, and he must therefore think that the word "after" in this context bears the same meaning as the word "on".
For the benefit of noble Lords who did not hear the discussion on Committee, I would point out that this is not just a matter of idle semantics; there is a point of real substance here. It is
900
now 14 months since the White Paper was issued encouraging the hotel trade to undertake expenditure in the expectation of grant. Indeed, any company or person who builds an hotel in expectation of grant has to bear the heavy expenses of financing it until it is complete because—and I do not dispute this—grant is not payable until that time. The point at issue is that any such person may be very anxious indeed to borrow on the expectation of his entitlement, and for an entitlement to be a security that can be borrowed upon it must be precise. I shall be content if in reply the noble Lord would say with sufficient definiteness, and we have it recorded in Hansard so that we can wave it in the eyes of recalcitrant or dilatory Boards, that the intention here is that grant shall be paid as soon as may be on the completion of the project or hotel.
Lord MITCHISON: I am sorry to intervene again, but I really do not understand this Amendment. I am not sure what "the project" is meant to be. There is an hotel mentioned at the beginning of the subsection, but "the project" descends out of the blue. What is "the project"? Is it a half-baked hotel, or is it an hotel plus something else? I really do not understand. I am only speaking as a lawyer; a sort of draftsman, I suppose. When we come to the rest of the clause, it seems to me perfectly clear that if the authorities are satisfied that the hotel would comply with certain conditions, they can give a grant before the hotel is open, because the alternative is quite clearly stated in the text of the subsection. I am really not trying to get in the way, and I am not trying to be obstreperous over something which I think we all want to see put through—at least, that is what I gathered from Lord Drumalbyn's attitude. I would say that I regard this particular Amendment as thoroughly unsatisfactory, and likely to lead to a lot of trouble that is not intended; and if I may be allowed to say so, I rather hope that my noble friend will not accept it.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether I could deal first with the point raised by Lord Crowther. The provisions of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are not directed to the actual time when a person is to receive a grant but rather to the circumstances which give rise to his entitlement

901
to grant. After completion of the new hotel (or extension, as the case may be) there will be entitlement to a grant; and an applicant will be paid as soon as the administrative processes of checking the application and verifying the expenditure will allow. There is no question of thinking that "after completion" may mean any time up to the end of the century. The provisions in these clauses are not dealing with the actual time of payment but with the point of time from which the entitlement will exist. As there will be an entitlement as a matter of law, people will be able to compel payment of the money if there is any unreasonable delay on the part of the Boards in paying. This means, in effect, that immediately after completion—and what we mean by completion is what is set out in the Bill—the entitlement immediately arises. Delay that is unreasonable thereafter can be made a matter for the courts. He has a legal entitlement to it immediately if the conditions are met. I hope that that statement will meet the noble Lords' desires for reassurance for hoteliers.
Lord CROWTHER: I am entirely content. I propose to have the noble Lord's words framed.
Lord BROWN: I return to the Amendment. I do not wish to be derogatory to Lord Drumalbyn's drafting power, because I have good reason to know that it has been very potent, if I may use that word, in the past. But this Amendment with respect, would have no practical effect whatever. My noble friend Lord Mitchison is right. To say that this entitlement arises after completion of the project only raises the question of what is the project. To this, the answer could only be that it is the new hotel, which is what subsection (1) already says.
I think the noble Lord is worrying unnecessarily about what is meant by "the completion of the hotel". Obviously, in the context of this Part of the Bill the words relate to the completion of the hotel for which grant is sought, which may be the first part of what will later be a bigger hotel. I appreciate, of course, that an hotelier may have plans to extend a new hotel at a later stage. Let us suppose, for example, that a developer plans to build an hotel in two phases, the first containing 50 bedrooms
902
and the second containing another 25 bedrooms. He can apply for a grant on completion of phase 1 on the basis of a 50-bedroom hotel. Provided that the establishment is opened as an hotel and complies with the requirements of subsection (2) of Clause 7, he would get his grant. Phase 2 would then constitute an extension to this 50-bedroom hotel, which may or may not attract grant, depending upon whether it is carried out during the qualifying period of he incentives scheme, as defined in Clause 15. So if by "project" the noble Lord means a half-completed hotel, something which is not usable as such, then grant could not be given because the criteria for grant would not have been met. Grants are a shot in the arm to get more hotel bedrooms quickly, and "project" would serve a useful term in the Bill only if it were construed to mean hotel. With this explanation, and I hope assurance, that part-hotels, if they are in fact operable as hotels, will rank for grant, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am bound to say that I cannot think of anyone who would have as a project to half-build an hotel. I think the purpose of putting down this Amendment has been served; because the noble Lord has kindly explained both to Lord Crowther and to myself the points which were worrying us. I would say that I used the word "project" because the noble Lord, Lord Brown, himself used the word at Committee stage and I thought it would do. As apparently it will not, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 41, after ("provided') insert ("at reasonable times").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like, in discussing Amendment No. 9, to refer to another Government Amendment to subsection (2); namely, Amendment No. 13. The requirements in subsection (2) of Clause 7 amount to a definition of the kind of hotel which is to be eligible for assistance under Part II of the Bill. These requirements are to apply in the case of grants for

903
a new hotel under Clause 7 and for extensions and improvements to existing hotels under Clauses 8 and 9; and also for consideration for loan assistance under Clause 13. I should say, in passing, that it is not material whether the establishment is actually called an hotel; what is essential is that it should satisfy these requirements. If it does, it is immaterial whether it is called an hotel, a motel, a guest house or something else.
The requirement in paragraph (b) is
"that breakfast and an evening meal are provided on the premises for persons staying at the hotel."
The hotel "must" have facilities—not "may" have—and the equipment for this purpose on the premises which may embrace more than one building. The requirement is intended to exclude from eligibility establishments which provide only bed and breakfast or some catering facility or merely make arrangements for guests to eat at a nearby cafe which is not part of the hotel premises. It is the hotelier who is to provide the meals on the premises even if he employs the services of a contractor in this connection. By limiting assistance to hotels which provide such meal facilities no criticism is intended of other kinds of tourist accommodation.
Concern was expressed in Committee that the requirement in paragraph (b) might mean that hoteliers were required to serve breakfast and an evening meal at unreasonable hours. My assurances that no such construction could be put on paragraph (b) did not convince the Committee, and I was persuaded to agree to the words which now appear at the end of subsection (2) in lines 9 to 11 on page 7. Having given further thought to the subject we consider that the concern about the provision of meals being required only at reasonable hours could best be allayed by adding such words to paragraph (b) as are proposed in Amendment No. 9. As a consequence, Amendment No. 13 proposes the deletion of lines 9 to 11 on page 7. They will no longer be necessary in relation to the question of reasonable times (which I think was the noble Lord's major point; in fact possibly the only point he made in Committee) and they have other defects which I did not fully cover in Committee.
The words
"and for the purposes of this and the next following section"
would imply some difference in the application of the requirements in paragraph (b) as between the grants as announced in Clauses 7 and 8, on the one hand, and grants under Clause 9 or loans under Clause 13, on the other. The words "on request" in line 11, on page 7, could also imply that meals need be provided only if they are ordered before booking accommodation at the hotel. I can assure noble Lords that if Amendments 9 and 13 are made, there will be no doubt that paragraph (b) in subsection (2) will simply mean that the Tourist Boards will have to be satisfied that breakfast and evening meals will be provided somewhere on the premises at reasonable hours for those guests who wish to have them. I emphasise "for those guests who wish to have such meals", because I am assured that there is no possibility of the requirement being construed to suggest that such meals have to be provided for all guests staying at the hotel, whether or not they wish to have them.
I am afraid that I have had to read a long note on this Amendment because it is a little complex. What I am saying is that I accepted an Amendment originally to incorporate the phrase "at reasonable hours", and in accepting it I inadvertently left out the idea of having meals on the premises. I also accepted an Amendment which, if it is reasonable for this clause, should also apply to others. My Amendments now put right the deviations which I did not see in the Amendment I accepted in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will accept this Amendment because it fully meets their original point.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, covers the main point. We were hoping that the definition of "provided" would go a little further than this and enable provision to be made by someone else though under the same roof. I am not sure whether or not this is still so.
Lord BROWN: If the hotelier gives a concession to somebody else to provide meals in his dining room, that would be all right. It is not a question of sending

905
guests to a restaurant across the way or ordering meals cooked across the way. He is allowed to farm out his catering as a concession, but the meals have to be done in his own premises.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the word "provided" and we raise no objection to this. The noble Lord has been generous with our mistakes and we will be generous with his.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 1. after ("establishment") insert ("(but including in every case the cleaning of rooms and making of beds)").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether I need speak to this Amendment. I think this is a nice compromise between the arguments we had on Committee. The noble Lord succeeded in getting an Amendment inserted referring to the provision of "appropriate" services. We had some misgivings about this, because it left out such things as the cleaning of rooms and the making of beds, which is something to fasten on to when seeking for criteria for hotels. This Amendment incorporates the cleaning of rooms and making of beds and leaves undisturbed the magic word "appropriate", which the noble Lord was keen to see inserted in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will see fit to accept this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: If I had an hotel room for one night, I would not mind very much if the bed was not made, but I would not stay a third night, if it was not made after the first night. Obviously, this is common sense and this is what we meant in Committee, although the words were allowed to fall out. I agree with the Amendment.
Lord CROWTHER: May I briefly say, from the point of view of the industry, that Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 13, taken together, would put the Bill in a much more satisfactory state, by the combined efforts of the Government and the Opposition, than it was to begin with.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.37 p.m.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 3, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: In devising the Hotel Development Incentives scheme in Part II of this Bill, we had to settle requirements for the type of establishment to qualify for assistance. This we have done in Clause 7 (2), which governs the minimum size of hotel in relation to the number of letting bedrooms and, thinking of overnight and short term visitors—particularly overseas visitors—we are requiring hotels to provide breakfast and evening meals on the premises, to provide lounge space, and hotel services such as the cleaning of rooms and the making of beds. We have seen no grounds for subsidising investment in bed and breakfast establishments or selfcatering accommodation, useful though such accommodation obviously is for tourist traffic.
We sympathise fully with the view that improved standards of facilities, particularly as regards bathrooms and lavatories, are very desirable. But we have stopped short of prescribing qualitiative standards calling for so many of this or that kind of facility. Instead, we strike a ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms, which is quantitative. The incentives scheme was devised for a range of hotels from the very modest one to the more luxurious. If we had tried to work out qualitative standards over such a wide field, we would probably still be working on the subject.
There is every incentive for those providing new hotels or extending existing hotels to attract grants under Clauses 7 and 8, to provide adequate bathroom and lavatory facilities, and other amenities, because the eligible capital expenditure to which grant is related can normally include all constructional expenditure and expenditure on the purchase and installation of all kinds of fixed equipment.
Even where no additional bedroom accommodation is provided, it is possible for an existing hotel to obtain a grant under Clause 9 for the purchase and installation of fixed baths, showers, bidets, wash-hand basins and fixed lavatory equipment. We have not in these oases been able to accept extra grant expenditure on building rooms to house such equipment but the provisions of Clause 9 will be of help to those existing hotels, who cannot extend their premises, in modernising their bathroom and lavatory

907
facilities and providing better washing facilities in their bedrooms.
But the requirement in paragraph (e) could operate harshly, and not only for hotels which have gone ahead with projects on the strength of the White Paper and the Bill as originally published last February. It could also operate harshly on those existing hotels which cannot readily be altered to meet the arbitrary standard in paragraph (e), because it requires the application of this standard not only to additional letting bedrooms, but also to those already in existence.
There are many ways in which adequate bathroom and lavatory facilities can be provided, depending on the standard of service and the amount of expenditure which the hotelier intends to provide. At the minimum, one would like to think that every new letting bedroom had at least a hand basin with hot and cold water. Going further, it is quite possible in existing accommodation frequently to provide a shower and—for the benefit of overseas visitors particularly—a bidet, even though it is not practicable to provide a completely separate bathroom. When it comes to the number of public bathrooms, this depends not simply on how many bedrooms are provided with completely private bathrooms, but how extensive the facilities are in the bedroom itself.
So on all counts I am sure that we should delete paragraph (e) from subsection (2), and leave judgments on the scale and quality of investment to hoteliers and developers. If in some cases an hotel's bathroom and lavatory facilities are not fully comparable with this standard, it can nevertheless provide reasonable comfort and efficient service to attract those whose requirements are modest or with limited purses.
I could give some examples to support what I have said, but I think I have said enough. Quite apart from the arguments of those who committed themselves under the terms of the White Paper, and who would be, so to speak, disenfranchised from grant by this Amendment, to add this criteria at this stage I think would be bad, because it involves quality standards which we have avoided like the plague throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord INGLEWOOD: It is very disappointing to hear the noble Lord suggest that the one reference to a bathroom, except a reference in Schedule 3, should now be deleted from the Bill. He spoke a minute or two ago about this Bill being a "shot in the arm" to get more hotels quickly, and he spoke about accommodation for overseas visitors. I would submit respectfully that what overseas visitors find in this country is not only a shortage of hotel bedrooms, but also quality of a standard below that which they seek.
This Bill, apart from its many good points, has two considerable defects. The first is that in its zeal to encourage the building of new bedrooms it has entirely forgotten, or omitted to do anything to take advantage of, the opportunity to raise the standard, albeit in a very modest way, of the hotels of this country. It would be very pertinent in many cases to have some bait in this direction, or for some attention to have been paid to this.
The noble Lord referred to putting people under disadvantage, and he referred to the White Paper. Incidentally, I am glad that the White Paper has not been mentioned as often in this Committee stage as it was before. When I drafted this paragraph (e), I tried to ensure that it should not impose any burden on any reasonable hotelier, and that if it did exert any pressure on anyone it would be on the proprietor of an hotel which in the opinion of us all fell far below the standard that we should expect.
During our debate on the previous stage the noble Lord pointed to a defect in the drafting. He will see from Amendment No. 12 that I have tried to remedy this. I cannot see why he makes such a heavy burden of what I should have thought was a most useful addition to the Bill. It places no serious burden on any reasonable hotelier, but it gives an indication of the necessity of raising quality in this sphere of our hotel industry where it is most needed.
9.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: This has been a very useful Amendment that we have put into the Bill on the Select Committee stage. The object of the Bill is to define those kinds of hotels which should receive these grants, and it seems to me that this is worth while.

909
As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, we dealt in the Committee with this question of the understanding which people have been acting on as a result of the White Paper. I should like to say, perhaps even more forcibly than the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that I do not think noble Lords should pay too much attention to this particular argument. I am very much in favour of the Government's announcing their intentions in White Papers and consulting the public on Green Papers. I have also great sympathy with the Government, because they want to get ahead with something rather quickly. But the Government must remember that it is Parliament itself which must make the decisions, and that it is not for the Government to come and tell us that we cannot make alterations at this stage merely because they have published a White Paper. That is cutting too many corners.
There is one disadvantage to this situation as it stands—at least I think so—and that is where an hotel proposes to remedy an existing defect, and put in enough bathrooms to make up the original ratio. But that is something which possibly the Government can amend at a later stage. I hope that this Amendment will be defeated and that we shall leave paragraph (e) in the Bill.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I rise on only two points. The first one is that there is another mention of bathrooms, and many other things, in Schedule 3 to the Bill. They are fixed equipment for grants eligible under Clause 9. I only wish it applied here in this House, because there are quite a lot of things that are mentioned in that Schedule which would be rather useful in this place, including more air conditioning and so on.
The second matter that really worries me (and I know I was not on the Committee), from the point of view of one of the people who may have to work under the Bill, is the "Alice-in-Wonder-land" arithmetic of the Amendment. I just cannot follow it. I know that one can be very stupid over this—and I really mean "stupid". But, if on page 7, at the end of line 6, we insert the words on the Order Paper, then how will it read? It will read that there should be one water closet, for instance, "for every five bed-rooms", and "for any less number of
910
such bedrooms above a multiple of five". What exactly is intended? Does it mean you can do it for every five bedrooms, or for every 11 bedrooms, because that would be above a multiple of five, but not for every seven bedrooms? Is the noble Lord thinking strictly in terms of a multiple not necessarily by a whole number? If he is thinking that he ought to make it rather clearer. All I can say is it sounds a bit "Alice in Wonderland" to me. I am sure the noble Lord wants his bathrooms to be installed and also the Bill to read sensibly. It does not read sensibly if this Amendment is inserted.
Lord BROWN: I have to attempt to make the Committee agree that this Amendment should not be passed. It is really very important indeed. May I deal first with the White Paper argument? I know this question of the quoting of the existence of a White Paper—
Lord DRUMALBYN: May we get the Record right? This is an Amendment of the noble Lord. Is he suggesting it should not be passed?
Lord BROWN: I am sorry; I was looking at the wrong document. I am trying to argue that this Amendment should be passed. May I deal with the argument? Every Government are in a desperately difficult position over certain types of things which attract grant. If consultation does not take place with bodies, the likelihood is that the Government produce a very bad Bill, and rightly are criticised for it very heavily in the House. In any case, if the time between publishing the Bill and its passing is lengthy, then if there is a possibility of grant being paid subsequent to the passing of the Bill there is an interregnum during which people will not carry on with their business as is customary and will wait for the Bill to be passed to obtain the financial assistance.
If, on the other hand, one consults, it becomes known, and one may as well publish a White Paper to let everybody know formally what the position is. In that case, from the date the White Paper is published to the date the Bill becomes an Act, if you do not indicate that you are prepared to pay people for the buildings, or whatever it may be, on which they have spent money, then in fact you produce a stalemate with the industry

911
that is producing this particular sort of building—it grinds to a halt. It is no good saying that we should not put the White Paper to you in this House. These are the facts. We are unable—and no Government are able to escape this—to act in matters of this kind without bringing into the Bill clauses which make payment restrospective to a date before the Act comes into force.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I weep for the Government. I deeply sympathise with the noble Lord, but I still maintain that, in spite of the terrible difficulties the Government find themselves in, it is for Parliament to make these decisions, and you cannot go ahead with this proposal.
Lord BROWN: I quite agree; I am not saying that Parliament should not make its own decisions. I am just trying to prevent Parliament from making an ass of itself; that is all.
May I now turn to one of my examples to demonstrate just how stupid it can be if it goes ahead and denies me this Amendment. Let us take this example: an existing hotel with forty bedrooms, all with hot and cold water in them, but only five public bathrooms and five lavatories. That is not an extreme example and there may well be a number of hotels in just this situation which have gone ahead in the light of the White Paper and the expectation of this Bill's being passed.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Would the noble Lord allow me?
Lord BROWN: It would be kind if the noble Lord would let me finish. It is rather difficult.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I am sorry.
Lord BROWN: To get an extension grant under Clause 8 for five additional bedrooms added to the forty I have named, the hotelier would have to provide at least four more bathrooms and four more lavatories in an extension for five more bedrooms. But he may not have done it. Why should he? He did not know of paragraph (e) in the Bill. It was not there. There was No intention of having it in the original Bill. It was tee stage this provision was added to the Bill, this hotelier is going to lose the not published. So, because at Commit-
912
grant which was the basis of his going ahead to extend his hotel. He is going to think it extremely unjust. He is not going to be very happy about Parliament, which has put him in this position.
If he put a private bathroom and a lavatory with each of the new bedrooms, he would still have to provide three more public bathrooms and three more lavatories to serve his existing accommodation. So if he put five more bathrooms and lavatories in with those five new bedrooms, he would still have to go on to provide three more separate public bathrooms and three more lavatories to meet the terms of the paragraph I now wish to have deleted.
I am pleading with your Lordships not to put those who have gone ahead in that position. It would be very serious indeed. We are not arguing about the advisability of putting more emphasis on the provision of bathrooms and lavatories. I agree entirely with the noble Lord. But we did not set out in this Bill to stimulate that in particular; although, as I have pointed out, any hotelier who builds an additional five bedrooms or more, and chooses to build five bathrooms along with them, will get grant for those bathrooms. It cannot be said that we have not given some encouragement in this direction if we are prepared to pay grant on the bathrooms. But, for the reasons I have given, we do not wish at this stage to make it a requirement of this Bill. I beg noble Lords not to reject the Amendment I am moving.
Lord CROWTHER: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I freely confess that in the previous Committee I was one of those who assisted the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to insert in the Bill the words that the Government are now attempting to remove, but on further consideration I have come to the view that the Government are quite right, for two reasons: first, that in the rather intricate matter of business, if you put the various clauses together I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is entirely right in saying that it could lead to some highly anomalous situations if these words were inserted. But there is a further consideration of a kind which I hope will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. Either the paragraph which he wrote into

913
the Bill, requiring a certain bathroom provision, has some effect or it has not. The only way in which it can have effect would be by removing from the ambit of grant an hotel which would otherwise get one. If it does not do that the words are meaningless and have no point at all.
Who would these people be who would be likely to be removed from the ambit of the grant if these words stand part of the Bill? They would certainly not be any of the large public companies on behalf of which the noble Lord sometimes accuses me of speaking. None of them would dream of providing bedrooms, in this Year of Grace, without a private bathroom for each one. The only people who would be cut out of grant—if there are any at all—if these words stand part of the Bill would be one or two small operators up and down the country who happen to have gone ahead with a project which would now just fall outside the ambit of grant and which would otherwise have been within that ambit. The only effect of leaving these words in, if they have any effect at all, would be to deprive one or two small operators of grant that they would otherwise have expected to receive. I support the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in his suggestion that the Bill would be better without these words in it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The way the argument has gone I think there is no doubt that we have to allow the noble Lord his way in this, but I must say that we do so without much sympathy for the Government. I say that for two reasons. In the first place, if they had wanted to they could have mitigated the difficulty very greatly by amending Clause 8, so that the number of new bathrooms to be added would be related to the number of bedrooms to be added for an extension, and not to the total amount. They could have done that quite easily. The second thing—I know there has been only a short time but again this is not the fault of the Opposition, it is the fault of the Government—that is surely now an object lesson to the Government not to make these announcements of intentions in Parliament until they have the room for them in the legislative programme.
I believe that the Government intended to introduce this Bill last Session and they were not able to do so. Nothing
914
else makes sense. If they had done that. the plans would not have been far enough advanced for there to be any real difficulty such as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has referred to—and I agree with him that there would be hardship for some people if the Bill were to stay as it now is. But if the Bill had been introduced soon after the announcement was made in Parliament, at the same time as the White Paper, and carried through, it would have made sense. But, somehow or other, the Government keep getting into these administrative difficulties. In particular they keep getting their Parliamentary programme muddled up, and the result is that we simply cannot get sense cut of these things.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that Parliament has every right to change these things if it thinks fit, but we are bound to take into account—I would not say this to my noble friend because I am sure we all agree that the Government ought to have provided some qualitative test so far as bathrooms are concerned and this is a different kind of qualitative test from others—that if Parliament were to do this now it would cause hardship. Parliament is bound to take that into account at the present time. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that we very much deplore this way of proceeding, and the Government must bear in mind that Parliament has every right to change these things if it thinks fit. The Government must not always expect that if they announce something in March of one year they can get their legislation through easily, without criticism, by July of the following year. It just will not do.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Champion): In the Division on the Housing Bill the number of Contents was announced as 53; this should have been 52. I gather that the decision is not altered by that announcement.
I cannot now call Amendment No. 12 to the Bill that we are now discussing. Amendment No. 11 having been agreed to.
Lord BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 9 to 11.—(Lord Brown).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grants for extension or alteration of existing hotels]:
Lord INGLEWOOD Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("four")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. In my view, the second great shortcoming of this Bill is the line of demarcation which the Government have chosen between those who qualify for grant for work which they may do by way of additions to hotels and those who are excluded. I entirely see that some such line of demarcation must be drawn, and that there would be endless difficulty were it possible for every bed-and-breakfast establishment to claim to be a small guest house. It would clearly be difficult to know whether the work they were doing genuinely came within the work we all have in mind.
Nevertheless, the line the noble Lord has chosen, the minimum of five bed-rooms, means that the vast majority of small hotels in this country are bound to be excluded from any help at all, while there is no limit for those who wish to invest £1 million or more in a hotel drawing the 20 per cent., provided they satisfy the conditions. I must not say any more about bathrooms. I hope that the noble Lord will not come back and say I am here opening the door to all sorts of small miscellaneous establishments, because I am entirely at one with him here, and I will not make use of the dirty word he used in the Committee. All I am asking is that he should consider bringing the boundary line down from five to four.
I do not know whether all noble Lords will have worked out what this means. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, does not think anything I have said about larger companies is critical because they are naturally leaders when it comes to standards; but small hotels as well as large establishments now try to include private bathrooms where they can. To build on five bedrooms and five bathrooms, and
916
some water closet accommodation (though the noble Lord in a previous debate seemed to think that if 20 were double bedrooms, five water closets would be sufficient for 60 people) is surely going to run the proprietor into something like £20, 000—and it could be more. I should have thought a scheme like this ought to endeavour, especially with no limit at the top, to have at least the floor level brought down to include as many genuine hotels as it could.
I suggested in Committee a minimum of four instead of five extra bedrooms. Better still would have been three, plus two bathrooms, but I have not tried to repeat that on this occasion because I think there could be arguments against it. But I feel that the arguments in favour of four are sound, and I hope that the noble Lord may be favourably disposed towards this. I hope, too, that he will see how careful I have been on this occasion not to do anything which conflicts with, or puts any extra burden on, anyone who has been carrying out work in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper. The White Paper argument just does not come into the question. It is a common-sense argument and it is fair. I beg to move.
10.5 p.m.
Lord BROWN: I admire the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for the fight he has put up in the Committee and now in support of some of the things that I think are dear to us all. Let us have more bathrooms, certainly. Everybody is emotionally completely with him, and I think objectively, in regard to the small hotel. We all like these beautiful old inns of England, and perhaps of Scotland and Wales, too. We want to give them a better share. But the fact is that we want to provide more capacity for tourists. That is the object of the Bill. We should have preferred a higher minimum figure than exists in the Bill now. Certainly it would have been more objective. We dropped it to the present level because of certain sympathy for the smaller hotel and the comments that were made during consultation that we ought to let the small man in.
Now the noble Lord is wanting to drop it still further, and I have some sympathy with him. But if we do so, there is no question but that it will

917
increase the total cost of the scheme. I do not have an estimate of how much the increase would be, but it would be a very chancy estimate if one were to make it. But we are on a marginal point here, and it would need a considerable sum indeed. We are therefore most afraid of this Amendment on the financial prospects of greater expenditure. I am sorry in that I should like to have agreed with this, but when finance comes in at a time like this, when we are trying to conserve public expenditure, I am most concerned and I am afraid that I have to resist this Amendment, much as it emotionally appeals to me.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have not a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord on his point about public expenditure, because so much of the argument that we have heard is that plans would have had to be made already before anything was likely to qualify for grant, because of the time factor. Of course what the noble Lord has said is true, in that one thinks of a number and then the Government have generally to stick to that number.
I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend in thinking that it would have been better to have dropped the limit a little. After all, he is quite familiar with the phrase:
"Mony a mickle mak's a muckle"
and the lower you drop it the more you will get. That is the whole object of the exercise, to get more; and the noble Lord has told us time and again that the whole object of the exercise is to get more accommodation for the tourist. I think he put up the opposite argument on a previous occasion, saying that if you put the limit too low you were not going to attract so many tourists by a small number of bedrooms, as you would if you raised the minimum qualifying number to a higher number.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way for a moment, because I want to make quite clear my own position. We want more bedrooms for tourists, but we want especially more of the medium and large sized hotels. That is where the shortage lies in the provision of accommodation for tourists. There is a grave shortage there. There is not so great a shortage,
918
if indeed one at all, in the very small hotels. So we have to give a priority there in regard to the somewhat larger establishments.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I appreciate the Government's point of view, which is diametrically opposed to that of my noble friend. This is the head-on crash. If you fix a low level you are going to get all the accommodation that will be provided proportionately anyway at the high level. The question is, how low is the level you are going to. The noble Lord says that expenditure is involved here. The Government can only make the shadowiest of estimates about what is the expenditure involved, and there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend wants.
If I could advise my noble friend, I think it would not be wise to press this Amendment in the present circumstances. My noble friend has made the point, and certainly he has put up a magnificent fight for the smaller hotels. But I doubt very much whether at this stage, because of the very short time factor, changing the number of rooms would have a big effect now. This is why I suspect the noble Lord's financial argument. I just do not think this is a runner. The real truth is that it is too late, as things have run, to make this effective.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Following what my noble friend has said, I think it is true that at this stage to-night it would be difficult for us to change this figure—not that I thought the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, were very effective. I am prepared to give him a year to run, and if then, when he can give precise figures about the cost and the progress, he does not do anything, I shall introduce a Private Member's Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord CHAMPION): Before putting Amendment No. 15, I would point out that it appears that Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are competing.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("and any bathroom or bathrooms appearing to the Board to be provided in association with the bedrooms").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 8 provides the Tourist Boards with a necessary discretionary power as a precaution against abuse of the provisions of Clause 8. Under this clause, an extension to an existing hotel must involve the provision of at least 5 additional bedrooms in order to attract grant. Such an extension may be provided in new buildings, by the alteration of existing premises or by a mixture of new building and alteration. In the generality of cases, expenditure eligible for Clause 8 grants will include all expenditure which the Tourist Boards consider to be of a capital nature. Thus capital expenditure can cover not only constructional and fixed equipment costs of the actual bedrooms, but also expenditure on extending or improving other facilities such as bathrooms, lavatories, lounge, dining and recreation areas, and kitchens.
But, as I explained in Committee, it is necessary to guard against the provisions of Clause 8 being abused in order to obtain more grant for the mere improvement of hotel facilities than could be secured under Clause 9. A simple example would be the case of someone merely designating "staff bedrooms" as additional letting bedrooms in order to obtain grant primarily in relation to expenditure on other improvements to the premises. Subsection (3) provides the Tourist Boards with discretion to exclude expenditure not attributable to the provision of additional bedrooms in cases where they are partly provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. It
920
is a necessary power, but the Tourist Boards will obviously want to see additional bedrooms provided freely since this is the main purpose of this hotel incentive scheme. Moreover they will recognise, as we do, the importance of adequate bathroom facilities to any increase in letting bedrooms.
However the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expressed concern in Committee lest this discretionary power might be applied too tightly as regards bathroom facilities provided in conjunction with extra letting bedrooms provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. He withdrew an Amendment on the subject on the understanding that I would consider a suitable Amendment to cover the bathroom point without detracting from the essential purpose of the discretionary power in subsection (3). This Amendment is the result, and I commend it to the Committee. It makes clear that bathrooms associated with the provision of additional bedrooms provided by the alteration of existing accommodation will rank for grant. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied that we have done something in support of his plea for better bathrooms, and I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I must thank the noble Lord for making this Amendment, and I am sure my noble friend is very grateful for it too.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause:
Appeals under Part II
Any applicant for a grant who is aggrieved at a decision of a Tourist Board in any case falling under Part II of this Act, as to

(i) whether any expenditure which he has incurred is eligible expenditure;

(ii) the amount of grant which he is entitled to receive;

(iii) the date on which any construction or installation was begun or completed;

(iv) whether or not the applicant was the occupier or lessor of the hotel in question at the relevant time; or

(v) the repayment of a grant,

may appeal to the relevant Minister within thirty days of the said decision, and the relevant Minister shall, after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard, either confirm the decision of the Tourist Board or give a direction to the Tourist Board as to action they shall take in accordance with this Part of this Act on the case."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give a right of appeal to the appropriate Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, explained to us during the Committee stage that all appeals would have to be to the courts. He said that there was a legal title to the entitlement, and that any failure to provide that entitlement could lead to an appeal. Admittedly, appeals to the courts are normally given when there is a point of law involved. There may occasionally be difficulty about the meaning of a Bill, and it is right to leave to the courts a decision on a point of law: but that would happen anyway. Equally, and probably much more frequently, there is likely to be a dispute about the facts. A Board may quite easily be mistaken about the facts and, having made a mistake, is unlikely to budge from its decision, since nobody likes to admit that he is wrong. So there ought to be an appeal on fact to the Minister.
Of course, I cannot be sure that I have included all the points on which an appeal might arise. The worst aspect of this terrible way of legislating, taking all stages within one week, is that we shall have no opportunity of amending except by I a manuscript Amendment at this stage.
922
But if, as is quite likely, some Amendment is needed, it can be made when the Bill goes back to the Commons. What is important is to establish the principle of administrative appeal under this Part of the Bill, rather than have all matters going to the courts. This is most unusual in legislation and we are well accustomed to the administrative appeal. I beg to move.
Lord M1TCH1SON: I was not on the Committee, but this Amendment raises a general point and I am rather surprised at its coming from the Party opposite. We are all now quite accustomed to the idea of leaving Boards of various kinds to run their own businesses, and it seems to me that that practice would be interfered with by this Amendment. In effect, it would transfer the decision from the Board to the Minister whenever the hotelier chose. We are always being told that there are too many civil servants, that the expenses of government are too great, and so on; but we put a frightful lot on Ministers and Ministries nowadays, and, in principle, it is sound practice, when one can define quite clearly what is to be done, to leave the day-to-day running to Boards, such as the Railways Board or, in this case, the Tourist Board. On the whole, we have corns to accept that nowadays. That is the main point raised by this Amendment, and I should regard it as a serious mistake if the Government accepted it.
I repeat that I am puzzled why the Tory Party should bring this Amendment forward, since it seems contrary to their usual line of practice. To take a decision away from the Tourist Board and to give a right of appeal to the relevant Minister at the choice of the hotelier is tending to increase public expenditure, tending to increase the number of civil servants and tending to increase the minor duties of the Ministry. It is something which ought to be done only for some very cogent reason, but I cannot see what the reason is. Perhaps I ought to lave attended the proceedings of the Committee. I should then have learned, and I would accept a rebuke that it is my fault if I did not go and listen. But, off-hand, I cannot see what can be the reason for this Amendment. I should have thought everybody wanted these Tourist Boards to be effective, powerful, competent bodies, and, once they are accepted as

923
such, the reason for transferring decisions at the instance of the hotelier certainly tends to disappear. I therefore hope that my noble friend is not going to accept this Amendment.
Lord CROWTHER: May I perhaps enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison? I will not attempt to follow him into the doctrinal questions as between the Government Party and the Opposition Party, which do not concern me; but there are some very practical considerations which bear upon this issue and which it appears are not apparent to him. The Bill as now drafted allows the Tourist Boards, in deciding whether or not to give a grant, to impose any conditions they see fit. These Boards will not be in a state to determine what their conditions are going to be until, let us say, at the very earliest, about Christmas of this year, 1969. By then fully three-quarters—perhaps more—of those projects which are going to be entitled to claim grant by virtue of having started by March 31, 1971, will already have got beyond the point of no return. The hotel owners have gone ahead on the confidence of the White Paper that was issued in May, 1968; and relying on the good faith of the Minister. The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that it is the good faith of the Minister that governs, and not the possible whims of Boards which are not yet in existence and will not be in existence until too late.
In the course of the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Brown, gave some fairly sweeping assurances (which went quite a long way to meet the fears that I and others feel about this matter), to the effect that if any of these Boards were to set conditions on grant that could not reasonably have been expected at the time of the White Paper the Minister would issue directions to overrule them. That, as I say, goes quite a long way towards reassuring those who are uncertain about this point, but I confess I shall be much happier with the complete assurance that this Amendment gives.
Nor, I think, subject to anything the noble Lord may say in his reply, can I see that the Amendment hurts the Government position in any way, because although it goes to a great deal of trouble to say so, it is really in substance
924
saying that if the Minister does not think that his (the Minister's) word is being carried out by the Boards he will say so. I should much prefer to see it down in black and white than to rely upon even the quite far-reaching assurances that the noble Lord gave in Committee.
Lord BROWN: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has No intention of misleading the Committee, but when he says that these Boards can make almost any condition they like about these grants, he is going too far altogether. The criteria for grant are laid down very clearly in the Bill, and the amount of discretion the Boards are able to exercise is extraordinarily small.
Lord CROWTHER: I am sorry if I misled the Committee. What I meant to say—and I apologise, although I think I quoted the Bill correctly—is that in giving grant they may make such conditions as they see fit.
Lord BROWN: The criteria for grants to hotels are laid down in the Bill. We have been talking about them all evening. I am sorry; there is some deep misunderstanding here—but may I go on?
Lord CROWTHER: If the noble Lord will forgive me, may I quote Clause 12:
"In making a grant under this Part of this Act a Tourist Board may, subject to any directions under section 18"—
that is, directions from the Minister—
"… impose such conditions as it thinks fit".
Lord BROWN: That is under that particular Part, and that provides a discretion, but we have been discussing all the way through this Bill the criteria for grant, paragraph by paragraph. They are extraordinarily numerous. I said that there is some discretion but extraordinarily little in relation to the amount of prescription contained in this Bill as to the criteria for the sort of activities on which grant may be allowed. I was merely criticising the suggestion of the noble Lord, which I think I am quoting rightly, when he said that these Tourist Boards could do almost anything they liked in this respect—or words to that effect. I just wanted to remove that impression. I know the noble Lord did not mean to give that impression. There was no deliberate intention to mislead; I am well aware of that.

925
Coming to this matter of the appeal, we have here a sharp division of opinion. I want to put the case against the Amendment quite sharply because I should be very distressed if this Amendment were accepted. First, there is a sort of touching faith in the capacity of Ministers to take up the role of judges; to interpret Acts of Parliament. As a Minister I personally do not like the idea at all. There is no provision for proper representation or witnesses, and all the rules governing the procedure of the courts. I do not think that one should attempt to push Ministers into this position.
Secondly, supposing one did allow an appeal to a Minister by people who felt they had been aggrieved. I take it it would mean depriving people under this clause of the right to sue in the courts for money to which they felt they were entitled. Alternatively, if they are not deprived of the right to sue the Tourist Board in the court for that money, presumably what is intended is that, having taken the appeal to the Minister and lost it, they might then sue the Board—or is it the Minister?—in the courts. This is all very bothering to me. We cannot accept this Amendment to-night. I do not know where we end up with this sort of mix-up. I would beg noble Lords to think again before trying to pass this Amendment to-night. It is not clear what would happen. Even if this could be cleared up, the main argument, that one is putting Ministers in the role of judges in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, remains. I hope that this Amendment will be rejected on those grounds alone.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I thought I made it clear that we were not putting Ministers in the position of judges on questions of law. This is clear from the way in which the Amendment is drafted. The points it mentions are all questions of fact, and not questions of law at all.
Lord BROWN: The noble Lord is well aware that the courts are just as used to dealing with questions of fact as with questions of law. They are dealing with questions of fact all the time, and many questions of fact go to the courts. Indeed, very often the procedure of the courts is necessary to deal with questions of fact which need interpretations just as much as questions of law.
Lord MITCHISON: May I far one minute thank the noble Lord below the Gangway for calling my attention to Clause 18? This seems to me to give the Minister a very considerable overriding power in proper cases, and I cannot see how these two things hang together. Clause 18 will allow the Minister to give the Tourist Board directions of a general character. It says in subsection (2):
"Subject to the provisions of any scheme … the relevant Minister may with the approval of the Treasury, give to a Tourist Board directions as to …"
This clause seems to me to deal quite properly—and I should have thought, with great respect to noble Lords opposite, much more in accordance with their own principles and practices—with the relations between the Minister, the Tourist Board and the people who are going to get a grant under this Act. I cannot understand how to reconcile the two. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I am not trying to be difficult. This is a real point and, I think, a rather important constitutional point.
Lord CROWTHER: There is no dispute that the Minister can decide as between an aggrieved applicant for the grant and the Tourist Board. The whole point of what we are arguing about is whether he will or not. What the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said seemed to me largely to underline the assurance he gave to the Committee. If I did not misunderstand him—and he spoke very clearly—he gave a flat assurance that if the Minister came to the conclusion that a Board was imposing conditions which could not visibly be foreseen, he would intervene; and all this Amendment does is to spell that out in black and white.
10.30 p.m.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether I may clear up this point? These assurances were given with regard to practices developed by the Tourist Boards in principle or conditions imposed in general which the Government felt to be improper. That is one thing. This Amendment deals with individual appeals by individual applicants who think they have been ill-treated. That is a different matter altogether. To look at going questions of practices by the Boards, and for the Government to amend them if they see fit, is one thing; but to investigate all

927
the details under which a single applicant wants to establish his right to an individual grant means, in my view, a proper judicial hearing. To impose this on Ministers would not, in my opinion, be a good thing.
It is the ordinary course of law that in Acts such as this Bill will become, if there are points of real difficulty of interpretation some of the unfortunates may have to take a case to court, and what is the proper interpretation of the law is established by a court decision. If there are these difficulties and one or two cases have been decided, the interpretation is made clear for the others. I hope that
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Rates of grant]:
10.38 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 43, after ("and") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: This was a matter which we considered in Committee but the Government were not very sympathetic. In this Amendment we are dealing with the higher level of grants that are available in development areas. The whole of Scotland is a development area, except Edinburgh, which is the main tourist centre in Scotland. Yet from the
there will not be such a need to have an interpretation by the courts. I cannot at this stage see any point at which this would be necessary; but if it is, that is the normal way in which these matters are settled in this country. Cannot we leave it like that, instead of plunging into something which might work extraordinarily badly? Minister as I am, I can say this: I think that if these cases go to Ministers regularly, some horrible mistakes are going to be made.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gray. L

Beauchamp, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Inglewood. L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Crowther, L.

Lothian. M.

Belstead, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn. L.

Boston, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Burton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falmouth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Geddes, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gisborough, L.

Vivian, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison. V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Segal, L.

Arwyn, L

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Bowles, L.

Maclor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Breckway, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham. L.

Brown, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi. L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Flummer. Bs.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Energlyn, L.

Raglan, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

point of view of grant Edinburgh is to be treated differently from every other city, town and hamlet in Scotland. Under Clause 11
"… the grant payable under Section 7 or 8 of this Act in respect of any expenditure shall be of an amount equal to—

(a) twenty per cent. of that expenditure; or

(b) £1.000 for each letting bedroom.. whichever is the less;".

But in a development area, it is to be 25 per cent. or £1, 250 per letting bedroom, whichever is the less. Surely it is absurd to encourage hotels to be built just outside the Edinburgh city boundaries when they ought to be in the centre of the city. I feel that the Government must not be hidebound about this.
There is not the slightest reason why Edinburgh should be excluded from the higher rate of grant for the purpose of encouraging the building of hotels merely because it is excluded from the benefits of the Local Employment Acts. This is not a Bill to provide employment for persons living in an area; it is a Bill to provide accommodation for people coming from outside the area. Edinburgh is the nerve centre of Scotland for the tourist industry, and Edinburgh badly needs as much additional hotel accommodation as is likely to be encouraged by the higher rate of grant.
I hope that the noble Lord has had time to reflect on this, and will agree that for the purpose of this Bill the Scottish development area will include Edinburgh. I believe that this is absolutely right in these circumstances, because Edinburgh has been losing employment from the closing down of industries, apart from certain very specialised industries. But that is not the real point. The point of this Bill is to provide accommodation for tourists coming to Edinburgh, which is a totally different matter. Edinburgh, as I have said, is the centre of tourism in Scotland, and it is absurd that one small area in the whole of Scotland should be excluded from the higher benefits under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not mind my saying that I did not do justice to the arguments on this Amendment at the Committee stage. Let me recite one or two points. First of all, there has been a rapid development in the position of Edinburgh as a major tourist centre in the last few years. I will not bore your Lordships with the figures, but the number of tourists has gone up substantially. This development will be boosted still further by the holding of the Commonwealth Games in the city in 1970, to the cost of which the Government are contributing £750, 000. There is undoubtedly a process going on to some extent in Edinburgh whereby industry is being attracted to the areas adjacent to the city, because just outside Edinburgh the development area exists. The reason why industries are being attracted is that if they move to points not far outside the centre of the city they get twice the in-
930
vestment grant; they get regional employment premium and they get relief from selective employment tax. These an: substantial effects. And there is no reason why industries should not move outside, because a factory does not necessarily need to be in one particular position to produce goods.
Now let us take the case of the hotel, which is rather different. I did not draw sufficient attention to it before. If a hotel moves into the development area, it will not get release from S.E.T.; it will not get twice the investment grant; it will not get regional employment premium. The only advantage it would get in financial terms for moving into the development area surrounding Edinburgh would be a grant of 25 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. Is it imaginable that a hotelier, who naturally wants to have his premises situated as near the centre of this city as possible, would move six, seven, eight miles outside in order to get 5 per cent. more grant? I do not think there is any possibility of his doing so. He would lose far more than that in the lower rates he could charge for tourists staying at his hotel. I do not think the financial incentive arguments work in this case. It would be a serious matter for the Government to begin nibbling the edges of quite different legislation for the purpose of this Bill. On this ground, I hope that the noble Lord will think twice about this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have thought about this Amendment for a very long time, and I have always come to the same conclusion. I do not think it can be said that we are in any way nibbling at the edges of the Local Employment Acts. All one is doing is to introduce a higher rate of grant for the development areas. I am not sure that there is any justification for that at all in the context of the tourist industry. What I am arguing is that if this is going to be done for the whole of Scotland, it should be done also for Edinburgh. It seems absolutely absurd to have a differential of this kind. Obviously, the Government are not going to give way on this, and: i we press the Amendment now it will merely be reversed in another place, so I do not propose to press this. I have expressed my point of view, and I shall leave it at

931
that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed.
10.48 p.m.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 16 insert the following clause:
Registration of tourist accommodation
"—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the registration by the Tourist Boards of, or of any class of, hotels and other establishments in Great Britain at which sleeping accommodation is provided by way of trade or business.
(2) An Order under this section may in particular make provision—

(a) as to the form and contents of the register or registers to be maintained under the Order and as to the establishments to be registered therein;

(b) for requiring the person carrying on an establishment which is required to be registered to furnish, at such time or times as may be specified in the Order, to the body responsible for registering it such information as may be so specified;

(c) for the charging of annual or other periodical fees for registration;

(d) for the issue and display of certificates of registration and the display of signs indicating that an establishment is registered;

(e) for the inspection of establishments and for powers of entry for that purpose;

(f) for exemptions from any of the requirements of the Order;

(g) for securing compliance with any requirement of the Order by the imposition of a penalty not exceeding a fine of £200.

(3) If provision is made by an Order under this section for the classification or grading of the establishments entered in a register, the Order shall also make provision—

(a) for requiring the criteria in accordance with which the classification or grading is carried out, so far as not prescribed by the Order, to be determined from time to time by the British Tourist Authority after consultation with the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Wales Tourist Board and such other organisations as appear to the Authority to be representative of trade and consumer interests likely to be affected;

(b) for the publication of any criteria so determined;

(c) for enabling the person carrying on an establishment registered with any Tourist Board to make representations to the Board before any classification or grade is
932
accorded to the establishment and before its classification or grade is altered or cancelled.

(4) An Order under this section may contain such supplementary and incidental provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient, and may authorise the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales to make regulations as respects England. Scotland and Wales respectively for such purposes of the Order as may be specified therein: and the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply in relation to any such regulations as if they were made under powers conferred by an Act of Parliament.
(5) An Order under this section and any regulations made thereunder may make different provision for different cases and, in particular, provision may be made for an Order to come into force at different times in relation to, or to different parts of England. Scotland and Wales respectively.
(6) Any Order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order under this section.
(7) A Tourist Board maintaining a register by virtue of an Order under this section shall have power to publish, or make available for publication, any information furnished to it by virtue of the Order and any information as to any classification or grade accorded under the Order to any establishment; and such information may be published or made available for publication cither gratuitously or for consideration."
The noble Lord said: There is, without question, a deep cleavage of opinion on the two sides of the Committee on this additional clause. It was Clause 17 in the Bill as originally drafted. I do not propose to cite all the reasons why the Government wish to see in this Bill legislation which will enable, if a decision is made after due consideration and consultation, orders to be made calling for compulsory registration of tourist accommodation. It would take a considerable amount of time at this late hour to explain all the reasons. Certainly, members of the Committee know that the Government think that enabling legislation to this effect is necessary because in the long run it would be of great assistance to the whole tourist industry. I know very well that members of the opposite Bench think differently about it. They succeeded in removing the original Clause 17 from the Bill on Committee stage. If my opposite numbers on the Conservative Bench stick to their original opinion, I would propose that without further ado we should divide on this matter and settle it, without spending any

933
more time reiterating the very long arguments which we shall have on this matter if we proceed to argue it.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: The noble Lord, Lord Brown, introduces a new and interesting principle to your Lordships' House; namely, that because we have had a chat on it in a Committee of your Lordships' House, there is no need to debate it in full on the Floor of the House. It is very important, as we have had only one previous Committee of this type in your Lordships' House—that on the Gaming Bill—that we should be careful to watch the precedents which, whether wittingly or unwittingly, we may establish. I think it is very wrong, if I may suggest it, for the noble Lord to say that there is really no point in having discussion on the Floor of the House on this very important matter because it has been debated in the Committee—where a very small number of noble Lords were able to be present, although I realise that those who were not Members of the Committee could have sat and could have spoken.
It is quite a different matter to debate this question in your Lordships' House, where of course the discussion is recorded in Hansard, which is far more widely read than the Committee Hansard, which is read by only a few people, if they are able to get hold of copies. I have had great difficulty in getting my own copies because Her Majesty's Post Office is not the establishment it used to be—but that is by the way. I think it is most important at this stage, this being only the second Bill to be considered in a Committee room (and a very hot, stuffy Moses Room it was, too, all last week), that there should be no truncating of debate in your Lordships' House on an important matter of this kind. So I do not propose to follow the noble Lord's invitation to be brief and say that all this has been debated before. Of course it has. And it is quite right that it should be debated again, because we are now on the Floor of your Lordships' House where these important matters should be debated.
It is a matter of great importance because we carried a vote against the Government, although we did not have the in-built Tory majority which has always
934
been thrown at us in every debate. Here was an impartial Committee, drawn from all parts of your Lordships' House, and on the merits of the argument the vote went against the Government of the day. So I make no apology for detaining your Lordships for a few minutes at this late hour to-night—even though I, like most noble Lords, would much rather be somewhere else—in reiterating the arguments which caused us to defeat the Government on this particular Amendment.
I will now proceed to do so, without, I hope, being too long. First of all, there are a number of very good systems of hotel registration in this country undertaken voluntarily. The Automobile Association runs a very good hotels register; the Royal Automobile Club does the same. A number of bodies run very good registers of restaurants, such as the Good Food Guide, the Egon Ronay Guide. A number of local authorities are compiling registers; in particular, the local authorities in Cornwall are compiling a register of hotel accommodation on a voluntary basis, for those wishing to go to Cornwall. There is another very good one up in the Lake District, and there are others. But the Government, in this particular clause which they wish to replace into the Bill, want to have a statutory register of all hotels in the country, for purposes which they have never indicated very clearly. They will not allow anybody to stay out of the register. It is to be a compulsory register.
We know from our observations and experience that many a good little restaurant has been ruined by being written up, and there may be a number of hotels who say, "Thank you very much; we do not want to be on the register. We are running our little show and it is going very well. We don't want to be on the great big list and find we have coach-loads of people coming to us because we are registered. We want just to run our own little business in our own little way." We are told that we in this country must have a register because other European countries do the same. But in actual fact only four Western European countries bother to have a register; and nobody ever uses the registers, as we full well know. In the case of Italy, the register weighs 5½ lb. and is 8½ in. long by 8¼ in. wide; it is

935
the sort of document no tourist travelling by air would think of putting in his brief case, even if he could carry it without having to pay excess baggage.
Advanced countries which do not have this absurd compulsory registration system include the United States of America—who are not a bad lot, really. They have not yet compiled a registration system for the moon, and I am quite sure they will not do—though if the noble Lord, Lord Brown, were there he would probably want it. Canada does not have it; Finland does not have it; Sweden does not have it; Holland does not have it. And Switzerland, probably one of the most advanced countries from the tourist point of view, which knows a lot about hotel management, does not have this system of compulsory registration. So there is no case in saying that other countries do it, therefore we must do it, too. None whatsoever.
Then we are told by the Minister that this is merely enabling legislation; that they are not actually going to do it. But, of course, when the next stage comes, that of the Order in Council, it will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, so that we shall never have a chance to debate it unless we raise a row about it: we shall be told that Parliament has already approved the concept. Enabling legislation to my mind, particularly when it is of a compulsory nature, is just as dangerous as actual legislation without the waiting period of an Order in Council.
So what we are doing tonight is to discuss whether every little hotelier in this country should be dragooned into being registered, compelled to pay a levy—of course euphemistically described in the Socialist Bill as a "fee". It is not a fee; it is a levy, and the Government might at least have the honesty to call it what it is. Then, finally, if some poor little chap says "To hell with this system!", he will be fined £200 for failing to comply. Why? Why must he be compulsorily registered and graded—that is the word used in the Bill: "graded". It is not merely a list of numbers of bedrooms, numbers of lavatories, price per room. The proposed register is going to include a grading system. Grading means "listing according to merit". It involves a qualitative assessment by a Tourist
936
Board, which if this present Government survive will of course include Aubrey Jones, the proper quota of trade unionists and all the other people who go on this sort of bandwagon, who will agree, according to their concept of luxury or non-luxury, where an hotel should stand in the list, whether the hotel wants it or not.
I repeat: Why? Because the noble Lord, Lord Brown, tells us that other countries do it. Because Italy does it; because Austria does it; because Spain does it. What is so fascinating is that although this Labour Government dislike Spain so much they should quote Spain as an example of what we ought to do. Portugal does it—and they dislike Portugal almost as much as they dislike Spain. But when it comes to a compulsory comprehensive hotel register, because the present Government want it then everything these countries do is inevitably right.
But what is the point of this compulsory register? A dream; an unnecessary dream; a wasteful, expensive, bureaucratic exercise. If there are going to be qualitative assessments, as I think there ought to be in a field of this sort (and it is rather fun that there should be), let the A.A. book say that one hotel is 4-star, and the R.A.C. that it is only 3-star. This is all part of the fun, to have a bit of differentiation. The Oxford English Dictionary gives one definition of a word: Webster's Dictionary gives a slightly different definition. We do not want one single, central, compulsory compilation run by a Tourist Board. What is the point of it all?
We are told that the Government do not know how many hotels there are in the country. Why the hell should they know?—I beg the pardon of noble Lords for using that particular phrase, but I was feeling rather strongly about it, because I have met this point in other fields: this sort of compulsive desire to have a complete register, whether it be of machines for decimal conversion or of hotels or other things, and I submit to your Lordships that there is no need for a compulsory registration. By all means let those who are willing to be registered, who are willing to be regimented, who are willing to be graded, agree to it and pay the fee, or the levy. But it is the

937
compulsory element to which we on this side of the Committee take the gravest exception.
11.0 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I was absolutely delighted with the performance we have just witnessed. The power, both in Second Reading and in this Committee, to whip up excitement over what one would have thought to be rather a humdrum affair, has never been surpassed in my experience. The noble Lord actually had me sobbing into my handkerchief at the end of his very moving speech about a man born to succeed being frustrated by the Society for the Preservation of Rural England and the Traffic Commissioners from putting up hotels. We have had a tremendously impressive demonstration of how you can make politics about what is really the Post Office Directory. We think you should not be able to have a telephone without being in the Post Office Directory. It is not a matter we feel very strongly about. I think the emotional case has been very enjoyable, but somewhat overdone.
There are three items in this Bill: the first is the setting up of an Authority, done frequently by the Tory Party and often done very well. The second is the giving of grants. As a farmer I am certainly not against that; I am surprised if there is any doubt about it. And the third is having a factual list of what is available. How one can make an ideological case against that I do not know. I have heard it done and I think it is marvellous, but it is absolutely extraordinary because there is No ideology in the matter at all.
I am in favour of a factual list—which is what we are talking about—for three reasons. The first is that the customer thereby can find out the facts. The second is that such people as the Good Food Guide and Egon Ronay, who do this admirable grading—we have never suggested that the Government should do it and I think it is absolutely wrong the Government should do it—will be able to do their work much more cheaply, and those who list general things, like the A.A. and others, will have to spend much less money. The Bill is an enabling Bill. If the Tourist Boards think it is too expensive to produce a register of this kind they will say so and will not be
938
bound to do it. If, as we think, it can be done for something in the neighbourhood of £200, 000, they will probably say it should be done. I think that if grading were excluded it could be done inexpensively, and it would be a great help to the customer from abroad who wants to know what hotels there are, and also to people at home. I sometimes want to go to hotels and I never know where to stay because the facts are not clearly stated. I do not wish to cool off the atmosphere. I think we should try to continue to make this political, and I have done the best I could.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: May I point out that the Amendment the Minister is proposing to introduce specifically says that the establishments shall be graded.
Lord DONALDSON of KNGSBRIDGE: But it is enabling.
Lord BROWN: The noble Lord Lord Erroll of Hale, gave a truly histrionic performance, but I was not convinced by it. He objected to my trying to shorten the debate, and if he wants a debate we must have it; it is the right of the Committee to demand it. The proposals in this clause stem from the hard fact that the information about hotels in this country is inadequate. Our accommodation guides offer foreign travel agents and independent visitors a selection of some 8, 000 hotels if they look at enough guides, but there may be between 12, 000 and 17, 000 hotels with 10 bedrooms or more, and probably over 30, 000 if one takes account of the smaller hotels and guest houses. These are lost so far as the records are concerned; we do not know where they are or what they are. It is not surprising that people talk about shortages of accommodation and difficulty in making bookings. It is net surprising that even at the height of the tourist season there are hotels and guest houses operating at less than full capacity. It is because the visitor does not know where to find the capacity. And this is one of the benefits of having a register, to know of the existence of hotels of particular categories.
It may be said that we have managed so far. Perhaps we have, in catering for about 5 million visitors last year. But France and Italy each get some 12 million and Spain 17 million; so we are not

939
at the top of the league by any means. During our discussions in Committee a great deal of emphasis was laid on the need to improve standards of hotels. Indeed, as members of the Committee will remember, an Amendment was proposed designed to withhold grant from hotels which did not meet certain standards. Comprehensive registration of all hotels offers a less harsh method of achieving improved standards. If details of facilities are published, hotels with poor facilities will have a motive for carrying out improvements.
Let me say a word about the question about grading raised by the noble Lord. I gave a quite clear exposition in Committee to the effect that the Government do not have in mind grading on the basis of subjective factors. Grading, to them, is a process of ordering the categories of hotels in the light of the existence of concrete things that distinguish them—so many bathrooms, so many bedrooms, and so on; but not on much subjective reaction to the taste of their food or the soundness of their wine, et cetera. The Government view this as being a very "dicey" thing to do, and I should be totally against it.
I know, too, that some interests who themselves publish selective guides are concerned about how a national system of registration would affect them. I believe their fears are unjustified. Selective guides, such as the Michelin Guide, flourish in countries with comprehensive national systems, such as France. This country, too, will always need selective guides. But this House should know that there is a range of independent opinion which strongly supports this clause. Let me recite some of them. The existing Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards support compulsory registration. The British Motels Federation recommend the proposals. The British Federation of Hotels and Guesthouses Association recommend registration. The South-West Economical Planning Council recommend the proposals, and so did the Board of Trade Hotel Loans Advisory Committee. Very important indeed, the Consumer Council not only encouraged us to go ahead with these proposals at the time, but have recently reaffirmed their support for Clause 17 of this Bill. The voice of the consumer is most im-
940
portant, and we ought to take account of it and to have a proper registration so that people can get accommodation of a much wider choice than they would have today. I personally would strongly commend this Amendment to the Committee for the reasons which I have given.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Surely the noble Lord is not right in saying that the Consumer Council want registration just by itself. Registration by itself cannot help the consumer at all; it is only if you have classification and grading, the whole thing. We have been told that registration may go ahead by itself, or there may be classification and grading as well later, but that the main thing is to get the registration done. We have been told that even that is not essential if the same effect can be achieved voluntarily. But it is perfectly plain to us all that if this clause goes through there will be registration. It is the easiest thing in the world for the Board to do as soon as they come in. This is a permissive power, and it will take place. They will immediately want to know how many hotels they have to deal with, so that they can make their projects for the future.
The difficulty about registration—and I think the noble Lord must sympathise in regard to this—is that as soon as you get this sort of registration and classification and the information that is required for the classification, then immediately you get people thinking, as the Scottish Board was thinking, of taxing the number of beds. That is what worries people. That is what happens It is a new way of raising taxes. It happens every time. This is what is feared, and the noble Lord must have sympathy with that fear. If we were to be given an assurance that this registration would be purely for information, purely for the preparation and assistance of hotels, purely for the benefit of the increasing tourism, we should be quite happy. But if we are going to have levies on beds or something of that kind in order to raise finance, or if some sort of tax system were to arise, something out of the blue like S.E.T., something wildly extravagant and improbable like that, we do not want registration. That is what it amounts to. We would rather not have it. Every time there is registration there is trouble. Look at the teachers in Scotland just now, for

941
example. Registration means trouble. That is the fact of the matter.
Before the noble Lord says anything more I must say this. We all know why the Government are moving this clause back into the Bill at this time, and it is that they cannot be bothered to make the Amendments that would be necessary if it were kept out. Otherwise it could have gone as the opinion of the Committee to the Commons, instead of coming up at this impossible hour of the night when we do not get a representative vote. That is the point. I am bound to say that we do not like the handling of the Bill and we do not like this clause. However, it would be absurd for us to take this matter to a Division at this stage, and, in the circumstances, we simply have to agree to the Government putting it back.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Notification of prices of accommodation]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of LISTOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 21, 1 thing I should point out that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 22.
11.12 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) An Order under this section may in particular make provision

(a) for the inspection of establishments and for powers of entry for that purpose;

(b) for exemptions from any of the requirements of the Order;

(c) for securing compliance with any requirement of the Order by the imposition of a penalty not exceeding a fine of £200")

(3) An Order under this section may contain such supplementary or incidental provisions as appear to Her Majesty, to be necessary or expedient, and may authorise the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales to make regulations as respects England, Scotland or Wales respectively for such purposes of the Order as may be specified therein.
(4) An Order under this section and any regulations made thereunder may make different provision in different cases, and in particular provision may be made for an Order to apply to the whole or any part of Great Britain or to come into force at different times in relation to, or to different parts of, England, Scotland and Wales respectively.
942
(5) No Order shall be made under this section unless

(a) a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House;

(b) The relevant Ministers are satisfied that the purposes of the Order cannot effectively be secured voluntarily.")

The noble Lord said: I had to draft this Amendment immediately after the Committee stage on Friday afternoon to get it down at all. At that time I did not know that the Government were proposing to move back the old Clause 17, and it was an attempt to do what we had some reason to fear the Government might not be prepared to do—to make sense of Clause 18. I do not want to pursue that aspect, but I should like to draw attention to two points which are included here and which were not in the old Clause 18—Clause 17 as it now is.
The new subsection (4) in my Amendment gives power for an Order, and any regulations made thereunder, to make different provision in different cases. In particular, provision may be made far an Order to apply to the whole or to any part of Great Britain. This may be covered (I do not know) by the phrase "different provision in different cases", but it is not what one would have in mind by the use of that phrase. It is too important an aspect, we feel, to be covered by that phrase. If this is what is intended, we think it should be stated specifically.
Then, instead of saying that any Order made under this clause shal1 be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, we propose that it shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. The second point (in my subsection (5) (b)) is one that was raised in Committee: that this particular clause, "Notification of prices of accommodation" should be brought into effect only if the relevant Ministers are satisfied that the purposes of the Order cannot effectively be secured voluntarily. As I say, we had some discussion about this in Committee, and I do not propose to go over this again; but I should like to know what the noble Lord's reactions are to this. He has put us in an impossible position by moving back the old Clause 17 again so far as the Amendments we would like to see to Clause 18, because we already had them down and

943
it was too late to change them. He has put us in an impossible position, which is one of the reasons we do not like the noble Lord's putting back Clause 17. At any rate, perhaps he would comment on the special points we have raised.
Lord BROWN: I am sorry if we put the noble Lord and his friends in an impossible position: I can assure him that that was not the intention. On the first point, I assure the noble Lord that the Bill, as it stands, without this Amendment, meets the point he has raised about being able to differentiate between various parts of the country. I have gone into this matter very carefully and there is no question about that.
On the question of the Affirmative rather than the Negative Resolution procedure for an Order, the Government believe that the Negative Resolution procedure is appropriate on matters of this kind, because there may be a series of test Orders relating to private schemes in various parts of the country. We are very tentative about the registration scheme, although noble Lords opposite are apparently quite convinced that we are going ahead immediately on a wide scale. I assure them that what they believe is not the case. There might be a series of Orders gradually testing this out.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think we are on a different point. The noble Lord is speaking as if we were now talking about the clause which he has just moved back. We are, in fact, talking about the notification of prices of accommodation.
Lord BROWN: I am sorry; that is quite right. Nevertheless, precisely the same point applies here: that there might be tentative Orders and it would be very embarrassing to deal with each of them, as we build up our experience, by the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
On the last point, I submit that it is unnecessary to ask the Government to assure Parliament that voluntary procedures will not work, because no Government would go to the trouble of making an Order in Council imposing a statutory duty to display prices if it were not necessary to do so. It is implicit in any Order imposing a statutory obligation that the purpose cannot be achieved except in that way, and the clause was
944
intended to meet requests from all shades of opinion that hotels should be required to show their prices as a measure of consumer protection. If a hotel could opt out of the requirement to display its charges, it is implicit that the option would be exercised by the very sort of establishment against which the consumer needed protection. I have dealt rather cursorily with the points raised by the noble Lord, but I hope he is satisfied. At least he knows now what is the Government's attitude on this point.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I think he has met the points I had in mind. It was obviously tempting to me, when I had to put down this Amendment to make sense of Clause 18, to spell them out. But I do not propose to press this, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Fixed equipment eligible for grant under section 9 of this Act]:
11.18 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("and lavatory equipment") and insert (", lavatory equipment and extensions to sewerage necessitated thereby.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on a point which my noble friend Lord Inglewood raised during the Committee stage, and the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was that this matter in the case of a new hotel would be covered under Clause 7. But I am not sure whether the question of equipment would be covered under Clause 9. These items should be covered in the sense that they are equipment, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that that is so. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: Sewerage would not be covered under Clause 9, but it would be covered under the clause concerned with adding to the number of bedrooms in a hotel, if in the course of such an extension bathrooms were added which required additional sewerage. So hotels which need to add sewerage because of

945
an extension in the number of bedrooms will get the grant, but hotels which simply want to add pieces of fixed equipment will not find themselves getting grant on sewerage, because they are not included in the list. I admit that this is somewhat arbitrary, but a limit as to what one allows by way of equipment has to be drawn somewhere, and sewerage being a difficult thing to define it has not been included. But hotels can get it when they extend their number of bedrooms by five or more.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The trouble is that sewerage is a very expensive item, and there is this upper limit on the expenditure per bedroom—the expenditure per bedroom or the 20 per cent., whichever is the less. But, subject to that, can the noble Lord assure us that it would be covered within the overall expenditure?
Lord BROWN: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
11.22 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, before we pass the Report stage, I should say that there was one Amendment, Amendment No. 22, which I now submit as a manuscript Amendment and which should have been moved on Committee stage. Despite the severely troubled look passing over the face of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, I understand it is in order to move this Amendment on Report stage; therefore, on behalf of my noble friend, who would be glad to answer any questions concerning it, I beg to move this manuscript Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("16A") and insert ("Registration of tourist accommodation").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord going to give us an explanation?
Lord BROWN: My Lords, this is now a purely manuscript Amendment, concerned with the wording of the Bill rather than any matter of substance. By Amendment No. 21, Lord Drumalbyn was proposing to revise the present subsection (2) to Clause 17. If he had been successful, the Government Amendment would have fallen. I had reasoned out that if we succeeded in getting "16A" into the Bill this would not be necessary. Having failed to move it, I then got a note from the Box saying that I ought to have moved it. I have not had time to reason out just why it ought to be moved. However, it is verbal in its effects. My note is quite useless to me. I ask noble Lords to accept that this is a necessary Amendment merely to put the Clause into good effect.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are very willing to accept the noble Lord's assurances.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Brown.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before we actually part with this Bill I should like to express on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Brown. He has tried extremely hard—we are conscious of this—to explain different Parts of the Bill to us that we have wanted to question. In spite of some differences between us from time to time he has maintained his geniality and has been very helpful throughout. I felt that I should like to say that because, while we much regret that he found it necessary to move back this clause which caused so much confusion in a later stage, we feel that he has done his best to assist us in very difficult circumstances.
I do not think it would be right to pass this Bill without mentioning how difficult the circumstances have been. I think it was unfortunate that we had to have our second experiment with a Public Bill Committee in these very difficult circumstances. We have been under very

947
severe pressure the whole time. We sat for five days up to Friday. Now, on Tuesday, we are carrying through the whole of the rest of the stages. We are, after all, supposed to be a revising Chamber, among other things. We cannot do our task properly under that kind of pressure. I hope that our efforts are appreciated on all sides. We have really done our best to facilitate getting this Bill through. I hope it is appreciated, but I cannot help feeling that we might have done a better job if we had had more time.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I always enjoy conducting a Bill through the House when the noble Lord is sitting opposite. I am grateful to him for his kind remarks.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
11.29 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: 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 Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Public investment in the Corporation otherwise than by way of loan]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I am sorry to detain your Lordships at this late hour—all I can say is that this is not about sewerage. I should like to take this opportunity of saying something on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill; something, that is to say, regarding the reduction of the Corporation's commencing capital debt and also on the question of public investment in the Corporation; and particularly in connection with the £700 million which will be deemed to have been paid by the Minister to the Corporation on the vesting date. I should add immediately that there are a number
948
of Amendments which I might have put down similar to those moved in Standing Committee and on Report in another place. The other place spent about 15 days on this Bill but we have had only last Friday and to-night.
With the exception of the Amendment to Clause 5, I have not put down any other Amendments, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, how the figure of £700 million came to be fixed. I was glad to be able to give him notice of most of the questions I shall ask on this and other clauses. I should like to know what were the criteria in arriving at this figure of £700 million. I know that the noble Lord pointed out in his opening speech on Second Reading that the Corporation had asked that the £700 million of the commencing capital, or some two-thirds of its total long-term debt, should take the form of public dividend capital such as was adopted for B.O.A.C. as an experiment in 1966.
I am not now going to repeat my criticisms of the concept of public dividend capital as I did this very fully on Second Reading. Nor am I threatening to reduce it by way of Amendment. I know that the Government take the view that this form of capital is appropriate for those nationalised industries which are fully viable but which are subject to fluctuating returns because of their trading conditions and the nature of their assets. I accept only too readily that public dividend capital is quite different from the capital used in public companies and, as I say, I will not repeat the strong criticisms which we have made of it as a bogus kind of capital with the dividends paid by the taxpayer.
The noble Lord said on Second Reading that initially the Minister will accept that as a minimum all profits after clearance of any losses—and I underline those words—shall be paid as dividends until the Government have received by way of dividends and corporation tax a sum equivalent to the interest which would otherwise be paid on public dividend capital had it been in the form of fixed interest capital.
I now come to the second question which I should like to ask the noble Lord to-night. It is this: what dividend do the Corporation in fact expect to pay? I know from what the noble Lord said

949
that it is for the Corporation to make a proposal about payment of dividend on this public dividend capital each financial year, though the final determination will rest with the Minister after agreement with the Treasury. I should like to know, therefore, in addition to how much it is expected will be paid out by way of dividend, who really is the manager in this respect. Is it the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the Board of his Corporation who decide this, or is it in fact the Minister after agreement with the Treasury? I think it is very important to know who the manager really is. Decisions of the Corporation will be considerably inhibited if they always have to refer back to the Minister in taking decisions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I certainly would be willing to trust the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his Board to make the right sort of decision.
Lastly, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is expected that the Corporation will make a profit; or is it expected that it will make a loss? The noble Lord referred on Second Reading to the clearance of losses. I wonder how much these are expected to be. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give me answers to these four questions which I have put to him.
Lord SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for his restraint at this time of night and for giving me notice of some of these points. He said that he was not going to repeat his criticisms of public dividend capital, although he could not refrain having a stab at it; and he made one rather remarkable statement, but it may have been a slip of the tongue, about dividends being paid by the taxpayer. Perhaps when the noble Earl looks at Hansard he may realise that there was a slip at that point.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: Ultimately this can be said to be the case; but I will not go into it in detail now; and it was threshed out elsewhere.
Lord SHACKLETON: I can only say that ultimately it will not prove to be the case. The noble Earl asked me a question to which it is extraordinarily difficult to give the clearcut, scientific answer which the noble Earl would expect—how was the figure of £700 million capital
950
arrived at? The Corporation propose to convert £700 million of their total longterm capital of £1, 000 million into public dividend capital. A proportion of two-thirds of so-called equity capital—I share the noble Earl's doubts over the use of the word "equity"—to one-third of fixed interest capital, was in line with the proportion in industry generally in this country and among some of the Corporation's major competitors. The Minister considered that the figure proposed by the Corporation was acceptable.
This is very much a matter of judgment. Any noble Lords who have been concerned in company management will know that there is no fixed proportion. I would not say that it is just a figure plucked out of the air, but nor would I say that there is a hard and fast criterion which can be applied. In the judgment of those very experienced people who manage the Corporation, this was the appropriate figure, and it was one acceptable to the Minister and to the Treasury. This is not, I would admit, an extremely enlightening answer and I apologise, but it is a truthful answer.
I have also been asked for further explanation of the statement I made in my Second Reading speech about the clearance of past losses before profits are paid as dividends. I admit that I looked at this at the time and wondered whether there was some deep and hidden meaning. Rather is it a blinding glimpse of the obvious. We have in mind that the Corporation should be allowed to set profits against any accumulated losses since vesting date before profits become payable as dividends. We are so accustomed to having complicated subjects wrapped up in seemingly innocent phrases that I am happy to say that this was as innocent as it appeared.
The noble Earl asked me what dividend the Corporation expect to pay. I rather think that he has in mind the rate, or average rate, of dividend. I really would like to help on this point and I have gone into it rather thoroughly. Paragraph 10 of the Memorandum on the Bill (Cmnd. 4022), which I am sure the noble Earl, who has been very assiduous in this, has studied, says that the Corporation were expecting, on the capital requirements and internal resources forecast by the Corporation, to pay some £125 million in dividends in the three years from September, 1968, to September,

951
1971, and £295 million in the five and a half years from September, 1968, to March, 1974. These figures were based on the Corporation's original price proposals and will be affected in the early period, though we hope not over the whole period, by the abatement of their proposals. The noble Earl will remember that there was some abatement.
To arrive at the percentage of dividends to be paid, these dividend figures need to be expressed as a percentage not necessarily only of the £700 million, but of the total amount, including any additional dividend capital that may be paid to the Corporation, and we do not know what this further amount will be. The Government have not yet decided in what form the additional finance will be provided to the Corporation and therefore I am afraid that it would be unrealistic to seek to express the absolute level of dividends shown as a percentage.
If noble Lords are saying that it is time we got clarity in these matters, I would remind your Lordships that it is not long since the Corporation were set up and it is remarkable how rapidly they have got themselves organised. I assure the noble Earl that we certainly intend to keep him or any other noble Lord informed on this matter as it develops.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? It is surely remarkable also how quickly the Corporation has borrowed large sums of money. I think this is a pertinent point made by my noble friend.
Lord SHACKLETON: I do not know whether the noble Earl was here for our Second Reading debate, but I explained what the money was wanted for. I do not know why it is that when money is raised for investment in private industry it is regarded as entirely respectable, but when a nationalised industry is raising money for investment it is thought that somehow the taxpayer is being "done down" by it.
I was asked one important question by the noble Earl, as to who finally determines the dividend. He said that he would be willing to trust Lord Melchett. Those of us who know Lord Melchett have a high regard for him and undoubtedly trust him and his advisers as men of great capability. But I em-
952
phasised in our debate last Friday that the capital reconstruction was not intended to be an easy option. Clause 2 of the Bill accordingly makes it clear that the final decision on the dividends to be paid by the Corporation shall rest with the Minister. The Corporation must make a proposal about the dividend initially, but it is for the Minister, after consulting with the Corporation, and with the approval of the Treasury, to determine what level of dividend should be paid. This seems to me to be entirely consistent. After all, the Board of a company may propose a dividend, but in the last resort the shareholders have the say, and however much we may trust a particular body it is one of the essences of public organisation of this kind that it is for the Government to watch out for the public interest and determine the matter.
I think noble Lords on the other side have been concerned about possible criticism that we might be giving them too easy a run. I can assure noble Lords that, if there was any temptation in that direction, certainly my right honourable friends at the Treasury, whether Mr. Diamond or others, are not inclined to make easy assumptions. I do not doubt that this will be arrived at as a result of sensible calculations and sensible exchanges.
I think I have answered most of the noble Earl's points, but if I have missed anything, he can either ask me now, or I will write to him. I hope that I have given some information.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the further information that he has given. I think it was a worth while exercise from both our points of view. I do not think I will make any further comment.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Limit of borrowing by, and investment in, the Corporation]:
On Question, whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: Again I have put down no Amendment to this clause, but I should like to ask the noble Lord a question regarding the capital borrowing powers of the Corporation. As we know, under the principal Act borrowings by the Corporation were not to exceed £300 million, but in

953
July of last year this limit was raised to £400 million, and under Clause 3 of the Bill a new limit or £500 million is fixed, the same clause empowering the Minister to raise the limit to £650 million. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton when these tremendous increases in the borrowing powers were likely to stop. I also referred to the new steel developments at Scunthorpe and at Redcar on Tees-side. I should like to ask the noble Lord how much of this £500 million which the Corporation will now be entitled to borrow will be taken up by these new developments. How long, in fact, is the £500 million expected to last?
I have here a Press release of July 11 by the British Steel Corporation in which it says that the rolling mills at Scunthorpe will cost an estimated £130 million, and that the iron ore terminal at Redcar, Tees-side is likely to cost £15 million. It also says that a study is now in progress to develop either an ore terminal on the Humber at a possible cost of £5 million, or a rail link with Redcar to supply ore to Scunthorpe. All this is a little vague, and I should be grateful for more details of the Corporation's capital investment programme over the next five years. Is it all going to dribble out piecemeal, or can we expect to have a more comprehensive statement from the Government or the Corporation?
The borrowing powers have already increased twice, and now under this Bill they will increase a third and possibly a fourth time. I should like to know to what extent this money will be invested abroad. I am not quite certain whether I gave the noble Lord notice of this question. I should be interested to know the answer to it. Will the money be invested in Europe, for example? I have heard that there may be a possibility of investing in Holland. The point I want to make is that the Government are piling up all these debts just at a time when they should be reducing them. I pointed out on Second Reading that this country's total debts abroad now amount to over £6, 000 million. They are a millstone hanging round our necks for years to come.
The noble Lord admitted on Second Reading, rather blandly I thought, that the real effect of this borrowing was to convert short-term debts into long-term debts. As I told your Lordships on Friday, the Financial Secretary to the
954
Treasury said only last Wednesday that it must be recognised that our short-term debts should now be paid on a long-term basis. The millstone will hang for a longer time round our necks. I do not think this is good enough, and nor does the world at large. Already the Germans are having second thoughts about lending the sums asked for in respect of certain of our nationalised industries, and I spelt this out on Second Reading. Are the Government really happy about our large scale borrowing abroad, or are they being rather complacent about it? How much do they expect to obtain from overseas, and at what rate of interest? These rates have certainly been going up as a result of scarcity of capital, and I am much disturbed by these borrowings.
11.48 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that the noble Earl does his best to disturb foreigners in the matter—and anyone else. Some of the questions he asked were fair enough; others were not entirely fair. Let me deal straight away with the last point—the question of investing certain monies in foreign countries. I cannot say what countries they will be; it will entirely depend on the particular trading and investment needs of the Corporation. They may wish to protect their raw material sources. They may also wish to arrange for certain preliminary processing of materials, but there is no particular intention for a major investment abroad. The contingency allowance of £150 million allows for investment abroad, but there arc no specific proposals before the Minister at present; and this is the sort of flexibility which any corporation or company would wish to have in the interests of its trading success. On the question of the difference between medium-term and long-term borrowing, here again there is no precision in these matters. In general the Government take the view that the longer the term of the borrowing the better, but any movement away from immediate or short-term borrowing is to be encouraged as a means of rephasing debt; and I think that the funding of our debt is something of which the noble Earl will approve.
The noble Earl is tackling me in an area of such complexity that I am tempted to read out the very lengthy briefs I have on these various subjects,

955
and even the rather lengthy explanation that I supplied to the noble Earl earlier. However, probably the best thing I can do is to deal with certain particular points. I should like to set them in the background—because this is the crucial matter—of the investment programme. I should mention that the first borrowings under the 1967 Act were designed in the light of assumptions about what would be needed. In the event, the Corporation's requirements turned out some £100 million greater than had been expected. This is the main reason why further powers were needed earlier, and why more was needed now.
I was asked also how long the £500 million is to last. The Memorandum to the Bill, in paragraph 10, indicates that the limit on borrowing by and investment in the Corporation of £500 million is designed to last until September, 1971. But I hope noble Lords will not try to create a picture of a profligate Corporation just drawing money in and spending it. What they are doing is investing it in vital industry to this country; and this is a pattern that must go on both in private and in public investment.
I should like to say a little more in relation to the investment programme. As I explained in my Second Reading speech, it is impossible to say now exactly what steel plant will be built, exactly where, and to make exactly what products. But the general pattern is clear. I should like just to develop my earlier remarks a little further. The Corporation's brochure, Finance for Steel, showed that their projected capital expenditure up to 1973-74 will be £875 million. Of this sum, £100 million is needed for working capital, £50 million for projects under way, £100 million for small projects costing under £100, 000 each, and another £100 million for projects costing between £100, 000 and £500.000 each, which are of a comparatively routine nature. This leaves about £500 million for major capital expenditure, and this expenditure will produce crude steelmaking capacity totalling 30 million tons a year by 1975, compared with about 25 million tons now.
This figure is made up as follows. First, perhaps two-thirds of the total will come from a comparatively small number of plants producing carbon steels in bulk. These plants will be near deep-water
956
ports, and preferably near supplies of coking coal, and will be on a scale that will allow full advantage to be taken of the economies of size in the modern steel industry on which we are all agreed. They will use the most modern equipment; all of them, for example, will be based on the Litz-Donowitz steel-making process—the so-called L.D. process. These plants will be based on existing works; but it has not been decided where all of them will be. Port Talbot and Tees-side are, however, already undergoing major development, including the installation of Litz-Donowitz steelmaking. The Corporation have recently proposed a major scheme for development at Scunthorpe (and I will say a little more about that in a moment), again related to the capital sums involved, which is in their capital investment programme now being considered by the Minister of Power. There will also have to be further substantial expansion of strip-mill capacity.
Secondly, about half the remaining production will come from smaller integrated hot metal works, including specialist plants making high-value carbon or alloy steels; and finally there will be several scrap-based works, each of about a million tons capacity, located in or near scrap-producing areas like the Midlands. I have so far mentioned only plant producing crude steel as well as finished products. There will also be a limited number of works making only finished products from semi-finished steel made in the steel-melting and primary rolling works I have described.
Let me just say a further word about Scunthorpe, which brings us back to the investment total. The total cost of the Scunthorpe development, including working capital, is £153 million. This is under one-fifth of the Corporation's total investment programme and working capital requirements for the years to 1973-74, which is £875 million, the figure I have already mentioned. To meet this £875 million we have allowed for the Corporation to borrow or receive as p.d.c. £315 million, raising the rest from their own resources. It is not of course possible to say, for each component item in the £875 million, exactly how much will come from external resources and how much from the Corporation's own cash flow. I am sorry to race rather rapidly through this explanation. I think

957
I have been able to give some information which has not been given quite so explicitly before, and I shall of course be very willing to provide any further information at a later stage.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: Again I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that information, which I do not think emerged in another place, or on Second Reading here.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [The Corporation's financial duty]:
11.58 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH The Earl of BESSBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The operation of section 24 of the principal Act shall be amended so that in addition to the provisions therein the Corporation shall in its annual statement of accounts present details of the rate of return both on the total net assets of the Corporation and on the net assets of each of its principal regional or product groupings as is for the relevant period determined under subsection (1) above.")
The noble Earl said: A similar Amendment to this was put down as a new Clause 1 on Report stage in another place, but as I indicated on Second Reading I think it goes better at the end of Clause 5, concerning the Corporation's financial duty. The effect of this new subsection will be to require the Corporation, in its annual statement of accounts, to present details of the returns, both on the total net assets of the Corporation itself and on the net assets of each of its principal regional product groupings. In effect I should like to keep the product groups as separate accounting units and to require the Corporation to define the financial target in each case.
I explained all this on Second Reading and made the point that when a Corporation is virtually a monopoly and is dividing itself up into monopolistic groupings, customers of the Corporation will want some insight into the trading activities of the group. A public company would have subsidiary companies, each of which would give separate returns. Fuller disclosure of information is to-day, as the noble Lord knows, a general trend, and I should like to see this spelt out in the Bill.
958
It is true that the noble Lord, in replying to me on Second Reading, gave me certain assurances on this question. He added that he would convey my point to his right honourable friend but said he did not know how far the Government would go in this. He said that it was a matter for the British Steel Corporation and he was sure, having seen their publications and the amount of information they had already given, that they would do their utmost to provide all the information possible.
The Minister in another place gave similar assurances, which I certainly welcome. None the less, I think that the requirement to give such information with regard to the financial results of the product groupings would be desirable. However, if the noble Lord does not like the precise terms of the drafting, I should be very happy if the Government would be willing to put forward an Amendment in their own terms giving effect to the same intention. I know that there may be drafting difficulties and legal difficulties in regard to my present text, but I should like to see this requirement written into the Bill. If the Government would table a similar Amendment, I would, of course, withdraw my own. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to support my noble friend in his very persuasive argument and I trust that the principle of this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that I was not here last Friday; some of us, surprisingly, have to earn our bread and butter outside, particularly from this side of the House. As my noble friend said, a similar form of Amendment was moved in another place, although it went a good deal further than the present Amendment, and at that time there were in fact, rather noticeably, six speakers in favour and only one against, that being the Government spokesman. The principal aim of this Amendment is to lay a statutory duty on the Corporation to provide full information not only on the central organisation of the Corporation but also on its major subsidiaries. This proposed statutory duty is not a wrecking Amendment; nor is it an unnecessarily wasteful duty. It is a duty, I would submit to the Government, Which the Corporation

959
would in any case welcome, and I do not think personally that the Government disagree with the principle. It is a reasonably sensible and, I submit, essential duty.
Its advantages are obvious. In the first place, it brings a form of discipline to the Corporation; secondly, it lets us all see what is the true financial position of the Corporation's subsidiaries at any time; and, thirdly, lets us all judge the viability, profitability and efficiency of all the major activities of the Corporation, and weigh up the earnings on capital and all the other financial criteria. The argument between my noble friend and the Government, if they decide not to accept this Amendment, is not on the general principle, so far as I understand it, but more on the very narrow issue of whether or not this duty should be written into the Bill.
Even at this late hour, I may perhaps remind the Committee that in another place the Government's reasons for refusing the Amendment were based on three arguments. In the first place, the Amendment was called impossibly vague and legally meaningless, but so far as one can see this Amendment is certainly not vague; it is, I believe, strikingly clear. The wording perhaps may need improvement, but with the Government's help I am sure this could be achieved. So far as being legally meaningless is concerned, I think one can say that it is not very uncommon with a number of recent Government Bills for some of us to feel that they are Bills which are legally meaningless—such as the Land Commission Bill, which has been particularly difficult to understand for many of us. Again, I think one could take the example of Section 17 of the Companies Act and find that a similar form of wording could be used for this Amendment.
The second argument made in another place was that their main concern was with the central body and to a lesser extent with the results of its different activities. I really felt that this argument was, to say the least, most futile. If there is any future trouble over the Corporation's finances, what will happen? The Government surely will wish to know immediately the reason for the losses. So one simply says: "Why should not we all know the reasons
960
and have the information? Why not make the information available now?"
The third and final argument which the Government advanced was that the Corporation have no product grouping in operation at present. Again, I feel that one can dismiss this argument as neither very sophisticated nor convincing. The Government spokesman then turned, one might say rather smartly round, to say that Section 25 of the 1967 Act, the major Act:
"was expected to be brought into effect soon and so requiring details of turnover and estimate profits".
Finally, the Government spokesman, during the Bill's passage through another place, when pressed why the Corporation were not bound to produce half-yearly statements similar to those required by the Stock Exchange, replied—and again I quote:
"It is my intention to approach the Corporation with a view to its publishing this information".
Surely this is a rather watery way of agreeing to step into line with the principles of the Companies Act, that Act which of course ensured that there should in future be full public disclosure by both private and public companies and, one assumes, by State Corporations.
As I said at the beginning, I do not believe that the principle of providing further information divides us. The real point is simply whether or not the duty of supplying further information should be laid down as a statutory duty: whether we should rely on the Minister's vague undertaking or the Corporation's present policy, both of which can be changed, or whether a simple statutory duty, costing nothing, damaging not one wit of the Corporation's work, should be written into the Bill and giving the investors in this the largest industrial enterprise in this country, involving I believe over 1, 000 million of capital, a small safeguard that their money is being properly used, and is seen to be so used. This is an issue upon which I hope that my noble friend will stand firm if the Government are unable to accept the principle. During the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend was accused by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, of being too fervent. I must say that during the last six hours of waiting for this Amendment to be called, my fervour has increased hour by hour.
12.3 a.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: The noble Earl said he hoped I would not say that this Amendment was meaningless. I certainly shall not say that. I just do not think it happens to bear the meaning that noble Lords opposite put on it, and I am in some doubt whether to reply to the Amendment or to the noble Earls. I think I had better do both, even at the risk of taking a long time. I am delighted to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who is, I know, something of a night bird in this House (he can always be relied on to keep going) that his fervour is still strong, and I will try to match this in the energy of my reply. I must first of all, however, warn him that if ever there is an unreliable statistic as to the value of a particular view, it is a measurement of the number of speakers on one side or the other. If he studies the statistics on Committee stages, whatever Government may be in power, he will always find that the Government of the day are outnumbered 10 to 1 in the number of speakers. This is part of the nature of our system of Opposition and Government.
This Amendment is very similar to part of a new clause which was proposed on the Report stage of this Bill in another place, where its effect was debated and the Government's reasons for not accepting it were recited by my honourable friend the Minister of Power. In the course of that debate—as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—he gave assurances first that Section 25 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967, requiring details of turnover, estimated profit, and estimated capital employed for different activities, would be rought into effect soon; secondly, that the financial objective, or duty, to be laid upon the British Steel Corporation under Clause 5 will, like those of other nationalised industries, be fixed as soon as possible and announced to Parliament. Moreover, though he could not agree—and I hope noble Lords will agree because there is always the risk that one day they will have responsibility in this area—to a duty to prescribe financial objectives for subordinate groupings, he could give an assurance that the Corporation will be expected to publish details in their statement of accounts of the returns earned by the Corporation as a whole.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Could I just correct the noble Lord? He said that his right honourable friend said that Section 25 would be brought in; in fact what his right honourable friend said was "Section 25 is expected to be brought in". There is a vast difference here. Is the noble Lord saying now that it will definitely be brought in?
Lord SHACKLETON: I am not sure whether he was using it in a nautical sense. It is rather like "intention to proceed", which means something different to the Navy, and it may be that the words I used in this House bear a different significance. I can only say that I have firmly stated what I am in fact authorised to state, but if there is any lack of clarity on this point I will certainly be prepared either to correct it or to expand it, or even to answer a Question.
In view of those assurances, and a further undertaking by the Minister to approach the Corporation with a view to the publication of unaudited half-yearly statements similar to those required by the Stock Exchange in accordance with the undertaking given by companies in the private sector having a Stock Exchange quotation, the proposed new Clause in another place was, by leave, withdrawn. However, I do not complain of the action of noble Lords in bringing it up again. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, whatever the Amendment may say, our aims are similar.
The noble Earl again (and I appreciate this) was kind enough to give notice in our debate on Second Reading of his interest in reviving part of the proposed Clause in the form of an Amendment to Clause 5. I said, as he mentioned, that I would convey to my right honourable friend the particular point raised by the noble Earl regarding the provision in the Corporation accounts of information on the product groups equivalent to that now being provided on the financial results of the publicly-owned companies. The various accounts, the ones they publish already, are so heavy in size that I am afraid I have not brought them into the House. There is no doubt that a vast amount of information is given. I think it is a little ungracious to suggest that we ought to initiate the standards required of companies in the private sector, when I think it must be acknowledged that

963
nationalised industries have been pacesetters in this field.
I should like therefore to rehearse the very serious arguments for resisting this Amendment. First of all—and I know the noble Earl's difficulty in these matters, and anybody in Opposition is in this position—this Amendment would not in fact achieve its purpose because it is based upon its reference to a determination made under Clause 5 (1) in respect of the net assets of each of the Corporation's regional or product groupings. Subsection (1), as written, does not provide for the determination of anything other than the rate of return on net assets which the Minister considers it is reasonable for the Corporation to achieve. There is no mention of subordinate divisions or groupings.
Be that as it may, there are more fundamental reasons for rejecting this Amendment, and it is here that I somehow find myself parting company with what I thought the noble Earl was advocating. It would appear that the Amendment was drafted with two things in mind; first, the determination by the Minister of separate financial objectives for the Corporation's regional or product groupings; and, secondly, the publication of financial objectives in the accounts. I turn to the first of the two points—the fixing of financial objectives for regional and product groupings. The reference to "regional and product groupings", I am sorry to say, is really of no use at all as a description. It just does not stand up, unless we are prepared to go into a series of definitions which would not be appropriate in an organisation which must be dynamic and changing. The difficulty that the movers have found themselves in can be appreciated, because the Corporation have announced that they are considering the possibility, subject to the Minister's consent, of changing from a largely regional, subordinate organisation to one based on products. But even if this difficulty were removed, a reference to a "product grouping" would, I fear, still be legally meaningless.
More important, however, is the fact that the only statutory body which we are dealing with here is the Corporation itself, and the Minister would not wish to be under a statutory duty to determine—and this is one of the effects of the Amendment—the rate of return earned
964
by any subordinate organisation within the Corporation. Whatever the noble Earl has said—and I thought he said something to this effect—1 very much doubt, whether, on reflection, he would want this degree of direct interference in the internal organisation, as opposed to the overall picture. It is not even certain whether each of the subordinate groupings will be intended by the Corporation to break even, or whether the Corporation will be concerned with the central result. Noble Lords who have been in business will be well aware that subsidiary organisations with separate accounts are sometimes organised in companies whose financial results are entirely determined by policies taken in the rest of the organisation. Certainly the Minister's chief concern must be with the central result, and he would not wish to take powers to determine separate financial objectives for the different subordinate bodies in the Corporation's organisation.
It could be that one reason behind this Amendment as drafted is that, with only a central financial objective, the Corporation may be in a position to subsidise one activity from another. I think I can deal with those fears by pointing to the fact that the Corporation published detailed turnover and profit and loss accounts and balance sheets for its different activities at Appendix B at the end of its 1967-68 accounts, and, as my right honourable friend confirmed in another place, Section 25 of the 1967 Act, requiring details of turnover, estimated profit and estimated capital employed is expected to be brought into effect soon. I accept that we shall have to get that point clear. But I think it is going to be brought into effect. This publication should be a sufficient safeguard against cross-subsidisation of diversified activities. I should be very willing, if I have any doubts on the strength of the undertaking which I have given, to inform noble Lords and, if necessary, to reply by Question and Answer.
As to the second main point, the publication of financial objectives, I suggest that as drafted the Amendment appears to require publication only of the financial objective prescribed by the Minister in the accounts, and not, apparently, of a statement of progress towards achieving it. On the former point,

965
we have already given undertakings that the financial objective of the British Steel Corporation will be announced to Parliament. This was stated in another place and an assurance was given. I have already mentioned that the Corporation will publish details in their accounts.
I have thought carefully about this matter because we have had this sort of argument before, and I am not at all averse in principle to writing into legislation the kind of safeguards that we all want to see; but I submit that in view of the assurances given this Amendment is unnecessary, and, since the Government cannot agree to a duty to prescribe financial objectives, which is the effect of the Amendment, for the subordinate groupings, the question of the publication of that aspect in the accounts does not arise.
However, I appreciate that what the noble Earls are really after is the maximum amount of information, and I have drawn the attention of my right honourable friend to the concern expressed in your Lordships' House that information should be published in the Corporation's accounts about the results of its subordinate groupings, and he has assured me that he will have this matter in mind in his discussions with the Corporation on the form of their consolidated accounts. As the new organisation has not yet even been set up, however, it is impossible to go any further at this stage; but I hope the assurances I have given meet the concern of the noble Earl.
I am sorry to have spoken at length, but it is a complicated subject. I think we are agreed on the purpose. I think the assurances I have given are as practical as possible in the circumstances as they apply now. I know both noble Earls will be vigilant in the future, and if the Corporation accounts do not give the sort of information they want I shall expect to hear from them; and I expect the Minister will also hear from the noble Earls' honourable friends in another place.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that detailed reply. I think it was very useful, and worth giving. I am also grateful to my noble friend for having supported the Amendment so cogently. From what the noble Lord has
966
said, I think he accepts the principle and the intention behind this Amendment, and that indeed our aims are similar. I was glad to hear him refer to the details which are given in the 1967-68 accounts, and the details which are likely to come in the future. Clearly, at this hour there would be no use dividing the Committee—in any case I do not think then: is a quorum. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I would make only one or two very brief remarks. I am grateful to noble Lords for their co-operation. I want to emphasise that the capital structure we are proposing does not by itself improve the efficiency of the industry or its financial return, but we are satisfied that after the heavy initial losses—we discussed how they came about—there is a strong case for this reorganisation. I would again draw attention to the safeguards, for there are safeguards. The first is the policy on public dividend capital. I have mentioned that. The second safeguard is the financial objective. The other main purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the dissolution of the publicly owned Steel companies. I know that there will be some regrets at this; but we have given the reasons. I stress that the famous names will still be capable of being used. But it is the firm recommendation of the British Steel Corporation that this is how they should proceed. Behind the provisions in the Bill is the search for greater efficiency. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for a Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill now read 3a.—(Lord Shackleton).
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I should like to make it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that whatever

967
criticisms we on this side may have made of this Bill we wish nothing but success to British Steel. We hope that Lord Melchett will make of his Corporation a model of a nationalised industry—if any nationalised industry can be a model of industry.
We were not able to stop the nationalisation of steel despite the fact that we did not like it. We do not like this socialistic tendency to nationalise all those industries, the commanding heights of the economy. We do not think it is healthy to do so; and, by and large, the returns on capital have not been satisfactory. We get more offices and bureaucracy and, I fear, less efficiency. My noble friends made all these points and more during the passage of the 1967 Bill and I still think that the Government clearly underestimate the value of retaining company names. But since we have to accept what the Government have done, I can only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will make the British Steel Corporation effectively competitive internationally in what is still a competitive world—even if British industry in general under the present Government seems domestically to become less and less competitive.
It was very sad to read in The Times Business News this morning of the British Steel Corporation's recent strike losses, which I gather amounted to nearly 150, 000 tons. It seems that five out of the 72 blast furnaces are out of action because of strikes at two of the biggest plants; and that three out of five blast furnaces at Port Talbot are out of action. Other details were given—
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, is the noble Earl blaming this on nationalisation?
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, what I was about to say, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, realises this, was that we might express the hope that this strike will be resolved at the earliest possible date. We must all have at heart the success of the British steel industry at home and its success as an exporter abroad.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will not reply to the noble Earl's political remarks. We have heard them so often.
968
They still show a great lack of understanding of what goes on in the world. But I would just give one more piece of information about the unofficial strike at Port Talbot. This is worrying; but there is some encouragement in the fact that a meeting took place yesterday between the men's unions and the General Purposes Committee of the T.U.C We must all hope that the strike will shortly be settled.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL [H.L.]
12.30 a.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Close seasons for seals]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("31st July") and insert ("31st August").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause provides for the close seasons for these two species of seals protected during their breeding season. Most of the common seals pup during the months of June and July but a few carry on through the month of August and I am advised by the National Environmental Research Council that it is advisable to extend the season over which they are protected to the end of that month. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders prohibiting killing seals]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, it is implicit here that the Minister would act only after consultation with the Council, but I am advised that it is better to make it explicit. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("where") insert ("after consultation with the Council").—[The Earl of Cranbrook.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:
Entry upon land
".—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, authorise in writing any person to enter upon any land for the purpose of

(a) obtaining information relating to seals for the purpose of any of the functions of the Secretary of State under this Act;

(b) killing or taking seals for the purpose of preventing damage to fisheries by seals.

(2) Any such authorisation shall specify

(a) the land to be entered upon;

(b) the period, not exceeding eight weeks, during which the power of entry upon the land may be exercised;

(c) the purpose of the entry;

(d) the number, species and age of seals that may be killed or taken where the purpose of the entry is to prevent damage to fisheries by seals.

(3) Any such authorisation may impose other conditions on the exercise by the person authorised of the power of entry or the manner of giving effect to the authorisation.
(4) The Secretary of State shall give not less than forty eight hours' notice, or in the case of an authorisation to enter upon land for the purpose of killing or taking seals not less than twenty eight days' notice, to the occupier of any land of his intention to issue an authorisation and of the purpose of the authorisation; and in the case of an authorisation to enter upon land for the purpose of killing or taking seals the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations that might be made by the occupier and shall not issue the authorisation if before the expiration of the notice the occupier satisfies the Secretary of State that he has killed or taken the number of seals which the Secretary of State proposes to specify in the authorisation.
(5) Any seals killed or taken by a person authorised under this section to enter upon land shall belong to the Secretary of State and may be disposed of as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(6) Any person authorised under this section to enter upon any land shall, if required by the occupier of that land, produce his authority and may take with him upon that land such other persons as may be necessary.
(7) If any person wilfuly obstructs any person authorised by the Secretary of State exercising a power of entry under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(8) Any reference in this section to the Secretary of State shall, in relation to England and Wales, be deemed to include a reference to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and any reference to land shall include land covered by water."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing
970
in my name. Though it is a lengthy Amendment, I feel that it is self-explanatory and needs no further description by me—which may be of some relief to your Lordships with less stamina than the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Amendment meets the points which were made and which received the approval of the vast majority of your Lordships during the previous stages of the. Bill. Any legislation on animals seems to raise passions, and when legislation on such attractive animals as seals proceeds with such harmony I feel that a word of appreciation is due for the help given by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham; the officials of the various Ministries; the National Trust and the N.E.R.C.; and congratulations are due to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Their help and co-operation has produced what I hope your Lordships will agree should now be a useful Bill. I beg to move.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for his kind reference to the help that my officials have given in this matter. I intervene now only at the request of my noble friend Lord Chorley who mentioned to me earlier—I was going to say this evening, but it is now yesterday—that he will be unable to attend the end of our proceedings; and he asked me to express his regret.
Your Lordships will recall that at an earlier stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Chorley, on behalf of the National Trust, opposed the inclusion in the Bill of powers of compulsory access:, although everyone else accepted the Amendment in principle. On that occasion I asked the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to withdraw their Amendments because although the Government (as I said on Second Reading) very much wanted provisions in the Bill for the right of access under proper conditions, the Amendment then proposed was not, in our view, wholly suitable; and I offered to help in the drafting of another Amendment if that one was withdrawn. Happily, this was done and we now have the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and which, in the Government's view, is eminently satisfactory.

971
I would also add that in the interim we have had discussions with representatives of the National Trust and I think that the new clause which has been moved by the noble Lord should now provide for every possible eventuality and will not allow any encroachment on the rights of anyone, including the National Trust, which could be resented by anyone; and that what is now proposed will be in the best interests of the whole objective of this Bill which I think is generally supported not only by animal lovers, but also by all those who want to see proper protection for fishing interests.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:

Giving of notice
".—(1) Any notice required by this Act to be given to any person shall be duly given if it is delivered to him, or left at his proper address, or sent to him by post.
(2) Any such notice required to be given to an incorporated company or body shall be duly given if given to the secretary or clerk of the company or body.
(3) For the purposes of this section and of section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 the proper address of any person to whom any such notice is to be given shall, in the case of the secretary or clerk of any incorporated company or body, be that of the registered or principal office of the company or body, and in any other case be the last-known address of the person in question.
(4) Where any such notice is to be given to a person as being the person having any interest in land, and it is not practicable after reasonable enquiry to ascertain his name or address, the notice may be given by addressing it to him by the description of the person having that interest in the land (naming it),
972
and delivering the notice to some responsible person on the land or by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous object on the land."—(Lord Burton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I feel that I should express my grateful thanks to noble Lords who have helped ! me to make this Bill as satisfactory as I think it now is, meeting, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, some of the objections which were raised during the course of its progress here. I hope that at some future date it may pass through both Houses as an agreed measure which everybody will accept.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to extend my personal congratulations to the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before one o'clock.