Lords Sitting of 5 March 1970

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

THE ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
LORD BROCKWAY: 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whether they will substitute a more current term for Honours bestowed in recognition of public service for the outdated term "British Empire" (M.B.E., etc.).]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): NO, my Lords. Such a possibility has been carefully considered, but in the absence of any widespread desire for a change, the Government see no advantage in seeking to disturb the present arrangements.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer, which I expected. May I ask him this question? What is the use of an honour, and making one a Member of the Order of the British Empire, or a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, when the Empire ceased to exist in the last decade? Is it not ironic that many of those who have received this honour have received it for their public service for transforming the Empire into a Commonwealth?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think there is significance in some of the remarks of my noble friend, but I some-times wonder what particular role the members of the Order of the Garter play.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that these honours will disappear when we go into the Common Market and the Empire will be no more?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, particularly with reference to the Garter, which has a historic significance that has not been out-dated by tradition, whether he recalls (I ought not to say this, and I apologise for doing so) that Queen Victoria was called Empress of India? Is not this particular honour just as out of date? Could not the name be changed, not to "Commonwealth", because other Governments are concerned, but at least to a Knight or Commander of the Order of the United Kingdom?
LORD BELSTEAD:My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that in certain circumstances there can be an illogical affection for something which is old?
LORD SHACKLETON:My Lords, I agree entirely. It is also true that the Monarchy is the Defender of the Faith, which has a historic significance. We could extend this also to the Order of the Bath.
LORD KILBRACKEN:My Lords, has my noble Leader considered the case of St. Michael and St. George? Has not St. George recently been de-frocked?
THE EARL OF ARRAN:My Lords, is it not a fact that this House is still held in affection, antiquated though it may be?
LORD SHACKLETON:My Lords, I hope that it is held in affection, not per-haps by everybody, but at any rate by many people.

HOUSE OF LORDS MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3.10 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: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 the Leader of the House whether he will invite the Procedure Committee to review the form in which the Minutes of Proceedings of this House are compiled, so as to provide a true and simple account of what actually happened in the House in the order in which it happened, with ancillary matters, such as Papers and certain items of Judicial and Private Business, relegated to appropriately marked sections at the end.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is himself free, as is any other noble Lord, to ask for any matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee; but if he feels diffident about himself approaching the Chairman of Committees, I shall be happy to act as an intermediary.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his Answer. I can assure him that it is not diffidence that would keep me from approaching the Lord Chairman of Committees. May I ask the noble Lord whether he would" agree that it is some-what anomalous that our Minutes of, Proceedings do not mention the fact that there is such an item in our business as Starred Questions, whereas often there are in the Minutes of Proceedings thirty or more items of which no one who has sat through the proceedings of the House from beginning to end has even heard?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it may well be that the noble Lord has a valid point here. The noble Lord is very experienced in looking at the Minutes, and he understands where to look. These "bookkeeping" entries have to be made somewhere. I would hesitate to suggest that we should start trying to arrange the Minutes in a way which might lead the Clerks into dangerous waters. I am sure that the Committee for Procedure would consider this matter, but I am not sure that it would be right in principle for me to advise on it. The Leader of the House occupies a very equivocal position. It is really for noble Lord themselves to pursue their aims, and now that I know that the noble Lord himself is prepared to approach the Chairman of Committees, I hope he will do so. I should warn him that the Committee for Procedure have a lot of work on hand at the moment, but no doubt they will consider this point. It is an interesting one.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS IN SOUTH WALES COALFIELD
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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, according to figures released by
478
the Ministry of Technology, the incidence of pneumoconiosis in the South Wales coalfield is twice as high as the average for the rest of Britain's coal mines.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, although our knowledge of the aetiology of coal workers' pneumoconiosis is still incomplete, recent research suggests that the principal cause is likely to be the greater weight of the respirable dust particles in the mining environment in South Wales. A further contributory factor may have been the earlier age at which miners in South Wales traditionally began work on the coal face, which is the dustiest part of the pit. Because of the length of time taken for the disease to develop, the present prevalence reflects conditions during several past decades. A recent National Coal Board X-ray survey appears to show that between 1959 and 1968 the disease progressed more slowly in South Wales than over the country as a whole.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him this further question? Are there not more stringent methods of detecting the concentration of dust? For instance, is there not now a method, as I understand there to be, of defecting the dust by weight instead of by particle? May I ask whether that method could be introduced? It would enable a man to leave the coal face at an earlier stage.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, perhaps I should say that recommended limits of dustiness have always been stricter in the anthracite areas of South Wales because of the greater hazards there. As my noble friend has indicated, until now the limits have been set, both in South Wales and elsewhere, in terms of the number of respirable particles found in the air. It has been shown, as my noble friend has suggested, that the development of pneumoconiosis is more dependent on the weight of dust. From the end of this month new dust standards, based on weight, will be introduced, not only in South Wales but throughout the National Coal Board mines. This means that the standards in the anthracite areas of South Wales will become even stricter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that answer; but may I ask him just one more question? In view of the fact that the entrants into this industry here are much younger than in other parts of the country, could he assure me that the boys who are now invited to go to the coal face are of the same age as the boys in the other pits in the country? I believe that the minimum age is 17 or 18.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the assurance that my noble friend has asked for on this particular point. I will certainly look into it, however, and write to her on the subject. Perhaps I may say that there has of course been, and there is continuing, a great deal of research and study into this disease.

BLOWN TIMBER AND TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: 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 consider extending the availability of the transport allowance for wind-blown timber for a further three months from March 31 1970, in view of the fact that it was introduced specifically to aid growers who had suffered from the gale of January, 1968; that 11 per cent is expected to remain uncleared by March 31; and that the growers who have had most difficulty in effecting clearance are probably those in most need of help.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES):My Lords, the transport allowance was provided because normal markets in the area of the windblow could not absorb the exceptionally large quantity of timber blown down. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the quantity of timber likely to remain uncleared at the end of March will be small enough to be absorbed by the customary markets, and that the need for a transport allowance will no longer exist.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether he does not see this as yet another instance of channelling aid to the primary producer—to those who need it least—and leaving out those who need it most?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, while I might plead Biblical support for that doctrine, I do not intend to do so. This provision was not designed as a means of helping the more difficultly placed producers to market their products. It was something designed to enable this timber to go to markets to which it would not normally go. There is therefore no case for turning it into exceptional aid for those who are exceptionally needy.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I said that arrangements have been made for dinner to be served next Wednesday, March 11.
OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.19 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is largely a pre-consolidation Bill. Much preliminary work on the consolidation of Scottish highway law has been done, and the Scottish Law Com-mission have agreed to undertake the

481
drafting of a consolidating Bill. It will come as a boon to those who administer highways legislation in Scotland. Many basic powers of highway authorities are contained in the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878—which itself incorporates much of the General Turnpike Act 1831—or in the Burgh Police (Scot-land) Acts of 1892 and 1903. Additional powers are conferred by Acts dating from the 'twenties or 'thirties. The most recent legislation of importance is the Trunk Roads Acts of 1936 and 1946 and the Special Roads Act 1949, under which we are building our great modern highways. Legislators of a century ago, however skilful, could hardly foresee all the requirements of our own time, and there are things we have to tidy up before consolidation. That is why we have this Bill and why it deals with so many miscellaneous topics. It is a useful measure, but your Lordships will not find it in any way revolutionary.
The Bill has four main purposes: improvement of the formal procedures relating to the construction of special roads and trunk roads; extension of the powers of highway authorities to carry out road improvements; enabling high-way authorities to promote road safety and effective traffic management by stop-ping up roads and accesses to roads and by regulating activities which can cause danger or inconvenience to road users; and, finally, the codification of the statutory provisions under which highway authorities acquire land.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which deal with the formal procedures which are a preliminary to the construction of special roads and trunk roads, are important. A special road is a motorway, and its distinctive features are that certain classes of traffic are prohibited from using it and that side accesses are reduced to the minimum. It may be built by the Secretary of State or by a local highway authority. A trunk road is a major route for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority. The procedures for designating these two kinds of roads are basically similar. The main line is pre-scribed in a scheme—or an order, in the case of a trunk road. This is often followed by a second order—usually called a side road order—dealing with the stopping-up, or diversion, or alteration of side roads crossing or meeting
482
the main road. All of these schemes and orders have to be advertised, followed by a period of three months for objections. The Secretary of State has finally to decide whether the schemes or orders should be made and he may order a public inquiry into objections before deciding.
The problem is to strike the correct balance between speeding progress with road schemes and adequate protection of she rights of individuals. The legitimate rights of individuals have been very much in our minds, but nevertheless, we think that the existing procedure gives rise to delays which can be reduced with-out detracting from the right of effective objection. We have made changes accordingly.
Clause 1 contains the main alterations. The first two subsections empower the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed in the making and confirmation of special and trunk road schemes and orders. Such regulations may require the centre line of a road to be indicated on a map on a prescribed scale. This is not new: there are similar powers in Section 16 of the Special Roads Act 1949. Subsection (3), however, breaks new ground by pro-viding that the center line of a road as constructed may deviate from the centre line as indicated on the map which is advertised, by such distance as is specified in the scheme or order, up to a maximum of 50 metres.
After discussing a road-line with objectors, we are sometimes able to meet their objections by shifting the road-line a little, say by 30 or 40 metres. On three occasions in recent years, in order to do this, we have had to re-advertise the revised proposals, and then wait three months to see whether they gave rise to fresh objections. There were no fresh objections in any of these cases. If the original proposals contain a moderate provision for deviation, we can elicit all the objections to any possible line within those limits and then, at the end of the day, adopt any such line without having to re-advertise the proposals. I stress that the limits of deviation in the advertised plan would not always be 50 metres: they might be 40 or 30 or 10 metres or there might be no deviation at all, depending entirely on the situation, and the eventual line could not deviate by

483
a greater distance than was shown in the advertised proposals.
Subsections (4) and (5) would reduce the period for objecting to a scheme or order from three months to a period specified in the advertisement, which must be not less than six weeks. The period for objecting to a development plan is six weeks, and to a compulsory purchase order it is only three weeks. Six weeks for objecting to a proposal for a new trunk or special road therefore seems to me to be reasonable. Where the issues are complex the clause would make it possible to allow a longer period for objections. People must have adequate time to consider proposals and to formulate objections, but an objection is often no more than a letter saying that the person concerned objects to the scheme, without explaining why. It is not usually a reasoned document, supported by statistical evidence and carefully vetted by professional advisers. On asking for more information, we are told that the road will sever a farm, or affect the amenity of a house, or something of the sort. This is natural: objectors cannot in general be expected to produce technical documents, and we establish the facts after the period for objections has expired, in negotiation with the objectors or, if necessary, at a public inquiry.
The six-week period also seems to us reasonable where a scheme or order has been advertised, discussed with objectors and recast in such a way as to meet the objections. The revised order is then re-advertised, and at present we have to wait a further three months before the next stage of the procedure can start, even though we know with certainty that there will be no further objections.
Clause 1(5) requires any person objecting to a road scheme to state his grounds of objection. We do not now receive closely reasoned objections, and we do not expect to receive them in future. But at present we cannot require the reasons for an objection to be stated, however briefly, and while this has not so far given us much trouble on road schemes we had the experience last year, when we were reconsidering the Forth Road Bridge tolls, of someone who refused to state the grounds of his objection. Clause 1(6) empowers the Secretary of State, where any objector suggests that the road should follow an alternative route, to
484
require him to give sufficient details of that route to enable it to be identified. At present someone can, at a public inquiry, suggest an alternative route for the first time. For such a proposal to be properly considered the inquiry might have to be adjourned, with further loss of time. We are not going to ask for precise engineering details but only for a sufficient indication of the line to let us do our own surveys and find out whether the line is feasible. Incidentally, the per-son suggesting an alternative route will not be required to supply details of it within the original six-week period for objections, but will be given additional time to do so.
Clause 1(7) would empower the Secretary of State, when making or confirming a scheme or order, to make or confirm it in whole or in part. An unresolved objection sometimes affects a very small part of a road project, so that the scheme as a whole could proceed without prejudicing consideration of the objection. What we now do in such cases is to make the formal scheme or order, omit-ting the contested provision. When the dispute has been resolved, we make a varying scheme or order, embodying the decision on the particular objection. This has to be advertised, with a further period of three months for objections, before work can start on that part of the project. Clause 1(7) will enable the decision on a small controversial part of a scheme to be given effect without the necessity to re-advertise the proposals.
Where a special road is being constructed, the Secretary of State or local highway authority concerned can publish all the proposals—that is to say main line schemes, side road orders and compulsory purchase orders, if any—at the same time. The Minister of Transport has similar powers in relation to trunk roads, but in Scotland, in relation to trunk roads, the Secretary of State cannot publish the side road orders until after the main line order has been made, and compulsory purchase comes after that. So the procedure may take twice or three times as long as if the various orders could be published concurrently. Clause 2 provides for concurrent procedures on trunk road schemes. This is also for the benefit of potential objectors, who will be able to consider all the ramifications of a road project at once where concurrent procedure is adopted.

485
Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to provide a service road for the purpose of relieving a trunk road of local traffic. Where a trunk road passes through a small town or village it may be desirable to provide a service road to carry local traffic and provide parking space. Normally this would be the function of a local highway authority, but the Secretary of State might prefer to do it, as an alternative to an expensive widening scheme on the trunk road. He has no powers to provide such a service road at present, because his powers to provide trunk roads imply that they must be through-routes, which a service road is not.
Having devoted much attention to the important clauses dealing with trunk and special roads, I am sure your Lordships will not object if I deal more quickly with the remainder of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 11 give highway authorities new and extended powers to carry out road improvements. A little of this is new, but most of the provisions are derived from powers that are already available in Scottish highways legislation, though some of them are now applied to categories of roads to which they did not previously apply, or are given to highway authorities who did not previously possess them. They deal with such matters as the upkeep of private streets, provision of safety fencing, alteration of road levels, planting of trees in highways, drainage of roads and so on.
Clauses 12 to 16 provide for the stop-ping-up of roads and private accesses. Clause 12 for the first time empowers Scottish highway authorities to stop up roads which have become unnecessary or dangerous to the public, and Clause 13 gives powers to close private accesses which seem likely to endanger or to interfere unreasonably with traffic on high-ways. Powers to close roads and private accesses must not, of course, be irresponsibly used, and there is provision in all these cases for circumscribing the powers and providing an appeal to the Secretary of State. Clauses 14 and 15 are special cases of these powers. Clause 14 empowers the Secretary of State to stop up a private access to a proposed new trunk road, and Clause 15 empowers local highway authorities to stop up or alter side roads or private accesses joining classified roads. Clause 16 provides that
486
where a road is stopped up, and no longer used as such, the solum is to vest in the adjoining proprietors, subject to a prior claim by someone having a title.
Clauses 17 to 26 of the Bill are concerned generally with the regulation of activities which may damage roads, or may endanger or inconvenience road users. As with Clauses 4 to 11, dealing with improvements, a little of this is new, and a good deal of it is old Statute brought up to date. These clauses deal with such matters as overhanging vegetation, damage to roads and road furniture, obstructions and excavations in roads, and regulation of builders' skips. Clause 21 deals with the deposit of mud or liquid from vehicles on roads. I should tell your Lordships that we have found great difficulty in framing this clause as we would like it, and we have consulted representatives of farmers, local authorities and others about the best way to regulale the problem. At a later stage of the Bill I shall be putting down Amendments to provide a more flexible method of dealing with mud on roads than is presently contained in the Bill. Clauses 27 and 28 deal with the pro-vision of litter bins and storage bins on roads, and with the use of appliances and vehicles on footways by public authorities.
Clauses 29 to 36 deal with the acquisition of land by highway authorities. These are mainly a codification of pro-visions to be found at present in several Acts, and we have taken the opportunity of this Bill to bring them together and tidy them up. Clause 29 confers the basic powers to acquire land for the construction and improvement of roads, and Clause 30 provides additional powers in respect of special roads and trunk roads. At present, land can be acquired for road improvements only within 220 yards of the highway. Where land is being acquired by agreement we are re-moving this limit, but we are keeping a limit of 200 metres where land is being acquired compulsorily. Clauses 31 to 33 authorise the acquisition of land for such things as offices and road depots, and for the purpose of replacing stopped-up accesses to properties. Clause 35 contains standard procedural provisions relating to the compulsory acquisition of land, and Clause 36 empowers highway authorities to acquire land in advance

487
of requirements. The Secretary of State already has such powers, but they are now conferred on local highway authorities for the first time.
Clause 37 enables highway authorities to contribute towards the cost of drainage or flood-protection works under-taken by others, where this may benefit the road. The remaining clauses of the Bill deal with miscellaneous and supplementary matters, for the most part in common form. The proposals in the Bill have been fully discussed with the local authority associations and with the landowners' and farmers' organisations, who are in general agreement with them. We have also been able to meet a number of other suggestions. My Lords, this is a useful Bill, which will make it easier to build and maintain roads to modern standards. On that basis, I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hughes.)
3.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for once again explaining so clearly the Bill that we are discussing this afternoon, and indeed for giving us the historical survey at the beginning of his speech. We all agree, I am sure, that a modern, well-designed and well-integrated road system is one of the keys to the future wellbeing, indeed prosperity of Scotland and of any country. In my view the roads system in Scot-land has improved greatly in the last few years, but I am certain all noble Lords will agree that there is still much to be done, not only on country and through trunk roads but particularly, I might add, on roads in our great cities and towns. I am sure that all noble Lords can think of their own particular pet road which requires improvement, and I am not going to pursue that topic this afternoon. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, the Bill does not pre-tend in any way to set out to solve completely the road problems of Scotland; it is essentially a tidying up measure. On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House I should like to welcome it for what it sets out to do.
I accept the need to speed up procedures; and personally I do not think
488
there can be any real quarrel with the reduction to six weeks in the minimum period allowed for lodging objections to schemes. I was very relieved to hear from the noble Lord that in essence the objections required within the period of six weeks are outline objections and not the full detailed and technical objections which might have been required, because that would, I think, have been an unreasonable request. I understand that that is not the case, and that any objector has only to object in outline to what is proposed.
I would add a word on Clause 36 of the Bill, which now enables the highway authorities to acquire in advance of requirements the land which is needed. I have no objection to this, but I should like to make an appeal to the noble Lord to see that this facility is not abused. So often nowadays land is purchased, frequently by agreement, for road building or alterations, and then absolutely nothing happens, in some cases for a great many years. I feel that that is not a good thing, although I appreciate that local authorities and highway authorities obviously must be able to some extent to plan ahead. I hope that this provision will not be abused. I should like to refer to one or two other aspects of the Bill, but I do not wish to take up much time this afternoon. I was glad to see in Clause 8 that increasing attention is being paid to the amenity aspect of our highways in Scotland. I am sure we all welcome this. I personally believe that it is of great importance, especially from the angle of the tourist trade, that our roads are made as beautiful as possible, of course consistent always with safety.
The provisions dealing with the removal from roads of obstructions such as over-hanging trees and dangerous walls also appear to me to be reasonable. There is one small point in connection with retaining walls. So often these walls are made dangerous by the activities of heavy traffic, and I feel that consideration should be given to whether a highway authority should bear at any rate part of the cost of keeping them in a safe condition, and that the cost should not all be placed upon the owner, because it is not his fault if heavy traffic comes along and does damage to such a wall. All noble Lords will be able to think of instances where damage of this kind has occurred.

489
The noble Lord mentioned Clause 21. I was glad to hear that he will be putting down Amendments later on in the progress of the Bill in connection with the deposit of mud on the road. Certainly this is a difficult problem. One can hardly expect tractor drivers or lorry drivers solemnly to get out of their vehicles and hose or scrape mud off wheels or whatever the mud is adhering to. At the same time, one wants to ensure that roads are kept as clear as posssible from mud. I hope that the noble Lord will give us plenty of time to consider his Amendments when they are put down. I would also suggest to him that when he is considering his Amendments he should not forget the forestry interests. They, too, have a similar problem to that of the farmers with regard to lorries and tractors, and I should like to think that any pro-posed Amendments will cover forestry interests as well.
I do not wish to say any more about the Bill. In passing, 1 notice that it has gone over to the metric system. I do not know whether this is an indication of things to come. As the noble Lord has said, the Bill is a useful piece of legislation. It is not going to give Scotland a new road system; but then it does not set out to do so. I personally think that the measures to set up and simplify procedures will be of help. I believe that the House will wish to give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon and to ensure its speedy progress on to the Statute Book.
3.44 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I also do not wish to take up much of your Lordships' time. As has already been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, most of what is in this Bill we have already seen before or had to live with. But I feel that there are one or two comments on road improvements that might usefully be made in connection with this Bill. Before coming to the Bill itself I should like to spend a moment or two on the improvements. While they are always most welcome, and often much needed, I am always greatly concerned over the amount of agricultural land that is taken off by each and every improvement. This is a growing thing. Not only is the area taken off for the new piece of road, but quite
490
often the area where the old road was is left sterile, so that the land in between the old road and the new becomes derelict. Although such areas individually probably do not amount to a great acre-age, taken together they amount to a large area of land that is lost to agriculture.
My other slight concern is over the fact that where improvements are made the builders try to make the road a faster one. I know, for example, that where I live, on the A.77, the road is under-going tremendous improvements, and I understand that it has been brought up to the standard that it should be safe at 60 m.p.h. I have a feeling that this is misleading, because although the bends and gradients of the road may be such that it is perfectly safe for a person to take them at 60 m.p.h., the road will not in fact become any safer, because we tend to forget that there is mixed traffic on it. If a road has on it a tractor travelling at, say, 12 to 15 m.p.h., then a bus, which is certainly always stopping and often does not exceed 40 m.p.h., and then a few heavy lorries which would require a Jaguar or an XK90 to catch them, this does not make for safety on the road. One of the difficulties, of course, is that drivers become impatient or bad-mannered, and they try to pass other vehicles without regard to anybody else. I cannot help feeling that if the speed of the road is to be increased to this extent one needs virtually a dual-carriageway. The different kinds of traffic can then travel at their varying speeds, and can sort themselves out.
Another tendency I have noticed where improvements are made, with every intention of making the area safer, is that the result has been in fact to make it more dangerous because, somehow or other, the planners have tended to make the lines of the road so that you drive into the oncoming traffic or to the traffic which you are meant to be avoiding. I know of one or two such instances. Undoubtedly what was a dangerous bend or junction previously has been improved, but one has found oneself being led naturally into the oncoming traffic or the crossing traffic, when previously this was not the case. In this connection it may be necessary, it seems to me, for the planners to take more care with their plans.

491
There is another point that is reflected in the Bill. Recently I have noticed bad road signing during the time when improvements are being undertaken. The other day I was driving from Edinburgh to Ayr, on the A.70, and outside Car-stairs, where an improvement is taking place, I came to a certain piece of road, and it was impossible to discover whether I was on the right piece of road or not. That was in daylight. If a motorist arrived at that spot at night I think that he would almost certainly find himself completely in the wrong place. This morning I had to set off before sunrise, and I came through three new road constructions where improvements are taking place, each of which was totally unlighted. It is true that two of them had a traffic light on them, but one was not working. There was no other lighting on these constructions at all. Only the other day a bad accident occurred: someone had not seen the obstruction and had gone smack into it.
My Lords, I would turn for a few minutes to one or two little points that I noted within the Bill itself. The first point is in Clause 11, where I note the power to fill in ditches. This power, so far as I am aware, already exists, but I should like to be assured that this in no way affects the taking of the drainage water from a higher piece of ground adjoining the road, and that when this is done cognisance is taken of drains that run into the roadside ditch. On Clause 10, I am rather concerned at the idea of any person being able to put forward a request for closure of a side road. I agree that it may be permissible for a side road to be closed, but to use words like "any person" surely leaves a very wide margin; and the person making the request may have no knowledge of the circumstances governing that side road and that junction. Surely we get caught by the fact that every junction on any road is in itself a danger.
Then on Clause 13 I am a little concerned about the position regarding farm entrances, field entrances, field gates on to the road, and similarly over forest gates alongside the road, I hope that when these powers are used great care will be taken, and consultation held, before they are exercised, to ensure that
492
they do not create unnecessary difficulties, or undue hardship, for those whose land adjoins the road and whose normal access has been on to a public road.
Clause 19 refers to obstructions, over-hanging obstacles, and the like. My only comment here is that I hope this clause will not be used as a means of getting rid of some of our hedgerow trees before they become unsafe. Some people like trees, and some people do not; and if there happens to be some-body who does not, he tends to be very successful in getting trees of this kind removed. Clause 20 refers to trees and shrubs planted within five metres of the edge of a carriageway. We are bound to have difficulty with this clause because slowly but surely carriageways are get-ting wider. From what point is this measurement going to be taken? Practically every year we find that many of the roads of the local authorities gain another six inches or another foot in width, so that trees and shrubs which were formerly at a safe distance gradually come within the unsafe distance, and may then be caught by this clause.
The only other point to which I wish to draw attention is in Clause 38, which gives the powers of entry. It seems to me—I may have misunderstood it—that if the local authority give seven days notice, that is all they need to do; and they then have the right of entry. There does not appear to be any provision for objection by a person having grounds. This seems rather high-handed, because many people may have a perfectly valid reason for not wishing the surveyors, and so on, to come trampling over their property at a particular time. I notice that subsection (4) of this same clause allows statutory undertakers and the National Coal Board the right to object. I wonder whether this could be extended slightly to allow farmers, foresters, and people in this kind of business, to have the same powers, because often their interests can also be affected injuriously. My Lords, that is all I have to say about the Bill, except for the final comment that one is slightly concerned because, although there is not much new in the Bill, tremendous powers are placed in the hands of a local authority, and are quite often administered by only one or two people. It makes one wonder.
3.55 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I too am glad to welcome the Bill, and especially the explicit speech with which the Minister has introduced it. Indeed, in my own experience it is important that every step should be taken to accelerate work on a number of the roads which are being reclassified. I refer particularly to the A.702, which is my particular headache. However, I would agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, in having very real doubts about the extensive powers that are now being placed in the hands of the road authorities rather than in the Secretary of State. In general terms I am always disappointed that there are not, in my view, adequate powers for arbitration in the case of disputes over compensation for acquisition. I should be glad to hear from the Minister, when he replies, what he feels about that point. It is specially brought out, of course, in Clause 35(4), but I believe that the willingness of property owners to co-operate in this very necessary work would be enhanced and speeded up if they felt that there was really going to be proper compensation in the event of acquisition.
There arc various points in the Bill which might well be brought up, and I propose to mention one or two which have not already been mentioned by the noble Marquess. First, there is road safety—words which take a prominent place in the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill. Secondly, I have various comments to make on one or two clauses which are based not only on my active interest in promoting road safety, but also on practical experience which derives from the fact that my small property marches with a road only recently reclassified. It is a road on which the traffic has at least quadrupled since the opening of the Forth Road Bridge, and I should say that it is greater than that in terms of the tonnage that actually passes the gate.
The first clause to which I would refer is Clause 10, and particularly to subsection (5). I am not altogether happy about that subsection, as I indicated in my opening remarks, because the question of drainage is a problem, especially where a classification turns a country road into a trunk road. This may greatly increase the volume of water which is collected by
494
the impervious road surface, and may affect agricultural land in a way which I have no doubt the noble Marquess included in his comments. Where existing country roads have a drainaway from the road that goes into a field, it is conceivable that great damage may be done to agricultural land if the volume of water flowing into the field from a widened road exceeds the capacity of the field drainage to carry it away.
With regard to Clause 19, I wonder whether the period of ten days in subsection (1) is too short. After all, if a matter is urgent the authorities have power under the proviso in subsection (2) to carry out work themselves. In other words, if there is a real danger requiring immediate attention the authorities have power to deal with it. To my mind, ten days may be adequate in terms of some trees, growth and the like, but it may not be enough if the trees are large, if the weather is bad or if there are trade holidays in hand. I wonder whether the Minister will consider extending that period to, shall we say, a fort-night.
I should like to reinforce the point made by the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, about the traffic build-up on roads. With regard to the recovery of expenses, to which the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, referred, walls of a property which are perfectly adequate for country roads are not adequate if a road is classified, not because of anything to do with the property but because of the increased flow of traffic passing by. That is the kind of situation in which arbitration might comfort a property owner.
Another point about walls, fences or hedges beside a road, is the road safety aspect because of the obscuring of vision. It is quite possible that a wall, which is adequate in strength and in every other respect, may make a corner dangerous, especially at the speeds which roads now have to cope with. For the purpose of road safety, I wonder whether powers could be given under this clause to enable an authority to have walls or hedges removed and replaced by fences, or moved back. I am certain that this would receive the co-operation of property owners, so long as they were satisfied with the compensation.

495
Clause 19(6), which deals with trees, worries me a little and I should be grateful if the Minister would look into that subsection. It says:
"Work may be carried out under this section on a tree, notwithstanding that the tree is subject to a tree preservation order made under section 26 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947."
That seems to me a bit hard on the amenity people, and I am not sure that the wording of the subsection could not extend from tree to tree, destroying trees unnecessarily. If a long view was taken, the centre line of the road could be moved rather than destroy a tree, certainly in European Conservation Year.
I now turn to Clause 21(2), which has a connection with what has already been said about the spreading of mud and liquid. I appreciate that the Government are going to table an Amendment at the Committee stage, but I should like to draw attention to the danger of gravel being spilled from vehicles. I believe that this point is covered by another Statute, but it is worth looking into, because in my neighbourhood, where there are a number of gravel pits, a great deal of damage is done, especially in the dark, by those fast vehicles being overloaded. They shoot off down the roads spreading these round pebbles, and I believe that on one length of the A.73 14 windscreens were broken in one day as a result of the faulty loading of one of these gravel-carrying vehicles.
Clause 25(1) uses the term "properly lighted". But are those words adequate? This point was touched on obliquely by the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa. "Properly lighted" nowadays means that the light must be a very great distance from the obstruction on a highway. It is no use having a light immediately against an obstruction, and a good deal of judgment is required in placing the light, depending upon the location of the obstruction— whether it is near a bend or a blind rise. I wonder whether the clause should contain some reference to a minimum distance from an obstruction at which a notice or a light should be placed.
With regard to Clause 29(3) I think that 200 metres is a long way, but in terms of what I have just said about the drainage of the highway paragraph (b) might extend even further. The same comment applies to Clause 30. I mean by that that
496
the distance from the centre of the road might well be looked into in terms of those clauses. I refer in particular to subsection (4)(b) of Clause 30.
I object entirely to Clause 31, not be-cause I wish to be obstructive, but because I get back to this problem of the very wide powers to acquire which will rest under this Bill with local authorities or road authorities. With the Crichel Down-like experiences in the background, I feel that this point is worth looking into. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has mentioned that the 200 metres will apply in certain cases, but this clause gives power to an authority to acquire land for, shall we say, gravel or sand or stone-crushing plant in connection with the construction of a road, without regard to amenity or the impairment of agricultural land, to which the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, referred. All of this doubt would be overcome if the situation with regard to arbitration could be cleared up. But the possibility that I have in mind would also bring in the amenity authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act.
Under Clause 36 we again have the problem of the acquisition of land in advance of requirements. I cannot help smiling over this. Here am I, grumbling about the acquisition of land far ahead of requirements, when one of the bees that I have in my bonnet is that something like twenty years ago land was acquired in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh for the building of a by-pass road, and it is not going to be built for another twenty years. So there are two sides to the question. Not only may it be unfair to acquire land and hold it in use; it may be equally unfair to acquire land and not use it.
In conclusion, I have one suggestion to make. I have the feeling that the Bill might well be used to give power to an authority to dictate the position of road safety notices. I refer particularly to the 30 m.p.h. limit notices. Many of these notices have been in position for over a quarter of a century, and relate to built-up areas and street lighting systems of that period. I believe that it would be well worth while contemplating taking some power under this Bill to have them moved more swiftly than is possible at the moment, because local authorities either do not have that power or are not prepared to use it to move these impor-

497
tant notices, some of which are obscured by vegetation or by shadow. My Lords, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
4.11 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his wonderfully clear description of the Bill. Having said that, I regret that it is now necessary to be somewhat critical. It seems a pity that when so many and varied alterations have been put into the Bill, it has not been made a comprehensive and complete revision of the highway law in Scotland. For, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, the last major Bill was as far back as 1878, and this Bill has many references back to previous legislation. I think well over a dozen different Bills are referred to; and, obviously, if you are trying to read such a Bill and you have to keep looking back to those many references—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should not wish the noble Lord to go too far on that strain because I have already pointed out that this is a pre-consolidation measure. Once this Bill is through the way is clear for consolidation and the Law Commission will get ahead with the task. But you cannot consolidate and make new law at the same time.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for that. I think it is most encouraging, because this is a difficult Bill to follow as it stands. I feel that much of the Bill is a charter to cover up inefficiency in the administration of our roads. The very first sentence in the Explanatory Memorandum says:
"… to reduce procedural delays in the construction of … roads …"
For a very long time people in Scotland have been complaining of the lack of planning of our road system and of what is to be done in the future. Surely, with good, advanced planning there would be little need to reduce procedural delays. If you have things well planned in advance, why should it be necessary to cut down the delays? You are not going suddenly to decide that you want a road and then have to get it through in a matter of weeks. I consider that this is really nothing more than a further infringement on the liberty of the subject.
498
Take, again, line 27 on the first page of the Bill, which refers to a 50-metre deviation. The noble Lord also referred to this provision, saying how it might be necessary in order to save re-advertising, and so on. But if there is reasonable consultation before you advertise, then this can be done away with. The noble Lord quoted a case where a plan had been advertised and where there was an amicable settlement afterwards with, I think he said, three objectors. How much easier it would have been if only the officials had been to the people from whom there were likely to be objections, before the advertisement went in. There is far too much dictatorship in this Department, my Lords. Officials think that this is the right way to go, and they do not bother to consult people. I had this crop up time and again.
In Clause 7, I am rather worried that the Secretary of State should be taken as the arbiter between the highway authority and an individual, because surely the Secretary of State is to all intents and purposes the highway authority. He controls the purse strings; and even if it is a local authority, they are completely subjugated by St. Andrew's House. So it seems that he is arbitrating on his own case. Clause 19 —I am very worried about this point— refers to either the owner or the occupier receiving a notice. Surely it would be quite wrong that only the occupier, or even only the owner, should receive a notice. Why cannot the notice go to both? I know that the noble Lord may say that in certain cases the owner is not known or the occupier is not known, but there is no reason why an attempt should not be made to notify both.
Now, having been somewhat critical of certain aspects of the Bill, I hope the Minister will perhaps forgive me and be able to help me. Clause 4 refers to the making up of streets and footways, but it seems that it is largely urban legislation. So far as the district councils are concerned, we frequently have difficulty. Perhaps there is a through-road which has received much increased use through development or for some other reason, and which should be brought up and put on to the county list of highways. Now the county will not take over this road until it has been brought up to a certain standard. It would seem that we are now

499
permitting very much the same for streets; and I wonder whether it would be possible for what we might call district council roads, on which they can spend money, to be brought up to standard at the road authority's expense rather than that of the poor district councils, who really have not got very much money.
I am a little worried about Clause 24. It seems that if you have a choked drain to open up in a hurry—there may have been flooding damage—you may (I do not say that you would) find yourself liable to a fine of £100 because it may have been impossible to consult the local authority beforehand. After all, they work only five days a week now, and if you get a flood on a Saturday or a Sun-day you will have a good deal of difficulty to consult them. It is unreasonable, in such a situation, that one should be liable to a fine of £100. I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he is looking again at Clause 27, which deals with mud on the roads, and I hope that this matter will be sorted out.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Ferrier mentioned gravel, because this is a serious problem, too—and I was pleased to see the Minister nodding when my noble friend mentioned this. In Clause 33 again, there is provision regarding 800 metres from the centre line. That is about half a mile, my Lords. It seems a lot of land on either side of a trunk road to acquire by compulsory purchase. Is this to cover up further mistakes? It is a very long distance. So is 200 metres on either side of a side-road. After all, that is a mile on either side of the trunk road that you could acquire compulsorily if you wished to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am sorry, but I missed the reference to the clause.
LORD BURTON: Clause 33—compul-sory acquisition. Finally, I should like to make a plea concerning the situation where perhaps an iron-fenced side road meets a trunk road. Up to now, the roads authorities have flatly refused to put in cattle grids on these roads. I know a case where a trunk road is fenced and then there is a ridiculous gap on a side-road, running off from this road, where stock can walk out on to the trunk road.
500
This is not only a danger to the stock: it is of course a danger to the road-user as well. I hope that it will be possible to insert some provision to get over this difficulty.
4.18 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I think this Bill is a good Bill, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Lothian gave it a general welcome. Particularly must I say now, as regards the roads North of Inverness in which I am particularly interested and of which I am a constant user, that great credit is due to the highway authorities and the local authorities for the great improvements that have been and are being made. However, I wish to raise with the noble Lord what I think I can definitely call Second Reading points.
The Minister, in his clearway passage from the beginning to the end of the Bill, really skirted over or scarcely touched upon Clause 7, which gives powers to divert waters when constructing or improving highways. Under this clause:
"The highway authority may divert or carry out any other works on inland waters (whether natural or artificial) … where, in the opinion of the highway authority, the carrying out of such works is necessary for the construction, improvement or protection of a highway".
Those are tremendously wide powers. It means, in fact, that, subject to certain provisions which I will touch upon in one moment, the highway authorities could divert the River Tweed or could do works damaging to the River Tay, the River Dee or the River Spey, to mention four great rivers which contribute much to the economy of Scotland. The highway authority, if it considered it necessary, could carry out constructural works which might do great damage to the rivers, and therefore, as I have said, to the economy and to tourism and to the enjoyment of many people in Scotland.
The Bill provides for objections to be lodged in 28 days. That seems to me to be a little inconsistent. In the earlier part of the Bill we reduce the period for lodging objections to six weeks, and then we give only 28 days in regard to objections which I believe could be of even greater importance to the economy of Scotland than some of the objections

501
that may be under the six weeks' pro-vision. It is true that the objections when lodged will, as it were, stop the highway authority from proceeding with those works until the matter has been referred for determination to the Secretary of State, who can either consent or give consent conditionally or can with-hold consent; but his decision on the matter will be final.
That is the provision in the Bill which I seriously question: as to whether, when you interfere with waters and Nature, you are not taking on matters of tremendous complexity; whether the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State alone should be sufficient safeguard for big measures which may affect the whole economy of the country. Could not the Minister consider at a later stage of the Bill putting in, first, "six weeks" instead of "28 days" as the time for objections; and, secondly, some form of appeal or public inquiry which will take away from the Secretary of State that absolute power which the Bill gives him as at present drafted? I hope that the Minister will consider those points. I would not press him for a reply now, but if he will consider them I believe that favourable consideration will improve what is already a good Bill.
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I hope for a complementary development in the road situation of Scotland which would flow from the added powers which the Minister is taking here. I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said. I wonder whether you really need powers quite as wide as those in Clause 7? They are sensible enough when taken reasonably but, interpreted, they could have very wide implications.
Turning to Clause 7(5), I wonder what is meant by "owner or occupier". You do not normally "occupy" water in the full sense of the term. Surely the words must mean something like "riparian owner". Water movement affects a great many people other than those in the immediate vicinity where alterations may be taking place. Could the noble Lord answer this question? Is this the first time that the word "metre" has been used in a Statute? If it is, is there an official metre anywhere in this country from which all standards can be taken?
502
Finally, can the noble Lord say whether instruments for measuring metres are readily available in the retail stores at the present time?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want to ask only one question in clarification about the flexibility of the 50-metre shift of the centre line of the road. I do not want to criticise it, but of course the centre line of the road does not affect the amount of ground that the road is built on. If you happen to be on sidelong ground, you might move the road to a position 50 metres one way, but the bottom of that road might then have to be in a very heavy embankment or cutting and you would require consider-ably more land than is signified by the flexibility of the 50-metres shift. Surely in this case the controlling factor is the distance the edge of the road should be shifted, and not the centre line, because where the edge of the road comes depends on the level of the crown of the read and not on its mere position. I should like a little clarification from the Minister on that point.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I referred to Clause 33 in my speech. It should have been Clause 32, in regard to the 800 metres.
4.25 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord had no need to apologise. The note that I have been given refers to Clause 32. I am grateful for the general welcome which has been given to this Bill. Much of what has been raised could be regarded as Committee points; but, on the other hand, how does one find out whether it is necessary to move an Amendment at the Committee stage without asking some of these questions? Therefore I will endeavour to deal with some of the points which have been made.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in giving a very generous welcome to the Bill, raised only a few points, but these were all of some principle. He made a valid point in regard to the purchase of land in advance of requirements. The Secretary of State who himself has these powers at the present time does not exercise them unduly in advance of likely need. We should certainly wish to impress on local authorities that they should, in general, take the same sort of line as

503
that of the Secretary of State. One thing which at the present time will be a very strong encouragement to the local authority to follow the Secretary of State's advice is the great expense, because of high interest rates, of doing anything before you have to do it. I do not think that, generally speaking, we need to rely on anything stronger than the natural instincts of the local authorities not to waste money—and particularly Scottish local authorities.
The subject of retaining walls I must admit had not been brought to my attention. It is an interesting point and I will undertake to look at it. I hope to table the Amendments which I shall be putting down to Clause 21 in relation to mud and other materials in the next few days. I emphasise to the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Lord Burton, who referred to this, that the question of gravel will be taken into account. Perhaps other noble Lords will not consider themselves slighted if I follow the course that I had in mind of writing to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, as soon as I am in a position to table them, explaining the purport of the Amendments. Some of the Amendments which will be tabled in addition to those in Clause 21 will be of a drafting nature; but in the case of any significance I will try to put the noble Marquess as much in the picture as I am myself.
The noble Marquess raised quite a number of points. First, there was the amount of land taken for road schemes. This is always a great difficulty. Unfortunately, practically everything that has to be done by way of improvement —providing land for houses, for industry and for roads—eats still more into our supply of agricultural land. It must always be a question of where the balance of advantage lies. Sometimes there is little choice in the matter. It would be easy if one could always put houses, industry and roads on land of no agricultural value. This might have been very useful for the Highlands; they might then have been in a position of having the best roads instead of the poorest roads in Scotland, because undoubtedly they have much of the poorest land. We do not go out of our way needlessly to acquire agricultural land. Again we do not go out of our way, notwithstanding the fears of the noble
504
Lord, Lord Burton, to do it in the most troublesome way to the people concerned.
I doubt whether there is any answer that I can give to the noble Marquess on the subject of roads being improved to allow faster speeds and then creating the resulting problem to which he has referred: the danger which arises when they are being used by slow and fast moving vehicles. I think that all of us have had the experience of being behind a slow-moving vehicle; and if one has to go a long distance without being able to overtake, one gets more and more frustrated and more likely to take what may turn out to be a needless risk. All I can say is there where the problem becomes really acute it is generally at the point where the justification may arise for creating a dual-carriageway, which enables a certain amount of segregation to take place. On the question of filling in ditches, certainly account must be taken of the whole problem, including the drainage from further upstream.
The power to close accesses is restricted. The highway authority must satisfy itself that another access is available or is unnecessary, or that it can provide a substitute access for the one that is being closed. On the subject of the right of appeal against entry, the present position is that, in general, under existing law there is no right of appeal and in fact there are places where only 24 hours notice need be given. Nevertheless, I will look at the point which the noble Marquess has raised.
He expressed some concern about "any person" having the right to ask for the closure of a road. I am afraid that he has been needlessly alarmed. The procedure must be carried out by the highway authority, but the wording of the clause recognises that there are people other than the highway authority who may have an interest—it may be, for instance, industry, or a university—and they are given the right to raise the matter. But they must satisfy the highway authority of the need for doing so, because it is the highway authority which will have to act. If an industrialist, a farmer or a university asks for this to be done, the highway authority cannot say, "We are not going to look at it; it is none of your business". It is their business, and they are given the right to raise the matter. But, I repeat, they

505
must satisfy the highway authority if that authority is going to act. The noble Marquess also asked about the planting of trees within five metres from the edge of the road, and asked what happened if the road was widened. The answer is a simple one—and perhaps not a satisfactory one, if a great number of subsequent improvements take place. The prohibition on planting applies only to new trees and shrubs.
I come now to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. He spoke of the possibility that the increased water flow from improved roads might be too much for field drainage. The purpose of Clause 10 is to give highway authorities better powers to provide drainage from roads, and for the first time there is a requirement for owners to be consulted. This is a new provision. The owners could object if the field drainage was likely to be prejudiced, so I think that the noble Lord will be satisfied that we are seeking to improve the position. On compensation, Clause 35(3) provides for arbitration procedures on compulsory purchase of land, and Clause 39 provides for arbitration on disputes about compensation under certain other clauses. What I cannot discuss on the Bill is the question of the rate of compensation, which of course is not a matter for the content of the Bill.
Regarding the 10 days' notice referred to in Clause 19, there is of course an implication that danger exists, and obviously if there is a need to remedy a danger, too much time ought not to be allowed to elapse without something being done. But if the noble Lord looks at the clause he will see that it says, "… 10 days … or such longer period as the sheriff may allow …". Obviously, if the suspected danger arose at the time of holidays that
would be something which would be drawn to the attention of the sheriff. He would not make an order on a notice, the period of which, or a substantial part of which, covered say, a local holiday, when people would not be available. If there were any other extraordinary circumstances which might make a longer period necessary, I have no doubt at all that the sheriff would take that into account.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thought I had made the point that the proviso to subsection (2), if there is danger, gives
506
the authority power itself to carry out the work. It may therefore be assumed that the period of 10 days applies when there is not danger; and it seemed to me that it would be a pity to have to go to the sheriff about the difference between 10 days and a fortnight. Ten days seems to me to be too short.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord is seeking to confer on local authorities a power which I would have hesitated to suggest. I have no doubt that where there is very acute danger, and where waiting even 24 hours might result in danger, there will be no problem. The owner will not make difficulties because, after all, he will presumably think of the liability in which he might be involved if he were the one responsible for the existence of the danger. In cases where there was an argument whether or not there was danger, the matter would presumably go to the sheriff.
However, my Lords, I will look at the point. I do not know that I would object to the period being 14 days, instead of 10 days: I do not think that it matters very much. The important thing is that where there is immediate danger action should be taken. Where there is doubt, the owner should have some right of appeal to the sheriff, and then the sheriff may be the one who decides the amount of time that should be allowed for the work to be done. I should have thought that what would govern the period would be the time in which it could be reasonably expected that the work would be done, rather than the time at which it could be started. There would be no point in ordering someone to do something within 10 days if the job was so extensive that it would take a fortnight to carry out.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the clause says, "to carry out", not "to commence".
LORD HUGHES: I think the noble Lords is right there.
My Lords, on the question of tree preservation orders, I must point out that this provision relates to existing danger to roads. It may well be that if there was danger the only thing to do would be to remove the tree. Obviously, unless the intention was to make a new road it would not be possible to move the road. I could have seen the noble Lord's point

507
if it were a question of constructing a completely new road, in which case it might well be desirable to alter the line in order to preserve some very fine trees —in fact that sort of thing is done from time to time. But there might well arise the question of danger on an existing road, involving the destruction of a tree on which there was a preservation order. Obviously, in such a case destruction would be done only as a last resort, because the existence of the preservation order would make it necessary for the people concerned to consider every other reasonable course of action.
In relation to Clause 25, the noble Lord raised the question of whether a distance could be set for advanced lights. This is covered by the traffic code for road works which I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord is presently under consideration. Then in connection with Clause 31, the noble Lord asked whether the clause would allow the high-way authorities to acquire land for crushing gravel, and so on, to the impairment of agriculture or amenity. The answer is that the highway authority would no doubt be able to acquire land for quarrying, and it would not always be near the road. This could lead to acquisition either by agreement or compulsorily. If the acquisition needed agreement, the owner could refuse to sell; if it was pro-posed to be acquired by compulsion, he has the necessary safeguards.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, began by saying that he had to be critical. He will forgive me if I say that if I got through a Scottish Bill without some note of criticism from the noble Lord, nobody would query his views on the matter, but if we had reached agreement people would wonder where I had gone wrong. I therefore express my usual note of gratitude to the noble Lord for making it clear that he does not see eye to eye with the Government on every dot and comma in the Bill. I am not going to say anything about his general remarks about bureacracy and the Bill as a cover-up for inefficiency.
The noble Lord asked why deviation is needed. There may be cases where a proposed road has to be changed for engineering reasons and the possibility of this cannot be known beforehand. There might be whole stretches of road where
508
the question of deviation would never arise, because it was clear that this was the line that was required. Then again, the road might have to be moved 30, 40 or 50 metres, not because of engineering reasons but to remove objections. After all, if the matter can be fixed in this way, so that everybody is made happy about it, there is no reason why highway authorities should have to go through the present wasteful procedures of doing the initial work and then doing it all over again after they have found out what people want. If we provide for meeting possible objections in the way we suggest in the Bill, we can avoid this.
The noble Lord also asked about consultation before road schemes are advertised. This is an old point. Of course, a great deal of consultation takes place before advertisement. All the people who are expected to be involved are consulted. But with the best will in the world—and the noble Lord will believe that neither I nor the civil servants in St. Andrew's House claim to know everything—there can be cases where somebody turns up with what appear to be legitimate objections that have never occurred to us. How can we know, in advance of advertisement, of an objection from somebody of whom we do not know? The procedure in the Bill enables the unknown and the unforeseen to have the benefit of consultation, and it enables us to cut down the periods of delay and not have, as we have at the present time, three months added to three months.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, spoke of the distance of 200 metres in Clause 29. A highway authority is empowered to acquire land required for highway purposes, but I would point out that the 200 metres is the maximum distance from the road it can go; and in many cases the distance may be less.
To come back to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, who spoke about the possibility under Clause 4 of unadopted roads in landward areas being assisted, the whole question of private street rights is being considered separately at the present time by the Department with the local authorities associations. I hope that something may come out of this consideration, but we have not got far enough in these consultations for me to give any undertaking about financial assistance. The noble

509
Lord also referred to the limit of 800 metres. The object here is to enable the highway authorities to acquire land to replace an access which has to be closed. It was felt reasonable that there should be this latitude. The idea is not to acquire huge swathes of land, but it might well be that an authority would not be able to provide an alternative access 50 or 100 yards away, and might have to go up to half a mile to find a suitable site. Therefore we feel that it is better to provide for what might happen than to fix a narrow limit and then find that a road cannot be closed because the limit is so narrow that no alternative can be provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, joined with him—raised the question of the diversion of a watercourse. This is a new power which is being given to local authorities. I think that noble Lords are looking on this as something much vaster than the purpose for which it is intended. The local authorities have asked for this power, because, for instance, they may find that in having to build a bridge over a fairly narrow stream, the existing course of the water may mean that the bridge will have to be built at an angle—a skew bridge, which becomes a nuisance—whereas a small diversion of the stream may make it possible for the bridge to be built on a line with the road. In other cases, the local authority may wish to divert or change the course of a stream because that would enable the authority to make the road more economically. The whole intention is to use this power for some-thing of a minor nature, because as soon as an authority embarked on any diversion of a large river, or any major diversion of a smaller one, it would be involved in enormous expense in carrying out the work and in the compensation which would follow. In any event, I think that the procedures of protection which are laid down in this respect are adequate.
The noble Lord also took exception to the Secretary of State's having the final decision on this matter. My Lords, someone must have the final decision, and it has been generally accepted that Parliament will be kept better in the picture if the final decision is taken by someone whose accountability is to Parliament, rather than by some outside authority.
510
I am well aware that I may not be satisfying the noble Lord, but this provision is backed up by precedents in other import-ant measures where the final appeal is to a Minister.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect, in regard to the paramountcy of the Secretary of State, the fate of the river Deveron water scheme? In that case, if the Secretary of State had had the final word, the scheme would have gone forward, in spite of the protests and representations. The Secretary of State held an inquiry, but he threw over the inquiry and issued a Pro-visional Order. Finally, a Select Committee was set up and found that the Secretary of State's ipse dixit was not right. The noble Lord is saying that this is only a little power, but in fact it is a very big power that he is trying to take.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I still think that the noble Lord's fears are groundless, but it is much better to allay fears than to try and push them aside, so I will have a look at the matter.
My final point relates to the metric system. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will probably be as surprised as I am at the answer I am able to give him. Yes: there is standard metre in the Ministry of Technology, and measuring equipment can be purchased. I think that I have at fairly considerable length answered most of the points raised by noble Lords. I know that my colleagues and those who wish to follow me will not be unduly grateful to me, but I hope that in due course I shall receive a dividend in having the minimum of Amendments to deal with at the succeeding stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
4.50 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to simplify the procedure for the merger of registered societies (which may be either by amalgamation or by a transfer of engagements of one society to another) and for their dissolution. The Bill also makes a number of other amendments to the Friendly Societies Act 1896, which

511
is the principal Act regulating friendly societies.
There are five classes of societies registered under the 1896 Act of which friendly societies are the most important. The principal business of that group is the insurance of their members on a mutual basis for sickness, death and endowment benefits. They include nation-wide bodies such as the National Deposit Friendly Society and the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, as well as small local societies which have changed little in character from the sick and burial clubs of the last century. At the end of 1968 there were 765 centralised societies (exclusive of the collecting societies) and 34 societies and branches having between them 6,986 branches. Their combined membership was then about one million, and funds totalled some £75 million.
In addition there were 74 functioning collecting societies. These are friendly societies which do industrial assurance business; that is, life assurance on which the premiums are collected at short intervals at the members' homes. These societies are subject to the Industrial Assurance Acts 1923 to 1968 as well as to the Friendly Societies Acts. At the end of 1968 they had more than 20 million paying policies in force and funds totalling £451 million. Other classes of societies registered under the 1896 Act are workingmen's clubs (some 2,500, with over 1½ million members); specially authorised societies—that is, societies for any purpose authorised by the Treasury as suitable to the provisions of the 1896 Act (223 societies in all)—benevolent societies (110); and cattle insurance societies (6).
A falling-off in the number of members coupled with increasing management costs has led to the situation that many smaller societies are no longer economic-ally viable units. As a result, some societies have found it difficult to continue operating, and it is expected that this tendency will increase. The rational solution, as in other fields of activity to-day, is for societies to amalgamate to form larger units.
Under the present procedure, which is contained in the 1896 Act but which dates from at least 1850, amalgamation and transfer of engagements involve a cumber-some process and it involves a society
512
(which may already be in a financially precarious position) in disproportionate expense. The main obstacle with which a society is faced under the present pro-visions is the necessity to obtain a positive expression of support for the merger proposals from at least five-sixths "in value" of all its members and from everyone, whether a member or not, who is receiving or is entitled to receive any benefit from the society's funds. The term "value" is defined in the 1896 Act and in effect gives to each member a number of votes depending on the length of his membership. This adds an additional complication to an already difficult procedure. The difficulties have greatly in-creased with the spread of membership of societies, which in earlier days were usually confined to a fairly small geo-graphical area, or formed part of the life of closely knit communities. But the requirements of the 1896 Act are obligatory, and a society wishing to merge must go through the motions of endeavouring to secure the necessary number of con-sents—even though it can be predicted with some certainty that these will not be obtained. The society will usually fail to get the required consents, not because of active opposition to the proposals but because of the indifference of what need only be a small proportion of the total membership who will not trouble to respond or to express a view.
Having gone through this process and failed to get the required number of consents the society may then apply to the Registrar of Friendly Societies to dispense with consents, which he may do with Treasury consent. But this will be only after a time-consuming, expensive and cumbersome procedure which to-day cannot really be justified. It must be remembered that many friendly societies rely to a large extent on the voluntary labours of their officers to whom this procedure seems, not unnaturally, an un-necessary burden. Similar difficulties, for similar reasons, existed in the case of trade unions until in 1964 Parliament enacted the Trade Unions (Amalgamations etc.) Act 1964 which simplified the merger procedure for trade unions. The proposed legislation for friendly societies is in many respects analogous, and follows similar lines.
The present Bill substitutes a procedure which is much simpler and speedier in

513
its operation, and less costly. Its main feature is that it requires that the merger proposals shall receive the support of three-quarters of the members who vote upon the proposals. The Bill has provisisons to ensure that every member has an opportunity to know what the proposals are and to express his view upon them, and it safeguards the rights of any minority groups within a society. In addition, the procedure followed in every case will be controlled by the Registrar, and there are express rights of appeal to him.
The procedure for the dissolution of a society under the 1896 Act is similar to that for mergers and is equally cumber-some and onerous. This procedure also is made somewhat more easy by the pro-visions of the present Bill, which in the case of friendly societies substitute a three-fourths majority of members for the five-sixths at present required. In this case, however, it is still to be three-fourths of the total membership who must consent. This distinction is justified on the ground that in the case of an amalgamation of societies or transfer of engagements the obligation to the member, with regard to his benefits, and so on, carries on after the amalgamation or transfer, whereas in the case of dissolution the contract between the member and his society is in effect being broken, and this is considered to be something which should have a clear positive expression of support from a substantial majority of members.
As to the background of this Bill, for a number of years the representative bodies of the friendly societies movement have been pressing for amendments to the law to bring it up to date and to facilitate the operations of societies in present-day conditions. In 1964, the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee, which represents the four principal associations of friendly societies, submitted a memorandum to the Treasury setting out a number of proposed amendments. Since then several of these suggestions have been implemented, either in whole or in part. The societies' powers of insurance were extended by the Finance Act 1966, and provisions for keeping and auditing their accounts were modernised by the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968.
514
At its annual meeting in September, 1969, the National Conference of Friendly Societies passed a resolution calling on the Government to implement the re-mainder of the proposals contained in the 1964 memorandum. The proposals in the Bill dealing with mergers and dissolution and with group insurance arise out of the memorandum. They have been discussed in detail by a Working Party made up of representatives of the movement and of the Registrar. In addition, a number of minor amendments are proposed to deal with practical difficulties which have been brought to notice by representatives of the movement. It is also hoped that in the near future a consolidating measure may be introduced to consolidate the Friendly Societies Acts from 1896 onwards. There are in this present Bill a number of amendments designed to tidy up some of the imperfections in the wording of those Acts and to remove some dead wood. This will enable a slightly more useful Consolidation Bill to be prepared when the time comes.
My Lords, of the other new provisions contained in this Bill the following are probably of most general interest. Clause 7 provides that a society's rules need not contain tables relating to benefits payable in respect of group insurance business. At present, tables in respect of all benefits (other than those no longer open to members) must be in the rules. This relaxation will make it much easier for societies to undertake benefit schemes which will suit the employees of a particular employer. The societies are keen to have the opportunity to do more of this business.
By Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraph 3, a society's power to provide benefits for children during their minority is extended to include step-children and orphan children above minority age who are in receipt of full-time education. In Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraph 4, the Registrar is to be given power to veto a choice of name by a society which is undesirable and, therefore, might cause embarrassment or offence. Then, under Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraph 5, societies are to be permitted to pay sums on death of a member upon production of a grant of representation: at present they are bound to require a death certificate as well, even if probate or letters of administration are produced. Finally.

515
would mention paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2, Part 1. Property of a society vested in trustees devolves automatically without conveyance to succeeding trustees, with the exception of stocks in the public funds of Great Britain and Ireland. This exception is to be removed.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Bowles?)
5.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his full explanation of this Bill. The contents were made very clear. The Bill affects a very large number of people in this country. I was not absolutely clear just how many people it does affect. I was under the impression, after reading the Bill, that we were dealing only with those covered in Part I of the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, which deals with friendly societies with branches, and those without branches, rather than the other forms of friendly society that he listed, such as Catholic societies and so on. It seems to me that possibly the scope of the people covered was more in the nature of 7½ million than the much larger figure of 20 million that he gave. What-ever the figure, certainly a very large number of people are affected.
One can approve of the purpose of this Bill, not only because after very many years it paves the way towards consolidation, but also because it effects a good many improvements in the law. With regard to the slow rundown in the membership of societies, I notice that it was reckoned that only one new member was being recruited for every two who gave up membership. That is the present rate of decline.
Where those circumstances arise, obviously there must be branches which are unable to look after themselves; and indeed there may be some of the 750-odd other societies where the run-down is already so great in their own locality— and they are very largely based on locali-ties—that they are unable to maintain an efficient administration. In those circum-stances, it is highly desirable that that society or branch should amalgamate cither with the branch of another society
516
or with another society. As I understand it, that is what the Bill provides for and it also makes that much easier to achieve. I noted what the noble Lord had to say about the three-quarters of member-ship needed to validate such an amalgamation, and the difference between members present or those voting by proxy when it was a question of amalgamation; and the case of dissolution where three-quarters of the total membership was required. I do not know whether the noble Lord could indicate to us how easy it will be to get together three-quarters of the total numbers required to validate dissolution. The problem here seems to be that of getting general agreement while providing adequate safeguards for the individual member, without at the same time opening the door too wide to small minorities, or even individuals, who may try to delay or block what the majority believe to be the reasonable action to take. We can consider in Committee whether this is right. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to give instances of what has happened in the past, what difficulties have been encountered, and how far the Bill will overcome those difficulties.
I should like to ask the noble Lord about Clause 6, which gives the Treasury power to prescribe fees for registration of a society, or of an amendment to its rules. I understand that up to now such fees have not been required, and we shall naturally want to know why they should now be thought necessary, and how much they are likely to be. It may be difficult to fix scales which are not thoroughly regressive and burdensome to the smaller and struggling societies. There is a formidable list of amendments to the principal Act in Schedule 2, but this is obviously going to pave the way to consolidation, and that is all to the good.
We have been accustomed to consolidation before reform in many cases, and it is therefore legitimate to ask whether further reform is contemplated in this case. It might be fanciful to suppose that the Bill is intended to pave the way to a reform, to an acceleration of amalgamations, as it were, to allow the Chief Registrar to do in the field of friendly societies what the I.R.C. is doing in the field of industry. I do not know whether the purpose of the Bill is to encourage amalgamations, or merely to facilitate

517
them. Perhaps the noble Lord could elucidate that a little further.
There is one particular point that I should like to mention—and I apologise to the noble Lord for this, but it came to my attention only this morning. I understand that some amendments agreed between the Chief Registrar and the Secretary of the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee are likely to be brought forward for the Committee stage. None of them, I am told, is of a substantive nature, but there is one concerning group insurance business. That point is still being discussed. It seems to be of a highly technical nature. In view of the national superannuation legislation now before Parliament, it is just as well to get the provisions in regard to group insurance right, as they will become ancillary to those superannuation provisions and will be regarded, in many cases, as additional fringe benefits. I hope that enough time will be allowed between Second Reading and Committee stage to straighten this out.
Briefly, the point seems to be this. Group insurance is defined, for the first time I understand, in Clause 7, and the definition would cover group life business; but financial limits are laid down in Section 41 of the principal Act, that of 1896, as amended by Part II of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1966. Each employee to be covered by the group insurance policy or contract would have to be asked whether he had already covered himself with another friendly society in order to ensure that in his case the financial limit would not be exceeded. Although the clause confers wide powers of approval on the Chief Registrar, he presumably would not be empowered to approve a policy of insurance for an amount
which exceeded in any particular case the limit when taken together with any other policy. The position is complicated by the fact that there are separate limits laid down in the 1966 Finance Act for non-taxable and taxable life and endowments business.
I do not expect the noble Lord to comment on this point to-day, especially as I have not been able to give him notice of it. But, as I say, I hope that sufficient time will be allowed for the point to be discussed before the next stage of the Bill, so that any Amendments that are going to be introduced can be
518
introduced before the House parts with the Bill. I do not of course know whether agreement will be reached even between the Chief Registrar, on the one hand, and the Secretary of the Friendly Societies' Liaison Committee, on the other. But clearly this is a point we shall have to consider at a later stage, and that is why I raise it at the present time. My Lords, that is all I have to say on the Bill, and from these Benches we give it an unqualified welcome.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his speech and for his welcome to the Bill. I received a note from Mr. Fisher (the gentleman to whom no doubt the noble Lord was referring: I think he is secretary of the Liaison Committee) just before lunch to-day. But the position, as I understand it, is that the proposals that are now made will need very careful examination and involve consultation with other Departments, possibly other bodies, which may be interested. The point is being considered, but I can give no undertaking at present on what the position will be. I will have a word with my noble friend the Chief Government Whip on the question of the timetable, because the Committee stage is scheduled for next Thursday. It may not be possible to obtain agreement before that. I understand that some Amendments of a drafting nature may be submitted, and it may be that the interval before the Report stage will be long enough for the consultation with the various bodies concerned to take place. But this is a matter on which even the Registrar himself had a note only this morning. So it is difficult for me to say any more this afternoon than that I cannot give an undertaking.
With regard to the noble Lord's question about fees, regulations will provide what societies are to pay. Before the regulations are made an opportunity will be given to the representative bodies to indicate any views they may have.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, could the noble Lord indicate what is the purpose of the fees? Is it to cover expenses of the Registrar in toto, or partly; or what is the purpose?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I do not know their purpose. It may be a form of taxation; I do not know. Perhaps it is

519
about time the Registrar's office obtained a little more money. I understand that fees are charged in the case of all societies except those at present exempted by Section 96(2) of the 1896 Act.
The noble Lord asked about getting together three-quarters of the members to approve a dissolution. We are making it easier than it is at present. For dissolution the consent of three-quarters of members can be obtained by the circulating of a voting paper to each member; it is not necessary to obtain consents at a meeting attended by three-quarters of the members. And, of course, as I am sure the noble Lord knows from his experience, the Registrar will order advertisements to be placed in various newspapers, local, or even national, to draw attention to what proposals are being made by the society in question. I think that that is about all I can say at present. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied and that the House will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DRIVERS' HOURS (PASSENGER VEHICLES) (MODIFICATION) ORDER 1970
5.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order, laid before the House on February 19, be approved. I am particularly conscious that we have still some important business to come before the House and also that I have in front of me a very long and detailed speech—necessarily so, in view of the complexity of the Order—but I think I should prefer to face the wrath of my officials for not delivering this speech than the wrath and displeasure of your Lordships' House if I went through it in detail. I will do so, of course, if I am asked to. But this Order was fully explained in another place when the other place approved it.
The House will know that Part VI of the Transport Act 1968, that Part dealing with public service vehicles, will
520
be brought into force on March 15. This Order has the object of providing modifications which are necessary in the view of the Government to help the position created by shortage of labour in certain undertakings, and also to meet a number of other points. I have particularly in mind the point which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, raised in an Amendment, I believe, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, on his behalf, dealing with vehicles that took tourists on skiing. I believe there was another Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. I gather that these points, which were argued with great force, have been accepted by her Majesty's Government, and the modifications are provided for in these Orders.
I hope that the House will think we have gone about as far as we should go. Clearly, we should like to see drivers' hours reduced to what is provided for in the Act, but we recognise the present difficulties and think it would create too much hardship, particularly to those who travel during peak hours, if we were to bring the full power of the Act into force. Therefore, we put forward these modifications believing that they will meet most of the problems of the passenger transport undertakings, and also will have regard to those matters we had in mind when we placed the Act on the Statute Book. My Lords, if there are any questions on this complex Order I shall be happy to answer them; but I hope that with these few words of introduction the House will give approval to this Order.
Moved, That the Draft Drivers' Hours (Passenger Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1970, laid before the House on 19th February, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
5.17 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this Order, and may I assure him that his explanation gained, rather than suffered, by its brevity. We have noted that the Order has had a slight jerk in its transmission, and that its starting date is now to be the 15th of this month, but we hope that despite his slight jerk its action in the future will flow smoothly.
I feel that I should congratulate the operators' organisations and the Ministry

521
of Transport officials for the immensely long and complex negotiations which they have had at the end of which they have managed to reach agreement. These Regulations introduce some welcome flexibility into Part VI of the 1968 Trans-port Act, and they should go some way to meet the anxiety expressed by noble Lords on this side of the House when we were discussing Part VI of the Bill on the Committee stage. It is fair to remind the House that our anxiety was that the Bill as drafted restricted driving hours with such rigidity that many desirable activities would be handicapped or indeed altogether prevented. The various concessions made in these Regulations serve to vindicate our efforts on that occasion. They also confirm what we should wish to have confirmed: that we were indeed acting in the best interests of road safety. This was a point on which the noble Lord speaking for the Government expressed some doubt from time to time, sometimes rather forcefully, and I am glad that we are now vindicated.
I should like to make a brief comment on one or two of the major concessions. First of all, the weekly limit of 60 hours in Clause 96(5) of the Act is to be extended to 72 hours in a week and 132 hours in a fortnight. In Committee I moved an Amendment to extend the weekly limit from 60 to 66 hours. It is true that I moved it somewhat tentatively, and it was firmly resisted by the Government spokesman. In the face of the resistance I withdrew my Amendment, but I recall that many noble Lords spoke in that particular debate and it will again have been some satisfaction to my noble friends and myself to have confirmation that we were on a good point. This would apply especially to my noble friend Lord Teviot, who strongly regretted my withdrawal of that Amendment; and evidently, in the light of his expert knowledge of the situation, he was right.
I notice that in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3 of the Order this concession is to be withdrawn in October, 1971, and I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to recommend his right honourable friend the Minister not to be firmly committed to withdrawing either this concession or the concession in paragraph 4 of the Regulations. I am sure that it is
522
just not possible to tell how these Regulations will work in practice, particularly with regard to the concessions for the stage carriage drivers
in paragraph 4. We are all aware that most local bus services are seriously undermanned and therefore need all the flexibility they can get in order to keep
their services running for the convenience of the general public, with their existing manpower. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was good enough to refer to his consideration for the interests of the travelling public and I would ask him and his right honourable friend the Minister to keep this before their minds, and although they have these commitments in the Order, not to close their minds to the possibility of continuing the concessions if it appears to be necessary.
Another concession which deserves to be mentioned is in paragraph 5 of the Regulations. It allows a spread-over driving day to be extended from 14 hours under the Act to 16 hours. My noble friend Lord Selkirk, who I am glad to see in his place, made an eloquent plea during the Committee stage for such a spread-over, to provide for sports excursions, and in particular he was interested in skiing parties to the Scottish Highlands. I must congratulate him on the success of his campaign, which in the event has carried the day.
The third and last concession I should like to refer to is that of double manning. We dealt with this during our debate on the Bill and were told then that it was not feasible to allow double manning of buses—that is to say, carrying a second driver in the bus—because as the second driver, even when resting, was in the vehicle, he would still technically be on duty. There is an implication in the Regulations that this will not now be so, provided he is seated in his resting seat. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he will confirm that the second driver, when he is resting, is technically off duty, and also, if he can, to say a word or two as to how he sees this double manning arrangement working in practice. I may say that it could be extremely valuable for long-distance work and a great help to operators.
My Lords, may I say one word about enforcement? On Tuesday last I read in The Times that vehicles are now being driven—this is on the freight side, and

523
presumably next week on the passenger side they will be driven—without the new driver's log book being carried and completed. According to The Times, the million new log books printed by the Stationery Office are not suitable because they do not have sufficient space in them, and apparently a new printing is being made by the industry which is not yet ready. The writer of the article in The Times said that the Minister of Transport regards the first three months of the introduction of these Regulations as a transitional period, during which time his 223 enforcement officers will concentrate on education and advice. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he can confirm this and also, that drivers will not be prosecuted during this transitional period while they are wailing for log books and learning the complexities of these Regulations.
That is the short-term aspect; but on the long-term enforcement aspect noble Lords will remember that during our debate on the 1968 Act we discussed Clause 97, from which we knew that effective enforcement depends upon the introduction of the tachograph, colloquially known as the "black box", which was regarded by the Minister and also by the Prices and Incomes Board as essential for effective enforcement, and indeed for increased productivity. The Government spokesman resisted our Amendment on the Committee stage to make this a compulsory condition from the start, on the grounds that there were not enough tachographs then in existence to fit every affected vehicle, and he told us that it would take eighteen months before enough could be manufactured. Twenty months have now gone by since those happy days when we were discussing the Transport Bill in this House. There-fore by now there should be a plentiful supply of tachographs available, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to inform the House what is the Minister's timetable for the implementation of Clause 97 in regard to the fitting of tachographs.
With those comments, my Lords, I have only to add my further request to the Minister that he will ask his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport to watch closely the working of these new Regulations, and that he and
524
his officials should be fully responsive to representations from the representatives of the industry, if experience shows that further flexibility is needed. We all of us want the same thing: to get the right balance of road safety considerations on the one hand, and practical working on the other. With those comments I am glad to welcome the Order.
5.27 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, with my noble friend I should like to say how grateful I am for the exemptions and relaxations which have been made in Part VI of the 1968 Act. I do not wish to repeat what a climb down it has been for the Government; obviously they did not do their preparations. I should briefly like to consider one or two other exemptions which could have been made, although I have been informed that they were not made because it was thought that the industry had had their ration. Whether that is right or wrong, I do not know. The exemption that I should like to mention in particular is that where the Act or the Order allows a special contract carriage driver a 14-hour spread-over, he must always have not less than four hour's rest; but with a 12½ or a 16-hour spreadover (or 14 hours for a stage carriage driver) the rest period is the time by which the spreadover exceeds 10 hours, which is sensible. But as it is, if an express driver had a 13-hour spread-over he would have to take four hours' rest, leaving him only nine hours for driving and other work. Therefore, I think the industry would have been grateful to have had the rest related to the time in excess of 10 hours in all cases. Various people in different parts of the country commented on that point.
Another exemption I should like to point out is that in Section 96(7), to assist part-time drivers, which is unpopular with the unions. I must say that, speaking as a union man, one does not always relish the thought of part-time drivers. They do rather unsettle the industry. Other industries seem to have coped with the problem very well: for instance, the nursing profession and hospital services generally could not exist without part-time nurses, so I do not see why the transport industry should not be able to cope with part-time drivers. How-ever, I shall deal with that point when I come to the staff situation.

525
The staff situation in the passenger transport industry is the cause of much concern. As was mentioned in another place, London is 15 per cent. below par and in the Provinces the figure is 13 per cent. Indeed, the honourable Member for Nuneaton, Mr. Huckfield, mentioned that in his area of the Midland Red it was no less than 50 per cent. below. I know that in the Midlands, where there is a great deal of industry with a lot of money to be earned, the buses rather take the last place in the queue. I believe that now is the time for a Commission to be set up to go into the staff situation thoroughly, because there are some systems of work which encourage staff to remain. Money is not the answer. I know that in the other place it was said, "Put up the wages". That may be one thing, but I think your Lordships will agree that money is not everything. There are other conditions which should be looked into, and if this Commission were set up to look into working conditions I am sure that it would help.
The question of putting up fares was also raised. Nobody has mentioned the public in the debate in the other place or in this House. It would be a great mistake to put up fares unnecessarily. I know that through a Money Bill the Government helps the industry to buy vehicles, but I think the public has had as much as it can take in fares increases, especially in rural areas.
Perhaps I may mention the R.T.I.B.— I know that this is not strictly relevant to this Order. Could they be given training grants for staff? To relieve staff shortage there are firms who train drivers before they actually join the staff, but who do not at the moment get a grant. I feel that the function of the R.T.I.B., also with a survey of training needs, could do much to alleviate the shortage of drivers.
My last point is on the question of safety. After the short debate on Drivers' Hours (Goods and Services), a noble Lord told me that he would not think of driving ten hours a day in his car even when he was a younger man than he is now. I should like to say, although comparisons are odious, that the man who drives a lorry and the man who drives a car have quite different attitudes.
526
When you are driving a lorry and doing it as a job, you are doing only that and concentrating on that, and you are fully capable of doing so. I would hate to drive ten hours at a time, or 60 hours a week in my car. With regard to safety figures, although I look forward to a reduction in the number of accidents involving public service and goods vehicles, I very much doubt whether that hope will materialise. With regard to the enforcement of this Order, I know that the associations have taken an extremely responsible view; they have had many meetings with the employers and have had packed meetings. So I think we can look forward to this Order being functional.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for the improvement in flexibility brought about by this Order. I am glad that it was possible to bring in this provision on double manning, on which we put a certain amount of pressure on the Government but they were extremely reluctant to do it at that time. I think the flexibility effected is a great improvement.
I must ask the noble Lord a specific question in regard to bank holidays. I do not suppose for a moment the noble Lord has looked at the Act of 1871. It is almost entirely concerned with bills of exchange and what happens when they fall due on bank holidays; it really has nothing to do with holidays at all. We have a practice in Scotland of having holidays not on bank holidays. I am looking at the Order, paragraph 5(4); I take it that this would cover conditions for the service of the public when there are holidays, so that there is more flexibility. It is a common practice for Edinburgh to have a spring holiday and people go to shop in Glasgow. They have a holiday on another day in Glasgow and go to shop in Edinburgh. Can we not have that paragraph changed to show that it is not wholly tied to bank holidays? I read it as tied wholly to bank holidays; I think it should be tied to public holidays which are declared at certain times. I should like the noble Lord to look at that point because I frankly think this paragraph has little application to Scotland as it stands at the present time.

527
I have two other points, the first a very curious one. I see that long tours arc shown in the Order as tours of five days, but as tours of six days in the Explanatory Memorandum. I am not sure why this is so; it seems odd that there should be that variation. While I agree with what has been done, the way in which it has been done is really appalling. The measure has been compared in complexity to a Finance Act or a Land Com-mission Act, but really we are doing a perfectly simple thing. The Minister in the other place specifically said that he had decided not to give latitude to the Traffic Commissioners. I should have thought that this was essentially a matter in which latitude should be given to the Traffic Commissioners, instead of tying it up with Regulations which, as was said in the other place the night before last, not one Member of the House fully understood—and I doubt, in fairness, that one Member of this House really fully understands.
To give an example, we have some-thing called "periods of rest"; they can be half an hour, three quarters of an hour, one hour, one and a half hours, two hours, four hours; or if you want to go for slightly longer periods, eight and a half hours, nine and a half hours, eleven hours, twelve hours. Every one of those has to be recorded by the driver at the time, and the Explanatory Memorandum tells him what pencil to use when he is properly recording it. That is not a practical proposition. A degree of burden is being put on this industry
which is out of all proportion to the benefit which will accrue. Noble Lords have been shouting for four years about productivity and cost effectiveness. There has never been a measure with less cost effectiveness than the Order we are looking at now.
5.38 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Earl that I should certainly need notice to be able to reply to the points dealing with the 1871 Act. I should need to get the help and sup-port of my noble friend Lord Nugent —my noble friend in this particular case because he and I are well aware of the number of Transport Acts passed since 1871. One might find that the 1871 Act has been removed from the
528
Statute Book or amended considerably. But I will look into the point.
With regard to the definition of a bank holiday, it is a holiday in the area in which the vehicle is driving or is being used. With regard to complexity (and on this I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk), the difficulty is that the Act itself is very difficult to draft, and therefore when amendments are being made to it, in order to provide for the modifications for which we have been asked, the complexity is inevitably increased. What we have been trying to do here is to match our demands to the operators' needs; to fit in with the varying working schedules required by them and by their drivers. This is the reason why we have these wide-ranging periods of rest. I do not see any other way of doing what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has asked us to do —that is, to take a flexible view of the situation and not to be rigid.
I am most grateful for the support that has been given to this Order, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, feels that he is thoroughly vindicated about the line that he took during the passage of the 1968 Act. As I have previously said to the noble Lord, wisdom and understanding are not something held entirely on this side of the House. But we all agree, surely, that road safety and the removal of the risk of fatigue to drivers is necessary. I think one should also recognise that although we have gone a long way in the 1968 Act, and with the slight modifications here, we are still far behind the standards demanded on the Continent.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that certainly we shall keep a watchful eye on the way in which the present Order operates. Clearly, if between now and October, 1971, when some of these provisions will cease, further amendment is needed, or the industry feels that the Order should continue in force for longer, then of course my right honourable friend will be only too willing to receive representations from them. But I think that at this stage we should keep our eyes on the target of reducing as quickly as possible the periods for which a driver is both at the wheel and at his work.
In regard to the log book, of course the driver of the public service vehicle

529
will not himself keep this book. These records will be kept by the bus operators, and will be scrutinised from time to time by the traffic commissioners. Responsibility for seeing that the log books are correct lies with the driver, and also with the company. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that he had read in the newspapers that the Minister of Transport will regard the next three months as a transitional period, and he asked me whether or not a driver would be prosecuted. Clearly, the fact that this Order becomes law does not of itself enable one to say that a driver will or will not be prosecuted. If he contravenes the law, or if the bus operator breaks the law knowingly, then clearly they will be open to prosecution. But I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend regards the next three months as most important, not only in regard to proper liaison between the Ministry and the commissioners with the bus operators, but also as a good period for education of drivers and of all those who are concerned in public service transport.
The noble Lord asked about black boxes, referred to in Clause 97. I think I should say that it was not intended that these black boxes should operate in regard to public service vehicles. Since the log books are kept by the bus operator, the problem does not arise. In the case of a lorry, which is not the subject of this Order, I understand that there is no immediate intention of bringing this particular part of the Act into force.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, also asked me specifically about Article 5(2), (3) and (4), which deal with the driver on a double-manned vehicle. I think I ought perhaps to read my note on this point, so that there is no misunderstanding. My Lords, a driver on a double-manned vehicle can take his statutory rest periods during the day while travelling as a passenger on the vehicle, provided that he has a seat reserved for him when he is not driving, and pro-vided that he has 12 hours' rest after
530
wards. This means that he is taking his rest period while on duty. The rest periods taken on the vehicle mean "on duty", in the Minister's view, because the driver is under instructions from his employer and is not free to do as he pleases. At the same time, under Article 3 of the Order the working week for public service vehicle drivers has been extended to 72 hours on duty, with a maximum of 132 hours per fortnight. My right honourable friend considers that with this extended limit double-manned operation on the present scale and use will be practicable, and he did not feel it necessary to provide a special further extension of duty in addition to this. He will however be prepared to consider this question again when, at the end of the transitional period, in October, 1971, the weekly hours are reduced to 60.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, again raised the question of part-time drivers. Of course part-time drivers can drive public service vehicles, provided they have a licence and do not come within the compass of this Act or of this Order, so long as they drive for less than four hours per working day.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Rather than having four hours a working day the industry asked for 20 hours in a working week, which I believe has not been considered and is perhaps not logical. But a little more flexibility would have been appreciated.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I quite understand. The difficulty, of course, is that if we start making exceptions from this four-hour period, both in terms of lorries and of public service vehicles, we run into great difficulties, and perhaps also do the very thing for which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has been criticising Her Majesty's Government in this legislation: making this matter even more complicated than it is. Although the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, would perhaps wish the Order to go further, I feel that the House will support it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH AUTHORITY PUBLICITY SCHEME CONFIRMATORY ORDER 1970
5.48 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish Authority Publicity Scheme Confirmatory Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on February 5, 1970, be approved. It is an aim of our fishing policies to promote the development of a healthy and economic industry capable of landing a plentiful supply of fish. This in turn requires that the supplies coming forward, over three-quarters of which are caught by our own vessels, should sell at economic prices in competition with other foods. The fishing industry, like any other food producer, must be concerned with consumer demand. Since 1965 total British landings of white fish have not varied greatly in quantity. Despite a decline in the number of fishing vessels, and particularly of deep sea trawlers, the landed weight has remained fairly static at or in some years above 700,000 tons a year. Consumption of white fish has also been static since 1965, at between 16 and 171b. per head per annum.
Regrettably the average value of fish landings has been very far from maintained in real terms, and for important varieties there have even been falls in cash terms. The average value of cod landed by British vessels in Great Britain, for example, was 80s. 5d. a cwt. in 1965; it fell to 69s. 6d. in 1968 and recovered admittedly in 1969, but only to 74s. 5d. These are average values covering all the uses to which fish is put—human consumption, pet food and reduction to fish meal. Of course, when larger quantities have to go to the lower-priced outlets, then the average is pulled down. Although there has been some check in 1969 in the quantities of fish sold for other purposes than human consumption it was nevertheless over 44,000 tons, representing to the catcher a loss, at the average price, of nearly £3 million. That shows how big a difference it will make to our fishing fleets if even a little more of the catch can be assured of going to the human consumption market. Without this they will neither earn sufficient to encourage new investment nor have the inducement to land fish in the best possible condition.
532
This, my Lords, is why the White Fish Authority, after full consultation with various sectors of the industry, propose a publicity scheme on a substantial scale for advertising fish. The Authority believes that on a market where fish is in competition with other foods, often extensively, not to say expensively, advertised, it is right to collect a small levy to be spent on promotion on behalf of the whole industry. The Government have accepted this, and laid this draft Order to confirm the Authority's scheme. The scheme will impose a levy on first-hand sales at a rate of ¾d. a stone (or 6d. a cwt.), with proportionately higher rates for products. The levy is to be collected in the same way as the White Fish Authority's general levy, thus simplifying administration for both the Authority and the industry. I understand the yield is expected to be about £400,000 a year— modest, no doubt, in comparison with many advertising budgets nowadays, but a sum which the Authority believe can be spent to very good effect. Representatives of the various interests in the industry will of course be involved in what is done. Your Lordships will see the pro-vision for a Publicity Committee on page 4 of the draft Instrument before the House.
The scheme provides for the levy to apply to imports, including direct landings by foreign vessels, equally with home caught supplies. There is no discrimination in this respect. We must admit that if additional demand is generated it could benefit foreign suppliers in smaller or greater measure, but the opportunity will be there for the British industry to respond to improved demand. The Authority has, as I said, consulted all sections of the industry. Many of the representations received have been met by the detailed modifications which this Order will make in the scheme as first published over a year ago. I must, how-ever, concede that—as is not uncommon when we are dealing with the fishing industry—there are some dissatisfied interests, mainly among the port wholesalers. They would, I think, have liked to see the problems of the industry tackled in a different order, with an attempt to make statutory regulations about quality coming first. It is, however, the considered view of the Authority that it is right to start with this promotion scheme. They are active on quality standards—for

533
example, in encouraging the proper boxing and handling of fish at sea—but it is often said that the definition of quality is that for which the market proves willing to pay, and if a stronger and more sustained demand can be created then the catchers will not be slow to respond. My Lords, this Scheme is to be commended for the prospects of a positive contribution to increased sales of fish. And an increased demand will justify the Government's policy, which is designed to encourage the industry's efficiency and self-sufficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft White Fish Authority Publicity Scheme Confirmatory Order 1970 laid before the House on 5th February, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
5.54 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining this Scheme to us, and congratulate him on making the levy and advertising campaign sound so promising. Nobody doubts that the White Fish Authority are doing this for the good of the fishing industry, nor does anyone doubt their good intentions, but, as the noble Lord delicately indicated, at any rate some parts of the industry are doubtful whether this expensive publicity campaign will be good value to the industry. The sum of £400,000 per annum is quite a lot of money to an industry which is now in a state of pretty serious depression. The British Trawlers Federation have agreed to the levy, but without enthusiasm, on a three-year trial basis. The inshore fishermen feel it has little value for them, as their quality fish make above the average price in any event. As the noble Lord has specifically indicated, the port wholesalers, from whom the levy will be collected, have refused to pay it. I agree with the noble Lord; I can remember occasions in the past when they have reacted similarly to other proposals. However, the big merchants, such as Ross, Mac Fisheries and so on, are rather unenthusiastic about it. They have agreed to go along with the levy, but they are not enthusiastic.
This is an attempt by the White Fish Authority to help the fishing industry out of the depression which has been hitting it hard, by improving demand and selling prices, and, as the noble Lord rightly emphasised, by trying to improve the
534
quality of presentation. I most warmly agree with the noble Lord that anything that can be done to get the fish to the housewife in prime condition is well worth doing. There is no better dish than fresh fish, but there is nothing duller or more unappetising than rather stale fish.
However, the industry's troubles are more deep seated than an advertising campaign. This is not the time to go far into their troubles, but I should like to remind your Lordships that the costs of catching fish have been rising sharply. The noble Lord has given us the trend of prices over the last five years, which has certainly not been upwards—in fact, it has been downwards rather than up-wards—but in the meantime costs have been rising sharply for the usual reasons of increased pay to crews and high interest rates on loans for new ships. I believe there is now a strike at Hull, with the demand for an extra £2 a week for crews, which of course cannot possibly be paid out of existing takings. Costs have also been rising recently, particularly this season, for the unusual reason of shrinking stocks of fish. Our traditional fisheries have been heavily invaded in recent years by foreign fishing fleets, who not only reduce our catches but then proceed to depress the price in our markets here by their exports into the home market. Nearly all the other European markets are closed to imports of fish, so this is the market that is concentrated on, and although Government action has done something to limit imports, our market has undoubtedly been sharply affected.
In the face of this depressing picture for the industry there are two questions I should like to put to the noble Lord, which I believe are the questions being asked in the industry. On the short term, if prices rise here as a result of the campaign, will that attract in more imported fish, with a consequent fall in prices? On the longer term, if demand can be encouraged to increase in this country as a result of the campaign, can we be sure, with the depleted fish stocks, that there will be adequate supplies of fish to support the increased demand, or indeed even the present volume of supply? My Lords, these are exceedingly difficult questions to answer, but they are the questions that are being asked. There is a complex of difficulties in the fishing industry now. They really have greats

535
troubles. Possibly the time is right to ask somebody like that very distinguished figure the late Lord Fleck to take another look at the industry. For the time being, these are the questions that the levy has sparked off, and if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, can throw any light on them when he replies to the debate, it will be helpful to the whole industry. With these, I am afraid, rather unenthusiastic remarks, I nevertheless have pleasure in supporting the Order.
6.0 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am glad to have the noble Lord's general support, and I appreciate the tenor of his comments. As he said, the good intentions here are not matched by universal enthusiasm for the Scheme, and he put to me certain doubts. I must make it clear that the noble Lord is mistaken when he says that the port wholesalers have refused to pay this levy. What is happening is that one group of merchants are refusing to pay the general levy, and their refusal in that case is so far for a week only. There are various troubles there, which I think will have to be sorted out separately. But although they have refused to come in on some of the discussions that have been held by my right honourable friend, there is no indication that they refuse to pay the levy.
The noble Lord asked about imported fish and the effect that an increase in home demand would have on our imports. Of course this is one possibility, and I think I touched upon it in the remarks that I made at the beginning. If there is an improved demand at home, then the possibility is that there will be increased landings by the foreign-owned trawlers. But imported fish will be subject to this levy equally with the home catch. There will be no discrimination either in the collection of the money or, indeed, in the benefits. As I explained, it will be for the British industry to respond to the increased demand.
The noble Lord spoke about the situation that will develop if there is an in-creased demand, and asked about the price going up. He asked whether the catch will be adequate to meet this in-creased demand. In the first place, I
536
think one must say that if prices go up to some extent, then it will be true to say that we are paying a fairer price for the commodity; and if there is a fairer price for the commodity it will, I think, follow that there will be greater readiness to consider the increased investment in the industry which is possibly required, and which alone can ensure that supply will match demand.
However, there is another point: that the demand fluctuates—it is one of the difficulties of the whole industry—in the same way as sometimes in bad weather it is more difficult to catch the fish, while, on the other hand, when the weather is particularly hot it is more difficult to sell the fish. This is one of the inherent problems of the industry. But, as I see it, it is intended here to be very flexible in the approach to the advertising of fish. It will be carried out on a seasonal basis. It will endeavour to stimulate demand at a time when an increased supply is expected and, given the competence—and there is no reason to doubt it—of those responsible for the advertising campaign, I think it may go some way to stimulate demand at a time when there is an adequate supply.
In this respect, I would refer the noble Lord to an extract from the leader in the Fish Trades Gazette, which I fortunately had put into my hand just before I came into the House. That states:
"For the first time in its history the White Fish Authority have been all but given the go-ahead to launch their first adult"—
and they stress the word "adult"—
"publicity scheme geared within the limits of a tight budget".
It goes on to say that the Authority
"have earned their fair share of criticism within the Fish Trades Gazette—but not this time. For them to concede to any advertising scheme which tries to sell fish purely because it would otherwise be destined to the fish meal factory would be sheer folly."
The paper gives its approval to the type of scheme which is intended to stimulate the purchase of the sort of fish which can be caught and put upon the market.
I hope that, with those additional re-marks, the noble Lord will add to his general support and agree that this Order should be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION ORDER 1970
6.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order 1970, the draft of which was laid before this House on February 5, be approved. This Order amends the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme which was set up in 1948 at the request of both sides of the coalmining industry. As your Lordships may know, the Scheme has provided supplementary benefits for colliery workers, and their dependants, who receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme for accidents and diseases arising from colliery employment. It is administered by a National Committee comprising equal numbers of representatives drawn from both sides of the industry. The cost of the benefits and administration has been borne by a fund formed by contributions from the National Coal Board and the colliery workers.
Your Lordships may recall that during the past three years, at the request of the National Committee, several amending Orders have been approved which have held the rates of supplementary benefit paid under the Scheme to those applicable before October, 1967. During this time negotiations have been taking place about this and the industry's other benefit schemes. Agreement has now been reached between the National Coal Board and the unions concerned and the present Order is designed to give effect to that agreement as it affects the colliery workers' scheme. The Scheme will, in the main, continue to provide for existing beneficiaries, and for those who, in future, become entitled to its benefits by reason of past accidents. But for the future those who suffer colliery accidents or diseases will rely on the improved benefits of the industry's sick pay and pension schemes to supplement the benefits provided by the State schemes.
The present Order amends the Scheme so that accidents happening or diseases developing on or after March 30, 1970, will not be covered by the Scheme and
538
supplementary injury benefit will not be paid for any day after March 28, 1970. If an accident occurs or a disease develops before March 30, 1970, the Order provides that supplementary disablement or death benefit will continue to be paid at the current rates. Because the Scheme will not apply to future accidents or diseases, the existing contribution arrangements would not be appropriate, and the agreed amendments provide for these to be replaced by a contribution from the National Coal Board only. The Board will pay £125,000 for each of its accounting periods—that is, about £1,500,000 a year. This is the sum which the Government Actuary (he is also the Scheme's actuary) has advised is currently needed to enable the fund to meet its continuing liabilities to existing beneficiaries. Provision is made in the Order for this sum to be revised as the Actuary from time to time may certify necessary. The National Committee's powers to invest the fund are revised to align the Scheme's investment policy with those of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the National Coal Board Staff Superannuation Scheme. Other amendments are of a minor character or are a con-sequence of the changes I have mentioned.
My Lords, the Order now before the House represents the wishes of both sides of the National Committee administering the Scheme, and results from the detailed negotiations between the employers and the unions concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order 1970, laid before the House on February 5, be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)
6.9 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining to us the purposes of this Order. It is, I suppose, a milestone in the history of benefits payable in this industry which is so specially liable to in-jury and to disease. Nobody can doubt that the Scheme has played a very useful part in giving additional supplementary benefits to mineworkers under the Indus-trial Injuries Scheme since its inception in 1948. I suppose that one can take it for granted, although of course one does not know, that the benefits to be paid in future will be at least equivalent to

539
the benefits paid at the present time. I understand from what the noble Baroness said that those benefits will be paid under the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the Staff Superannuation Scheme. No doubt I ought to know, but it is not clear from the Order whether those Schemes are financed by the employer alone or by the employer and the employees. I cannot help feeling that it is a great advantage in these Schemes if, just as in the case of mineworkers and the Colliery Workers' Supplementary Scheme, they are contributed to by both sides.
I should also like to ask the noble Baroness a question about the continuing benefits to be paid to those who have already suffered injury or who have already, even if they do not know it, suffered damage to health, where this is found later. I understood from what she said that the benefits are to be frozen at their present levels. Is that so? Is that so for all time? Would this not be unusual? Must not one envisage that the rates will be raised if and when the National Insurance industrial injuries benefits, or their equivalent, are raised from time to time in the future? I think that the procedure to be adopted here would certainly come under criticism if these were to be frozen for all time. I have no doubt that it would be possible to overcome this by paying benefits out of the Mineworkers' Pensions Scheme as a supplement, but this is a further complication.
The general gist of what the noble Baroness has said, I gather, is that there will now be a progressive run-down of the Scheme towards gradual extinguishment, and that no further benefits will be paid in relation to accidents or damages to health which occur after March 29, 1970. But I feel that we need to be certain that the interests of those who are beneficiaries at the present time and those who will be beneficiaries up to March 29, 1970, continue to be sustained; and also that the benefits to be paid in the future will be comparable to those which are being paid at the present time. I imagine that this must be so, because, as the noble Baroness said, the Scheme has been approved by the National Union of Mineworkers, and in a sense it is not for us to question this. All the same, one wants to be satisfied, in view of the
540
very great service that the mineworkers give to the nation, that these interests are safeguarded.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for welcoming this Scheme. As he so rightly said, it has been the subject of discussions on many occasions by both sides of the industry. Contributions, of course, come from the employees as well as from the employers in connection with the two Schemes which will now form the major part of this. On the noble Lord's point about the freezing of the benefits, this is not necessarily so. It really rests with the National Committee. If they think it right they can, of course, increase benefits; and I would say that they would obviously be in keeping with the benefits currently given to those who come under the new scheme. I should like to thank the noble Lord for letting me have earlier notice of these points.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BACON CURING INDUSTRY STABILISATION SCHEME 1970
6.14 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1970, laid before the House on February 12, be approved. The scheme embodied in this Order will continue the present stabilisation arrangements in respect of bacon produced during a period of approximately three years from April 1 next. This is the maximum period that the Act allows. Bacon stabilisation arrangements began in December, 1966, and the present system of payments and levies was introduced in April, 1967. These were made under the authority of the Appropriation Acts; but a year ago a Scheme was approved by your Lordships which put the arrangements on a statutory basis by virtue of the provisions of Part V of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. This Scheme applied only to bacon produced in the six months up to September 30, 1969. The Scheme was made for this short period in the first instance because the Government had asked the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to carry out an investigation into the effectiveness of the stabilisation arrangements and of other possible forms of support.

541
We were perhaps a little optimistic in thinking it would be possible for the I.R.C. to complete its investigation— particularly since it was also asked to consider the structure of the industry— and for its recommendations to be considered by the Government in consultation with the industry, and for amendments to be made to the formula and to the Scheme itself, all within the space of six months. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, urged us at the time not to rush the I.R.C, and the Government were happy to take this advice. Last July, therefore, your Lord-ships approved a variation scheme extending the Scheme to apply to bacon produced up to March 31, 1970. How-ever, the I.R.C. have now presented their recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in the light of those recommendations he has, in concert with the Secretary of State for Scotland, put forward the Scheme that is now before your Lordships.
The report to the Minister was confidential, as is usual with I.R.C. reports, but your Lordships will wish to know that the Corporation came to two general conclusions as far as the Scheme was concerned: first, that the formula that had been used since the Scheme was first introduced should be continued un-changed, since it was as reasonably satisfactory a method as could be devised; and, secondly, that the figures used in the formula should be amended to take into account increased costs and some return on capital, and also that allowance should be made for a better conversion rate from pigmeat to bacon and a higher return to curers from the sale of offal. These various increases to some extent cancel each other out, but the net effect is that curers, on average, would receive something of the order of 6s. more per hundredweight. Since the Scheme does not include the actual figures of the various costs, which are, of course, not static, but only states the various elements from which the formula is built up, it was possible for the Government to introduce the changes proposed immediately, and this was done at the beginning of January. Of course, provision for these payments will be continued under the Scheme that is now before your Lordships, together with the corresponding provision for levies which will be payable by the industry when
542
the bacon price reaches a sufficiently high level.
We have made this Scheme for the longest period possible under the Act, and we think that this will provide a very considerable stimulus to the industry, together with the new determinations which have been made under the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding and the system of moderate control we have introduced in respect of the export of its raw material—pigs and pigmeat. Under the Government's expansion programme for agriculture, the objective for pigmeat is twofold. For pork, the broad objective is continued self-sufficiency, with home production meeting all the growth in demand. At the same time, it is the Government's policy to encourage an expansion in the supply of British bacon based on increased productivity and improved marketing. To a large extent, this must depend on the industry itself, but the Government will continue to pay full regard, in any future consideration of policy affecting the bacon industry, to the industry's needs to plan ahead in the fields of investment, development and research.
My Lords, this Scheme is a most important step in carrying out that policy. In essentials, the Scheme at present before your Lordships is on the lines of that approved by your Lordships last year. A few minor drafting amendments have been made, but the only significant change is that in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 the words
"and any other considerations which appear to Ministers to be relevant"
have been omitted, since they seemed to the Government to have been too general and at least to appear to leave too much discretion in the hands of Ministers. We have tried, therefore, in the new version of these paragraphs and in the definition of "bacon" to specify all the considerations that Ministers will take into account. Of course, no changes are being made in the basis of the calculation of payments. The Scheme will continue to be based on the present formula which applies each week a standard operating margin to the current cost of pigmeat and the sale price of bacon. I think that there can be no doubt that the stabilisation payments continue to be necessary and that it is right to put them now on

543
a more permanent basis. I have no hesitation therefore in commending this Scheme to your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1970, laid before the House on February 12, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
6.21 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for his wide and thorough explanation of this Order. There is one small point that I should like to put to the noble Lord for elucidation and to which the Special Orders Committee directed attention. Article 2, in the second from the last line of the first page, lays down that the "carcase of a pig" does not include, among other things, any pig which is "emaciated". The noble Lord did not mention that this is new wording and it presumably turns entirely on the meaning of" emaciated". I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the House who is to be the judge of this rather unattractive condition
Rather more broadly, in 1968 the Worth Committee Report on the bacon curing industry held that the support policy of the Government was the major influence on the profitability and viability of the industry. That part of the policy which is to be found in this Order, the balancing system of payments and levies, is outlined, as the noble Lord has told us, in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Scheme. These payments are not simply subsidies; for in lean times they make savings in the guarantee payments, and when prices are high levies are required from the industry which in fact occurred last summer.
Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could tell us the cost of the scheme during the past year? The Government have a formula, to which the noble Lord referred, for computing these stabilisation payments from week to week. In 1968, the Worth Committee recommended an annual readjustment of this formula. The Government then asked the I.R.C. to examine the structure of the industry further. As a result of this, in January of this year the formula was modified to raise payments to some extent in the way which the noble Lord
544
described. But, presumably, the I.R.C.'s research was based on 1968 figures. So already it is to some extent out of date. Could the noble Lord give some evidence of profits in the industry and, if this is too wide a question, may I ask whether there is any proof that profits afford opportunities to curers to expand and to modernise?
May I refer for a moment to the noble Lord's fairly exhaustive description of the I.R.C. Report. For the first time this Scheme is to last for three years. A Press notice of December 29 last promised a full statement of Government policy in this field and covering the other aspects of the I.R.C. Report. The noble Lord, Lord Hilton, reminded us that it was for this reason that the previous Scheme was introduced twice last year for short periods of time pending the I.R.C. recommendations; and it was for this that a year ago my noble friend Lord Nugent, referring to this very matter, after paying tribute to some of the many admirable qualities of the industry, said:
"We must try to get this industry reconstituted on a really sound basis."
The Government Press notice of December 29 went out of its way to promise a full statement on the I.R.C. Report when introducing this Scheme this afternoon; a statement which is expected in this House, will be expected in the House of Commons and is certainly expected by the industry itself which, so far as I know, has so far heard nothing despite what the noble Lord has told us about consultations with the industry.
I attempted to listen very carefully to what the noble Lord told us. So far as I can make out, this I.R.C. Report consists entirely of a recommendation to raise the formula, which has been done, and certain recommendations about how the industry can get better returns from other things apart from bacon curing. I may be wrong, in which case I apologise, but this has nothing to do with restructuring. To this extent the I.R.C. Report will be considered most unsatisfactory. Also, are we to understand that this Scheme will not be considered again for three years? When the basic Scheme was first introduced on April 12, 1967, the Minister undertook a review each year. Naturally, the industry welcomes any attempt to plan ahead; but the effect of this three-year duration on

545
a formula which can so quickly become outdated, on profit fluctuations, not to mention possible E.E.C. negotiations, needs further explanation.
The last point I would put to the noble Lord is this. Since last autumn, a strong home pork market and a sudden increase in export demand, mainly for Europe, drained our pig resources and put the curing industry at a considerable disadvantage. It is surprising that the Government did nothing to rectify this situation for five whole months until powers were assumed in February to license ex-ports of pig meat and pigs for slaughter —a step only just becoming effective. May 1 ask the noble Lord whether the Government will give an assurance that this situation will be watched with the greatest care and that if necessary similar action will be taken far more promptly in the future? These are some of the questions which I hope may be considered relevant to an Order which affects a most important industry.
6.27 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the general welcome he gave to this Scheme. I am especially grateful for his discussing the Scheme with me some time before it was called on here to-night, because it gave me the opportunity to take note of some of the points he has since raised and enabled me to try to get an answer to some of his questions from the Minister. I will do my best to give him the answers that I have and I hope he will regard them as satisfactory. I must say that I was a little surprised at his very first question, that on emaciated pigs, but I managed to get an answer for him. The various types of pigs listed in the definition of "carcase of a pig" are those which are ineligible for the purpose of the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. Although it is true that emaciation must be to some extent a matter of opinion, certifying officers under that Scheme have been deciding this issue for a number of years, apparently with complete success. The point is that if a pig is so emaciated that it is not eligible for certification under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, then the bacon made from it is not eligible for payments under the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme.
546
The noble Lord was also interested in the cost of the Scheme during the past year. The cost of the Scheme in 1969–70 is estimated at about £6 million. The estimate for 1970–71 is £9·3 million. Then the noble Lord asked about profits within the industry. Profits within the industry vary very much with the efficiency of individual firms. There is no doubt that expansion and modernisation is going on, but it is invidious to pick out individual firms. I.R.C. found a good general level of efficiency, but the Scheme is primarily intended to assist in meeting costs rather than directly creating profits.
The noble Lord had a lot to say about the I.R.C. Reports. I think the best thing that I can do is to repeat part of the statement I made in my original speech. Referring to the I.R.C, I said that they have now presented their recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the light of these recommendations he has, in con-cert with the Secretary of State for Scotland, put forward the Scheme that is now before your Lordships. The Report to the Minister was confidential, but, as your Lordships will no doubt wish to know, the Corporation came to two general conclusions so far as the Scheme was concerned. First, that the formula used since the Scheme was first introduced should be continued unchanged, since it was as reasonably satisfactory a method as could be devised. Secondly, that the figures used in the formula should be amended to take into account increased costs and some return on capital and also that allowance should be made for a better conversion rate from pig meat to bacon and a higher return to curers from the sale of offal.
The noble Lord was interested in a review of the Scheme. As mentioned in the second part of my speech, the figures in the present formula are not included in the statutory Scheme and therefore can be changed at any time. The Government think that they are all right now, but it is proposed that the formula should be reviewed at regular intervals. No further Scheme will be laid before Parliament until the expiry of this one.
My Lords, I think that those are the main points put by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. If I have not answered all the points he raised, I will get him

547
further information, but I think I have answered the questions he posed. I hope that your Lordships will give this Order the same welcome as has already been given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
6.33 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is promoted by the Bristol Corporation, who are not only the local authority for the city but also the port and harbour authority for the port and harbour of Bristol and, as such, the owners of the City Docks, the Avon-mouth Docks and the Portishead Docks. It is rather unusual for a Private Bill to be debated on Second Reading, for, as your Lordships will know, the House does not affirm the principle of such a Bill by giving it a Second Reading. I have no doubt that the Lord Chairman of Committees will be calling our attention to certain procedural points in due course.
I cannot help feeling that the pressure for a debate on this Bill may be due to a failure on the part of certain interests to appreciate the underlying purposes of the Bill and perhaps to a misunderstanding of the true intentions of the Promoters. I make no complaint about that, and I welcome the opportunity of explaining the Bill in the hope that in the process a number of unnecessary fears may be allayed.
Your Lordships will have seen the very clear statement on behalf of the Promoters of this Bill and will therefore be aware that the Bill is concerned with the closure of the old City Docks in the centre of Bristol. It has nothing to do with the docks at Avonmouth and Portishead. It confers powers which will enable the Corporation to cease the operation and maintenance of port installations in the City Docks, which are now obsolescent, and therefore will enable the Corporation to replan the waterfronts and the roads and develop and enhance the great potential for amenity which those stretches of water in the centre of the city will provide when
548
they are no longer needed for commercial dock purposes. The Bill is only the first step, but it is an essential one, for what will inevitably be a long-term programme of planning and redevelopment for the centre of the city. It is essential because so long as existing statutory obligations remain in force, navigation rights cannot be extinguished and vessels can continue to demand access and harbour facilities in this section of the port.
I must now attempt to describe and identify the various docks and waterways in the city of Bristol as they exist today. The City Docks, known as the Floating Harbour, are situated along the original course of the River Avon which flows through the centre of the city. The docks as we know them today were created under an Act of 1803. A barrier and lock system was then constructed at Cumberland Basin where the river begins to flow into the Avon Gorge at Hotwells, just upstream of Brunei's famous suspension bridge. This barrier enabled a "floating"—as it has always been called since—tide-free harbour to be created above the Cumberland Basin along the old course of the River Avon in the heart of the city.
The course of the river itself was at that time diverted through a "new cut" about two miles along, which is still called New Cut and is still tidal right up as far as Netham Dam in the East end of the city. That dam was constructed at the same time. There were other ancillary works in the 1803 plan, but the only one I think I need mention to your Lordships now is the Feeder Canal which was dug from Netham back to Temple Meads to ensure a supply of fresh water to the Floating Harbour and to make that harbour independent of the tidal waters of the lower Avon. The result of this was to create two parallel water systems right through the centre of the city. One, the Floating Harbour, which incidentally at its lower or western end picks up the small River Frome where it is culverted into a section of the harbour known as St. Augustine's Reach —about which we shall hear more this evening—and the other, the tidal New Cut, taking the main flow of the river.
The Floating Harbour can accommodate ships of up to about 3,000 net registered tons. All this seemed very modern and ambitious 160 years ago, but by the turn of the century, a hundred

549
years later, this dock was already proving inadequate. Ships were getting much bigger, and about seventy years ago the Avonmouth and Portishead Docks were constructed for the Port of Bristol in the deep water at the mouth of the river where it flows into the Bristol Channel. Now it is thought by many that a new deep water dock is needed at Portbury. So what we have to-day in the centre of Bristol is an obsolete dock system, which is 170 years old, which can be reached only by small ships of 3,000 tons—ships which are prepared to navigate seven or eight miles up the winding Avon Gorge, which happens to have one of the most dramatic tidal variations in the world, exceeded only, I believe, by the tides in the Bay of Fundy in Northern Canada. Frankly, my Lords, there can be no viable commercial future for these docks, which can only serve an ever decreasing number of what are to-day very small ships; docks whose existence renders impossible the proper development of the centre of the city which, incidentally, is the only level part of this great and growing city, and docks which have made impossible, or immensely more difficult and expensive, the solution of the city's acute modern traffic problems.
Quite apart from the fact that there simply is not sufficient ancillary land available in the centre of Bristol to meet modern dock requirements for containers, and so on, the financial implications of trying to maintain the City Docks are really frightening. Operating costs are bound to rise and revenue is certain to fall. The annual deficit, before charging interest and depreciation, for the year ended March, 1969. had grown to over £200,000. The cost of maintenance and dredging in 1960 was £60,000, but for the last five years it has averaged over £100,000 a year. During the decade, dry cargo imports have fallen from 400,000 tons per annum to 300,000 tons per annum. During the last six years no fewer than seven shipping lines have ceased to use the City Docks, and in 1969 the last undertaking upstream which relied upon barge transport, a pulp mill, turned over to road transport. Over and above the direct loss on the docks if they are kept open, the Corporation will be faced with the enormously increased costs in making high-level or swing bridges in the centre of the City, instead of normal
550
bridges. This is a point which I think my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve will elaborate, when he comes to address your Lordships.
My Lords, it is surely obvious that the future of the Port of Bristol lies in the deep water at the mouth of the Avon— at Avonmouth, at Portishead, and perhaps at the new dock at Portbury; but not in the centre of the city. Indeed, I do not think that there is disagreement in any responsible quarter about this.
The opposition to this Bill comes from quite a different angle. Those who have petitioned against the Bill can be grouped, I think, into two main categories. First, there are those who are anxious about the disruption that the closure of this section of the port must cause to their existing businesses. These are perfectly responsible and understandable anxieties, and I can say at once that the Corporation fully accept that proper compensation and alternative arrangements must be provided for such firms and individuals. This is the subject of the majority of the Petitions. I think that it is a tribute to the Corporation's care and efforts that so few Petitions on this score have been deposited. 1 am advised that the Corporation are very hopeful that most, if not all, of these matters can be resolved by negotiations with the affected parties which are already in progress, and that some, perhaps all, of the Petitions on this score may be with-drawn before the Bill reaches Committee.
I do not, therefore, propose to spend more time on this aspect of the opposition, except to add that the Bill allows a 10-year period for adjustment and phased withdrawal. With the exception of one comparatively small section of the harbour, St. Augustine's Reach, the closure proposals will not come into operation until 1980. Therefore there should be plenty of time to make satisfactory arrangements for re-location and compensation.
I think we shall find, when other noble Lords come to speak, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Methuen (I am sure that we are all looking forward with keen anticipation to what they have to say, and to the advice that they will be able to give us), that the main opposition to this Bill comes from those who fear that the Bill does not contain adequate or satisfactory provisions for the uses to which the

551
waterways and land in the centre of the city should be put when they are no longer required for commercial docks.
It is at this juncture, my Lords, that I think I can no longer put off the difficult task of trying to describe to your Lordships the engineering works and rearrangement of waterways that are proposed in the Bill. Incidentally, I think this is a good example of why normally it is better that a Private Bill of this nature should be examined in a Select Committee, where maps and plans and expert witnesses can be available rather than on the Floor of the House, where these facilities are not available, so making it difficult for us to go into this sort of detail. Be that as it may, I hope that I may be able to convince your Lordships that the proposed works and rearrangements are necessary, sensible and economical, will bring benefit to the city and really ought to satisfy the reasonable demands of such bodies as the Bristol Civic Society, the Cruising Club and the South-Western Branch of the Inland Waterways Association, who have deposited Petitions against this Bill.
I shall try to simplify and shorten as much as I can my description of the nature and effect of the proposed works, set out in the Bill between Clauses 13 and 28. I should say first that the Cumberland Basin, at the downstream end of the City Docks, will remain as it is, swing bridges and all, available for ships as at present. Secondly, the New Cut will become a non-tidal river, controlled downstream by a barrage and lock at Ashton, quite close to the Cumberland Basin. This is Work 1 in Clause 13. Upstream at Netham the dam will be removed. That is Work 4 in Clause 13. I hope that in future we in Bristol shall forget the name" New Cut" and call this the "New River", because that is what it will be. "New River" sounds better than "New Cut" and, my goodness!, it will be better than the "New Cut".
As this barrage at Ashton will prevent the heavily silt-laden Severn waters from sweeping up into the New Cut, as they do at present, the quality of water above the barrage can be maintained at a high standard. This great improvement will extend right into the Floating Harbour itself, and fish are expected to return to all the Bristol central waterways. This
552
New River will enable pleasure craft to sail right up from the Bristol Channel through the Avon Gorge, right through Bristol to the Kennet and Avon Canal. There will be undisputed navigation rights for craft of the maximum dimensions appropriate to the Avon navigation stretch from Hanham, on the City boundary, to Bath, a stretch which was scheduled as a cruiseway by the Minister of Transport in 1968. The prescribed dimensions given in Clause 4 of the Bill are: length, 75 ft.; width, 16 ft.; overall height, 9 ft. from water level, and draught, 4 ft. 6 in.
This improved New River will be linked to the Floating Harbour at two points, Underfall Yard and Bathurst Basin. These are Works 2 and 5 in Clause 13. This in fact represents a very substantial additional benefit both to boaters and to the public, because there will be at least a 50 per cent, increase of tide-free waters in the centre of Bristol, all of which will be available for amenity and recreational use. At the moment the Floating Harbour, laid out as a commercial dock, is perhaps only a minor attraction to such boaters, and I can assure your Lordships that neither boatmen nor the citizens of Bristol can get any pleasure whatever from the New Cut as it is to-day at low tide, in hot weather, a trickle of muddy water between evil-smelling mudbanks, far below the surface of the surrounding land, a noisome ditch. It really shows a certain lack of imagination, to put it kindly, when those who oppose this Bill continue to refer to the New Cut as if it will remain as an un-attractive muddy backwater when the proposals of this Bill are designed absolutely to transform this waterway into a fine new river.
Thirdly, there are the proposals for the Floating Harbour. The surface area of water in the Floating Harbour will re-main unchanged up as far as St. Philip's Bridge (which is further upstream than the Bristol Bridge, which those of your Lordships who visit Bristol probably know better), but as there will be no commercial navigation rights it will not have to be so deeply dredged, and the dock installations, wharves, warehouses and all that unsightly paraphernalia will go. It is not proposed to fill in any part of the Floating Harbour between Cumberland Basin and St. Philip's Bridge. Apart from

553
anything else, this section of the harbour forms an essential part of the city's storm water drainage system.
It is true that by Clause 24 of the Bill the Corporation seek to take powers which would enable them to fill in part, or all of the Floating Harbour. But as soon as it became clear to the Corporation that such wide permissive powers might be mistaken for mandatory powers they made it known, widely and publicly, that they would seek leave to introduce, at the appropriate stage in the Bill's passage through Parliament, Amendments to Clause 24 of the Bill, to allay any such fears.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why, if they never wanted to have these powers, they were put into the Bill?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think I should say that they did not want these powers to be misunderstood. As I say, they will produce Amendments at a later stage in the Bill which will omit such powers, and will spell out the fact that they will not fill in or reclaim any part of the Floating Harbour between Cumberland Basin and St. Philip's Bridge. These Amendments will also make it quite clear that pleasure craft up to the dimensions I have just mentioned to your Lordships have a right of passage throughout the harbour from the Junction Lock at Cumberland Basin to St. Philip's Bridge and to the New Cut (or the New River, as I prefer to call it) via both the proposed waterway links that I have already described.
The provisions of the Bill do not, and as amended will not, include obligations to reclaim or to leave as waterway either the portion of the harbour above St. Philip's Bridge or the Feeder Canal which connects the harbour at Temple Meads with the Avon at Netham Lock. When the New Cut is transformed into the New River there will be no need for this freshwater feed from the Avon into the Floating Harbour via the Feeder Canal. As it stands to-day, this is not an attractive stretch of water, from St. Philip's Bridge up to Totterdown, and then through the Feeder Canal, and it may well be that, after consideration and negotiation, and studies of the needs of traffic and commercial development, the Corporation will come to the conclu-
554
sion that this section of the waterway may well be abandoned to the advantage of the city and without detriment to those whose interests are in small craft.
I ask your Lordships to believe that the small-craft interests have been more than amply catered for. There will be 60 acres of water remaining in the harbour below St. Philip's Bridge, and if we include the New River proposals there will be a total of 120 acres of tide-free waters all available for pleasure boating. This compares with about 80 acres of tide-free waters today—that 80 acres including the public canal at the top of the harbour. And there will be this pleasant through-route from the sea to the Kennet and Avon Canal.
My Lords, this Bill has been described by some of its opponents as premature in town planning terms. Do people who level that criticism realise that realistic planning cannot begin until it is known that the existing statutory navigation rights are extinguished? Have these people realised, or do they fully remember, that the deficit on docks account is already in excess of £200,000 per annum? And have they ever tried to drive through the centre of Bristol in the rush hour? This Bill is not premature.
Nor would I wish to leave your Lordships with the impression that the programme is unnecessarily long-drawn-out. It is proposed to proceed straight away with one section of these works; that is to say, the bridge over the portion of the Floating Harbour known as St. Augustine's Reach—Work No. 3 in Clause 13. The statutory harbour rights in this section of the Floating Harbour will be extinguished as soon as this Bill passes into law. It will not be necessary to wait until 1980 (January 1, 1980 being the second appointed day) before this absolutely essential new bridge can be constructed, so that the traffic need no longer go through Queen Square and negotiate the notorious scissor crossing at the tramway centre and the bottom of Park Street. This bridge will leave a minimum headroom of 11 feet, and cruising vessels up to the prescribed dimensions will therefore be able to use St. Augustine's Reach and sail right into the heart of the city.
Finally, the cost of all these alterations and works, including the new St. Augustine's Bridge, is really very moderate in relation to the advantages they will bring

555
—some £5 million spread over ten years. Moreover, this figure includes provision for contingencies, and makes allowance for costs to rise annually during the period of the works. My Lords, I hope I have been able to show you that the provisions of this Bill are necessary and sensible; that they will bring great benefits to the city; that their cost is reasonable, and that if this Bill goes through, amenity and boating interests, far from being diminished, will be greatly enhanced. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Earl Waldegrave.)
6.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope it will be convenient if I rise at this moment to make a short statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I propose to deal only with those aspects of this Bill which impinge on Government policy. The Bill is a local measure promoted privately by Bristol Corporation. The primary purposes of the Bill are to confer on the Corporation powers to carry out the works listed in Clause 13 (barrage, locks, a bridge, et cetera) and to abandon and discontinue the maintenance and use, first, of St. Augustine's Reach on or after the passing of the Bill, and, later, the rest of the Floating Harbour (except Cumberland Basin), the Feeder Canal and Netham Lock, on and after January 1, 1980. I understand that the Floating Harbour and the City Docks are in effect two names for the same thing.
I am informed that, in addition to the Bill before your Lordships, the Corporation propose to introduce at Committee stage an Amendment under which they will accept an obligation to maintain through part of the length of the Floating Harbour a passage for vessels up to 75 feet long, 16 feet wide, 9 feet high and with a draught of up to 4 feet 6 inches. I gather that they have agreed to this primarily in response to pressure to cater for recreational craft.
The closure of the City Docks is a matter which falls behind the field of concern of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, who has general responsibilities for ports. But essentially the closure is a matter of management for the port authority. In common with
556
a general trend, connected largely with the increase in the size of ships, traffic at Bristol has moved downstream, and the vast bulk of trade is now handled at Avonmouth and Portishead Docks. The cargo handled annually at these two facilities amounts to a total of over 7 million tons. At the City Docks appreciably less than 1 million tons per year is now handled; and the City Docks are losing—as the noble Earl has said—some £200,000 a year. With the navigational difficulties presented by the River Avon for modern ships which have to go to and from the City Docks by way of the river, there seems to be no prospect of this trend being reversed and of there being an upsurge of trade in the docks. The evidence available certainly suggests that the City Docks are no longer an economic proposition and that closure to commercial shipping would make good sense. That is the conclusion that the Bristol Corporation have reached, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport sees no reason to dissent.
There have been general criticisms of the Bill on the ground that it gives the Corporation power to develop the site of the City Docks without proper planning. I understand from my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government that the works specifically authorised by the Bill would be "permitted development" and would not require planning permission. The Bill, however, does not specify how the Corporation may use the vacated dock land. They will in consequence need planning permission for any development of that land. The Corporation are themselves the planning authority, but my right honourable friend tells me that he would be able to call the matter in for his decision if there were circumstances which justified his so doing. Unless the Corporation already have general statutory powers to carry out whatever development they ultimately decide on they would, of course, have to seek new statutory powers at the time.
Among the works which the Bill would authorise is a bridge across St. Augustine's Reach. This would enable new roads to be constructed. The inclusion of these in Preparation Lists, and the availability of Government grant for them, are matters which Bristol Corporation will in due

557
course have to discuss with my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. These roads and the monies involved are not, however, dealt with in the Bill, and this Second Reading debate on the Bill is not the opportunity for the Government to make any comment on them. Construction of the bridge across St. Augustine's Reach would involve the demolition of three early 18th century buildings (Numbers 66, 68 and 70 Prince Street) which are listed as historic buildings.
The siting of the bridge is, of course, linked with the road proposals, and I understand that altering them might be difficult because of other buildings of special interest. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has the matter under consideration. His view is that the Bill does not override the need for separate consent before the buildings can be demolished, a matter which he would almost certainly call in for decision by himself. And, of course, if he decided that the buildings should be preserved, it would be open to him to recommend to that effect in the Report which he will be making to Parliament on this Bill. The point would then be considered, appropriately, in Committee. In short, the Minister does not consider that the Bill's effect on listed buildings is a reason for denying it a Second Reading.
I mentioned earlier that Bristol Corporation have undertaken to maintain a navigable passage for pleasure craft through part of the existing waters of the City Docks. My Lords, the Government certainly take no exception to the provision of such an amenity in the city of Bristol. The question of providing amenities in the city of Bristol is, of course, essentially one that should be considered locally. To sum up, my Lords, the Government see no reason of national policy for opposing the Second Reading of this local Bill.
7.6 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords are not confused by the order of speakers that they have on the lists before them. I am speaking third on the list now, although my name is down to speak fifth. This is because the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, felt he would like to hear
558
what I had to say first, and because the noble Lord who speaks for the Government felt that he wanted to make it quite clear where the Government stood before I opposed this Bill. So now your Lordships know why the order is somewhat contused. You will also know that when noble Lords speak from the Government Benches they do not speak for a particular Department but for the Government, and to some extent for themselves. Nevertheless, the noble Lord quoted his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and, as it were, addressed himself to what his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport might have thought with regard to the Bill. I am sorry about that, because this is not a transport issue; it is an issue of great amenity consequence. We are not dealing with just an old dock, we are dealing with an old townscape, as one of the citizens of Bristol said. This is no affront to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is not answering this speech with his great experience of land use. This is a great land issue, and I fear that Bristol may be throwing away a chance to make something new of their great harbour lying in the heart of the city, a lost opportunity which they will bitterly regret.
The noble Earl introduced the Bill with his customary charm, ability and moderation, and I was very much impressed with his speech. There is no question about the viability of the City Docks here; we are not talking about the viability of the City Docks. We all accept the fact that they are obsolete and will take vessels of only 3,000 tons, and even if there was a revolution in the techniques of carrying containers, and things like that, Bristol, seven to eight miles up a markedly tidal river, is not going to come into that kind of world again. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, will elaborate on that point. Viability is not an issue here, and any debate upon the economics of the matter is really superfluous.
So far as the City Docks themselves are concerned, if the city of Bristol wish to divest themselves of their statutory right to run these docks, then it is quite easy to do so; they merely make a statutory disclaimer, and say so. I want to take up the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd,

559
on one point. We are talking now not about the City Docks but about the Floating Harbour. The noble Lord, in his speech, said that these were in effect two names for the same thing. My Lords, be careful, for that is not altogether true; it is only a half-truth. The City Dock can be closed, and the City Docks may no longer be viable. The Floating Harbour in the heart of the city of Bristol is unique in England, and possibly unique in Europe. We are discussing what we are going to do with this. That is why I feel that Bristol itself may be throwing away something the loss of which it will bitterly regret.
The noble Earl in the course of his speech said that those of us who felt that this Bill was premature in town planning terms had not really understood what those terms were. I do not accept that at all. He spoke about the deficit. I have already said there is no question here about the financial viability of the Bristol City Docks. He spoke about highways. I know there are highway problems, and I know that there are many cities in the world which have wrecked their town by thinking only in terms of how to cope with their highway problems. So I do not for one moment accept the proposition of the noble Earl that when I say that in town planning terms this Bill is premature, I do not know what I am talking about, or that my friends have not understood the issue. It is premature in town planning terms, and this is the whole gravamen of what I wish to say to your Lordships. The Corporation are asking for carte blanche; they are asking for powers to do absolutely anything. They have not worked out what they want to do when they have the Bill.
We have heard it said, quite rightly, that a Second Reading in your Lordships' House does not mean that we accept the Bill's proposals. We do not. We put them forward for further examination by a Select Committee; and this is what I think we shall have to do, because the City Council themselves have not the faintest idea, so it seems to me, what they are going to do with the Bill when they get it. They have already changed their earlier plans, their original plans, for filling in or decking over the Floating Harbour and redeveloping part of it. They said so, my Lords. They said so
560
in their Civic News, and when this raised such an outcry they had to deny it in The Times; and after it has been denied in The Times we find it is back here again in the Bill, in Clause 24. They are still proposing the most extraordinary pro-positions, and are still saying that they are not proposing them. They do not know what they are doing.
They are saying that they are presenting this Bill with these powers and that they will immediately produce Amendments for it. The noble Earl spoke about the Amendments. So far as I and my friends are concerned, those Amendments are totally unsatisfactory. The Corporation of Bristol are still left with powers—even if the Amendments were satisfactory so far as the Bill is con-cerned—under earlier Statutes, which enable them to do absolutely everything they want. They may well say that they cannot make a plan until they have this Bill which gives them these powers. It seems to me a very remarkable statement. I should have thought that one made a plan and, having decided what the plan was, one asked for a Bill.
There has been the most extraordinary speed and secrecy about the whole of this Bill in Bristol, and I really do not know why. The first reason that was put forward by a good many councillors, both on television and in the Press, was to the effect that if this Bill was not pushed through very quickly, the Government would nationalise the ports of Bristol, and then cause poor old Bristol to have to buy back its own land at an inflated price. That is what a good many councillors said. The town clerk had to deny this. He had to say that this Bill has absolutely no relevance to nationalisation at all. There has been no proper consultation beforehand. I understand that at any rate some of the six Members of Parliament for the City of Bristol felt a little aggrieved that they had not even been consulted about these problems beforehand. All that has been done is that a plan has been produced and people have been offered a chance to object to the plan.
The plans involved have not been subjected to expert evidence. May I give your Lordships an example of the whole hydraulics problem? What is going to be done when the hydraulics system, the way the water flows in these docks, is

561
altered? What will happen? Nobody has looked at this. No outside experts have looked at what will happen when the flow of the water is altered. There has been no proper costing. Nobody has suggested what the cost might be of the original plan of filling the Floating Harbour in or decking it over. No alternatives have been costed. The noble Earl said that the cost was very moderate. Very moderate it may well be, but the cost of the Corporation's proposals looks to me formidable com-pared to the cost of maintaining the Floating Harbour and Feeder Canal. It is about £4 million. Nobody has said what the cost of maintaining the Floating Harbour and Feeder Canal, as opposed to that £4 million—to doing the New Cut —will be.
The whole thing looks to me like one of those calculations which one does on the back of an envelope. We all know that sometimes people with great financial genius and imagination can produce on the back of an envelope a calculation which is all right. But is this? I wonder. It looks to me like a pet scheme, somebody's "baby", which they now do not want to give way on and lose face. This is Stansted over again. I do not know how many of your Lordships remember the circumstances of Stansted. What in fact happened was that some-body in some back room produced a little idea on the back of an envelope which appeared on the face of it to be plausible, and would not go back on it. It took one of the most remarkable democratic demonstrations to reverse that proposal, to have it examined properly, that modern politics has seen. All that had happened was that somebody in a back room had an idea and would not go back on it because it was his "baby", his pet scheme. Is it not possible that this could have happened in Bristol? Is it not possible that somebody has drawn up a scheme on the back of an envelope and will not go back on it? It looks very much like it to me, my Lords.
What do we know about it? How was the original plan to reclaim, to deck over, to fill in, taken in the Council? We do not know. Was amenity considered? We do not know. Why was it abandoned? We do not know. Has it been abandoned? We do not know. What was the justification for this major planning decision to transfer the navigation rights
562
to the New Cut from the Floating Harbour at a cost of £4 million? We do not know. Was it possibly because some money could be made on redevelopment of the Floating Harbour when it was filled in, or was it just because it made the business of road works easier? My Lords, we do not know. The Council have never told us. So far as I can make out, the Corporation's plans (the noble Earl will answer this point when he winds up) appear to be no plans at all. They involve vaguely an abandonment of the Floating Harbour. As I said before, none of us objects to abandoning the idea of the City Docks—this probably must hap-pen—but abandoning them to the Floating Harbour is something quite different. As to Clause 24, even as amended, it is clear that they propose to abandon it. They assign to the Floating Harbour a rather minor role, as a place of water recreation, and the whole idea is dominated by a quick solution to the highway problem—bridges and all that.
All of this has aroused very consider-able concern among a considerable section of the citizens of Bristol. Those citizens, who are my friends, think that Bristol could be unique; that it has this large stretch of water which could be available for recreation in the heart of the City, and that all that water will be needed by 1980, when it is conceivable (the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may say something about this matter) that the Kennet and Avon Canal may well provide a link between Bristol and London. This may be a little farfetched and the amount of money involved is possibly greater than is conceivably possible of production in ten years, but it is possible within the lifetime of our children. If a boatway—a cruiseway, I think it is called— from Bristol to London is possible in the life-time of our children, what have you done if you have abandoned and filled in those wonderful docks in the middle of Bristol? What indeed!
The Corporation's suggestion is, "Oh, it is all right. We are giving you another 40 acres of tide-free water in the middle of the town". What are those tide-free acres they are giving? A kind of dead lagoon—and at a cost of £4 million. I would not buy that one!
The noble Earl said that we should not call it the "New Cut", which sounds

563
bad, but that we should call it the "New River". What else did he say? The noble Earl said that it was unimaginative of the opponents of the Bill to think that the New Cut will remain a muddy backwater. I know that the Corporation are proposing to fill it up with water so that the mud will be covered up, but one will still be sailing in a sort of underground river. I know that the noble Earl will correct me on this point, but it will not be very attractive. What is attractive about Bristol, and what is unique in Europe, is this fantastic setting with the Floating Harbour dock in the middle. Are we going to sacrifice those for the New Cut, which the noble Earl wants to call the New River?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I want to object to only one word: it is not an "underground" river. I do not know why the noble Lord speaks of this as an underground river, and, of course, if he will not accept the undertaking of the Bristol Corporation that they are not going to fill in the Floating Harbour then he can go on flogging this dead horse with great fun for a long time.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, a Corporation lasts for a relatively short time. This Bill, on their undertaking, they want put through in ten years. It may not be ten years—it may be twenty years; it may be more than that. How can you accept the word of an individual councillor, even though he is your best friend and you know him and admire him and respect him? How can you accept this over a period of a generation? You cannot: it must be in a Bill.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: But, my Lords, is will be in a Bill. The Corporation have said that they will amend this Bill. They have said, to make no mistake about it, that they will not fill in the Floating Harbour as far as St. Philip's Bridge. It is only the little ditch to the feeder canal and a very nasty part of the river from St. Philip's Bridge to Totterdown that might get filled in by these untrustworthy councillors of whom the noble Lord has spoken.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, they have given an acceptance not to fill in certain parts of the Floating Harbour up to St. Philip's Bridge. I wrote the
564
actual words down as the noble Earl was speaking —between St. Augustine's Reach and St. Philip's Bridge. That is a very small undertaking. What I am saying is that they can make this particular part of the Bill as tight as they like but it still is not tight enough for me, because they have powers under earlier Statutes which allow them to do almost exactly what they want to do, and I simply could not accept that.
If I may say so, the whole thinking of the council seems to be blinkered in the short term. They are saying, "We must save the ratepayers a bit of money". They do not even go into that; they have not costed the alternatives, and in addition they say, "We must have a bridge over this part of St. Augustine's Reach because traffic problems are difficult". They have never really thought about it. They have never produced any alternatives; they have never opened any discussion. Nor indeed have they opened to discussion and expert advice the whole subject of the hydraulic problems, which are immense. What will happen to the flow of water if they disrupt the whole hydraulic system? What will the cost of it be? Nothing
like the sum that has been worked out. There has been no expert advice. Ought not this problem to have been simulated at Wallingford, if I am correct in thinking that it is there that these experiments are carried out?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in thinking that it is Wallingford.
LORD HENLEY: This ought to have been simulated at Wallingford. This has not been done, and nobody can answer these questions unless there has been really expert advice given on the hydraulics problems. The Corporation of Bristol do not have any hydraulics experts, and they have certainly not called in any such experts, let alone asked for it to be tested at Wallingford. There have been one or two last minute costings on detidalisation, but they have come so late that nobody can appraise them properly.
Nothing has been said on the whole problem of the new flow and what would happen to the Floating Harbour. May I remind your Lordships that the Floating Harbour is the old river Avon and the

565
old river Frome. What will happen to the flow here when the half-considered plans of the Corporation are put into action? What are you going to do about the diversion of sewers? What are you going to do about alternative arrangements for the people who abstract water from the river? I want to stress that none of
these things has been considered by the Corporation. They just have not looked at these problems: they have had no expert advice and no alternative costings.
My Lords, I have been very rude about the Bill but I hope not unkindly so. I am not asking your Lordships to throw this Bill out. Quite clearly Bristol needs a Bill of some sort. I think it needs a different Bill from this and it needs more thought. I am sorry that it has reached the stage when it is going to receive a Second Reading in your Lordships' House and that it is going before a Select Committee. The Select Committee procedure is extremely expensive. The Corporation will have to spend a great deal of money, with counsel presenting their case. The eight Petitioners will have to spend a great deal of money in briefing counsel to present their case, and further-more I am not at all sure that the Select Committee is the right instrument. No doubt the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees will advise me on this, but I have never felt that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House is the ideal method to use for arriving at a proper compromise on a matter such as this. A Select Committee can do a number of things: it can arrive at certain compromises; it can produce certain amendments, but none of these is really helpful in a Bill such as this.
All one could do which I feel would be helpful is what I am not going to do; that is, to throw the Bill out and say to the Corporation, "Think the whole thing over again". Obviously they have not thought about it at all. It seems to me that the right solution can be produced only by the Corporation producing proper long-term land use plans and making them available for public discussion; and that those plans should be based upon proper costings (which have not been produced) and upon expert advice. The area of the docks in Bristol is unique and if the Floating Harbour is to be abandoned it must be shown that there is no other
566
alternative. This has not been done. No calculations to that effect have been made. I know that amenity costs a great deal of money, but can the Corporation show that it is more expensive to retain the Floating Harbour than to improve the New Cut? They have not tried to do that. No doubt the noble Earl will try to show that they have, but they have not. At any rate, so far as my friends are concerned they are all waiting to try to get some figures and propositions from the Corporation which they can examine. They are not there. My Lords, there is no parallel issue in England, and possibly in Europe. Somebody in Bristol said that this was a stupendous waterway, and somebody else said, "It is crazy to throw it away".
7.28 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has explained why some of us have gone up and others have gone down on the list of speakers. I would only add that I am grateful to him for speaking before me because I was anxious to know whether there were any noble Lords who had objections to the Bill—and, if so, what the objections were—as well as to listen to the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in support of the Bill.
I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I follow my usual practice of saying a few words about the procedure on the Bill. There are at the moment eight Petitions against this Bill, each of them directed against various provisions authorising the acquisition of land and the construction of works. The Petition deposited by the Bristol Civic Society and others, including the South Western Branch of the Inland Waterways Association Limited, specifically opposes the provisions in Part IV of the Bill, which deal with the abandonment of certain works. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to this matter, as also
I think did the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it will then be referred to a Select Committee, and in view of the scope and number of these Petitions the House need have no doubt at all that both the Bill and the Petitions against it will receive the fullest consideration.
The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, were of course entirely right in saying that the

567
House does not affirm the principle of a Private Bill in giving it a Second Reading. All it does is to decide to refer the Bill for consideration by a Select Committee. That Committee will hear argument and evidence adduced both by the Promoters and by the Petitioners, which of course is something that the House itself is not able to do. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, pointed out, again I thought quite rightly, that this is one of the outstanding advantages of sending a Private Bill to a Select Committee. The Committee will then decide whether the Bill should proceed, and, if so, whether it should be amended to meet the objections of the Petitioners. I would also emphasise that the Committee have the power to recommend the House to reject the Bill; that is to say, that the Bill should not proceed. If they were to take the view that that is what should happen they would submit a Special Report to this effect to the House; and this I understand is what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would like the Select Committee to do.
For these reasons, my Lords, I would advise the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees whether it is not appropriate to reject the Bill entirely at the present stage if one thinks it quite unsuitable for amendment?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with the permission of the House (I can-not speak again otherwise) I think I replied to that point in effect, when I said that the House does not affirm the principle of the Bill in giving it a Second Reading. And in this respect, of course, its procedure is entirely different from the procedure on a Public Bill, where a Second Reading decides the principle of the Bill.
7.34 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees for explaining so clearly the position and the procedure of this Bill? I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for explaining to us where the Government stand in this matter. It is clear that this Bill is not a concern of the Minister
568
of Transport; the whole issue here is one of development, and one, therefore, for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I must thank my noble friend Lord Waldegrave for giving us such a clear exposition of the Bill and its intentions, and I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for explaining so vividly the objections to it. My intervention will be very brief because I do not feel that this is the occasion for me, at any rate, to attempt a discussion of the merits of the Bill. I shall look forward in due course to studying the Report of the Select Committee, and, when I have that before me, to making up my mind how I think I should like to see the Bill when it comes back to this House.
I feel, if I may make a brief comment, that Bristol has a great problem. I am certain that whatever plan is put before the citizens of Bristol will not please everybody, and I greatly sympathise with them, because it seems to me, having a slight knowledge of Bristol, that the very greatness of its history makes it all the more difficult now for the City Corporation to reach a solution that will satisfy everybody. The traditional layout of the docks, which has been referred to so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is something which leaves an impact on the human mind in a way that nothing else does. I know nothing so exciting as seeing large ships tied up in the middle of a city, with the brightly painted funnels jostling with the roofs of houses and the masts soaring up above them. It is one of the most exciting things one can see; and if I were a citizen of Bristol it would strike me to the quick to think that this sight was coming to an end.
It seems, however, that all of us here have recognised that there is no alternative; that the docks which were so outstanding 150 years ago have now lost their place in the highly competitive modern world and that, as with other ports, the traffic is moving down the river to deeper waters where the bigger vessels can tie up. We see it happening in London, too. Then there is the great problem of how to redevelop the areas where the old docks were. Do you fill them in and build new buildings? Do you leave some water open; and, if so, what do you put on it? My Lords, these are extremely difficult problems. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave gave us a

569
clear description of the basic ideas that the City Fathers have in mind, but it was quite obvious that he did not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I do not doubt that the views that were expressed so strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, are the views of many of the citizens of Bristol.
It occurred to me that when the time comes for Bristol to produce its whole development plan, that plan, however well it is drawn, will equally come in for heavy criticism from somebody: because with a scheme of this kind one cannot satisfy everybody. One thing I feel is absolutely clear—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has conceded this. That is that the City Corporation of Bristol have the duty in principle to come forward with a Bill for redevelopment of this area. Nobody can deny that. Whether this is the right Bill, whether it contains the right features is something that can be determined only by detailed examination; and for that our Select Committee procedure is quite admirable. In due course, when this Bill has been considered by this Select Committee (and it should be a very fascinating Select Committee to sit on; already there are a good many Select Committees sitting, but I do not doubt that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman will find candidates for this one) the Committee will produce their Report, and in the light of that Report we shall be able to determine the merits of the Bill. In the meantime, so far as I am concerned, I am glad to support the Motion for Second Reading.
7.38 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion for Second Reading proposed by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. My reason for doing so is that from my own knowledge of Bristol—and I have had a pretty close connection with that city and its industry for 50 years—I am convinced that what the Corporation are proposing in this Bill is very much in the interests of the city and of those who live in it. I hope that I may say, without any semblance of offence, that my appreciation of the circumstances of this Bill and the situation of the Floating Harbour and the New Cut (or the New River, as Lord Waldegrave has termed it) would compare not unfavourably with the experience and knowledge in this respect of the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
570
In many respects Bristol is one of the most beautiful cities in the country, and I should be the last to wish to see any of its attractive features impaired, or any damage done to its amenities. But this Bill, I believe, does neither, save only for the fact that large ships will no longer be seen in the centre of Bristol. And I must say that on that point I fully share the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Nugent. This is one of the things that I regret about the Bill, if indeed the only one. As regards facilities for boating, the Corporation have done everything possible— indeed, were it not for the context I would have said that they have leant over backwards—to maintain and even to improve them. I cannot speak with any authority on this aspect, but my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal can and will.
The noble Earl, in introducing this Motion, has described the essential features of the Bill fully and very fairly. There is no need for me to repeat or to elaborate upon that description, but it might be helpful if I briefly touch on some of the more economic aspects of the proposals as I see them. I say that, even though the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at one stage seemed to imply that the economic case was not in dispute—I hope that I heard him right when he said that—but, later on, produced some assertions about the way in which this scheme had been formulated, on the back of an envelope, that perhaps makes it not so irrelevant to refer to the economic aspects at this stage.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, may I point out that what I said was that the economics of giving up the City Docks were not in dispute—we all accept that—but that what was in dispute was that no costings had been produced by the Corporation for what they propose to do with the different aspects of the scheme —that is, with the Floating Harbour.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord and will endeavour to give some figures which I hope may suffice to establish in your Lordships' minds the strength of the economic case. On the one hand, we have the cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, estimated at £4 million.

571
These figures, I may say, have been very carefully gone into over a long period of time; for this scheme was, I believe, actively worked on for two years before it first appeared before the Docks Committee a year or so ago. On the other hand, there are the savings and advantages which, even although some, such as the resulting improvements of communications, are not capable of precise evaluation in £.s.d., will, as I hope to show, clearly exceed the cost by a very large margin.
I do not think it is possible to describe this economic case without reference to some of the inevitably necessary road developments which can only be made possible and economic by this scheme. First, there is the fact that, when the scheme is complete, of the 57 acres of land in the centre of the city which can be said to be occupied by or for the City Docks, some 33 acres will become avail-able for redevelopment—an asset the value of which, on any reasonable basis, must be well in excess of £1 million and, as I have said, can be made available only by this scheme. As has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, necessarily the redevelopment would be subject to proper planning, and, with proper planning, I believe that re-development would produce over those 33 acres a much better picture from the amenity point of view than would other-wise be the case with the remains of derelict dock buildings and disused railway lines.
Secondly, there will be a saving of the greater part of the current cost of maintaining and operating the Floating Harbour. It would, I believe, be conservative to put that figure at £250,000 per annum. Saving in the maintenance of quays enters largely into this. There are some 9½ miles of quays in the harbour and the Feeder Canal. Most of those in the harbour are high and go down deep into the water, and it is estimated that the overall vertical surfaces of these quay walls within the impounded area between Cumberland Basin and Netham Lock represent an area of approximately 20 acres. These walls, including as they do structures and foundations of great age, and sections which are in poor or uncertain condition, contain about 80 acres of impounded water. They constitute a
572
responsibility that cannot be ignored, and the Corporation do not intend to ignore them.
The Council will be in a much better position to modify the existing structures if it is no longer necessary to maintain all the existing deep channels in the harbour, the present height of walls above the water level and the long length of waterway and canal above St. Philip's Bridge. Within the harbour, only 8 ft. depth of water will need to be maintained for storm water drainage and flood control purposes, and that is more than adequate for navigation by craft of the prescribed dimensions. It will only be by reducing unnecessary liabilities that the resources will be found to provide the various amenities so generally desired and to enable the preservation and enhancement of the remaining waterways. I believe that the surface attrac-tions of the Floating Harbour will not be prejudiced. It would in fact remain as it is to-day, a great and most agreeable feature of the city.
Thirdly, there will be the saving derived from the eventual closure of the Feeder Canal. This will not be fully achieved for ten years, but in the meantime expenditure on maintenance can be substantially reduced. This Canal, one mile long, with stone banks on both sides, is undoubtedly in a poor condition. It is certainly not a thing of beauty. It will serve no useful purpose. With the transformation of the New Cut into a non-tidal, constant-level waterway from which the fresh Avon water can be fed into the Floating Harbour area, the Feeder Canal will not be required, either for that purpose, the fresh water feed, or as a navigable link between the tidal and upper reaches of the Avon.
The feeder road, running along the South side of the Canal, carries a great deal of heavy traffic. At present, the widening of that road, so badly needed, can be achieved only by reducing the width of the Canal to a maximum of 40 ft. The cost of that is estimated to be at least £2 million. Moreover, if the Canal were to be retained, large and costly bridge works would be required to take the projected outer circuit road and intermediate ring road. Even if the inadequate width of the existing feeder road could be tolerated for long, which I understand to be unlikely, and if the

573
high cost of the bridges I have referred to were accepted, the walls of the South bank of the Canal will have to be renewed within 15 years, which would involve a capital cost of £14 million.
Fourthly, without a scheme for the New Cut and the closing of the Floating Harbour to large ships, a new high-level bridge would require to be constructed to take the outer circuit road across the lower end of the Floating Harbour. This, of course, involves building elevated roads on either side—an immensely costly operation which could be avoided by a simple low-level bridge within the scheme proposed. Fifthly, if the scheme is approved, the routing of the necessary railways through the southern part of the city, round to the point of crossing the lower end of the Floating Harbour, can be greatly simplified; that section of the outer circuit road could be shortened by two-thirds of a mile, and the purchase and demolition of many houses could be avoided, so reducing the disturbance of residential areas. This clearly means a further very substantial saving and a great improvement in the general amenities of the city. Sixthly, there are many other easements of traffic congestion that become possible with the adoption of this scheme—for example, at the junction of the Bath and Wells roads, South of Temple Meads, and the improvement, by the construction of the Totterdown junction, of the Temple Meads area itself.
All these things, my Lords, hang together. They are interdependent. They can be appreciated and adequately evaluated only by the detailed study which a Select Committee can give, and I have attempted no more to-day than to highlight some of the essential features. But I should like, if I may, to emphasise the importance of making an early start. And the first work to be undertaken is, as the noble Earl said, the construction of the St. Augustine's Bridge (Work No. 3 on the Schedule of Works in the Bill).
As the noble Earl explained, this re-quires the extinction of navigational rights in St. Augustine's Reach above the bridge. The water, of course, will remain, but it will be available only for craft of the prescribed dimensions. Assuming, as I hope may be the case, that the Corporation will be successful in reaching agree-
574
ment with the planning authorities in regard to the three houses to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred, the work on this bridge could be begun immediately on the Bill's receiving the Royal Assent; so the first major easement of the traffic congestion in the centre of the city could be effected with the minimum of delay. For the reasons I have given, the proposals under this Bill appear to me to be overwhelmingly justified on economic grounds, and I warmly support the Motion.
7.52 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, at this stage of the debate it is very difficult not to repeat what many noble Lords have already said, and if I do so I hope to be excused. It is very difficult to redraft a speech of this kind with so much technical matter in it. First, I should like to say that, as we all know, the City of Bristol is situated at the Western end of the Kennet and Avon Canal, which may provide in the future a most important leisure route to and from London. The country, as a whole, now regards its inland waterways as one of its most important and attractive assets, particularly in respect of its tourist trade and the facilities the Government have guaranteed in the matter of cruiseways—a recent development arising out of their White Papers Leisure in the Countryside, England and Wales, published in 1966, and British Waterways: Recreation and Amenity, published in 1967, which have given many inland waterways a new lease of life.
So it was with considerable mortification, especially during the year known as "Conservation Year", that I read last November, in the present Bill before your Lordships, the Corporation's decision to seek Parliamentary sanction to relieve Bristol Corporation of the duty of operating the Docks and to extinguish the right of navigation in the Floating Harbour and to replan the whole dockland area. We have already been given the reasons, and I need not repeat them. There is the tremendous debt that is being incurred on account of keeping the docks going, and understandably much of the trade has passed from Bristol to Avonmouth and Portishead, at the mouth of the Avon, where large vessels can berth. Even so, if the docks were closed, the Floating Harbour, as a flood reservoir,

575
would require to be maintained, dredged, and the necessary water control exercised, with the resulting high expenditure. No expert opinion has been offered; nor was there any indication of the probable costs, nor of the future course which is to be adopted should this Bill become law. I feel it is extraordinary for a responsible body, such as the Corporation of Bristol, to seek Parliamentary assent to a Bill in which so little of their intentions are disclosed.
Those of your Lordships who know Bristol will readily appreciate the amenity value of that part of the Floating Harbour, with Clifton and Hotwells on its right bank; the whole scene being one of entrancing beauty. In fact, before the war I enjoyed doing quite a lot of painting down there. Now, of course, there are not quite so many boats. It is very natural, therefore, that the Inland Waterways Association, the Bristol Civic Society, the Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society and the Cabot Cruising Club agree that, though the City Docks may have to close, they emphatically wish the Floating Harbour to be preserved intact, with the right for craft to navigate through and moor in the Harbour. I emphasise "moor" be-cause that is important.
They are not impressed by the alternative course proposed in this Bill, to divert craft visiting Bristol into the New Cut. As Dr. Buchanan has pointed out, soon after the New Cut had been dug in 1809, the Floating Harbour started to stink, as the flow from the Feeder Canal had been reduced and the Floating Harbour had begun to silt up. So that is the prospect for the New Cut, about which we have heard so much. Now that a proper balance has been achieved over the years, it would be dangerous to start a new system without knowing how it will work.
Lovers of Bristol and users of small craft wish the Floating Harbour to be retained, and the navigation rights for small craft to be preserved. They argue, with justification, that,
"the present waterways could be maintained and improved for a pittance, by comparison with the millions of pounds the Corporation have in mind spending, largely to provide an alternative route "
when the scene could be made into one of entrancing beauty, with a lido, plenty
576
of small craft, and even regular regattas, by retaining the Floating Harbour intact. What they were saying was, "Why not build on what you have instead of spending a lot of money on something which is wholly problematical and may entirely ruin the whole show?" Also, it would seem to be folly to exclude masted vessels, as they do much to enliven the scene and bring business.
I had an interesting account from a Bristol correspondent of a visit by various craft including, during last December, two submarines, which looked magnificent in St. Augustine's Reach, the obvious high- light of their Bristol visit. My correspondent went on to say that if the bridge across St. Augustine's Reach comes, the Bill states categorically that it will be fixed. We shall have no chance, therefore. of ever seeing large vessels of any kind visiting the centre again, and we feel that this would be an immeasurable loss. She suggested an amendment, replacing "fixed" by "moveable". I do not think that that is an entirely silly suggestion. If it is moveable it can, on certain occasions, be opened for certain visiting craft, such as the submarines she mentioned, and it does not mean they are opening and shutting all the time, which used to be the case with Princes Bridge. It was certainly a nuisance when you were late for a meeting and found the bridge against you, but I have not seen it against traffic for many years. My correspondent, who obviously has very carefully studied the subject, reminds me that if navigational rights in the Floating Harbour were extinguished, a future council, if it chose, could fill in the Harbour, thanks to a mediaeval Charter which grave Bristol ownership of the bed of the river.
My Lords, if I have wearied you with many details, it is because this is a complicated subject and one full of pitfalls, but one vital to the beauty of one of our historic cities. Why cannot Bristol follow the fine example of Birmingham, where old waterways have been transformed into civic assets at moderate cost? In Bristol there is a danger of destroying what we have. I appeal to your Lordships to have this Bill amended in such a way that the best that is in it can be retained, but that the rights of navigation, and restoration and upkeep of the Floating Harbour, in all its length, be insisted on, realising that, if the nation wishes

577
to retain this fine waterway as a national monument, it should be prepared to give it the same financial assistance as it gives to other places and buildings of national importance. The Floating Harbour should, in fact, be scheduled as an industrial monument of historic importance.
It seems to me, as a lay person with no special knowledge, that there is a grave risk of the general water system of Bristol getting out of control by ill-advised calculations, unless the highest technical advice is invited. And, so far as I can understand, no such advice has as yet been thought necessary. Flood water and drainage are, however, both concerned. Would it not be prudent, before the matter goes any further, for Bristol Corporation to invite a top-ranking specialist in these matters to advise as to the adoption of an all-over plan, as Bath has recently done? The Dutch know, I expect, far more than most of us about these problems, and might well be able to offer some invaluable advice. An all-over planner of known ability and experience is, to my mind, clearly indicated in this case; and we might then look forward to a Bill fortified by sound arguments, a plan, and some approach to real costs, and be rid of the defeatist and short-sighted approach inherent in the Bill as it now stands.
No one, I think, questions the right of the Corporation to close down the Docks which have become such an expense: but the Floating Harbour and the rest of the navigable waterway is quite another matter and the two should be kept separate in the discussion. As regards the Feeder Canal, I do not quite agree with what has been said. It stinks in the summer, and I am told that something else stinks as well. But the banks need strengthening and it would be a very good idea to double the size of the road running alongside, because it is far too narrow at present.
I should therefore like to suggest what I hope will be a constructive Amendment to this Bill, so that Clause 24 could be re-drafted to allow the Corporation to abandon the City Docks, but not the Floating Harbour; that is, the actual waterway. The Amendment might read as follows:
"The Corporation and any successor in title to the Floating Harbour, Feeder Canal or Netham Lock,
578

(1) Shall not diminish nor permit the diminution of the existing surface area of the Floating Harbour or Feeder Canal,

(2) Save for the purposes of dredging and maintenance shall not restrict or in any way interfere with the access to or passage through or egress from such harbour, canal, or lock by craft of the prescribed dimensions and shall maintain such harbour, canal and lock accordingly,

(3) Subject as aforesaid may construct across such harbour, canal and lock such bridges as the Minister may approve and may replace such bridges or any existing bridges."

I hope that this Bill will be passed, but I think that an Amendment on those lines will make the whole scheme possible and desirable.
8.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords. I should like to say at the outset that I approach this matter entirely from the national aspect. I have no axe to grind in Bristol: I never set foot in the City of Bristol until I had passed my fiftieth year. But in the interval since, I have been there on a number of occasions, and, like, I think, any sensitive person, I have developed a tremendous admiration for this splendid old city. I feel, however, that this matter is not merely one of moment to the citizens of Bristol, very many of whom are greatly up in arms against this Bill; it is of great significance from the point of view of the national heritage of England. I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who we all know is so particularly well equipped to discuss matters of architecture and artistic beauty, throwing his weight on to the side of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had been advancing against this Bill at an earlier stage.
This is undoubtedly one of those Bills which are coming to us more and more frequently. Although they are Private Bills, in a sense they involve matters of very considerable national concern; and this fact has been commented on from time to time in recent months. I think that we shall before long have to evolve some sort of procedure which deals with this aspect of these Bills. This is not the time to go into that matter, and I am quite sure that your Lordships would be very annoyed with me were I to attempt to do so now, but I think it is quite clear that the Bill before us to-night falls within that class.

579
Even with Bills which affect the national interest to a substantial extent, as I am sure this one does, I accept the view that normally they can be most effectively dealt with by the Select Committee, sometimes on the basis of an Instruction. I am sorry, in a way, that an Instruction has not been put down in this case (I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would have drafted a very effective one) because, although I know that some Members of your Lordships' House feel that these Instructions are useless, since a Select Committee works with such care, nevertheless I think one can pinpoint the particular aspects of a Bill—and this is a substantial Bill with many clauses, which has been drafted locally—which to us here, who should be looking at these matters from a national point of view, seem to require particular attention from the Select Committee.
It is most unusual that we should reject a Bill of this kind on Second Reading, but it is not beyond our powers to do so, and it will be within the recollection of some of your Lordships that it has happened. The last comparable occasion, in my recollection, is the famous occasion when the City of Manchester attempted to take possession of Ullswater, for the purpose of providing themselves with one more reservoir to add to their many reservoirs. That pro-posal—not the Bill as a whole, but the most substantial part of it—was thrown out after a great Second Reading debate in which the late Lord Birkett made one of the finest speeches I have ever heard in your Lordships' House.
I have a feeling that this Bill is not far off that type of Bill which ought to be thrown out on the Second Reading, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, indicated, it is so unsatisfactory in so many ways; and if there is a Division I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it If the Bill is to be given a Second Reading, then I hope that the Select Committee will look at it very carefully and very jealously, because there are so many unsatisfactory aspects of it; and there is much in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he argued that the Bill had not been properly thought out before it was committed to paper. As I said, on the whole this Bill falls into the Manchester category.
580
Bristol, with its combination of history and architecture and fine scenery, has claims perhaps to be the greatest of our great provincial cities; and if that claim is not admitted there are certainly not more than two or three others that would be in the competing class. Bristol is clearly one of the finest cities we have. There are few of our great provincial cities which maintain so much of their historic character. Few of them have as many splendid churches and other fine public buildings. Then we have the wonderful Floating Harbour, which is unique in England, and probably unique in Europe.
This Bill confers upon the Corporation the right to put an end to navigation and to fill in the Floating Harbour. That is perfectly clear. It has been admitted
by the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, and it is in the Bill as it stands. Of course, he told us that the Corporation intended to move an Amendment, as they think people might misunderstand what is in the Bill, because they never intended to use that power. I do not believe that a draftsman puts a clause like that into a Bill which is coming before Parliament without instructions to do so. This is a large and valuable area, and if it were filled in and drained in the way that I am quite clear was contemplated in the first instance it would be of tremendous financial value to the Corporation of Bristol; and it was obviously only under very considerable pressure of local feeling that they announced that they were going to bring in this Amendment.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, that Amendment is really quite an unsatisfactory one. Indeed, it is a trap. It is deliberately—perhaps "deliberately" is a strong word, but as the Amendment has been drafted and published it provides:
"The Corporation shall not under the provisions of this Act diminish the surface of the water as at present existing."
Why do they want to put in the words "under this Act"? It is because the draftsman knows perfectly well that they have powers independently of this Act under which they can do this. If they are genuine about it, will they leave out the words "under this Act" and say,
"The Corporation shall not diminish the surface of the water"?

581
That would be a very considerable improvement on the Amendment which they propose to put forward. What do they get out of the words "under this Act", unless they are put in for a purpose of that kind? As a lawyer, I perfectly well appreciate what the draftsman was after and what those who were instructing him told him to try to secure. Therefore I think Lord Henley is perfectly right when he says that this is a thoroughly unsatisfactory Amendment, and I hope that the Select Committee will look at it carefully to see that it is not allowed to go through with the words which I have just read out.
In the past, the harbour, as the noble Earl has made clear, was of considerable value to the city of Bristol. Now, equally, from what he has said, it is very much in the nature of a millstone round its financial neck; and one can quite understand and indeed welcome the steps which the Corporation are now taking on the economic side. Indeed, when the noble Earl points them out really he is knocking at an open door. Nobody has suggested that these old docks should be kept going. That is not the point of this debate at all. The point of this debate is the amenity of the Floating Harbour and what is to be done with this wide area of land in the immediate vicinity which is going to be made available for development—and these are matters of very great importance. Obviously, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, the Corporation are going to save at least a quarter of a million pounds a year on what they have had to expend in the past in order to keep up these docks. Not only are they going to gain this by cutting down expenditure, but they are also going to get this large piece of very valuable land right in the heart of Bristol.
What are they giving in return for it? What is the quid pro quo? Surely it ought at least to be something much stronger than an undertaking: it ought to be in the form of a statutory obligation to keep up the Floating Harbour, and also some-thing much stronger, in the nature indeed of a statutory obligation to develop this land in a proper and effective manner. It is no good coming here and criticising the statement that the town planning side of this scheme is premature, and trying to persuade knowledgeable people who have been concerned with planning ever
582
since it started, pretty well, that there are not a dozen, twenty, or even fifty expert town planners in this country who could plan this area before it has been cleared. You do not have to have an area cleared in order to prepare a proper plan for it. Really, I am surprised that the people who prepared the noble Earl's brief for him should have told him to criticise us on these particular lines.
What they are in effect asking for, of course, is carte blanche, so that they can do what they like with this piece of land. As Lord Henley points out, they have produced no sort of plans about it. If this Bill goes through as it is, they would then, as I understand it, be able to put this area out to the highest bidder— perhaps a development company—who could then put it out in bits, piecemeal, with a bit here and a bit there to somebody else; and some enormous great multiple store could be erected, or other unsightly building. In this Bill there is nothing to stop that. I suggest that the Bill should be tightened up in such a way as to make this sort of thing quite impossible. So there are these two aspects of the matter. First of all, they still have powers, when navigation by the bigger ships is brought to an end, to close and fill in the Floating Harbour; and they are going to get the control of this very important area, which will be open to development, in the very heart of Bristol. Really, my Lords, this is not good enough, in the national interest as well as in the interest of the people of Bristol.
I have referred on a number of occasions to the national interest, and there is one other aspect of that which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, particularly. It is the tremendous importance of this part of the Avon from the point of view of pleasure craft. I sat here night after night, as others of your Lordships did, when we were passing the Transport Act in 1968, two years ago, and I am sorry that the noble Viscount. Lord St. Davids, is not here this evening, because he took a very prominent part in that discussion and will remember it all very well. One large and very important section of this Statute was devoted to inland navigation, and we succeeded in persuading the Government to make—as Mrs. Castle had already done to a large extent at an earlier stage—as many improvements in

583
the Bill for the purpose of strengthening the Inland Waterways movement and its many supporters, who have over these last years (it has all developed within my lifetime and within my knowledge) developed this tremendously valuable sport of sailing small boats along the canals and rivers of England—health-giving and of great value in keeping up the splendid traditions of the people of our country. Here is another chance to contribute towards this: by making the Floating Harbour available to those small craft.
What are we given? We are given the New Cut. I do not know Bristol as well as the noble Earl does, but I would challenge him to suggest that the view of anybody sailing his boat through the Floating Harbour is in any way comparable with the view he would get from the New Cut, even when it is a New River.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for one moment? All this might apply if there were not going to be any navigation rights for small boats in the Floating Harbour. But there will be—extending right the way up as far as St. Philip's Bridge. Where they may not have rights in the future is up the Feeder Canal. Does the noble Lord really think that that is a very jolly place to go boating?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Earl say that. But it is not in the Bill. Will he give us an undertaking now, on behalf of the Promoters of this Bill?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I gave an undertaking in my speech. We are all knocking at open doors. I gave an undertaking that the Corporation would seek leave to introduce an Amendment to make this perfectly clear. The noble Lord appears to have a copy of that Amendment in his hand. He pro-poses to make fun of it because he says— and I say it is really rubbish—that because it uses the words "this Act" means that this wicked Corporation will bring in another Act to cancel it.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if the noble Earl is trying to persuade me that the Amendment that I read out secures this, then I am afraid that, as a lawyer.
584
I must tell him he is wrong. If he will give an undertaking that some words will be put into the Bill to secure this then I shall be grateful to him. I regard this as very important indeed. If the small boats are not to be confined to the New Cut which, even when improved in the way he suggested, will not be much more than a canal from which the splendid architectural features of Bristol are, so fas ar I know, completely invisible, we shall be pleased. When this area of the Old Dock and warehouses has been swept away, the view from the Floating Harbour across the land will be very fine. And, provided that the planning is done properly and effectively and expertly, and that the people of Bristol—and not only they but the planning experts of England —are enabled to see in advance, before it is all finally settled so that it cannot be altered, what is proposed, then I am sure we shall be pleased. If all this can be got into the Bill, it will be a very different sort of Bill from that to which we are now being asked to give a Second Reading.
8.23 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, as the owner of a small launch in which I have in fact steamed through the Floating Harbour and which I take up and down the River Avon, I start by being impressed by the very emotive name of Lord Henley. I find myself in great sympathy with many points that he has raised. That applies also to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. I feel that both Lord Henley and Lord Chorley have perhaps been a little hard on the Corporation, and I am in the same difficulty as the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, was, in that I do not want to repeat all that has been said in a debate which has lasted until quite late. I feel, however, that I must try to round up one or two points, and one in particular. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has given us two principal reasons why it is necessary, but very regrettable, to exclude ocean-going ships from the major part of the Floating Harbour of the City Docks. We have heard figures quoted for the reductions in maintenance that this will make possible. Those figures varied quite a bit. One would have hoped that we might have had some authoritative figures. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair

585
of Cleeve, would say that his were the "True Cross" in this respect.
The second reason is the matter of the simplification of road and bridge building that is made possible if ocean-going ships are excluded from the Floating Harbour. That is the point about which I feel there has been some confusion; because this is the small boat issue. As I understand the situation, both these advantages would still accrue if we allowed small craft to continue to navigate through the Floating Harbour. All the bridges proposed would have a head room of 12 feet, the maintenance of these expensive wharves and walls could cease and the amount of expenditure on dredging could be reduced. I feel that there is a possibility of confusing the issues if we try to claim that it is necessary totally to extinguish the rights of navigation through the Floating Harbour if we want to achieve these two objectives. Therefore I think that to some extent we can say that the provisions of this Bill must be justified for reasons other than those two. In a way, therefore, it is rather unkind to the Corporation to "knock them" when they are proposing to spend £4 million, a large part of which must surely be to improve the amenities of this city.
When one comes down to details, I agree with many noble Lords who spoke that we shall, I hope, have a great many opportunities to discuss them; for I should think that the Select Committee is going to be a fairly busy and long-drawn-out affair, judging by some of the things that have been said, particularly by Lord Henley. As I see it, £2 million is to be expended on—the expression used is "floating the New Cut". That is rather a pretty picture; but I think we all know what it means: to make it navigable. Clearly there are advantages in doing that. I do not want to overplay those advantages, because you must envisage the New Cut, even when it is flooded, as looking something like a flooded central reservation in the middle of a motor-way, seeing that it is going to have two major roads, one on either side.
If I might follow the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I would say that this is an opportunity for Bristol to create something new in the Floating Harbour at the same time as extinguishing the rights of major navigation; and if I may introduce a personal
586
note, some of us hope to encourage the city to do just that. Also—to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, of the evocative nature of masts and funnels sited in a city like this— some of us are proposing that we should bring back a ship built there 127 years ago. We feel that possibly this would also point the way in which Bristol might retain some ships in its central area. I hope that this notion may be expanded by having other ships to join this most noble of ships. I hope that I may be forgiven for flying my own particular flag.
Higher up the system, the floating of the New Cut makes possible two other provisions in the Bill. One is the closing of the Feeder, the other the potential closing of St. Philip's Reach. I work in a factory which overlooks the
Feeder and I know it fairly well. I cannot shed any tears for it. I share the suspicion of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about some of the figures being adduced—I say that with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. He said there was going to be a potential liability of £1½ million for works associated with the Feeder. He also produced a figure about which I was not very clear. He said that we were going to save 33 acres which perhaps could be valued at £1½ million. I imagine these to be the area covered by the Feeder and St. Philip's Reach.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I was referring to the fact that in the whole of the area occupied by the docks in Bristol and the Feeder Canal of 57 acres—that is to say, occupied by or for the docks—33 acres of that total (including the centre, including the area covered by the dock buildings) would be available for redevelopment with due planning permission.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. The point was that the floating of the New Cut is suggested as making it possible to fill in the Feeder Canal and the St. Philip's Reach. I thought that that was the 33 acres we were talking about, which conceivably could be put on the other side of the balance sheet against the cost to be incurred in achieving the closing of these two parts of the water. I cannot work up any great enthusiasm for the Feeder Canal. I

587
should not be very sorry to see it go. I can well believe that the original course of the Avon, which would then become navigable (there are some problems about the height of bridges, but this is not really the moment to mention them) could be a more attractive waterway.
But I think we are on much more delicate ground when we talk about the closing of St. Philip's Reach. I do not believe that a very impressive case has yet been made out for doing this. For instance, my understanding is that you need a very large culvert underneath the Reach, for two reasons; first, for the storm-water angle and also because there is a danger that the cul-de-sac arm which will be created in the Floating Harbour by closing up St. Philip's Bridge may become a stagnant area. This is quite aside from the important issue which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised about the whole question of hydraulic balance. Obviously, that is a very important angle, though I confess it is a phrase which I use without any deep understanding of exactly what is implied by it.
My Lords, it may be said that the Corporation have not gone far enough in this Bill; but at the stage at which we have arrived I should prefer to see an approach on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, whereby we simply say that the major achievements they need can be arrived at by limiting the rights of navigation, rather than by extinguishing them altogether; and all the other associated works seem to me to be a separate issue.
8.32 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think we have had an interesting debate. At this time in the evening I do not propose to go through all the speeches that we have heard. I think the important things were said in the early stages, when the Government speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out that there was no Government objection to the Bill and, what was almost more important from the way the debate developed later, that the planning considerations (Bristol Corporation is, of course, a planning authority) could, like all other planning proposals, be called in by the Minister if it was not thought to be satisfactory.
588
I was surprised to hear some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, with all his experience of planning. The noble Lord seemed to suppose that this Bill would have in it a detailed town map or plan. My Lords, this is not how we proceed at all. This Private Bill is to enable the Corporation to have navigational rights extinguished in the Floating Harbour and that is all. At the same time, they want—I think rightly—to do other works connected with the Floating Harbour, and these are set out in Clause 13.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley—I agree with a great deal of what he said— made an impassioned plea about not stopping the Floating Harbour. We are not going to stop the Floating Harbour and we do not get anywhere by discussing that. We are both knocking at an open door. I am authorised by the Corporation to say that they propose to make an amendment—and nobody could be sorrier than I that it is not already in the Bill. The Corporation propose to produce an Amendment to guarantee that all the Floating Harbour except this little small bit of St. Philip's Reach (which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, seems to like but which nobody else seems frightfully enamoured of) must be left open. Indeed, St. Philip's Reach may be left open—it is not settled —and the Feeder Canal may be shut.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, got quite excited about the Bristol Corporation having done all this on the back of an envelope without any thought. I do not know where the noble Lord gets that idea, because the Bill was deposited in November, 1969. It has been carefully thought out. The Corporation, having deposited the Bill in November are now proposing to bring in an amendment. I am grateful to your Lordships for having raised this debate so that I may say that, and that the one thing that all your Lordships are frightened may be going to happen, the closing of the Floating Harbour, is not going to happen.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, if a Bill is produced without any evidence to substantiate the things that are put in it, then it is implicit in the minds of those of us who read it that it has been produced on the back of an envelope.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, whether it is necessary to put a Preamble in the Bill about the town clerk having spent so many hours thinking about the Bill, I do not know. But this Bill has been studied carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that we ought to go to Wallingford. I would say that the Bristol Avon River Authority is satisfied with the proposals from the technical standpoint. After all, the City Docks were constructed before Wallingford had ever been heard of. It would be very expensive to go to Wallingford and it would mean a great deal of delay; but presumably that is a matter which might be considered in Committee.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned two Amendments to the Bill which the Corporation are put-ting in. I happen to have read what I presume to be the Amendments and they do not quite bear out what the noble Earl says.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not know whether I should be out of order in reading what are only draft Amendments at this stage, but one Amendment states:
"The Corporation shall not under the provisions of this Act "—
and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, had doubts about whether the expression "under the provisions of this Act" is right or not. All I can say is that this
Amendment was drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen who may have experience that might match even Lord Chorley's on this kind of legal drafting. It goes on:
"diminish the surface area of water as at present existing which shall be available for the passage "—
and so on.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to read out the pro-visions of the Amendment, may I read out the gloss put upon it by people like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who disapprove of it? The words "under the provisions of this Act" enable the Corporation to do so under any other power which may exist; and once the right to navigate is extinguished the Corporation can then diminish the present surface area by filling in or decking over, because under an ancient charter it owns the bed of the Floating Harbour. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was mak-
590
ing was is that there is no safeguard whatever, by putting in an Amendment "under the provisions of this Act", be-cause once that Act is through there are provisions of earlier Statutes, earlier Charters, which enable the Corporation to do what it damned well likes.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think that Corporations can "do what they damned well like"—if I may use that language in your Lordships' House. I am advised that that statement, which I had hoped was not going to be raised in this House, is not an accurate interpretation of the law. This is a legal point and I am not a lawyer, but my advice from lawyers, and I think reputable lawyers—Parliamentary agents and people of that sort—is that this question that the Corporation first of all puts in an Amendment to undertake that it will not fill in a certain section of the harbour and can then get out of it because it owns the fundus of the harbour, is not frightfully "hot" law. Well, my Lords, it would be "hot" law, but I am told that it is not very likely.
My Lords, may I move to another point? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that no thought had been given, for instance, to the drainage works or the discharge of effluent. There is a very long clause in the Bill, Clause 25, which deals specifically with that point. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for explaining the procedure to us and to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who stressed the sadness that we all have that times have changed and that we cannot any longer have tall ships in the centre of the town. We are all knocking at an open door here. We know we can-not bring in these great ships any longer, and the whole point of this discussion and controversy is: What are you going to do with this famous piece of water in the middle of the city of Bristol when you do not have the big ships there?
My Lords, I can do no more than say that I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord Lord Methuen, and the points which he has made. I am very sorry indeed to be in any kind of dispute with the noble Lord on a matter of æsthetics because of—
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, you could have a lido on some of this area.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: —his very great knowledge and experience, which I very much respect, in all æsthetic matters of this kind. He asked about regattas at Bristol. That is just what we can do. If we knock down the old warehouses no longer used, we shall still have the harbour, with cleaner water and without silt from the Severn. Incident-ally, I am advised that the New Cut will not silt up half so fast as it does now, because the barrage at Ashton will prevent the muddy water (which looks like cocoa) from coming up into the Cut. Personally, I think that this is an imaginative idea and I hope that when my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal goes up there in his boat, he will find it so. This is similar to the difficulty that always bothered me on the Forestry Commission: that half the people did not want us to cut down the trees and the other half were furious if we planted them.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I am told by keen canoeists that once in the New Cut, it is like being in a communication trench. One cannot see out of it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, that is so at the moment. The New Cut is tidal; and when the tide is out and the drains in there are enormous stretches of mud bank and no canoeist, except a very brave one in a rubber suit, would go along the New Cut. We now propose to take away the dam or weir at Netham and to put in a barrage at Ashton, so that there will always be a constant water level of clear water.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, but I am told by those who know the place that the water level will never be high enough to be able to see out.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this is what we intend and hope to do. We intend by the provisions of this Bill to make this a New River from the old Floating Harbour up to St. Philip's Bridge. Most people coming to Bristol ask where St. Philip's Bridge is. It is round the corner among the slums which the Bristol Corporation are trying to redevelop.
I have other notes but it is late, and I do not think your Lordships want to hear much more from me. I believe that this
592
is a good and imaginative scheme. The point has constantly been made that we ought to have come here before your Lordships' House with a full layout of the Bristol development plan, showing where we are going to put the six-storey flats, and this, that and the other. That is not the purpose of this Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I did not say that we here in this House should have been told, but the people of Bristol. They do not know what the plan is going to be.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, of course the people of Bristol are the very people who will do this. It is they, through their elected Council, who will produce a development plan; and if the plan is bad, the Minister will call it in. But this plan cannot sensibly be started until we know that it is viable; and it cannot be viable until we extinguish the existing navigation rights in the harbour. And that is the purpose of this Private Bill.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, we do not want a Bill to give this overriding power in every direction merely to extinguish the right to run the docks. That can be done by disclaimer.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder if I may point out to your Lordships that this is not the Committee stage and we are verging upon that. It is the Second Reading of the Bill.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, perhaps I have been too good in giving way. I do not think this Bill gives this carte blanche. It is a perfectly proper Bill, properly drawn, to extinguish navigation rights and give powers to undertake certain works that are necessary to maintain the harbour in a new condition and to turn the New Cut into a New River. I think that these points had now better be discussed with the necessary plans and all the experts and counsel, at much expense and time, and I am sure to the great enjoyment of some people, upstairs.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before nine o'clock.