Lords Sitting of 25 July 1969

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

I.M.F. LOANS AND TRANSFERS OF CAPITAL
11.5 a.m.
Lord BALOGH: 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 when they last obtained a waiver for Article VI (especially Section 1 (a) of the Final Act of the Bretton Woods Conference governing the International Monetary Fund; when this waiver will have to be renewed; and whether they will ask for its renewal.]
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the policies carried out by the International Monetary Fund under its Articles are governed not only by the Articles but by occasional formal Decisions of the Board of Executive Directors interpreting the Articles. On July 28, 1961, the Executive Board decided that the use of the Fund's resources for capital transfers was not precluded. No question of waiver therefore arises.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he realises that the Fund's by-laws provide that a member may not make use of the Fund's resources to meet a large or sustained outflow of capital; secondly, that the gross outflow of capital amounted last year to £621 million when our old deficit was only £408 million, and that capital exports since 1965 in investment amounted to some £2, 000 million? Thirdly, is my noble friend aware that the returns in 1967, the last year for which data are available, show that on direct investments we earned only 7-5 per cent.—
Several Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord BALOGH: I am asking a question, whether my noble friend is aware that on portfolio investments we earned barely 3 per cent. and we paid far higher interest rates for the hot money that we borrowed in order to be able to do this?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend's supplementary question is really divided into two parts: one is whether we are doing wrong in allowing this outflow of capital investments; and secondly, whether it is a good thing or not that this capital investment should be allowed. The second point, does not really arise on the question which my noble friend has put; it is a matter for discussion. We have had a debate in this House and I have no doubt that we shall have a further debate about this subject. On the first point, however, as to whether we are doing right under the Articles of the I.M.F., the fact is that the Directors themselves must decide whether or not we are doing right, and they have not raised any difficulty at all.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, arising out of that question, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government still adhere to the view expressed in the National Plan, that this country is investing abroad to an extent which we cannot maintain; and is he aware that over the last ten years our receipts from foreign investments have exceeded our outlay by something like £4, 000 million? And is it not the case that since the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, ceased to advise the Government in these matters the views of the Government have been considerably modified?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I would not be so certain about the second part of the noble Lord's question. There is a difficult balance here. Of course it is a good thing to invest overseas and of course we are benefiting from the investments that we have made in the past. The question which my noble friend is raising is whether it is a good thing to allow capital investment of money which really is not ours in the first place. That is the real point at issue, and somewhere you have to strike a balance. Taking everything into consideration, we think—and it is a most delicate matter—that the present policy is about right.
The Earl of CROMER: My Lords, while the noble Lord who is replying to this question has done so clearly and plainly, I should like to ask him whether there is indeed any waiver procedure? I myself am not personally aware of it, and if there is no waiver procedure it strikes me as curious that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, who has studied these aspects with such attention for so long, should phrase his question in this particular way. The other point I would ask the noble Lord about is whether to some extent the question is not answered by the ensuing clause of the Articles of the Fund, which says:
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the use of the resources of the Fund … in the ordinary course of trade, banking or other business."
We are of course a banking nation.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this is true; we are a banking nation. But it is also true that in the case of Australia, for example, portfolio investment amounted in 1968 to some £150 million. Whether it is counted as banking or other business is a matter for definition and discussion. As between the two experts, perhaps I might sit down and allow them to argue it out.
The Earl of CROMER: My Lords, may I have a reply to the first question, as to whether there is a waiver procedure?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, Article 6 certainly does not include the provision of a waiver; but I think that what was in my noble friend's mind was that if we were breaking this Article, which I do not accept, then there must be some waiver.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, is there not a waiver in Article 5, and would that not include Article 6?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under Lord Cromer's governorship of the Bank of England we lent what we did not have and thereby got into great difficulties?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl's point, I must have a look at that. I have not got the wording of Article 5. If it is so in Article 5, I will confirm it in writing.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that
1180
the money we lend to less developed countries overseas is of enormous value to their economies and good for the world?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figures I quoted do not include those amounts which were lent by the Government to less developed countries?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if I may say so, I am doubtful whether this issue can best be settled by question and answer. It is a very complex matter, and there are a lot of arguments on both sides.

LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
11.13 a.m.
Lord SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in plans for the development, for recreational purposes, of the River Lea and its banks.]
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HOUSING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Lord Kennet): My Lords, the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority was set up on January 1, 1967, under the Lee Valley Regional Park Act. Last March the Authority published an imaginative development plan. It provides for the development of the Park, which extends from Stratford, in East London, to Ware, in Hertfordshire, a distance of 23 miles. To date the Park Authority have acquired some 300 acres and they are negotiating for another 225 acres. A start has been made on the construction of the first major recreational centre at Picketts Lock in the London borough of Enfield, to provide a multi-purpose sports and leasure centre. Other projects are programmed for early development, including an adventure playground and outdoor play areas on a 9 acre site at Three Mills in the London Borough of Newham.
Lord SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this project will be of tremendous advantage to a multitude of people? In particular

1181
can my noble friend say whether anything is being done to clear away the decaying old houseboats and other craft along the river, particularly adjoining the borough of Waltham Forest?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I am well aware that the project will be of great advantage to many people. As to the question of houseboats, this will be a matter for the Park Authority, who certainly have wide enough powers to carry out that sort of work.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while declaring an interest as a member of the Sports Council, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that having spent a great deal of time looking at this project over the past few years we greatly welcome what has been done, and we look forward to the day when this scheme is fully implemented? Would not my noble friend agree that at the moment the only obstacle preventing its implementation is the restriction on capital expenditure?
Lord KENNET: No, my Lords, I would not quite agree that the only obstacle in the way of implementation is the restriction on capital expenditure. Certainly that restriction is slowing up the development to a speed that is not at all welcome to the Government or anybody else, but in a project of this magnitude there are always obstacles other than financial ones, all of which will be overcome in due course.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that I am right in thinking that in the original plan for this Park drawn up by the Civic Trust there was provision for a voluntary organisation to be brought into being to exist alongside the statutory body brought into life by the Act? Has that plan for a voluntary organisation been adopted? If not, why not? If it has, what is the voluntary organisation up to?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, like other planning and pseudo-planning authorities this Authority must and do rely very largely on the participation and cooperation of people who live there grouped into voluntary organisations and not so grouped. On the details about how they do it, I would ask the noble Lord to give me notice of that question, and perhaps I can inform him later.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I will certainly do that; but cannot the noble Lord say whether the voluntary organisation is in being?
Lord KENNET: No, my Lords; I regret that I cannot.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, has my noble friend any information on whether the complementary plan in the Colne Valley South of Uxbridge to the West of London has started?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, that is another question.

HANDCUFFING OF HAMPSHIRE DEMONSTRATORS
11.16 a.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the six defendants at the Hampshire Assizes on July 22, who had previously refused to be bound over, were brought to court wearing handcuffs.]
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this is a matter for the prison governor's discretion. I might add that if the Home Office had been consulted they would have advised against the use of handcuffs.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Can he say whether the woman defendant in this case was also brought to court wearing handcuffs?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, my understanding is that she was not.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, is this not a matter that calls for some apology on somebody's part? I have seen a photograph, as have many of your Lordships, of these people; and is it not true to say that they looked perfectly rational people who would not require to be handcuffed, especially for such a trivial offence?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there is an appeal which falls to be heard tomorrow, and I should not like to get involved in any detail in this question. On the other hand, it can be said—and I

1183
have had a look at the papers—that these men were not entirely co-operative during their stay in prison. It is also a fact that this particular prison was last in the news when some prisoners escaped while in transit. The governor had the decision to take, and he took it in the light of the circumstances. He no doubt erred on the side of caution, in view of his last experience, and I would not rush into any judgment about apologies being called for. Nevertheless, the whole question of the use of handcuffs is being looked at by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the light of this case.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, but for to-morrow's impending appeal, I should have a good deal to say about this case?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend whether it is not possible to review the whole procedure under which people in this position are sent to prison?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I do not know who these people are in this position. They refused to be bound over. I think that is a separate matter. What I am asked about is the use of handcuffs, and I have said that the Home Secretary, without prejudice in any way to the fact that the ultimate decision must rest with the prison governor, is having the whole question looked at again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, without going into the merits of this particular case, would the noble Lord agree that, in the light of the fact that a number of people now are only too ready to protest at anything, there is a danger that they may misuse the law and its accoutrements in order to attract to themselves the illusion of martyrdom; and that the Government would be well advised to consider this and advise chief constables, and also the governors of prisons, whether they can do anything to avoid such a procedure?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, that is a point of view. At one time I believe we used to write poetry about "Village Hampdens". Now we appear to put them in handcuffs. But I think it is part of the present social scene which might well be looked at. Some people are
1184
undoubtedly being a little exhibitionist, though I am not saying that that applies to these people.
Lord SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can say that the protesters to whom the noble Lord referred are the protesters announced some years ago led by Lord Birkenhead?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend ought to put that question down on the Order Paper.

DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HOUSING BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to; one other Amendment agreed with an Amendment, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement.
TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement.

STANDING ORDERS
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 68 be amended as follows:—
Line 1, leave out ("A claim of a right to vote at elections of Peers of Ireland to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom") and insert ("A claim to any Peerage of Ireland").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. LORDS' ATTENDANCES
The Committee considered whether or not the sessional record of Lords' attendances should be regularly published. They are of the opinion that the printing of this record would not be justified. But they see no reason to place any restriction upon the information contained in the record being made freely available on demand.
2. PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a review of certain Office Assistant posts in the Parliament Office. The Committee authorised the revised rates of pay consequent upon the revised grading.
The Committee also sanctioned a special payment to an Office Assistant in the Library for extra duties.
3. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(i) D.E.O. (69) (Conditions of Service) No. 4. dated 18th April 1969—Revision of Allowances

(ii) D.E.O. (69) (Pay) No. 1, dated 25th June 1969—Central Pay Increase 1969

to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
4. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised the payment of the expenses incurred in connection with the Select Committee on the Development of Tourism Bill.
The Committee authorised the payment of an increased charge under the agreement with Haynes Secretarial Services for the supply of typists for the reporting of Debates.
5. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:—

(a) Death Gratuity to the legal personal representative of the late Ernest Alfred John Colmer, Chief Office Assistant, who died on 4th June 1969 and a Widow's and Child's pension.

(b) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. Thomas Eric Webster, Attendant, who retires on the 25th October, 1969.

(c) Gratuity to Mrs, Henrietta Grace Ward, Housemaid, on her resignation on the 26th July 1969.

The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NURSES BILL [H.L.]
11.24 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendments
[References are to Bill (69) as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–9]
Clause 2, page 3, line 22, leave out "nurses registered in the general part of the register" and insert "registered general nurses"
Clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out from "registered" to "prescribed" in line 26 and insert "general nurses or nurses registered in any part of the register"
Clause 2, page 3, line 38, leave out "a nurse enrolled in the general part of the roll" and insert "an enrolled general nurse"
Clause 2, page 3, line 40, leave out from "enrolled" to "prescribed" in line 41 and insert "general nurses or nurses enrolled in any part of the roll "
Clause 3, page 5, line 42, leave out from "be" to "shall" in line 43 and insert "registered general nurses"
Clause 3, page 5, line 43, leave out "nurses so registered" and insert "registered general nurses or nurses registered in any part of the register prescribed under section 2 (2) (f) of this Act; "
Schedule 1, page 10, line 19, at end insert—
"5. In section 34 of that Act the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place:—
'registered general nurse' means a nurse whose name is included in the general part of the register."
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
"'enrolled general nurse' means a nurse whose name is included in the general part of the roll."
Page 11, line 16, at end insert—
"'registered general nurse ' means a nurse whose name is included in the general part of the register."
Baroness SEROTA: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 9 en bloc, as the changes which these Amendments involve in the Bill since it was reported to the House are very minor ones. They are all based on what I hope your Lordships will agree is the reasonable consideration that references to nurses registered in the different parts of the register and, in future, references to nurses enrolled in the different parts of the roll should all be in the same form. It is these changes in drafting which have necessitated the Amendments to Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with the General Nursing Council for England and Wales; to Clause 3, which deals with the General Nursing Council for Scotland; and to the definitions in Schedule 1. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 9.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
11.26 a.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments, be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments, be now considered.—(Lord Kennet.)
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I must enter this protest. We are being asked to consider this Commons Message at a time when, I am informed, the Commons Hansard for the day when these matters were considered in another place is not available in the Printed Paper Office. This seems to me quite improper. If there is to be any reasonable discussion of these matters it is not only desirable but, in my view, essential that it should be possible for Members of your Lordships' House to read what was said in another place. I do not know the reason why the Commons
1188
Hansard for yesterday is not in the Printed Paper Office, though I am quite sure that the blame does not rest upon the members of our staff there. If it were not that the Opposition are as anxious as the Government to see this Bill receive the Royal Assent before we rise, I should feel obliged to oppose this Motion. I trust your Lordships will not think that any precedent is being allowed to arise by the Opposition if I do not press my opposition to it.
The MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. This problem has only just been drawn to my attention, and I have not yet had an opportunity of finding out why the Report is not available in the Printed Paper Office. However, I will look into the matter and will give the reasons to the noble Lord as soon as I can.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 124 as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[No. 1–3]
Clause 50, page 27, line 19, leave out "January 1971" and insert "April 1970"
Clause 50, page 27, line 22, leave out "July 1971" and insert "October 1970"
Clause 50, page 27, line 26, leave out "January 1972" and insert "April 1971"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they would unduly advance the dates proposed by the Bill.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed. Let me add my personal apology, and say that I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, at the lack of the Commons Hansard. Parliament does go at a fair clip at this time of the year, but we are agreed that we want to get the Bill through, and I think it would be fair to say that none of the disagreed Amendments which have come back to us concerns matters which we have not fully discussed here. The Reasons given by the Commons for disagreeing to our Amendments, which are on the Marshalled List this morning, are pretty closely related to the issues which

1189
we discussed at the time, so I think we may take it that the Commons will have had the same points in mind as we ourselves had on this matter.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 are, of course, those which bring forward the dates for conversion into rent regulation in the already qualified cases, and the Commons Reason for disagreeing to them is a very fair epitome and concentration of the reasons which were fully discussed in this House at both earlier stages. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, let me say at once that I do not for one moment hold the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, blameworthy for the absence of the Commons Hansard from the Printed Paper Office. I feel sure that the fault lies outside the control of anybody in this House. I have already stated that the Opposition are anxious to see this Bill on the Statute Book, even with its defects such as they are, and we do not wish to hold it up.
It is perhaps important to get on the Record again the effect of the Commons disagreement to these very wise Amendments which were made by your Lordships. We are discussing here the dates when houses, which are now the subject of controlled rents at twice 1939 gross value, shall be admitted to rent regulation. I think it is accepted by all Parties that controlled rents are now hopelessly out of date and that it is impossible for any landlord to keep a house in proper repair on those controlled rents, unless he has means from elsewhere. The Government are proposing that the change to rent regulation shall not start until January, 1971, and shall be phased over a period of twelve months from then. It stands to reason that, controlled rents being wrong, there should be a change to proper rents, fair rents, regulated rents, as soon as possible, and your Lordships' Amendments were designed to bring those dates, each of them, nine months earlier. That would be an act of justice and it would also undoubtedly
1190
be in the interests of the houses—and I had thought that one of the Government's main purposes in bringing forward this Housing Bill was to maintain and improve the quality of our stock of houses. Here, however, the decision taken in another place is a backward step. I protest against the unwisdom of it, but in view of my desire to see the Bll on the Statute Book I will not press my objection.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, since the noble Lord has gone a little more fully into it than I expected, perhaps the House will bear with me while I re-record the one main reason why the Government are against the course he proposes. It is this. We fear—I do not say we are certain, but we fear—that it would overload the rent officer services. For that reason, we have put the dates late and taken power for the Minister to advance them if his fears are unjustified. The Government consider that that is wiser than to put the dates early and perhaps take power to retard them if the rent officer services get overloaded
On Question, Motion agreed to

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [No. 3A]
  Clause 79, page 46, line 20, leave out from "it" to "be" in line 21 and insert "Schedule 7 to this Act shall apply and, if the tenancy was granted before the commencement of this Act, "
  The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
  Line 3, leave out "commencement" and insert "passing".
  Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 3A.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kennet.)
  Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I take it that this is a drafting Amendment. The original Lords Amendment was a Government Amendment. I can only presume that the Government got into a muddle and got it wrong and are now having to correct it.
  Lord KENNET: My Lords, it is a drafting Amendment, and it turns on the

  1191
  substantial point of whether "commencement" or "passing" is a better word to use for the passing or commencement of an Act.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 4–6]
Schedule 3, page 56, line 7, leave out from "of" to end of line 13 and insert "two years delay".
Schedule 3, page 56, line 29, leave out from "second" to end of line 31 and insert "column".
Leave out lines 33 to 41 and insert—

"Year of period of delay

Appropriate Proportion

1st year

one-third

2nd year

two-thirds"

The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because they would shorten the period over which increases of rent resulting from the Bill are to be spread.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments No. 4 to 6, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Kennet.)
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, would it be posible to have a word of explanation from the noble Lord without our getting out of order?
Lord KENNET: My Lords, these are the Amendments which phase rent increases consequent on conversion from control to regulation over three annual stages instead of five; and, as I stated on behalf of the Government at earlier stages, the Government's judgment is that to give adequate protection to the tenant against hardships arising from rent increases on conversion from control to regulation, five equal annual stages, subject to the weekly minimum of 7s. 6d., are needed, rather than three; and that appears to be the view which has commended itself to the House of Commons.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, no consideration seems to have been given in another place to justice to the landlords. These are the people
1192
who are always regarded as the good landlords—the people who have improved their houses; whose houses, by all the tests in the Bill, are satisfactory. I am still quite unable to understand why these people should be damnified in the Bill, in the sense that it is to take longer before they can claim the full fair rent for their houses, in comparison with the landlords who have not yet improved their houses. The latter class—those who have still to improve their houses and have not yet got round to doing it—are to be allowed to claim the full fair rent after two years' delay. One of the main reasons why your Lordships agreed to these three Amendments was that there seemed to be no reason whatever for your Lordships' House or Parliament in general to be prejudiced against the landlords who had improved their houses already.
All we could extract from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in debate was that it was a matter of judgment, and I ventured to say that Parliamentary debates would be greatly shortened if, instead of reasoned explanations, the Government spokesman simply said that it was a matter of judgment. I gather now that it is a matter of judgment as between one House of Parliament and another. In these circumstances, it is more than usually difficult for me to carry on the argument any further.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, "a matter of judgment" is one way of putting it, but I think it is pretty well known to anybody who knows anything of the history of this country and its present political situation that, on the whole, the Conservative Party tends to favour the interest of landlords and, on the whole, the Labour Party tends to favour the interest of tenants. And when, at a certain point, there is a very fine balance of judgment between two ways of settling these interests, one infinitesimally in favour of the landlord and the other infinitesimally in favour of the tenant, it is not to be wondered at that a Labour Government should choose the latter.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, I would strongly suggest that the most important thing of all is to consider the interest of the houses.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's suggestion an astonishing one. A house has No interest. The people who live in it have the main interest, and the people who own it have another interest which, I would submit, is secondary. The house itself has No Interest.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

POST OFFICE BILL
11.37 a.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (100) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.1–3]
Clause 9, page 9, line 30, leave out "provision thereof is, in its opinion," and insert "Post Office, after consultation with the Minister, considers the provision thereof"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment is at variance with the purpose of the Bill, which is to give the Post Office freedom in matters of day to day administration.
Clause 26, page 29, line 26, after "reception" insert "or to operate a broadcast relay service"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment seeks to put relay operators in a privileged position by exempting them from the telecommunication monopoly which the Bill gives to the Post Office.
Clause 27, page 29, line 28, leave out from beginning to "either" in line 30 and insert "The Minister may grant a licence"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment is inconsistent with the grant to the Post Office of a telecommunication monopoly.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in moving that this House doth not insist on these three Amendments may I just say that when your Lordships considered the Post Office Bill a number of Amendments moved by the other side of the House were accepted, and there were five which were taken to a Division and on which the Government were defeated. The other place therefore had five Amendments of the Lords to consider. I think it worth saying that the Government and the other place, after further consideration of what was involved and the reasons put forward by noble Lords opposite—including the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in particular, on one of them—accepted two of the five Amendments. I think this was a fair score and that it ought to be recorded. On the basis of that indication of the good will of the Government, I hope that, in asking your Lordships to accept the Commons decision on the other three, it will not be necessary for me to explain it beyond the explanation set out on the Order Paper. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, we on this side of the House are naturally disappointed that Her Majesty's Government saw fit to ask another place to reject the three Amendments we are considering today. I hope Her Majesty's Government will keep a particular eye open to see that none of the fears expressed in both Houses on these issues are justified by events. We on these Benches certainly will. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, Her Majesty's Government have accepted two out of the five Amendments pressed in your Lordships' House. In view of that not unsatisfactory percentage, I feel that it would be churlish to dwell more on the three failures. I should therefore like to thank Her Majesty's Government for their change of heart over the other two. I should particularly like to thank Her Majesty's Government and the Post Office for accepting the Amendment, first

1195
moved at a very late stage in the Bill's progress, which extends the Post Office immunity to shipping companies, air lines and others when carrying mail.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
11.42 a.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (105) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1 and 2.]
Clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 24 to 33 and insert—

'(a) to carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on any road within Greater London, and with the consent of the Minister on any road outside Greater London, but the Minister shall not give his consent under this paragraph unless satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable that the Executive should carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on a particular route outside Greater London;

(b) to carry passengers by contract carriage on roads within Greater London, and where the passengers consist of a pleasure party of persons employed by the Council, with or without their families or friends, within a radius of 100 miles from Charing Cross;

(bb) to carry passengers by any form of rail or water transport (including hovercraft) within, to or from Greater London and, so far as is requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers under this paragraph, between places outside Greater London."
Clause 6, page 6, line 35, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("(b) or (bb)").
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because these amendments would place a limitation on the operating powers of the London Transport Executive which is unacceptable and which is unreasonable having regard to the provision already made by the Bill to ensure that those powers are not abused.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed. The House will remember that on Committee we had a full debate on this matter and that noble Lords opposite expressed their fears that under this clause the new Authority would be able to operate willy-nilly throughout the country. We sought to show noble Lords opposite that their fears would not come about. The House of Commons have now agreed with the views that were expressed by me in this matter and I hope that the House will not insist on its Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, notification that this stage of the Bill would be taken this morning reached this side of the House only yesterday evening. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Nugent, who has been dealing with this Bill on this side of the House, is not present today. We also appreciate on this side the desire of the Government and the Greater London Council to pass this Bill into law as rapidly as possible. Any ineptitude of mine in commenting on the Commons Reasons must be increased by the fact that I was unable to read them until a quarter of an hour ago.
The effect of these Amendments was to maintain the traditional balance between London Transport and the other operators which the Bill seeks to upset. The Amendment was drafted with the knowledge that London Transport has not to any extent operated contract services for many years; but the new L.T.E. is going to have a complete monopoly within the Greater London Council area and the Amendments would have protected from this strong monopoly competition other operators in the wide areas opened up to London Transport under this Bill.
Bearing the Commons Reason in mind, certainly there is a safeguard in Clause 12; but this will allow the Minister to intervene only if he sees the result of unfair trading. We on this side take the view that is not in any way as

1197
effective as was the Amendment. However, time will tell whether the safeguards for private operators are going to be effective. I trust in particular that the Minister's powers under Clause 12 will not in fact be needed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Clause 6, page 8, line 12, after "(d)" insert "(i)"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because this Amendment places a limitation on the manufacturing powers of the London Transport Executive which would be appropriate only if, as is not the case, the Bill conferred on the Executive a general power to manufacture for the outside market.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed. The Government sought to meet the fears of noble Lords opposite by later Amendments on the Report stage, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will now feel so reasonably content as not to insist on their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, it is, I know, the view of my noble friend Lord Nugent that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did all that he could to meet us in moving Amendments to Clause 12 of the Bill which placed obligations on the London Transport Executive to include certain financial details about manufacturing in annual reports and which empowered the Minister to order any unprofitable marketing by the L.T.E. to discontinue. But even at this late stage I must point out that these Amendments fail to oblige the new L.T.E. to manufacture profitably. On this side we felt that this Amendment was desirable because under the Transport Act 1968 the national transport authorities are going to be able to re-sell L.T.E. products; and although the Government protested in both Houses that this would be contrary to their intentions, these good intentions are not contained in the Bill.
We can only hope that the alternative Government Amendments which Lord
1198
Shepherd moved to Clause 12 will be effective, and that with the fresh start provided by this Bill the London Transport Executive will take great care before committing capital to the manufacture of goods already to be found on the market.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
11.47 a.m.
The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Gardiner): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (202) as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 and 2]
Clause 92, page 57, line 9, leave cut subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) If any person, not being a trustee savings bank, takes or uses, in connection with any business carried on by him, the title of "savings bank certified under the Act of 1863", "savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954" or "savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1969" he shall be guilty of an offence."
Clause 92, page 57, line 20, at end insert—
"(3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The Lord CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these two Amendments relate to the same point, and therefore I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These Amendments raise a point on this Bill which was never considered by your Lordships at all. Therefore I must explain what has happened. Your Lordships will remember that until 1949 we had only pure Consolidation Bills; that is to say, Bills which had accurately

1199
to state the law as it was. My noble and learned predecessor, Lord Jowitt, thought that this was very restrictive and that it should be possible when consolidating to put right small things which were obviously wrong. Therefore, under the 1949 Act consolidation was allowed with minor corrections and improvements. This was found to be very advantageous, although from time to time there was a good deal of understandable argument as to what were minor corrections and improvements.
Your Lordships may remember that in this Parliament, on a Bill called the Shell Fish Bill, it was found that the 1949 Act procedure was unduly restrictive. I sought to widen it, and after some doubts the House agreed that we could have a third kind of consolidation; namely, consolidation with amendments of the law recommended by the Law Commission. But as under the 1949 Act Parliament is not allowed to alter the decision of the Joint Consolidation Committee, the further extension was not done by Statute, because no such provision was thought necessary: being partly experimental, it was done on the footing that it would be open to either House to disagree on one or more points with the Report of the Joint Consolidation Committee.
My Lords, this Trustee Savings Banks Bill is a second Bill of that kind. It was based on a Report from the Law Commission who recommended 21 amendments to the law in order to effect a satisfactory consolidation. Of course, many of the 21 Amendments could have been minor corrections and improvements under the 1949 Act but it is not necessary to specify which were which. This gives us a broader power of amending when consolidating.
When the Bill went to the Joint Consolidation Committee they accepted 16 out of the 21 recommendations made by the Law Commission and they disagreed to five. Of those five it seemed to me that three were clearly right, and the Law Commission agreed. On the other two, which dealt with very much the same point, I was frankly doubtful; but I took no point on them because this was on July 16, which was only nine days before we were due to rise. I did not know what view might be taken in the other place and I thought it would
1200
not be wise of me to take any point on this at this stage of the Session, and that I had better get the Bill. When the Bill went to the other place Mr. Graham Page, who has always taken a great interest in Consolidation Bills—which I welcome—asked for a Committee stage, as he was entitled to do. On the Committee stage he took the point with reference to these two recommendations that the Law Commission had been right and the Joint Consolidation Committee was wrong.
The point at issue is a fairly simple one, and it is this. Both Amendments arise on Clause 92 of the Bill. If I may put it quite shortly, about a hundred years ago the then law provided that:
"If a bank, association, company or other person not being a trustee savings bank uses or adopts the title of savings bank certified under the Act of 1863 or savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954 as their or his designation or in carrying on business the members of the association or company or as the case may be the said persons shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
Obviously people ought not to carry on business as a trustee savings bank when they are not. But it will be observed that the penalty is imposed not on the company which does it but on the shareholders, the members. Of course, we do not do that nowadays. The common Clause is one making liable to a penalty the company and the director or manager who actually does the thing which is prohibited. So the Law Commission were saying, "It is going to be very unsatisfactory in this consolidation if we leave this old formula which imposes a liability on the shareholders of the company"(who, I suppose, in those days were very much more directly concerned with the control of the company than they are today)"and we ought to translate this into the modern form of imposing a penalty on the company". That is what we usually call "the directors' clause".
The view which the Joint Committee took about that was that this was going a bit far, in the sense that it was imposing on people a criminal liability which had not been imposed on them before; and what the Joint Committee eventually said, if I may paraphrase it, was: "Well, let us disagree with this recommendation and then the House, either House, if they think this is all right, can always accept it." Indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, said, "I am

1201
in favour of taking it out and leaving the House to put it in if it wants to." Therefore, if I may say so, I think that everybody has been right throughout. The Law Commission were quite right to make their recommendation. I would not in the least criticise the Joint Consolidation Committee for taking the view, "If we take it out, this will draw attention to it; and then it is up to either House to put it back if they want to."
My Lords, I hope that I was right in thinking that at that stage in the Session, only nine days from the day when the House was going to rise, I had better perhaps leave it. Obviously, it is not a point of great importance. I do not know whether anybody ever has pretended to be a trustee savings bank when he was not, and I think it very unlikely that anybody will pretend to be a trustee savings bank, so it did not seem to me really to matter. Mr. Graham Page, having taken the point, and the other House now taking the view that it is better to have the modern form rather than the old form, I hope that this House will concur. Therefore I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I apologise for having missed the first short part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but of course he has summarised very accurately what happened. I cannot, from memory, recall whether I was actually at the Joint Consolidation Committee when this matter was dealt with, but I certainly read the proceedings, and the noble and learned Lord has rightly paraphrased what happened. I suggest to the House that these Amendments are right; but I also agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said, that where there is such a provision as this which imposes a novel criminal liability on people who have not previously been liable, then it is for Parliament, and not for the Joint Consolidation Committee, to say so.
I think that this has been a salutary exercise, because it shows the procedure whereby these Bills (which are mainly consolidation Bills but which have the recommendations of the Law Commission
1202
attached to them and which are discussed with them) can be discussed in either House afterwards. It further shows that we are not bound to accede one way or the other to what the Joint Committee says, and that the Joint Committee should be entitled to require both Houses to make up their minds on these joints. On the merits, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is not now the shareholders who ought to carry this liability but the officers and the directors who obviously, if this thing occurred at all, would be the people responsible for it. It is the modern form, and I hope that the House will agree with the Amendments.
Lord ILFORD: My Lords, I was present at the meeting of the Joint Consolidation Committee. I must admit that my recollection of what took place on that occasion is not now very vivid, but it may be of some satisfaction to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that in so far as my recollection goes it confirms the statement that he has just made to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11.57 a.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in order that the formalities may be completed before Royal Assent is notified, I beg to move, that the House do now adjourn until ten minutes past twelve o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and on Question Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL ASSENT
12.12 p.m.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to inform the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Appropriation Act,

Finance Act,

Housing Act,

Housing (Scotland) Act,

Transport (London) Act,

Overseas Resources Development Act,

Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act,

1203

Sharing of Church Buildings Act,

Age of Majority (Scotland) Act,

Medical Act,

National Mod (Scotland) Act,

Architects Registration (Amendment) Act,

Air Corporations Act,

National Insurance Act,

Iron and Steel Act,

Family Law Reform Act,

Nurses Act,

Post Office Act,

Education (Scotland) Act,

Trustee Savings Banks Act,

Development of Tourism Act,

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (King's Lynn) Act,

Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

East Green, Aberdeen Order Confirmation Act,

Forth Ports Authority Order Confirmation Act,

Whitgift Charities Act,

Lever Park Act,

Portsmouth Corporation Act,

York Corporation Act,

City of London (Various Powers) Act,

Witham Navigation Company Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act,

Saint Saviour, Paddington Act,

British Railways Act,

Kidderminster Corporation Act,

Saint Stephen, Clapham Park Act,

Bedford Corporation Act,

Cardiff Corporation Act,

Bradford Corporation Act,

Essex River and South Essex Water Act,

London Transport Act,

North East Lincolnshire Water Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act,

Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure,

Synodical Government Measure.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, before the House adjourns may I, on behalf of my noble friends, wish all your Lordships a happy Recess.