Lords Sitting of 19 March 1970

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

LONDON POSTAL DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the misconception that the designation of London postal districts as E.17, E.11, E.10 and E.4 indicates that they are in East London whereas they are in the North-East, an approach could be made to the Post Office to redesignate those districts correctly.]
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords. I am advised that the designation of these postal districts derives from postal operational requirements, with which the Government would not wish to interfere.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for giving that part of the reply which I heard? I did not quite hear the whole of it. May I ask him whether he would agree that these designations are very confusing? One frequently finds in the Press references to "East London" which include Woodford and Wanstead, which was represented by the late Sir Winston Churchill, who surely never sat for an East London constituency. In those circumstances, will not my noble friend make an approach to the Post Office to consider this matter?
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords. The decision of the Government is not to do so, but my noble friend can certainly do so himself.
LORD SORENSEN: I thank my noble friend. I will read the full reply tomorrow.

FOOTPATHS: INSPECTION AND RESTORATION
3.7 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to ensure that county councils and other authorities periodically inspect traditional footpaths and where it is discovered that those footpaths have been ploughedup or obstructed, to ensure that they be restored to public usage or nearby alternatives be provided.]
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, measures to safeguard footpaths, and to assert and protect public rights of way, are the statutory duty of the highway authorities. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a circular to local authorities in 1968 advising them, in the absence of any action by the occupier, to take action themselves, under their new powers, to restore paths after ploughing. My right honourable friend has received very few complaints about the way in which local authorities are carrying out their duties, but he will of course look into any cases which my noble friend likes to send to him.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that in some cases county councils and similar authorities have put up signposts? Since they are of a permanent nature, and therefore extremely valuable in preserving these very valuable byways, could she not at least see that the various authorities responsible for this service to the community are acquainted with their powers?
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think that they are acquainted with the position. Indeed, all the evidence which the Ministry have is that there are very few complaints about their not carrying out these duties. But, of course, if my noble friend has specific instances, I shall be very glad to go into them.

RHODESIAN CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 propose to take any steps to remove from the Roll of Her Majesty's Privy Council the Chief Justice of the so-called Republic of Rhodesia.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Sir Hugh Beadle took an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown when he was admitted to the Privy Council. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place on March 2, those who continue to serve the illegal regime after the purported assumption of republican status can no longer be regarded as serving the Crown. We are waiting to see whether Sir Hugh Beadle intends to take any step to resolve this contradiction.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that very satisfactory Answer, may I ask him what steps the Government propose to take if Sir Hugh Beadle does not take any steps to resolve the contradiction?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at the present moment I should regard that as a hypothetical question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask this supplementary question? All of us realise the complexity of the present situation which has been created by the proclamation of a Republic, but do not the Government feel that, whatever may be their opinion of the present Government of Rhodesia, there is no suggestion in the Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, of any reflection on the personal integrity of Sir Hugh Beadle? I fully understand that as the situation develops certain decisions may have to be taken, but I rather got the impression from the Question of the noble Lord,
1234
Lord Beaumont, that there was a reflection on the integrity of Sir Hugh Beadle.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I want merely to ask a question.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not being long about it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Sit down.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I think the House will take so much discussion on a Question, and no more. It would be helpful if the noble Marquess would now put his question. I think he has already got his argument across.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I will rapidly put my question. Is there in the Government's mind any suggestion of a reflection on the integrity of Sir Hugh Beadle, or is it merely something which must happen owing to the changed situation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Marquess that this is a complex subject. I should have thought that we had a stark fact: that Rhodesia is in rebellion with the Crown. That means that any members or supporters of the regime are in fact seeking to deprive Her Majesty of her authority over one of her Dominions. Therefore any act by anyone has to be considered not only by the Crown itself but also by that individual. As to anybody's personal integrity, I think that is for each individual himself to judge.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the easiest way to deal with this problem is never to invite these people to Privy Council meetings, but to let them keep the symbol?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend able to give the House any indication of the reasons which induced Sir Hugh Beadle to waive his Oath of Allegiance?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that as a Privy Counsellor you take an Oath of Allegiance on being

1235
admitted to the Privy Council. You are not required to repeat it. At the present moment I am not aware of the intentions of Sir Hugh Beadle in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, has Sir Hugh Beadle repudiated his allegiance presently?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, here the matter is complex. If Sir Hugh Beadle were to continue to give support to, and serve in, a rebellion, I should have thought that that was a direct contradiction to the Oath of Allegiance as a Privy Counsellor.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, without wishing in any way to deny the difficult and complex questions that may be involved, may I ask whether the Government are suggesting that they wish the judges in Rhodesia no longer to carry out any judicial functions in that country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is another question. If the noble Lord wishes for an answer, perhaps he would put the question on the Order Paper.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, is it possible to be a rebel and at the same time maintain allegiance to the Crown?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should have thought that the two things completely contradicted one another.

NAVY RECRUITING
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what important steps they are taking, apart from advertising and the recent substantial improvement in pay, to improve recruiting in the Navy.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, we are constantly examining how the recruiting organisation can be made more effective. We seek too to enhance the long term appeal of the naval career by improvements in the whole field of conditions of service apart from pay. I would draw the atten
1236
tion of the noble Lord to two examples, which have recently been made public. Discussions are going well on the introduction of an InService Degree for young General List Officers in the seaman or supply and secretariat specialisations; and for ratings we shall later this year be introducing the warrant officer rank.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not think that if the paying off of the carriers was postponed, it would demonstrate to everybody that the Royal Navy has passed the bottom of a dangerously low curve, and that this in itself would have a marked and beneficial effect on recruiting?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that is way outside the ambit of the noble Lord's Question. There are many fields in which new developments are coming and which are much more significant than the carrier question. I think that the retention of the carriers would have no effect on recruitment at all.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, may I put the question in another way? Would not the Minister agree that apart, perhaps, from the Polaris submarine, the carriers axe easily the largest and most powerful ships in the fleet; that their paying off is bound to result in a lessening of pride and enthusiasm for the Navy, and that this in turn will be bad for recruiting?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should have thought that the Royal Navy was a forward-looking organisation and not a backward-looking one. After all, the carriers have played their part during their timespan in the Navy and I think that they are now becoming obsolete weapons of war.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and I do not think that their retention would affect recruiting. In fact, their retention would adversely affect the manning of other types of ships.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, carriers apart, would not the noble Lord agree that the fewer ships we have, the

1237
less likely it is that the recruiting figures for the Navy are going to be satisfactory?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, so long as we can match men to ships, the object of the exercise is satisfactorily achieved. We shall not be able to match men to ships if we retain the carriers.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, carriers and controversy apart, would not the noble Lord agree that the best way, the surest way, of improving Naval recruiting is for Her Majesty's Government to manifest their determination to maintain (his country as a major maritime nation of the first rank?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can see no evidence to the contrary.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thought it might be helpful if I said something about the proposed arrangements for the Whitsun Recess. If it is possible for us to take only a week's Recess, subject to business we should rise on May 21, returning on a date in the week beginning June 1. If business enables us to take a somewhat longer Recess, I shall make a further statement in due course.

SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS MEASURE
3.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliafor the purposes of the Measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. At a late
1238
late hour last night in another place similar Motions were passed to those which it is my duty to move in your Lordships' House today. They went through another place with a rapidity which might well have been matched here had they been in the charge of someone higher up in the "batting order" on these Benches. Indeed, my Lords, I hope that it may be acceptable if I move the second Motion with the minimum number of words of commendation; but I now ask your Lordships' customary indulgence if the first of these "twin maiden speeches" is a little longer.
The Sharing of Church Buildings Measure is designed to dovetail with the Sharing of Church Buildings Act, which received the Royal Assent last summer. That Act permits a number of Churches, of which the Church of England is one, to enter into a sharing agreement whereby a building owned by one Church may be used by the partners to such an agreement, or may be owned and used by them jointly. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury introduced the Bill in this House and explained then some of the legal difficulties it was intended to overcome. He pointed out that certain problems would still remain for the Church of England in cases of consecrated buildings and of official parsonage houses. Sections 5 and 7 of the Act provide that authority to make such agreements on behalf of the Church of England must be given under a pastoral scheme made in accordance with the Pastoral Measure 1968, as extended for this particular purpose by a subsequent Measure. The Measure before the House today is that subsequent Measure. While, in a sense, it is domestic to the Church of England, it is a necessary supplement to the Act, if the Church is to cooperate with others in making the kind of agreements for the sharing of buildings which are envisaged in the Act.
Clause 1 of the Measure extends the Pastoral Measure of 1968 so as to enable proposals for the joint ownership of consecrated churches and parsonage houses to be included in pastoral schemes. This will mean that when the ownership of a consecrated church is to be changed to a joint ownership with another church, then all the interested parties—clergy, laity and patrons—have

1239
to be consulted and their views considered, both by the pastoral committee of the diocese and then by the Church Commissioners. Indeed, there is a final appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an aggrieved party. Clause 2 of the Measure deals largely with financial and technical matters relating to Church of England buildings. The most important provision here is that this will enable the Church Commissioners to make grants for joint projects in the same way as they help to provide opportunities for Anglican worship and for the pastoral care of the whole population.
It was my privilege for eight years to be in the service of all the Churches of these islands associated in the British Council of Churches, and it is therefore a special pleasure to me today to be involved in the very last stages of the enactment required to make the sharing of church buildings legally possible. The aim of the Act was most certainly not to encourage the Church of England to opt out of any of its responsibilities but to undertake them where possible in partnership, avoiding any unnecessary expenditure because of overlap or duplication of buildings. This Measure offers the way for such opportunities to be taken up, where there is the necessary will to do so. It is not only in new towns and housing estates where this can be done to the advantage of all but also perhaps in old communities where a large part of the population has moved away.
In welcoming the original Bill on behalf of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was quick to point out that where such opportunities are seized, not only will duplication be avoided and economies effected but a sense of a united community purpose will also be inculcated. This Measure is a small contribution towards1 the large efforts that all the Churches are seeking to make in fulfilment of their common obedience and in the furtherance of their common task. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.— (The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would like me to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for explaining so briefly and eloquently the purpose of this Measure. And I am sure that the House would still more wish me to congratulate him upon his maiden speech. It gives me particular pleasure to do this, because some years ago we were both members of the same diocese, the Diocese of St. Albans. I would add that I look forward very much, as I am sure we all do, not only to hearing his speech in introducing a next Measure but to his joining our debates on wide issues in the weeks and months ahead.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I would crave the opportunity of joining with the previous speaker in felicitating my right reverend friend on the first part of his maiden speech and saying, as a Nonconformist, how much we welcome his facilitation of a Measure which otherwise would have been inoperative in some cases. As I shall be a beneficiary of this Measure, it is all the more imperative that I should express, on behalf of many like myself, the pleasure we have at the prospect that lies before us. Nobody very much wants to share Methodist church buildings—anyway, not for ecclesiastical purposes—and therefore we ought to make it quite clear that we are going to be the beneficiaries in large measure of this particular enactment. I hope very much that this is the kind of ecclesiastical sprat that will catch a more spiritual mackerel. In the last analysis, if we cannot come together on theological grounds in the first instance, the fact that we geographically assemble in the same places may ultimately help us to that wider unity. I welcome this very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COLLEGIATE CHURCHES (CAPITAL ENDOWMENTS) MEASURE
3.27 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it

1241
is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I now beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Measure is designed to correct an omission from the Cathedrals Measure 1963. That Measure repeals certain provisions in the Ecclesiastical Commission Act, 1868, which enables land to be transferred by an Order in Council to the Dean and Chapter of a cathedral or collegiate church. But the 1963 Measure enables similar transfers to be made to the Dean and Chapter of cathedrals. This Measure now makes similar provision for the two collegiate churches, Westminster Abbey and St. George's, Windsor.
As it hardly seems necessary for such a transaction to be authorised by Order in Council today, the Measure provides that it may be done with the consent of the Visitor. In the case of Westminster Abbey, this is Her Majesty The Queen, and in the case of St. George's, Windsor, it is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. At no stage in the consideration of this private Measure has there been any objection, and the Ecclesiastical Committee is of opinion that it is expedient. The effect will be to make these two Royal peculiars slightly less peculiar in this one particular respect.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bowles.) On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Group insurance business]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 36, after ("employer") insert ("or such other group of persons for the time being approved for the purposes of this section by the registrar ").
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take this Amendment and Amendment No. 2 together. The purpose of the Amendments is to enable some latitude to be given in defining the group of persons to whom a group insurance scheme may apply in the context of Clause 7. As it stands, the clause applies only where the group consists of employees of a particular employer. Representatives of the friendly societies have submitted that this wording may be unnecessarily restrictive, because a group who otherwise might be suitable might contain persons who were not employees in the strict sense or who might not all be in the service of one particular employer. A football team provides an example of a suitable group which might not come within the present definition. There is no objection as a matter of policy to the widening of the definition, but to provide against possible abuse of the intention of the clause it is desirable that there should be a measure of control over the scope of groups which are outside the present definition. This is secured by requiring the registrar's approval. These Amendments have been agreed in principle by the representative body of the friendly societies. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BOWLES: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("employees") insert ("or other persons").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert—
("() In applying the limits set out in paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 41(1) of the principal Act group insurance business approved in accordance with this section shall be disregarded.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This clause defines group insurance business for the purposes of the Friendly Societies Acts for the first time. In fact, however, employers have already been arranging group life insurance with friendly societies on behalf of their employees, but individual proposal forms have been required in each case. Maximum limits for both tax exempt and taxable sums assured apply to such policies under Part II of Schedule 8 of the Finance Act 1966 for each individual; that is to say, £500 untaxed and £2,000 taxed, or £3,000 if the entitlement includes any mortgage protection policies.
This has mean that an individual employee who was already a member of a friendly society might not be entitled to participate fully in the employer's scheme if he already had life cover. The employer making the proposal would thus have to find out whether each employee proposed to be covered was already covered with a friendly society. A common form of life cover, I understand, for death in active service benefits is twelve months', eighteen months' or two years' salary. In such a case, each employee would have to be asked at the time the group insurance contract was being negotiated, or when he entered the scheme, what holding he had in any particular friendly society.
If the particular employee had already covered himself for £750 with another friendly society, it might be that group life benefit could not be provided for him. In any case, the need to make this sort of inquiry can be embarrassing, and that for two reasons: in the first place, the employee might not wish to disclose to his employer his private insurance arrangements; and secondly, the employer might not be able to offer the
1244
same benefits, in consequence, to all his employees. Apart from the embarrassment, having to make these inquiries and any necessary adjustments greatly complicates what would otherwise be a simple and straightforward proposal. This Amendment is designed to remove these difficulties and complications and takes group insurance right outside the scope of the maximum limits.
It would, of course, be possible to draft the Amendment the other way round, so as to disregard any benefits which the individual was already providing for himself, but retain the maximum for the purposes of the group insurance policy. This would mean that under a group policy no individual employee could be covered for more than the maxima laid down in the 1966 Finance Act, but any policy an individual had taken out for himself with a friendly society would be disregarded. But given the level of current earnings, on the one hand, and, on the other, the likelihood that in most cases the benefits would be taxable anyway, it would seem more sensible, I suggest, to exempt group insurance from statutory limits altogether. That is what the Amendment seeks to do. If the business is to be taxable, the question is: is there any occasion for a limit for group life business?
There is a precedent for not having a limit, for in 1956 friendly societies were allowed to operate retirement annuities for the selfemployed without limit up to any amount which a man could provide by the permitted percentage of his income. This Amendment has been suggested by the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee representing the four Associations of Friendly Societies—the Association of Collecting Friendly Societies, the Association of Deposit Societies, the National Conference of Friendly Societies and the National Union of Holloway Friendly Societies. I understand that it has been put forward to the chief registrar, and that discussions have taken place.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment, but if the discussions have not yet been concluded. I hope that at least he will be able to indicate that the Government are favourably disposed to some Amendment along the lines proposed, and that he will himself move an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BOWLES: In our debate a fortnight ago, the noble Lord raised this point—he had only just heard of it, and so had I—and I then undertook to have the proposals examined in consultation with other Departments. The present position is that these consultations are well advanced. The registrar is favourably inclined to the proposals in principle, and it would appear that they are unlikely to meet with objection elsewhere. It is hoped that a firm decision may be reached in the next few days, and assuming it to be favourable an Amendment which should be acceptable to all sides can be put down in time for the Report stage of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, on the strength of that suggestion, will agree to withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I willingly agree to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Sections to be substituted for section 77 of principal Act]:
3.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("or suspension").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point, and I am informed a somewhat academic one, because the circumstances seldom, if ever, arise. Subsection (3) of the new Section 77 contained in Schedule 1 provides:
"Subject to subsection (4) of this section, not less than two months' previous notice in writing specifying briefly the ground of the proposed cancellation or suspension shall be given to a society by the chief or assistant registrar before its registration is cancelled or suspended."
What this Amendment does is to question the usefulness of putting in the words "or suspension". I should have thought that, if it was necessary to suspend at all, it would be necessary to suspend immediately, so that there could be some sort of investigation into the circumstances, and not to give two months' notice of the reason for the suspension.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt with the next Amendment, which seems, on the face of it, to be contradictory, but it is intended to bring out the
1246
options open. Subsection (5) of the new Section 77 goes on to say:
"Where before the expiry of the period of notice under subsection (3) of this section of the proposed cancellation of a society's registration the society duly lodges an appeal against the proposed cancellation under section 77A of this Act, the chief or assistant registrar, as the case may require, may by writing under his hand suspend the society's registration from the expiry of that period until the date of the determination or abandonment of the appeal."
I should have thought that if the word "suspension" is to remain in subsection (3), then the word "suspension" should go into subsection (5), so that there should be an opportunity to appeal equally against the suspension within the period.
I am sorry that this is a complicated point, but if the noble Lord will look at what is now to be Section 77A of the Act, he will see there that:
"A society may appeal, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, against—(b) the renewal under subsection (2)(b) of that section of a suspension of a society's registration."
This would mean, in effect, that there would not be an opportunity to appeal against suspension until the time came to renew that suspension. It seems to me that it would be easier to give an opportunity to appeal straight away as soon as the suspension is made, if a suspension is needed at all. I am told that there has never been a suspension—I am not sure about this. If there is to be a suspension at all, then it should be dealt with logically, and one or other of the suggestions I have made here would be more logical than the Bill as it at present stands. I beg to move.
LORD BOWLES: The purpose of the proposed Amendments is not entirely clear, and it is possible that the noble Lord may have misunderstood the scheme of the new Sections 77 and 77A. These two new sections lay down the circumstances in which the registration of a society may be cancelled or suspended. Section 77 also provides for the procedure for cancellation and suspension, and Section 77A deals with appeals.
The registrar may, in the cases specified in Section 77(1), cancel the society's registration. Alternatively he may in certain of those circumstances suspend the registration for a period not exceeding three months. He may also thereafter renew the suspension from time to time for a like period. Section 77(3) requires that

1247
the society shall be given at least two months' written notice, with reasons, of the proposed cancellation or suspension. It seems right and reasonable that this notice should be given, both in the case of cancellation and in the case of suspension. The effect of the first of the Amendments would be to delete the requirement to give such notice in the case of suspension. I cannot therefore advise the Committee, in these circumstances, to accept the first Amendment.
The second Amendment relates to Section 77(5). This provides that where a society has lodged an appeal against cancellation under the new Section 77A before the expiry of the two months' notice already referred to, the registrar may suspend the registration until the termination of the appeal. The Amendment apparently seeks to extend this provision to the case where an appeal has been lodged against a proposed suspension. The short answer to this is that there is no appeal against a proposed suspension: Section 77A(1) provides for appeals only against cancellation and renewal of suspension, where the suspension is to continue for more than six months.
There are good reasons for not giving a right of appeal against the initial suspension. First, the suspension cannot be for more than three months, and any appeal procedure could therefore hardly be completed within the time available. That means it has to go to the High Court. Secondly, it is desirable that the power of suspension should be available to be invoked without delay in those cases where some further investigation by the registrar is required in order to decide what more permanent action, if any, may be desirable. There is, as already mentioned, a right of appeal against a proposed renewal of the suspension and this, I submit, is a sufficient safeguard to the society itself.
A further objection to this Amendment is that Section 77(5) provides that where there is an appeal against a proposed cancellation of registration, the registrar may suspend the registration pending the determination of the appeal. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands would be to provide that where the appeal is against a proposed suspension the registrar could sus
1248
pend the registration pending the outcome of the appeal. The position would, therefore, in substance be unaffected by the Amendment. I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think the noble Lord has really answered the point I made. I would ask him to have a look at it between now and the next stage. I am certain that any suspension would have to remain in being during the period when there was an appeal against the suspension. That is a point he might look at further to make certain that it is covered. The objection of the suspension would obviously be to enable an investigation to be carried out in the meantime. This is rather like Board of Trade procedures. I should have thought it would be right to allow an appeal against the suspension, certainly after the investigation had been carried out. The Amendments I propose may be defective in that regard. I am not altogether sure that the Bill is entirely in logical form, as it is at the present time, so I would ask the noble Lord, in the light of my remarks, to have another look at it between now and the next stage.
LORD BESWICK: I should not like the noble Lord to think that this has not been looked at already, and looked at very carefully. I can understand to some extent what the noble Lord is saying, but I think he has muddled himself up over this matter. In the first place, he asks that the possibility of suspension—
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I think his noble friend started by saying that he did not quite understand the purport of my Amendments. I took the two Amendments together and made it quite clear they were alternatives. I think he is about to argue on the basis that they were both intended to be made. That is not so.
LORD BESWICK: Probably the noble Lord will allow me to put my own argument. There are two Amendments before us and I suggest that they are not alternatives. The present positions are complementary, one to the other. In the first place it is proposed that a right should be vested in the registrar both to cancel and

1249
suspend. I am suggesting to the noble Lord that there should be this right to suspend. The noble Lord says that the two months' notice in the case of the suspension should be removed. It is not possible administratively to suspend immediately. You are not suspending the operation of a society; you are suspending only the registration. There is only value in suspending the registration if members of the society know that the society no longer has the respectability of registration. Therefore, a certain amount of time is necessary in order for members of the society to be acquainted with the fact that they are liable to be suspended as from a certain date.
The noble Lord then goes on to say that although there is no need to give notice, there should be the right of appeal in the case of suspension as well as in the case of cancellation. That would not be in the best interest of the societies themselves. What would happen at present is that if the Registrar has reason to believe that certain of the society's affairs are not in the order they should be, he gives notice that from a certain date he proposes to suspend. In the meantime there will be discussions and careful consideration of the point of view of the Registrar. I have no doubt that the matter would be gone into carefully by the society. In the case of suspension it would not be a really serious matter, otherwise cancellation would be considered by the Registrar. It is much better to have this period for discussion, consultation and further consideration, rather than to put upon the society the onus of having to go to the High Court in order to lodge an appeal against a proposed suspension. The present proposals are for an informal appeal, not through the expensive processes of the High Court but by negotiation, by discussion as between the society and the Registrar. This would be much better for the society and much better for its members than for the necessity, which the noble Lord would put upon the society, of having to go to the High Court if they wished to appeal against a proposed suspension. I assure the noble Lord that this matter has been considered very carefully, as has his Amendment, and I think that if he were to have another look at it he would feel that the present position is better covered by the proposals in the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, which has gone a long way to meet the misgivings I had. I am sure he is right in saying that the suspension does not mean suspension of the operations of the society; it means suspension of any rights or privileges that may flow from registration. It occurred to me that it was not a bad thing that those should be suspended right away, if it appeared that there was something wrong; and this would be more likely to be the Board of Trade procedure. With more experience at the Board of Trade than of the Chief Registrar's activities, I was thinking in those terms.
I do not want to press this Amendment. I think the noble Lord has explained the matter quite well—one could do it with two months' notice, or without; this is a matter of judgment. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in saying that, although I did not give much time for this Amendment to be considered (and for that I apologise) it has been considered—in fact, I believe the point was considered even before I put down the Amendment. That being so, I am quite happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Other Enactments]:
3.52 p.m.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, leave out from beginning of line 15 to ("Where") in line 18 and insert—
("12. For section 53 (discharge of mortgages by endorsed receipt) there shall be substituted the following section:—
53.—(1)").
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the next two Amendments together. The purpose of paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 is to bring the special provision for the discharge of mortgages (contained in Section 53 of the 1896 Act) into harmony with the provisions of Section 115 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Section 53 of the 1896 Act does not extend to Scotland or the Island of Jersey. It has now been ascertained that

1251
the provision in fact also has no application in the Island of Guernsey (the mortgage is something unknown in Guernsey law) or in the Isle of Man, which has its own procedure and does not use the endorsed receipt procedure.
In consequence, therefore, Section 53 is needed only to apply in England and Wales. By these Amendments paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 accordingly replaces the whole of Section 53 and a subsection (replacing the present subsection (5)) is added saying that the section extends to England and Wales only. I beg to move No. 6.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BOWLES: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, at end add—
(" (3) This section extends to England and Wales only.").—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BESWICK: This Amendment concerns a drafting error and corrects a mistake that has been in operation since 1896. It was in the Friendly Societies Act 1896. We propose that this error should now be removed. I should say that there is an intention to consolidate this field of legislation, and it is obviously desirable to make it as tidy as possible before consolidation takes place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("in").— (Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 46, leave out paragraph 19.
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment merely to obtain an explanation. It seemed to be the easiest way of obtaining it. Paragraph 19 says, referring of course to the principal Act:
"In Section 78(l)(d) (dissolution of registered societies and branches by award of the chief registrar or assistant registrars) the words 'or assistant registrars' shall be omitted."
As I understand it and on the face of it, it looks as if there is to be withdrawal of jurisdiction from the assistant registrar in Scotland; and, if there is one in Wales (I am not sure), from him also. This affects only dissolutions, but the
1252
same seems also to apply to amalgamations and transfers of engagements, where now it is the Chief Registrar only who is to be allowed to deal with these matters. I move this Amendment merely to obtain an explanation of the reasons.
LORD BOWLES: The purpose of paragraph 19, which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to delete, is not to change the effect of the law but to correct a mistake in the 1896 Act. The effect of accepting this Amendment would therefore be to perpetuate the mistake. Paragraph 19 provides that the words "or assistant registrars" in Section 78(1)(d) of the principal Act shall be omitted. In fact, those words should never have been there, because the assistant registrars have no power under the 1896 Act to make an
"award (for the dissolution of registered societies) in the cases specified in this Act."
The cases specified in this Act are set out in Section 80(3) of the 1896 Act, and in that subsection it is provided that the Chief Registrar may make the award. There is no reference anywhere to the assistant registrars' making the award for dissolution. Clearly, therefore, the reference to "assistant registrars" in Section 78(l)(d) was a mistake, and opportunity is now being taken to correct it. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I looked up the 1896 Act, and, I think, with special reference to amalgamations, and so on. I wonder whether he can answer the point about amalgamations, too. Why is it now proposed that the assistant registrar should not be allowed to deal with the amalgamations of branches and of societies?
LORD BOWLES: This applies only to dissolution awards.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I made it clear at the beginning of my remarks that I was not really concerned with the content of this particular paragraph, but I was asking for an explanation of the reason why this is done. The noble Lord has amply explained that it is in fact not being done, because it never was the case so far as dissolution is concerned. I am merely asking him, as a matter of information, whether I am right in thinking

1253
that the power is being withdrawn from the assistant registrar in Scotland so Ear as amalgamation is concerned.
LORD BESWICK: Probably I can help the noble Lord. I think that if he turns up the 1896 Act again he will find (I believe in Section 3, but I am speaking from memory) that there are powers of delegation, and it is under the delegated power of the Chief Registrar that the assistant registrar in Scotland operates. He will continue to operate with those same delegated powers because that power is not affected by this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lords for their explanations. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Procedure in schemes and orders for special roads and trunk roads]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BURTON: If I may raise a point on Clause 1(3), I wonder whether the Minister could explain the rather contentious matter in relation to the 50 metres deviation. The Bill does not appear to contain any right of appeal against this deviation, and deviating 50 metres could even remove a house. If there are no grounds for appeal, I think
1254
that we should put down an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid that without taking a little too long I could not answer the noble Lord's question at the moment, but I will take the opportunity later on, with the permission of the Committee, to interpolate an answer to that.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power of local authority to contribute to street works]:
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("() The local authority may. if they think fit. at any time contribute the whole or a portion of the expenses incurred by a person in connection with the improvement, after the passing of this Act, of any such road as may be regarded as a Public Way.")
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this point on the Second Reading of the Bill. Since then our county council has discussed this question and it is most anxious that something should be done along these lines. I am not at all certain whether my wording is correct, but as the clause is framed it would appear that streets can be improved but so far as rural roads are concerned it seems that the wretched district council, probably with very little funds, would have to bring up a road to what I believe are called "county standards" before it could be taken over. I appreciate that probably this will be changed once the Wheatley report is implemented, or something on those lines, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment would enable county councils to contribute towards the improvement of "public ways" by district councils. I would suggest that there is a material difference between the works which are referred to in Clause 4(1) of the Bill and works done under Section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894 by district councils. The private street works to which a local authority may contribute under Clause 4 are works on private streets and private footways which local authorities may compel frontagers

1255
to carry out. This enables local authorities to impose a heavy financial burden on private persons, who may be unable to afford it, and this has always been the main reason for allowing local authorities to contribute. Secondly, before taking over a private street—and adding it to the list of streets which are publicly maintained—a town council may require frontagers, under Section 134 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, to make it up: the council cannot simply decide to take over the street as it stands. Thirdly, the local authority, under the powers listed in Clause 4, can ensure that private streets and footways continue to be maintained to a proper standard.
In relation to public ways, however, the position is quite different. The district council cannot be obliged by the county council to bring such a road up to any particular standard, or even to do any work on it. Moreover, the county council already have ample powers to take over such a road as it stands and add it to the list of highways. The remedy for the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, refers is therefore to press the county council to take over a road, which may have become busier, and not to encourage them to try to put the burden of repair on a district council. If the road is important enough to warrant a high standard of maintenance, it should be taken over by the county council: if it is not important enough to warrant a high standard of maintenance there is no reason why they should be involved. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will take advantage of the remedies to which I have drawn his attention, if he is interested in any particular case. I would invite him to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BURTON: I thank the Minister for his reply, which makes it amply clear. It was a very different reply from that which I received from the county clerk. I rather think there must be some misunderstanding here, but in view of what the noble Lord has said (and no doubt on good advice), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to divert waters when constructing or improving highway]:
4.6 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEmoved a manuscript Amendment:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert
"excepting such waters as are designated as waters for salmon or trout fishing by the Secretary of State for Scotland."
The noble Lord said: I apologise for imposing a manuscript Amendment upon your Lordships in Committee. I will explain in a moment why I had to follow this procedure. The Amendment refers to the very wide powers contained in Clause 7, which we debated upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and which in fact give local authorities a blank cheque to divert waters or to carry out any works they consider necessary on inland waters, if such works are necessary for the construction or improvement or protection of a highway.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I was so bold as to point out that the Bill as drafted gives powers to the local authorities which, if used in the extreme, could divert the main rivers of Scotland —the Tay, the Tweed, the Dee, the Spey —which are valuable to Scotland's economy beyond any figure that I would hazard to submit to your Lordships, both in terms of money and employment. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replied to my point by saying, in effect, that it was the old excuse which we all know so well—"it is only a little one". The noble Lord said:
"This is a new power which is being given to local authorities."
He then said that he thought I was looking on this as something much vaster than the purpose for which it was intended. He went on:
"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…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/3/70, col. 509.]
I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said as regards the intention of using the powers, but I have a grave constitutional distaste, which I think is shared by Members on all sides of the Committee, of giving the Executive, whether it be the central Government or local government, wide powers—far wider

1257
than are required—and then having to rest on an assurance that such powers will not be used.
After the Second Reading of the Bill, I had the benefit of some conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I suggested that I should put down an Amendment, but he said that he would look at the matter and would write and let me know if he could do anything. He suggested that I could then table an agreed Amendment. A very admirable procedure. It is fourteen days since the Second Reading. I have looked at each post as it has arrived at my house, or at your Lordships' House, with anxiety and with hope. Day by day I have waited for the noble Lord to come forward with a constructive suggestion such as he gave me to understand might come about. But I have had nothing. That is the reason I am forced now to put forward this manuscript Amendment, which I think meets Lord Hughes' point that the powers are expected to be used, and only required, for small works. My Amendment would exclude waters designated as waters for salmon or trout fishing by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would in fact protect these valuable economic units about which I have spoken and would protect trout fishing, a simple pleasure enjoyed by very many who support all Parties in this House. I hope that my Amendment will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and if the wording is imperfect I shall be very glad to withdraw it if he will undertake to put forward better words at Report stage. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry if I raised the noble Lord's hopes too high but, if I remember rightly, the quotation he attributes to me was that if I could find an Amendment which he might put down, or I might put down, I would let him know. As I did not find one, and I did not find the need for one, there was nothing that I could let him know. I expected that he would raise the matter on the Question, That the clause stand part, in order to have an opportunity of ventilating it further. However, he has chosen this way of doing it, and I find it an equally acceptable way of explaining why the Government do not want any amendment of the clause.
1258
In the first place, the Amendment suggested would be quite unworkable. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has no existing powers, so far as we have been able to find out, to designate waters as being waters for salmon and trout fishing. I take it that what the noble Lord has in mind is that waters which are salmon or trout fisheries should be exempt from the provisions of Clause 7. It depends what one means by waters which are trout or salmon fisheries. The rivers which the noble Lord has named quite obviously fall into that category, but there are many other rivers in Scotland in which there is trout fishing; in fact it is very difficult to think of any rivers in Scotland which could not be regarded as trout fishery rivers. So that if we accepted the Amendment as it stands, or anything which attempted to convey the sense of the Amendment, we should completely frustrate the operation, because there would hardly be a river in Scotland where the power would be capable of being exercised by the local authority.
The noble Lord said that what I had done was to advance the usual excuse that this is only a little thing and not in fact intended to be used for any major purpose. Obviously, it is at least theoretically possible that we could use Clause 7 to divert the course of the River Forth, the Clyde, the Tweed or Dee. But remember what the purpose of the clause is: it is to enable authorities to make a road safer in an economical way, and very often the most economical way would be to have a minor diversion of a stream to enable a bridge to be carried out in a straighter, and probably therefore simpler and cheaper, manner. If a major diversion of a river or a diversion of a major river were being contemplated, the cost would be so fantastic that it could not possibly come into the category for which the clause is being laid down.
The noble Lord objected on Second Reading to the Secretary of State's being the judge in his own cause, and referred to the special procedure under which a water scheme, the Cabrach river scheme, was in fact rejected after the Secretary of State had indicated his intention to approve it. If there were to be a scheme, a diversion of the type which the noble Lord has in mind, I suggest that it is really stretching imagination far beyond

1259
any reasonable limit to expect that such a diversion would be on a minor road; it would obviously be worth while to do something of a major nature only on a motorway or trunk road. The noble Lord will be relieved to know that the procedure to which he refers as being protection against the Secretary of State's being the sole judge in his own cause is in fact the procedure which would operate on a trunk road or motorway, because the Act lays down at the present time that in such schemes the Special Procedure can be resorted to. So that if, contrary to the expectations of everybody concerned with the seeking and framing of these powers, a major operation of this kind should ever be required, the Special Parliamentary Procedure, which the noble Lord has invoked as providing the right safeguard, would come into operation. I hope, that with the assurance that his major point is bound to be covered in exactly the way in which he put it forward, as the best possible safeguard, he will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
4.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the noble Lord quite appreciates the points he himself made on the Second Reading. In the first place, this is an entirely new power and, that being so, the Government have to justify it up to the hilt. Secondly, the noble Lord said that this power is more than will be required. I think this is quite true. He said on Second Reading that these powers extend beyond what are ever likely to be used. Further, there is laid down here a very foreshortened procedure for examination. The noble Lord talks about stretching imagination. But we are not dealing with imagination: we are dealing with what will be an Act of Parliament. We are perfectly happy to give the Government powers for the sort of small schemes the noble Lord has in mind, but this power is very much wider: as the wording stands it covers a very much wider sphere. It seems to me that the noble Lord ought to try to bring it in line with the sort of situation he has just mentioned.
The only restricting words here—and I do not know what they mean—are that the "highway authority may divert", and
1260
so on. I do not know whether in certain cases the Ministry of Transport is the highway authority, or whether this wording inevitably confines the diversion to secondclass or thirdclass roads. Otherwise, it would cover any road anywhere. The noble Lord said that this procedure would come into operation, but I am not clear how he makes that out. Here we have a separate power being given, and I am not entirely clear why the fuller procedure should not come into operation, or how he can say that it will come into operation here. I have in mind that a big scheme may go forward, and something may be pushed on with a very foreshortened procedure. I do not think we should give any Government power to do that.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry if I have not persuaded the noble Earl. In the first instance, the highway authority may be the local authority or it may be the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is the highway authority for special roads, motorways and trunk roads, and the appropriate local authority is the highway authority for principal and nonprincipal roads. The simplest way in which they can be distinguished is to look at the type of road on which the proposed work will be carried out. I have pointed out that for motorways and trunk roads the Special Parliamentary Procedure applies. The Special Parliamentary Procedure is complicated; indeed, during the discussion of this Bill in another place a principal Opposition spokesman on this matter criticised the Special Parliamentary Procedure as being unduly cumbersome, and did not want to see it invoked. Nevertheless, the Special Parliamentary Procedure applies.
There is no way in which we can lay down in an Act of Parliament that certain types of operation would be regarded as minor operations which would go under the procedure in Clause 7, and that other types of operation should be regarded as operations to which the Special Parliamentary Procedure would apply; because inevitably a point is reached where there is doubt as to whether an operation goes under one side or the other. The obvious remedy, therefore, is either to confine the Special Parliamentary Procedure to that narrow scale of important roads to which it presently applies or to apply it over the whole field. Obviously, to apply the

1261
Special Parliamentary Procedure to the whole field, sometimes in an operation which would be so minor in its nature that it would be an absolute farce, rules out the extension of the Special Parliamentary Procedure to the whole operation. It would be a complete waste of time. But in fact the opportunity exists in regard to any river where a diversion formed part of a trunk road scheme or a motorway scheme.
This can take place in addition to the public inquiry. The Secretary of State will undoubtedly cause a public inquiry to be held even in regard to a small scheme to which there is opposition. It may be argued that a public inquiry is not a suitable method of dealing with these minor schemes to which there may be objection, because the Secretary of State in the end is going to be the judge. I would remind your Lordships that in most of these cases he is not in fact being the judge in his own cause, because he will be adjudicating finally on roads which are principal or nonprincipal roads for which he is not the highway authority. So he is a proper appellant authority there. Lord Balfour of Inchrye's objection was to his being the final judge in a case where he would be the principal interested party—where the Secretary of State is the highway authority. I have pointed out, possibly ad nauseam, the fact that Parliament has provided a remedy against the Secretary of State's doing this. I cannot possibly go beyond this. To attempt to do anything else would mean that the clause was a complete waste of time and that authorities would have to carry on doing the job in the wrong way because Parliament had declined to give them the opportunity of doing it in the right way.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I make one suggestion to the noble Lord? I think that what he was seeking to do was to draw a distinction. Would it not do to say something of this sort: that the highway authority may divert in cases where the Special Procedure does not apply? So far as that is concerned, I should be perfectly happy. I have no objection to the Secretary of State's deciding in minor cases; it is only of the major cases that I am speaking. I do not think we are far apart. It is only a question of wording and making it quite clear that in major cases this procedure
1262
could not be applied. There may be Secretaries of State less well disposed to the world than is the present one, and one has to provide in Parliament for that stale of affairs.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit the possibility that there may be Secretaries of State less well disposed than the present one. That is obvious. Therefore it is difficult for me to resist completely a plea based on that ground. I doubt whether the answer which the noble Earl has suggested is the right one, but I should not like to reject it at this stage, because, obviously, I have made my case on the fact that this is a distinction. If what is suggested can be done without its appearing to the draftsman and to similar people to be a legal nonsense, then I should be happy to look at it; and on this occasion, as I am being invited to look at an Amendment along a particular line, I will undertake specifically to write to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, before the Report stage, telling them whether I will put down an Amendment or whether I would oppose such an Amendment if it were put down by them. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD FERRIER: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, if that is his intention, may I say that the problem which he raised at the end of his speech really arises because the Committee stage is following so soon after the Second Reading. I had expected to see an Amendment to this clause, and I am only too glad that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says that he will think again over the matter. After all, this is the first time we have had this subject debated in Committee terms. From something that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, I think that it might be well to include in the first line of Clause 7(1) the words "temporarily or otherwise". In bridge building often the diversion of a stream need be only temporary if the alignment of the bridgework is going to be altered. Perhaps that might be given consideration when this matter is thought of again.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his kindness in replying,

1263
although I cannot thank him for the substance of his reply to me. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Selkirk advanced a possibility which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has been good enough to say he will consider. Had the noble Earl not made his suggestions, and had the noble Lord not responded to it, I think I would have persisted in my Amendment, even to the point of dividing the Committee, on the broad principle that I dislike the Executive's having wide powers which, we are told, they never use. I do not think that we should have to rest on such an assurance. On that ground, I would have divided the Committee. But the noble Lord has been good enough to say that he will look again at this matter. Let us hope that at a later stage we shall find some accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Further powers of highway authorities to construct highways over or under navigable waters]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 17, at end insert—
(" (3) Any work authorised to be done by a scheme made by a highway authority under this section shall, for the purposes of section 7 of the Telegraph Act 1878 (provisions as to work which involves alteration in telegraphic line), be deemed to be work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament and the highway authority carrying out the work shall be deemed to be the undertakers.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives the Post Office protection under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act 1878 where a scheme is made by a highway authority for the provision of a bridge over, or a tunnel under, navigable waters. Section 7 of the 1878 Act provides that where works carried out by undertakers would involve altering a telegraphic line, the Post Office must be notified and given an opportunity either to carry out the alterations themselves or to supervise them, in either case at the expense of the undertakers carrying out the works. Section 7 also prescribes penalties for failure to notify the Post Office.
Under Section 20 of the Special Roads Act 1949 the Post Office have similar protection in relation to schemes for bridges and tunnels forming part of special roads. Clause 9 of the Bill is modelled on Section 3 of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961, which gives similar powers to highway authorities in England and Wales, and the Postmaster General is safeguarded, in relation to such works, by Section 300 of the Highways Act 1959. The provision proposed by the Amendment is, therefore, precedented in England. The Post Office asked for this Amendment after the Bill had passed through another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Drainage of highways]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FERRIER: When this subject was debated on Second Reading, I made some reference to the problem of increased volumes of water being discharged into agricultural land from an enlarged road. In discussing this matter with certain parties interested in the subject, a new point has arisen which I thought it might be your Lordships' pleasure for me to mention at this moment. It is that in areas of the country which have a hard winter a large volume of salt is used in deicing the roads. As a result, the effluent from roads at certain times of the year contains very high concentrations of salt. This point might have some bearing on the considerations dealt with in this clause in regard to drainage from roads into agricultural land.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, with his faculty for diving into strange waters, has produced a point which had not previously occurred to me. It is one which I should like to consider. I am fairly certain I shall not be able to find a solution to it, but I may at a later opportunity give the noble Lord, if no more, what he would regard as possibly an unsatisfactory answer.
LORD FERRIER: I am obliged.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
4.33 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Liability for maintenance etc. of roadside retaining walls
" .—(1) Where the subsoil of any highway or any land adjacent to or contiguous with a highway is supported by a retaining wall the highway authority shall be responsible for the repair, maintenance and renewal of any such retaining wall.
(2) In this section "retaining wall" means, a wall which serves or is intended to serve as a support for earth or other material on one side only."
The noble Lord said: I hope that Amendment No. 3 is quite clear. When a road has been made and has required in its construction a retaining wall, it would seem obvious that that wall should be the responsibility of the highway authority. Until now there appears to have been some dubiety as to who in fact is responsible, whether it is the adjacent proprietor or the road authority. Some authorities have been maintaining these walls, and others have refused to do so. However, I hope that this Amendment makes it quite clear and puts the responsibility fairly and squarely where I feel it should lie. I beg to move.
LORD FERRIER: I should like to support the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Burton and to put forward as an additional reason the provision of Schedule 2 on page 29 where, among the enactments repealed, is Section 94 of the Act of 1878. This section deals with the responsibilities of the road authority in supporting highway construction, and it seems to me that it might be well worth having another look at the section to be repealed in the light of my noble friend Lord Burton's proposed new clause, which I should like to see in the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: May I deal first with the point which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. The section to which he has referred in the 1878 Act which is being repealed is in fact reenacted in a more modern form in Clause 5 of the Bill. The section to which he refers relates to the necessary works being done on the tops of bridges or embankments, and so on, where there is an element of danger. If he will look
1266
at Clause 5, he will see that in fewer words and in more modern language we have continued that power.
Coming to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I am afraid that he has rather oversimplified the matter when he suggests that he places the responsibility where it properly lies, on the highway authorities. This is a matter which has been before the courts on a number of occasions, and one thing which has emerged is that there is in fact no such clear pattern that responsibility will always lie in one particular direction. It is because this Amendment is far too sweeping that I must ask your Lordships not to accept it.
Let us look at what the Amendment would do. It would make the highway authorities entirely responsible for the repair, maintenance and renewal of all retaining walls which support highways or land near highways, without necessarily relating this to benefit to the highway. The question of legal responsibility for such retaining walls is a difficult one to which, as I have said, there is no single answer such as the Amendment proposes. If there is a general rule which is fairly generally recognised, it is that the owner of the land which is supported is normally liable for the upkeep of the retaining walls, and highway authorities are often prepared to maintain walls which support the road. But to this rule there are a number of exceptions. There may be an agreement or a condition in a document such as a feu charter—the noble Lord will delight in reference to a feu charter—which allocates responsibility in some other way. Even where responsibility is not allocated in any such document, the circumstances may be such as to suggest that it would be inequitable for responsibility to rest entirely on the person whose land is supported. A wall may, for instance, serve other purposes, such as screening, as well as retaining land, and the land it screens may not be the land it supports. In such a case it could be arguable that responsibility for a single wall should be divided.
In cases which have come before the courts, they have tended to deal with each case having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and have been reluctant to lay down anything but general guidelines. The Amendment does not take account of these complexities and

1267
is, because of the simplicity of its solution, an inequitable solution because it would make the highway authorities responsible for many retaining walls which, in no circumstance of common sense or fair play, could be regarded as their responsibility. A wall which in part supported the adjacent land need not be preventing it from falling on the highway. Even if it served that purpose, it might be that it does so only in part, and that to a larger degree it served the function of a boundary wall.
We have also to consider that a wall supporting contiguous land might be erected at the request of the owner of the land in preference to a cutting, because the cutting would take away a great deal more of his land. In these circumstances, it would be quite unreasonable to expect the highway authorities to undertake responsibility for the maintenance of such a wall. In addition to this, there are many existing agreements between highway authorities and adjoining proprietors about the upkeep of retaining walls near the highway. The proposed Amendment would overrule all these, and it seems wrong that this should happen since agreements take full account of local circumstances.
I did not entirely ignore what the noble Lord said at Second Reading, and as I have found from past experience that a concession to the noble Lord is not bread thrown idly upon the waters, I have tried to do what I can to help him. I have put down an Amendment to Clause 19 which goes part of the way that he asks, and by which we would allow highway authorities to contribute towards costs incurred by others in the repair of retaining walls. In doing so we recognise that circumstances might arise in which, whatever the legal position, such a contribution would be equitable. I think this is as far as we can reasonably go in legislation, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will therefore feel that he has got something out of his Amendment, even although it lands at another part of the Bill, and that he can at least go back home proclaiming that he has got half a loaf although he has not got all the bread.
LORD FERRIER: Before the noble Lord, Lord Burton, withdraws his
1268
Amendment, if he has it in mind to do so, another point which occurs to me, which arose out of the discussion on Second Reading, is the problem of injury to retaining walls, fences and the like caused by road accidents. I also made the point, as did other noble Lords, that the enormous increase in heavy traffic on some of the roads in hilly areas causes vibrations which demand in retaining walls a strength which is not really necessary merely for the retaining of an embankment. Perhaps it is proper to point out now a problem which is becoming very serious in the area from which I come, of walls and fences being damaged by vehicles which drive off without trace, when the expense of repair, certainly in the case of fences, falls to the riparian owner.
LORD HUGHES: On the noble Lord's second point, I am sorry that I could not undertake to accept that it is the responsibility of the highway authority to take over a liability which, in more honest circumstances, is accepted by the driver who causes the damage and which in due course is presumably paid for by his insurance company. It all depends on how bad the accident is. If the driver is there long enough to be found out, then the damage would be paid for in that way. If he is able to get away without being detected, presumably he does so.
So far as the former point is concerned, I think that the Amendment that I shall be moving will enable that sort of case to be taken into account. That could be a change of circumstances which, although there is no legal obligation, is just the sort of case where it could be equitable for the local authority to make a contribution towards the cost of repairing a wall. There may well be circumstances in which it is quite obvious that it is the tremendously increased traffic on the road—vibration or something of that kind—which is causing damage to the wall which requires repair. Those are the kind of circumstances where I think it would be very desirable that a power such as I propose in due course to confer should be there, so that the responsibility should not fall entirely on the owner of the wall. I hope, therefore, that when we come to that Amendment the noble Lord will feel that what I shall be doing will meet that point.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must agree that the Amendment goes a little far at the present time. When I read it, I had it in mind that it referred particularly to the creation of new roads. As I understand it, when a new road is created there is clearly a different situation. At that time, either by an inquiry or by private agreement, the highway authority may well become liable for the maintenance of certain parts of a retaining wall. But beyond that, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, prefers to stand on the Common Law of Scotland, as interpreted by the courts. He does not want to go very much further than that, except for the Amendment which he has put down, though I presume that the powers under Amendment No. 8 must already to some degree rest with the local authority. Perhaps we shall come to that in due course and I will not press the point. But, as I understand it, at the present time there is no difficulty about compensation so far as new roads are concerned.
LORD HUGHES: I do not think there is any difficulty, and when one looks at the sort of roadworks that are going on one can see the different way in which agreements have been reached. For instance, work is going on at the present time on the Stirling bypass and there is an enormous length of new stone wall being constructed, similar to the one which exists at the present boundary of the estate. Obviously, that is part of the arrangement which has been made in connection with that scheme, and I must agree with the noble Earl that with new roads the problem does not arise.
I think he has also correctly stated my view in relation to existing roads, that we must rest on the position as it stands, improved, as I suggest, by the Amendment to be moved later on. But if it is accepted, and I think I am accepting, that it is inequitable to say that in every circumstance the responsibility should be placed on the owner of the land or the owner of the wall, then it must be equally inequitable to place the responsibility in every case on the highway authority. The truth will vary between those two extremes, and in many cases the answer may well be a joint responsibility, which is what I wish to facilitate in every possible way.
LORD BURTON: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply, because I think he has strengthened my case much better than I should have been able to do. I think he has pointed out how very diverse the position is. But the fact remains that if you have a hillside and cut a road through it which requires a retaining wall, the road provides the necessity for that retaining wall and therefore the responsibility should surely fall on the roads authority. I quite agree with the noble Lord about the compensation for new roads, but that is a very different matter. I am not talking about compensation. What I am talking about is the responsibility for maintaining these walls.
The noble Lord mentioned a feu charter, but we have been told in the Government's White Paper that this is going to be done away with. This is one of the things I object to. Here we may have a feu charter which is quite firm, which is to be swept away by the Government. That is all the more reason why we should legislate now on a term which may come up later. It is no use merely allowing a highway authority to contribute. I think there is a little doubt about this, and the authority should be told that it must contribute. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, pointed this out, and made some very good points. I really cannot see that this Amendment is too sweeping.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Damage to roads]:
4.48 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4, with which is associated Amendment No. 18, are drafting Amendments, the effect of which is to take the definition of "traffic sign" out of Clause 17 and put it in Clause 49, the interpretation clause. The reason for this is that the words "traffic sign" were inserted in Clause 17(b) and (d) as an Amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill, and a consequential definition was inserted as subsection (2) of Clause 17. However,

1271
there is also a reference to a traffic sign in Clause 19(1)(b), and it is therefore more appropriate to define "traffic sign" in the interpretation clause, Clause 49. This Amendment paves the way for the substantive Amendment in Clause 49. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Removal of accidental obstructions from roads]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("in the removal of the object")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 5, 6, and 7 go together. These Amendments will enable highway authorities to recover expenses which they have incurred in lighting and guarding an accidental obstruction pending its removal. They can recover expenses either from the owner of the object causing the obstruction, or from the proceeds of disposal of the object.
Clause 18(1) empowers a highway authority themselves to remove an obstruction from a road, and Clause 18(3) enables them to recover the cost of doing so from the owner of the object causing the obstruction. Subsection (2) enables the highway authority to fence and light an obstruction pending its removal, but in this case there is no power to recover the cost of fencing and lighting. There is no reason for different treatment of the cases. The first Amendment extends the power of recovery to all expenses incurred by the highway authority under the subsection, and not only to removal expenses. The second Amendment is consequential. Clause 18 enables a highway authority to sell an unclaimed object and use the proceeds for expenses. The third Amendment ensures that these expenses may include lighting and fencing. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I have no objection to this Amendment at all, but I should like to ask a question. How long must the ownership of an object remain in doubt before the local authority can sell it? It may be that it will be sold and that the owner will turn up after a fortnight to claim it back.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid I could not answer that question offhand, but I am quite certain that there are reasonable provisions on it. In some cases it may well be determined by the nature of the object. In the unlikely event of anyone dropping, for instance, a dead elephant on the road, presumably it would be very difficult to dispose of it, but it could not be kept in custody for any great length of time pending the appearance of the owner. Other things, obviously, could be kept for an unlimited period without any harm. I am quite certain that the authorities responsible will not place themselves in the position of acting too hastily if it is an object which anyone is likely to claim. I should think that in most cases the resale value of the object may be very little. If people have abandoned an obstruction, it is probably because it is not worth very much to them, and probably it will not be worth very much to anyone else, either.
LORD BURTON: I am a little worried about this Amendment. If the roads authority cut up a tree into unsaleable lengths, it becomes valueless. It is rather important, when a tree falls, that it is cut into the right lengths. I wonder whether this point might be looked at?
LORD HUGHES: I should have thought that if a tree of potential value had fallen and had become an obstruction, it would be quite an easy matter to acquaint the owner of the tree of that fact; and if it was going to be worth more to him cut up than the expense of removing it, the local authority would not be involved in removing the obstruction—he would do it himself. But he is much more likely to abandon it to the local authority if he thinks that the expense is going to be more than the bother is worth.
LORD BURTON: In other contexts the noble Lord has been very quick to explain to me that it is sometimes very difficult to find the owner. In fact, I think there was another place in this Bill which I mentioned on Second Reading as to which he said that it should be the tenant who should be notified and not the owner because you might not be able to find the owner.
LORD HUGHES: I should have thought that in the case of any land on which a

1273
tree grew it was likely not to be difficult to find either the owner of the land or the owner of the tree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, leave ("it's") and insert ("the").—(Lords Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("in the said removal") and insert ("under this section"). —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Dangerous vegetation and fences near roads]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("() The highway authority may make such contribution as they think fit towards any expenses reasonably incurred by a person in carrying out necessary work in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I have already referred. The Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union made representations that the cost of pruning, lopping or removing trees, or maintaining walls, and so on, in the interests of roadusers could be a burden on many owners or occupiers, and that the highway authority should accept some of the financial responsibility. The Scottish Landowners' Federation based their argument on several grounds. The first was that in many cases the trees or walls were there before the road was built, so that it is the road that is the real cause of the danger. The second ground was that, especially in the case of retaining walls, the damage is caused largely by the vibration of heavy traffic, which should therefore bear the cost; and the third was that since, in the case of retaining walls, the construction or widening of the road interfered with the natural support of the land, the responsibility ought to be that of the highway authority.
I do not want to go over all the ground that we have already covered. I have found out that the argument on the question of who is responsible for retaining walls has been going on for at least a hundred years, with many legal opinions being obtained. The legal position is obscure unless there are records of ownership which assign responsibility for maintenance. With many older retaining walls there are in fact no such records. Difficulties are less likely over walls built in more recent times, because nowadays roads are normally constructed in cuttings or on embankments, and retaining walls are built to support the land above only where there is a special need to save land or to protect property. In such cases, agreements would be negotiated about ownership and future maintenance of the retaining walls; and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has agreed that the problem does not really arise in connection with new roads.
Where records are lacking or deficient, each case has to be considered on its merits. It is not uncommonly accepted that responsibility for a retaining wall rests with the person whose land is supported, and where the wall supports a road at a higher level than the adjoining land the highway authority will often accept responsibility for full maintenance on the basis that the wall was probably built as part of the road. Even this, however, cannot be taken as the invariable rule; and even where the highway authority accept responsibility for the part of the wall which actually retains the road, there may still be a dispute about any part of the wall which continues above the level of the road.
More difficult cases arise where the wall retains land above the road level. A highway authority would normally be reluctant to accept responsibility in such cases, and there are circumstances in which it would seem inequitable that they should. As I indicated, it might be there because the landowner preferred to have the wall rather than give up more land so that a cutting could be made. Sometimes an estate has continuous walls around it, part of which retain the land above the road; and in urban areas, where roads were originally formed for housing or other development purposes, retaining walls supporting both the road and the land above the road would normally be the developer's responsibility.

1275
On the other hand some highway authorities have accepted responsibility for retaining walls supporting adjoining land, usually because of danger to roadusers and the difficulty of getting owners to repair the walls, either because they do not have the money or because they are just being plain awkward.
The Amendment does not attempt to define responsibility for the upkeep of retaining walls; and this, in the light of the variety of circumstances which exist, it would be very difficult to do. It does, however, recognise that there may be circumstances in which the highway authority could reasonably make a contribution towards costs which would normally fall on the owner of property, without prejudicing the question of legal liability. Much of what I have said has been related to retaining walls, but broadly the same considerations apply to trees, fences and so on. As a result of the discussions with the Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union we had discussions with the local authority associations, and they have indicated that they would be prepared to concur in an Amendment along these lines, going part of the way to meet the case which the Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union put forward. For those reasons, I beg to move.
LORD BURTON: I do not suppose one should object to a ha'porth (or perhaps I should say a pennyworth) of bread rather than no bread at all, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has once more pointed out how this dispute has been going on for over a hundred years, and it seems that this Amendment, although I should not like to object to it, will only further confuse the issue. I hope that he will look further at the whole problem. I feel that there is a legal difficulty which, as the noble Lord himself said, has not been resolved. I hops that on Report stage he may manage to strengthen the position.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.0 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert ("after consultation with the local planning authority provided that in the event of the highway
1276
authority invoking their powers under the proviso to subsection (2) hereof the highway authority may dispense with consultation with the local authority.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from something which I said on Second Reading. As your Lordships will see, Clause 19(6) gives untrammelled power to a road authority, without the proprietor, or any party, having recourse to amenity organisation. I agree that power should rest mainly in the hands of the road authority, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Second Reading, pointed out that occasions may arise when a tree might well be a danger. No one feels more strongly than I do about the importance of road safety, but there is a point at which amenity should be considered regarding a tree, or even trees; because first one tree may be taken down, and then another, until, one by one, quite an important line of trees, or clump of trees, may be destroyed at the sole discretion of the road authority. I think it would be reasonable to include the addition to the clause which I have put forward so as to make it incumbent on the road authority to consult the amenity people before taking down a tree which is covered by an order. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: There are two points about this Amendment on which I have some doubt. In the first place, it seems desirable that notice should be given to the planning authority by the highway authority and not, as the Amendment would seem to suggest, by the person ordered to lop or fell a tree. Secondly, on the analogy of Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, I think it would suffice for the highway authority to give notice to the planning authority. In this context the difference between "notice" and "consultation" does not seem significant. The change would keep Clause 19 in line with the basic provision relating to tree preservation orders. Nevertheless, I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view of the noble Lord, and if he will agree to withdraw his Amendment now, I will undertake to consider, before Report stage, the terms of a Government Amendment which would achieve his purpose.
LORD FERRIER: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I fully rely on him,

1277
and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FERRIER: I have one or two comments to make on Clause 19. I am inclined to welcome the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in regard to the general acceptance of liability on the part of the road authority for a share in the cost of retaining walls. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made a rather bitter complaint about Amendments not being received in time, and the same applies in my own case in respect of this clause.
Noble Lords will recall that on Second Reading I drew attention to subsection (2) of the clause where the authority can require an occupier to carry out work on a wall in 10 days. I pointed out that this is not always possible. The noble Lord agreed that there was something in what I had said, and I had hoped to see an Amendment put forward. But with the Committee stage coming so quickly after the Second Reading it has meant that, because the post was so "tricky", I did not see any of the Amendments— except my own—until yesterday: I was travelling South when they were going North. For that reason I put forward no Amendment to subsection (2) over the question of the period of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in supporting his Amendment, pointed out that the legal position is obscure. The point I want to make about this clause, and about the Bill generally, is that the expression "obscure" is perhaps not quite the right term. It might be "not yet determined". There are problems, which have been mentioned today, regarding the additional weight of traffic, the vibration caused by heavy traffic, and also the damage caused to road boundaries by impact in the case of accidents. I should like, to develop, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said a few minutes ago, the point. The real trouble comes from accidents involving big vehicles which can do damage and which are driven off and cannot be identified. Such accidents are a cause of serious loss to riparian owners. This is
1278
a matter which at least should go on the Record.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to say something about the matter of the 10day period to carry out the work on a wall. Winter weather, holidays and the like might make that period insufficient in respect of a wall, though it might be adequate in the case of the removal of a tree or hedge. If the period is not lengthened it may necessitate a reference to the sheriff, and my object is to save trouble for the sheriff in a case where a period of 10 days would not be sufficient in which to have the work carried out.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, prefaced his remarks about this clause by again referring to the short time between the stages of the Bill. I cannot agree that the time has been short. It is a fortnight since we had the Second Reading, and this is the customary period. So I do not quite understand his reference to the time being short.
LORD FERRIER: It is due to the deteriorating postal service. The noble Lord's Amendments did not reach Edinburgh until Monday. I left home on Tuesday, and I did not get them until I got here on Wednesday. They should have come earlier.
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Lord wishes to have a debate on the postal services, the Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill is not the right place to have it, even with the latitude of which I shall seek to take advantage in a minute.
LORD FERRIER: I was trying to defend the noble Lord against the criticisms he received from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye.
LORD HUGHES: I am finding strange allies these days. On this question of notice, I indicated to the noble Lord, when he raised the point on Second Reading, that obviously there could not be a lot of argument about whether 10 days was good and 14 days was bad, or 14 days was good and 10 days was bad. But the period of 10 days was applied in Scotland under Section 87 of Schedule C to the 1878 Act. and since that time

1279
nobody has complained that it is inadequate. Therefore to alter the period from 10 to 14 days would almost seem to be making a change for the sake of change. I should hate to place the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in that sort of position, which would be the complete opposite of the sort of thing that he would normally want to do.
I would point out, too, that in many cases the period of 10 days may be a preliminary. If it was unreasonable, the sheriff would not fix a period of 10 days. He could fix a longer period, and in many cases it might well be a month. Where there is potential danger—not immediate danger, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has pointed out, in such cases action can be taken right away—obviously it ought to be dealt with as quickly as possible. If the nature of the operation means that it will require a month for it to be carried out, the less time spent on the preliminaries the better. In these circumstances, we do not think that even in the case of danger it is reasonable to increase the period beyond the 10 days, which has stood the test of time for nearly 100 years. I do not think that we would be justified in adding four days to the preliminary period, because if it turned out that things went wrong because of the additional four days, we should all be sorry that we did it.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Deposit of mud or liquid from vehicles on roads]:
5.11 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert—
("(1) A person who, being in charge of a vehicle on a road, allows such quantity of mud, clay, lime, farmyard manure, or other material from the vehicle, or from anything carried on the vehicle, to drop or be deposited on the carriageway of the road so as to create or be likely to create, a danger or substantial inconvenience to persons using the road and who fails to remove the material as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter, and in any event before the next occurring sunset, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20.")
The noble Lord said: This is the first Amendment of substance that stands in
1280
my name. I indicated on Second Reading that I should table an Amendment to make Clause 21 more flexible in operation. I would remind your Lordships that the clause as originally drafted made it an offence to take a vehicle on the road without taking all reasonable practical steps to remove mud, and so on, from the vehicle. We have had a number of representations on this matter, and we fully recognise that it might in certain circumstances be difficult to clean a vehicle and would be onerous to do so when vehicles were making repeated journeys. The National Farmers' Union have been very helpful to us on this, and have drawn our attention to local authority bylaws which they think would be effective in keeping mud off the roads. These bylaws take the line that dangerous materials should be removed from the road rather than from the vehicle, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. They also say that where mud is deposited on a road in the course of agricultural operations it will be a defence in any proceedings to show that it has been removed by the next sunset.
The Amendment I am proposing proceeds on broadly similar lines, but the reference to cleaning the road by sunset has been altered a little. First, there is no justification for confining the reference to farmers. Building and roadworks contractors may also be making repeated journeys across or along a road, and on the Second Reading the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, referred to forestry operations. We also think that sunset of the same day should be the last possible time for removing mud from a road, so that undesirable conditions will not be aggravated by darkness or by a drop in temperature during the night. The new clause will make it possible to require the removal sooner in the case of dangerous conditions—for instance, where a wet substance is dropped on a road during hard frost.
I think it is fair to remind your Lordships that we do not envisage that this clause will be rigorously applied to every single instance of a vehicle dropping mud on the road. At present, highway authorities try to reach agreement on the control of such operations, and this is usually achieved amicably. However, it is necessary to have in reserve powers to ensure compliance in difficult cases. The

1281
new subsection (1) refers to operations causing danger or "substantial inconvenience" to persons using the road. The references to inconvenience were criticised in another place, but we have information about a major building scheme where the contractors have deposited mud, clay and other material on the road, footways and garage sites, to the considerable inconvenience of the neighbouring householders. So we have come to the conclusion that it is right that the word "inconvenience" should remain.
It was represented to us that the clause as originally drafted related to the use of the vehicle and, as such, was more appropriate for Construction and Use Regulations under the Road Traffic Acts. The Amendment now proposed relates to the road and not directly to the vehicle, and therefore it is in a form more suited to this Bill. There have been successful prosecutions in Scotland under the Construction and Use Regulations in connection with herring bree spilling on to the road from lorries carrying fish. Subsection (2) therefore appears to be unnecessary and has been dropped. Subsection (3) is omitted, purely as a matter of drafting, because the substance is incorporated in the proposed new subsection (1).
We do not envisage that this power will be applied rigidly all over the country on every strip of road where mud may be left. Obviously, it must be related to the circumstances. In my own area, when I was a member of the local authority we obtained local powers in this connection. We did not apply them in every case, but where the conditions created an obvious nuisance the attention of the contractors was drawn to the bylaw and the city engineer made it clear that the bylaw would be enforced. One would see at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, halfanhour before the men were due to stop work, three or four men with shovels clearing away evidence of the day's operations, and that was perfectly satisfactory. There were other circumstances when the mud created no danger or hardship, where it was left to the tyres on the vehicles to remove all evidence by spreading the mud more generally over the whole area so that there was no danger.
I think that this Amendment provides a satisfactory solution, and I should
1282
like to express our gratitude to the organisations who have helped us and have drawn our attention to particularly useful local authority provisions. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of this Amendment. I must say that I think that this is the right way to tackle this problem; in other words, the emphasis must be on cleaning the roads and not on cleaning the vehicles. The noble Lord has explained clearly how he envisages that this Amendment will work, and I do not have any great quarrel with that. My one worry is what I might call the "sunset" paragraph. I appreciate that it is unwise to allow mud and other obstacles to remain on the roads all night, but I see difficulty, when mud is dropped on the road by a farm vehicle just before sunset and it is physically impossible for the mud to be removed at the time. I take a little heart from the fact that the noble Lord indicated that the authorities would be reasonably flexible in this matter, but I am not certain whether it is right to have so definite a period in the clause. Apart from that, I should like to thank him. It looks as if this problem, which has taken a good deal of Parliamentary time, may at long last be solved.
LORD HUGHES: If I may reply to the point, it is conceivable that circumstances such as the noble Marquess suggests might arise. I think this is a case of exercising reasonable discretion. If a vehicle is going to make a dangerous mess on the road in one single journey, it seems to me that there is an obligation on the operator to consider whether he ought not to defer the journey until next day, if he cannot remove any possible danger that results from it. If he cannot do so, and it is impossible to remove the dangerous material, it means that he has acted wrongly in creating a hazard, I think he must face up to the responsibility for having made the wrong decision. If he must make a journey in these circumstances, then I think there is an obligation on him to do it in a way which will enable him to remove the resulting hazard; and if he cannot remove the resulting hazard, then he should wait until a more suitable time to make the journey. Personally, I should not suspect that a journey of this

1283
kind would create a hazard which anybody would worry about. It is the continuing operations over a period that are more likely to cause the problem, and in these circumstances it is reasonable to expect a man to deal with it before sunset.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: If the farm vehicle drops something on the road during the hours of darkness, does it mean that the farmer need not clear the object from the road until the next sunset, or does it mean that he has to clear it straight away? After all, summertime is to be continued next year, a great deal of farming has to be done in the dark in the mornings, especially in the northern parts of the country.
LORD HUGHES: I think that the answer is quite simple. The "next occurring sunset" must mean the next sunset. If a fanner starts operations at one sunset, he is governed by the following one.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that the Government have made a great improvement to this clause. It is not an easy matter to say when dirt from a farming implement or from a building site becomes a hazard. But having said that, I am a little worried about what the noble Lord said. He said that it is not envisaged that this power will be used up to the limit, but he thinks it is a good thing to have a reserve power. That is all very well with administration. But this is criminal legislation, and one cannot talk about reserve power when dealing with crime. This is not the way to approach the subject. It is quite true that we do not have much private prosecution in Scotland; it has more or less fallen into desuetude nowadays. I do not like that approach very much.
This leads on to the point that it is "likely to create, a danger or substantial inconvenience". We heard yesterday something about being "as clear as a Delphic Oracle". The words "substantial inconvenience" could mean almost anything. If the noble Lord was keen on roller skating down the highway, for instance, pieces of mud would be a substantial inconvenience. I should very much prefer to use something nearer the original word, like "obstruction" or "danger". "Substantial inconvenience"
1284
is very vague, and I wonder whether it is not too vague to put in as a ground for criminal prosecution. I should like the noble Lord to look at that suggestion. I know that he has strengthened the clause beyond the word "inconvenience", which of course was too soft, by putting in the word "substantially". We do not know how the courts or those responsible for prosecutions will interpret this. I would suggest that the noble Lord might consider whether those words could be strengthened.
LORD HUGHES: I do not see how we can possibly strengthen these words. Either we make it "inconvenience" purely and simply, or we attempt to qualify the inconvenience; and this is what we have done. In another place they were strongly opposed to the convenience element being removed, because, particularly in the towns, the most objectionable part of this sort of thing does not cause any danger to people, but it can make life exceedingly unpleasant if children or even adults bring the results of these operations into the house on their boots and shoes. To remove convenience from the clause in any form would mean that these people, who have a strong and legitimate grievance, would have to put up with such things in perpetuity if they could not show that there was danger or obstruction being caused. I think that the other place were right in doing this.
The noble Earl has objected to giving a power which is not always going to be used. But not all legislation which is passed by Parliament in which penalties are imposed for doing particular things is passed in the firm belief that every possible infringer is going to be prosecuted. If we were so to operate there would be a real danger of having more policemen than all the rest of the population put together. The powers of the local authorities, which I quoted, are contained in private legislation to which Parliament has given its consent. In giving those powers to local authorities, Parliament did not visualise that the town clerk and the city engineer would be running round the city, making certain that every 100 yards or so of street on which mud was deposited would be the subject of a criminal prosecution.
It has been shown—and this is why we have accepted this proposal—that over

1285
a period of years it is a power which has been exercised with discretion. We are conferring the power on all local authorities because of the way in which those who have had the power have exercised it. To suggest, as the noble Earl has, that because we do not expect it to be operated in every conceivable case this is the wrong thing to do is, I feel, a legal objection to which ordinary common sense should not pay much regard.
On the example which the noble Earl gave of the possible difficulties about the term "substantial inconvenience", may I say that if it will ease his mind I will give him a firm assurance that I have no intention of roller skating on roads either covered with mud or totally free of mud. I would go even further and say that I have no intention of roller skating anywhere.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: For the sake of the record, I must say that I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord's interpretation of criminal law. If Parliament passes a criminal law, it expects it to be fulfilled. A criminal law is not to be held in terrorem over the citizens of this country and not to be utilised to the full. If the noble Lord thinks lightly of the criminal law, I do not.
LORD KILBRACKEN: May I mention a point? It seems that if anyone who is in control of a vehicle allows mud, and so on, to drop from that vehicle, it is an offence; or if he allows it to drop from anything carried on that vehicle it is an offence. It occurs to me that this provision does not include anything that is dropped from a muckspreader or from the trailer that is drawn by a muckspreader. Very often nuisance of this sort is caused by some farm equipment that is drawn behind a tractor or something of that kind. Therefore it might be advisable if the subsection read,
"from anything carried on the vehicle or drawn by the vehicle".
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. It is a point that I must consider and, if necessary, come back to on the next stage. If I may have what I hope will be the final word on the disagreement with the noble Earl, it seems to me that common sense is something which it is worth while preserving.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I should like to make one small point. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, upon the customary thoroughness with which he has gone into this matter. It is difficult, and I think he has made his point that the leniency of this Bill lies in whether or not a prosecution is laid. But I agree with the noble Earl that the courts are going to interpret this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as it is written. I do not think we can have any sort of direction to the courts to read it in a lenient way. The leniency must come, surely, from whether or not a prosecution is laid.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, I must accept that. That was the whole tenor of my remarks: that the local authorities would exercise discretion. They want to have powers to deal with a situation which is needlessly unpleasant or dangerous. I do not think they would want to go beyond that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Use of builders' skips on road for non-building operations]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 19, leave out ("in order to use it") and insert ("to be used")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 22(1) is intended to ensure that the person who actually deposits a builders' skip on a road must apply for the permission of the highway authority unless the skip is to be used in connection with building operations, when the buildings authority give consent under Section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. It is common practice for builders' skips to be hired out by their owners to firms which use them, the owner afterwards removing them. In such a case, Clause 22(1) could be interpreted to suggest that neither the owner nor the hirer need obtain the consent or the highway authority. The owner could contend that since he is not himself going to use the skip he need not obtain the consent: the hirer could contend that since he does not actually deliver the skip he need not obtain permission. The Amendment makes it clear that the person actually depositing the skip is to obtain

1287
the necessary consent. He can of course enter into an agreement with a hirer whereby the latter will make himself responsible for the implementation of any conditions attached to the permission and such agreements are recognised in subsection (3). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Obstructions and excavations in roads without consent]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 15, line 40, at end insert (";and that person shall maintain an excavation filled in by him in pursuance of this subsection for such period, not exceeding 6 months from the completion of the filling in, as may be specified by the highway authority.")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 are necessary to achieve a single purpose; namely, to ensure that a person who fills in an excavation which he has made in a road will maintain the surface for a further period specified by the highway authority, up to a maximum of six months. The Amendments result from representations by local authorities. After a hole has been filled in, the filling tends to sink, with the result that the surface of the road becomes uneven. When statutory undertakers break the surface of a road they are required, under Section 7(6) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, to reinstate the surface and to maintain it for six months. Similarly, when Edinburgh, Glasgow or Dundee Town Councils give a person authority to make an excavation, they can require him under local Act powers to reinstate the surface and maintain it for a further period: six months in Edinburgh and Dundee, and three months in Glasgow.
There is a very real practical problem here. It is not at all uncommon to find, a few weeks after a trench has been filled in, that it has subsided, leaving a depression in the road which may be dangerous. It is obviously equitable that the person responsible should make good the damage, especially if the original excavation was made without the consent of the highway authority. The first Amendment provides for a maintenance period of up to six months. The other
1288
three Amendments are consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("on being required to do so under") and insert ("or to maintain an excavation which has been filled in by him, as required by")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 4, after ("so") insert ("or if he fails to maintain an excavation which has been filled in by him as required by subsection (2) of this section ")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 5, after ("in") insert ("or maintain")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 19, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) This section and subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the next following section shall not apply—
(a) in any circumstances where any of the following enactments applies—

(i) section 29 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1903 (penalty on unauthorised occupation of street),

1903 c.33.

(ii) section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (occupation of parts of road for deposit of building materials),

1959 c.24.

(iii) section 19 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (penalty for unauthorised dumping of motor vehicles etc.),

1967 c.69.

(iv) section 22 or 23 of this Act, or

(b) to any works to which the street works code as contained in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 applies.")

1950 c.39.

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that Clause 24 and subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 25 will not apply to deposits or excavations which are controlled under

1289
the five enactments listed, and that these enactments will continue to apply to these deposits or excavations. The clause, as drafted, could be interpreted as requiring a double control, under Clauses 24 and 25, as well as under the existing enactments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 26, line 19, at end insert (""fences" includes: cattle grids; ")
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this Amendment on Second Reading. It seems to me that where a side road comes in on to a trunk road there is no paint in leaving a gap in the fence, because it will require a cattle grid. This has already occurred in at least one instance known to me, where a road comes out on to the A.9 and the trunk roads authority have refused to install a cattle grid, on the ground that it is not part of the road authority's responsibility. I hope that it will be possible in the definition to maintain that the fencing which must be put in for safety reasons will also include cattle grids. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: As I understand this Amendment, it is to enable highway authorities responsible for main roads to install cattle grids on side roads from which stock may wander on to the main road. I find it difficult to picture the situation which the noble Lord has described, where a main road is fenced for its whole length, but cattle can wander on to an unfenced side road and then on to the main road. I am sure that in these circumstances the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the main road, would not fence the main road. What is the point of putting a fence on the trunk road if there are no fences on the side road, and the cattle can stray on to the main road in that way? The obvious remedy, if the Secretary of State is going to fence the trunk road, is that the owner of the animals or land must accept responsibility for fencing the side road, otherwise the fencing of the main road serves no useful purpose whatsoever. The
1290
noble Lord shakes his head; if he can give me some illumination I shall be happy for him to elaborate further.
LORD BURTON: I am thinking in particular of where the Shennachie Road conies out on to the A.9, near Moy. It is also quite possible in other cases that I know, where roads meander across hill country for miles. It would be quite unreasonable to ask the owners of the ground to fence the roads. On the other hand, it may be that the road side is fenced. It may be there is a field alongside the road and that the field is fenced, but beyond that the road is open. I think it is essential that the actual mouth of the road is safeguarded in some way. To install a cattle grid is often beyond the pocket of the small owner of ground, particularly in the case of the type of grid required by the local authorities, which are considerably more elaborate than the cattle grids that an ordinary proprietor might consider to be necessary to hold stock.
5.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: This is exactly what I thought the noble Lord, Lord Burton, might have in mind. He is saying that it is necessary to keep the cattle off the main road. He envisages that the Secretary of State may accept his responsibility by fencing the main road but says it will not in fact accomplish its object because the owner of the land or cattle cannot face up to his responsibility of fencing the side road and so achieve the object of keeping the cattle off the road. In these circumstances the placing of a grid in the side road is a cheap method for the owner to accomplish perhaps exactly the same purpose as would be accomplished by fencing the road. I can see no reason in these circumstances for placing responsibility for that grid on to the highway authority. It seems to me that if this can be done as a cheap substitute for a fence, then it is an obligation which the owner ought to be prepared to shoulder.
In fact, this is done in various places. I myself use an old farmhouse in an Angus glen where one of the hazards of getting to it is negotiating the cattle grid which the owner has placed on the side road for exactly this purpose. The mile or so of very indifferent road which I then have to travel to the house has not

1291
a fence anywhere along it. But by placing this cattle grid a short distance from the main road, and then fencing from there to the main road, he achieves the purpose at comparatively little expense. I can see no reason for placing this responsibility on the shoulders of the highway authority. I am very sorry: I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
LORD BURTON: May I elaborate a little further on the probability, or possibility, in this particular case? The side road is a county council road; it is nothing to do with the farmer concerned. He is concerned only with the land on either side of this road. There are other cases which occur like this. The local authority will in fact put up a cattle grid only where there is an existing gate. Whether this is a rule of the local authority or whether it is a general rule, I do not know; but this is the ruling which exists. Here is a case where stock can wander out on to the public road, causing danger to people using the main road; yet it appears that it is impossible to have some fencing erected.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord is quite right. He has correctly pictured the circumstances in which the responsibility for providing a grid is placed on the highway authority—that is, to provide a better substitute for the gate which otherwise would have been across the road. In these circumstances it is in the interests of the road that the grid should be provided. But even in the circumstances which the noble Lord envisages, where the side road is a public road and is not the responsibility of the landowner, there is provision in the Act of 1950 for a grid to be placed in such a road, not for the benefit of the highway authority but for the benefit of the livestock.
Section 9 of the Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids) Act 1950 empowers a highway authority to enter into an agreement with anyone having an interest in land whereby that land may be used for the provision of a cattle grid; and Section 10 of the same Act provides for agreements whereby the highway authority can receive financial contributions towards providing cattle grids. I am quite certain that if there were cases of the kind which the noble Lord has in mind, and the owner of the cattle decided that this was a much more economical way of ensuring
1292
the continued safety of his livestock than by fencing the whole of the side road, the authority would be quite happy to have such a grid provided, so long as they were reimbursed the expense from the owner to whose advantage it was going to be to have the grid put there.
LORD BURTON: We must come back to this: that the danger lies on the main road. Therefore, surely it should be the responsibility of the main road authority to safeguard against this danger. This is what the fencing is for. One is allowed to put up fencing to stop children from being endangered when they run out of school. I do not think the obligation is placed on the school; it is placed on the authority. Surely this is the object of the exercise. But because stock can run out, it is being said that the poor farmer must be responsible. It is nothing to do with the farmer. It is safeguarding people on a public road.
LORD HUGHES: Not at all. I am pointing out that if the highway authority, the Secretary of State, in the case of a trunk road, or special road authority, has accepted the responsibility for fencing the trunk road, there the responsibility ends. I have pointed out that he would not fence such a trunk road if there were other means of preventing the animals from getting on to the trunk road. That obviously requires the owner to accept his responsibility other than on the trunk road. If he has not fenced, or if he has not provided a cattle grid, I can assure your Lordships that there will not be a fence on the trunk road.
LORD BURTON: In the particular case that I have in mind the fencing has been put round arable fields by the farmer himself. He then has a gap on a road which is a county council road. The county council say that it is not their responsibility; it is for safeguarding the public road. There are other cases like this. Therefore I feel it must be the main road authority's responsibility for safeguarding the public.
LORD HUGHES: Did the noble Lord say that the owner has fenced his land?
LORD BURTON: He has fenced around his fields, yes; and beyond the fields is open countryside. The stock walk down the road and out on to the main road.
LORD HUGHES: He has put his fence in the wrong place. What is the point of putting a fence in one place and the cattle somewhere else?
LORD BURTON: To keep the stock off his arable ground; but it is not worth his while to fence miles of the old ground beyond.
LORD HUGHES: In that case, if he wants to save money in one direction, he must accept responsibility in the other. After all, the public purse is not there merely as a means of enabling people to avoid their own legitimate responsibilities.
LORD FERRIER: May I put it another way? Will the noble Lord agree that a "fence" includes a gate?
LORD HUGHES: Maybe the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is the proper one to answer that question. I am no legal expert. Of one thing I am quite certain, however, and that is that I am not prepared to say that a "fence" includes a cattle grid.
LORD FERRIER: That was the point of my question. This seems to me to be rather a storm in a teacup. If it falls upon a road authority, either in part or in whole, to fence a main road, and there is a side road in which, if it were not a side road there would be a gate, then that gate would be paid for, either in whole or in part, by the highway authority. If that is provided with a subsidy in the form of a cattle grid, then it is only reasonable that it should be paid for in the same way.
LORD HUGHES: May I say that that is a noble effort, but I am not convinced.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HUGHES: I have already referred to this Amendment, No. 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 22, at end insert ("' traffic sign' has the same meaning as in section 54(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967;").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 29, line 26, column 3, after ("sections") insert ("LXXX").
The noble Viscount said: As we have seen, this Bill confers on highway authorities new discretionary powers to carry out work on roads, with consequential powers to acquire land and to pay compensation. My object in putting this Amendment down is to delete Section LXXX in Schedule C of the Roads and Bridges Act 1878 so as to bring everything appertaining to the acquisition and compensation for land or materials acquired for road-making in Scotland into line with modern conditions. I have the requisite Section LXXX from the Act of 1878, but I will not bore your Lordships by reading it because it is rather long.
I should like to mention some of the salient facts which affect us in this Amendment. Section LXXX of the Act of 1878 enables the local authority or the highway authority—they are referred to as "the trustees" in the Act, but that means the local authority or the highway authority—to authorise any person to quarry or mine for any materials necessary for road making, for the building of road bridges, for building a toll house, or for any other work connected with road making. This applies to common or open uncultivated land—in other words hill land. Under this section the authorities are also allowed to deposit mud or rubbish thereon. The extraordinary thing is that under this section the authority does not have to pay any compensation for the surface damage done, or in fact for the materials quarried. The only exception is in regard to stone which is to be used for building.
Where does the Act draw the line? In fact the Act is not explicit, because as I have already pointed out, under Section LXXX stone can be taken for building any bridge or toll house or any other work connected with such road. Does this include building a house for the road surveyor, or perhaps for the foreman, or indeed for any of the workers engaged on the construction of a road? This is not made at all clear. There is no doubt that when this Act was passed in 1878 the hills of Scotland were very wild and lonely places and were of little value. In addition, they had few and small roads.

1295
However, the whole position is now changed, and when Parliament passed that Act it could not have envisaged the vast increase in the population of the United Kingdom, with hundreds of thousands of tourists going to the Highlands of Scotland and also to the hill areas in the Lowlands.
There has been a great rise in the value of these hill lands. Today we have roads in the Highlands which are great carriageways. There are motorways and main roads all over the Highlands and the amount of material that is now used in the construction of these roads is far greater than was ever contemplated in 1878 when this Act was passed. The authority can now take away millions of tons of material and under this Act it need pay no compensation. Material can also be dumped on one's land without compensation being paid.
At this point I should declare an interest, because this fact has been brought home forcibly to me recently. The local authority has constructed a new road through a glen of mine and has compulsorily acquired land for quarrying. Hundreds of thousands of tons of gravel and rock have been taken away and no compensation has been paid. Apart from that, of course, it is a great scar on the landscape. It is possible to take away half a hill in the carrying out of these operations.
It seems quite illogical that, whereas the authority pays compensation for any land taken for the actual road, it does not compensate for any land taken for the quarry, or for the material it has taken out of the quarry. There must be something wrong here. Possibly my Amendment is not worded quite correctly to have the effect of deleting this section, but I see in the Bill that the Government are repealing many of the sections under that Schedule. I should have thought that if this section were deleted another clause could then be put into the Bill to ensure that the authority cannot compulsorily take land for quarrying without paying some compensation, though in fact the deletion of Section LXXX would presumably do just that.
Another question which arises is that when these scars have been made on the landscape, under the Act the authority does not have to eradicate them in any
1296
way—it does not have to fill in the quarry or to cover it over. This has to be done on enclosed land, but not on hill land. I should have thought that it would be perfectly simple to make compensation under the usual procedures for the payment of compensation for land taken for roads apply to land taken for quarrying and also for the materials taken out of the quarry. I should have thought that compensation for materials taken could have been fixed either under the usual commercial practice or by means of a royalty laid down by Statute. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, will forgive me if I do not follow him through all these highways and byways of compensation law. Perhaps I should be straining the patience of my colleagues a little too much if I were to do so. However, I would say that all that is wrong with this Amendment is that it errs on the side of simplicity: it takes everything out and puts nothing else in its place. My first inclination was to say that I could not accept the Amendment for that reason, but I should like to astound the noble Viscount by saying that I will accept the Amendment, although on the understanding that at Report stage I will put in the substitutes.
The Committee will recollect that when the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to the deletion of another section of this Act—Section 94—I pointed out that it was reenacted in more modern form in Clause 5 of the Bill. This is what we shall have to do in this connection. In fact we had not overlooked this point, but the advice I had was that this was the sort of thing which could be remedied in the subsequent Consolidation Bill. The main defects are the archaic language in which the section is couched, and we could accomplish our object in consolidation. However, we accept that there are three things which are wrong with Section LXXX of the 1878 Act. The first is that it distinguishes between enclosed and unenclosed land. That seems to us to be neither necessary nor justifiable. The second is that it does not provide for the highway authority to give notice in all cases that they propose to take materials; we think they should. Thirdly, it provides for compensation on a rather odd basis related to the distance the materials are transported from the site. That

1297
throws a rather peculiar light on the way in which Parliament thought in 1878: that the question of compensation should be related to whether it was moved more than three miles or less than three miles and that in the one case compensation was paid and in the other it was not.
On reflection, therefore, we think that perhaps these alterations might be considered as alterations of substance and not merely consolidating. I therefore propose to accept the Amendment deleting Section LXXX, and to table Amendments substituting new provisions which will deal more equitably with the three items to which I have referred. I must express gratitude to the noble Viscount for having raised the matter, although I believe I saw the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, whispering to him shortly after I came in and I thought he had been given an indication that I was going to be helpful, and that therefore he would have been more brief. But I am grateful to him.
May I trespass on the time of the Committee by giving an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on the point he raised about appeals on the limits of deviation? I intended to give the answer on the last Amendment but I got into such an argument with the noble Lord that he might have thought that the rather favourable nature of the answer was an effort to buy off his opposition. The 50metre deviation is part of the proposals which would be published in a trunk road or special road order, and which could be objected to. The proposals as published would show the limits of deviation which might be claimed in the particular case, and the opportunity to object therefore arises there. There thus is a right of appeal on the general, which would include this item, so there is no need to repeat a special right of appeal. Having said that, may I say that the answer is, briefly, that the man can appeal against a 50metre deviation.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment. If this question had not been brought home to me so forcibly in practice, I having had my own rock and gravel taken, I probably should not have thought of it. But I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his attitude to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 20 is consequential on an Amendment made in another place, when Clause 26 was amended to enable highway authorities to control the installation of overhead bridges. This was an extension to all highway authorities of an existing power available to town councils in Section 132 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892. The present Amendment repeals the 1892 Act power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 2, column 3, at end insert ("In section 132(3) the words "or bridges over", and in the proviso to that section the words "on bridges".").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

DOCKS AND HARBOURS (VALUATION) ORDER 1970
6.5 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, in moving, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Kennet, that this Order be approved, may I say that it has been examined by the Special Orders Committee of the House who report that it does not raise any matters of policy or of principle; that it is founded on precedent, and that it may be passed by the House without special attention. Unless, therefore, noble Lords have any special points to raise, which of course I will happily try to answer, I will not detain the House further. I beg beg to move.
Moved, That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1970, be approved.— (Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for that brief introduction? This particular Order looks very formidable, but am I right in thinking that in actual fact it applies only to one harbour, and is designed to apply only to one harbour—I gather that the answer is, Yes. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she really thinks that 7·5 per cent. of the relevant receipts will be anything like the normal rate charge? It seems to me to be formidable

1299
indeed. I hope it will not be taken as any kind of precedent. I should think there are few docks and harbours making that as profit on their turnover. A rate of 7½ per cent. seems very formidable.
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, this has been agreed by all the people concerned—the local authorities, the ports side, the Steel Corporation and so on. I agree with the noble Lord that it looks very formidable, but in fact one has to pick something for this one year, as it will be, that would look reasonable alongside the other assessments which it has to live with before the new formula comes out, which my right honourable friend hopes will be in 1971.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1970
BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE BARONESS LLEWELYNDAVIES OF HASTOE rose to move, That the Material Development (Amendment) Regulations 1970, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Regulations which I am about to move, though simple in intent, appear a little complicated in the Statutory Instrument. May I therefore outline, as briefly as possible, the broad intention? May I first say that these Regulations, like the previous Order, have been considered by the Special Orders Committee of the House, who report that they can be passed without any special attention. The Regulations make some relatively minor changes to the original Material Development Regulations, 1967, which were of course approved by your Lordships' House. At present the projects at which the Regulations are directed are generally exempt from the levy for other reasons; nevertheless, they still need to be notified to the Commission. The Regulations are designed to remove the need for notification. It is obviously important to alter a situation which is wasteful of time and effort, and this is what these Regulations seek to do. In these circumstances I hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Material Development (Amendment) Regulations 1970 be
1300
approved.—(Baroness Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation, which seems to us quite satisfactory. I am much obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL MILK) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NERVE GASES AND GENEVA PROTOCOL
6.10 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will refer to the Geneva Disarmament Conference a definition of how far nerve gases and defoliants come within the provisions of the Protocol of 1925.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not imagine that the Minister who will be replying to the debate will object in any way to my raising this issue tonight. It was clear when we had exchanges and questions on this subject that there was great uneasiness on all sides of the House. This was indicated by the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, from the other side of the House, and by a series of questions put from these Benches. I think this disquiet arises from two sources: first, concern about the development and the use of chemical weapons, particularly as evidenced in Vietnam; and secondly, the reversal of British policy in regard to the scope of the Geneva Protocol.
I think it desirable that the facts about British policy should be placed on record. The Protocol itself prohibited,
"the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices."
There is no doubt at all that the British Government took the view that the Proto-

1301
col ruled out all gases, including the less lethal lachrymatory gases, the tear gases. This was the view of Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and National Governments over the period of the last 45 years. Mr. Hugh Dalton was questioned in 1930 on the extent of prohibitions under the Protocol. He replied (Hansard, February 18, 1930) that tear gases were included. Arthur Henderson gave a similar reply as recorded in Hansard of November 24, 1930. At the League of Nations Preparatory Disarmament Commission held in 1930, Lord Robert Cecil for the National Government then in office, went further. Arguing that lachrymatory gases were included in the terms of the Geneva Protocol, he said that the prohibition extended even to those gases which are not dangerous to health.
This rule of "no gas" was accepted because it was the only positive and simple standard for agreement about where to draw the line. It was recognised that when harassing gases were used in order to enhance the lethal effectiveness of conventional weapons, the distinction between the lethal and the incapacitating chemicals lost any essential meaning. This comprehensive definition was also urged because of the danger that a Government might justify their use of a particular gas on the ground that it was harmless when in fact there were doubts about it.
This is exactly the situation which has now arisen by the Government's decision to regard the CS gas as not prohibited by the Geneva Protocol. My noble friend Lord Chalfont said on February 26—I quote from column 161—that CS gas is not
"significantly harmful, except in exceptional circumstances."
I think I can show that the evidence from Vietnam indicates that it is "significantly harmful".
In regard to his statement, that,
"If, for example, this substance were used in very high concentrations in enclosed spaces over long periods, this would be an exceptional circumstance,"
I think I can show that a prolonged period is not necessary for it to be lethal. In my experience, it is now fairly well known—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can clarify a point for me which may be useful when I come to reply? I understood him to suggest that exposure to CS gas over a long period might be lethal. Was he really intending to suggest that?
LORD BROCKWAY: Well, my Lords, I thought I was reading the noble Lord's exact words. He said in this House on February 26 (column 165) when he was explaining the exceptional circumstances:
"If, for instance, this substance were used in very high concentrations in enclosed spaces over long periods, this would be an exceptional circumstance."
I am trying to show that the experience in Vietnam indicates that it is not necessary to be concentrated over long periods.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must get this clear because it is a most important point. In his original remarks my noble friend said—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to address the whole House?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry. The point I am trying to make is that in his original remarks my noble friend said that it is not necessary to have a long period for this gas to be lethal. As that suggestion will appear on the Record I am most anxious to know whether that is what my noble friend meant to say, because it is a most important point.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I want to say that it is not necessary for CS gas to be used for a long period in order to be lethal. I say that, and I will give the evidence for it. We have had more than one report from Vietnam that when containers of CS gas are thrown into dugouts in which villagers have taken refuge, women and children have been suffocated while the men, on emerging, have been shot down, which has been the object of the exercise. More than that, much more impressive than that, I want to quote the judgment of someone who is universally respected, an elder statesman in the best sense of that term, an authority who does not use words lightly and

1303
one unrivalled in his study of armaments, for which, indeed, he was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize; I refer to Philip Noel-Baker. In his letter to The Times on February 12 he used these words, and I hope the Minister will listen:
"In Vietnam CS gas is used by United States forces almost daily, and in enormous quantities. Delivered by six-inch shells on the trenches and bunkers of the N.L.F. soldiers, it makes a concentration that can be lethal, and which is wholly intolerable, if the soldiers stay in shelter; if they come out, they are killed by concentrated artillery or machinegun fire. Directly or indirectly, CS has been among the biggest killers in the Vietnam war."
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that so far as Britain is concerned,
"if it were ever necessary for British troops to use this substance, it would be used to save lives and to take prisoners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/2/70; col. 162.]
I have no doubt at all that that would be his wish; but does he really believe that in circumstances of battle crisis, if the gas were available and could be used offensively, as it has been in Vietnam, its use would be limited to saving lives? That would be stretching our credibility too far. It is the nature of war conditions which makes comparison with the use of CS in riot control unreal. Its use in containing demonstrations is to limit violence; it may be to save lives. But war is violence; its means of victory are to kill.
My question also deals with defoliants. I do not propose to go into detail, partly because it is the CS gas which the Government have legalised and also because there will be some controversy whether the Geneva Protocol covers defoliants, though it does prohibit not only gases but all analogous liquids, materials, or devices. I was able to indicate in the exchange of questions regarding herbicide 245T on March 11 that researches in the United States had been so frightening in what they revealed of deformities caused in births from infected pregnant animals, that President Nixon had prohibited the use of 245T in America and limited its use in Vietnam to unpopulated areas. I regard this latter decision as very significant indeed.
It has been suggested that our Government's decision to exclude CS from the provisions of the Geneva Protocol was made to encourage the United States
1304
to sign the Protocol, with the reservations involved in the use of gases in Vietnam. My Lords, I hope that that is not true. There is deep concern and debate in America on these issues, with influential figures pressing for further decisive action on chemical and biological weapons. Our influence should be used to encourage those tendencies, not to compromise with them. We have reason for some optimism. President Nixon has banned the production in America of biological weapons, and their use; he has banned the production of toxins for germ warfare; he has banned the distribution of the herbicide 245T in America; he has supported the British proposal for an ininternational Convention outlawing biological weapons. We should be encouraging this tendency in America instead of retreating from it. So far from taking a step which limits the international prohibition of chemical agents, we should be seeking to extend it.
I turn to the proposal in my Question that we should refer this issue to the Geneva Disarmament Conference for decision, rather than insist on our unilateral interpretation. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, misunderstood my references on February 26, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to the Convention on Biological Warfare. I did not suggest that they had anything to do with CS in their contents; I did suggest that if we unilaterally decided that a particular gas was not within the terms of the Geneva Protocol, a precedent would be set for other Governments to decide exceptions when they signed international agreements, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Biological Warfare Convention.
When it was proposed that the Geneva Disarmament Conference should define the scope of the Geneva Protocol the noble Lord said:
"… in any international instrument of this kind it is up to the individual signatories to interpret the Treaty they have signed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/2/70; col. 163.]
Does the noble Lord realise that even in this disinclination to accept an international interpretation of the Treaty he is going back on British precedent? When there were previous doubts about the scope of the Protocol, the British representative, Lord Robert Cecil, sought the opinion of other Governments in the

1305
League of Nations Preparatory Disarmament Commission in 1931.
On this matter—again, I am sure, unintentionally—the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, slightly misrepresented me. I did not say that opinion was unanimous on the Commission. I said that it was the general view that lachrymatory gases came within the terms of the Protocol. In fact, all the 12 delegates who spoke on that occasion, with the exception of the United States delegate, endorsed the view that these gases do come within the terms of the Geneva Protocol. The U.S., which had not signed the Convention, was the only dissenting Government on that occasion. The question which I wish to ask is this. Why, if we could consult the Preparatory Disarmament Commission in 1931, cannot we consult the Disarmament Conference today?
I sincerely regret becoming engaged in controversy with the noble Lord. I believe we agree fundamentally. If I may say so, his speech yesterday was magnificent. I was thrilled to the depths by what he said, and I am going to quote it now. He said that we spend,
"… nearly one-tenth of the world's resources on the means of destroying each other when two-thirds of the world's population do rot get enough to eat.
Young people simply do not understand this … and they believe, as I do, that we shall be looked upon in the future as some kind of barbaric society. They will want us to move away from that … we can move from it".—[OFFFICIAL REPORT, 18/3/70, col. 1214.]
Old as I am, I believe that in making this appeal I am expressing the mind of the youth to whom the noble Lord referred.
I want to be helpful. The Government have taken the decision to legalise CS gas in war, and I recognise that it is difficult to go back on a decision of that kind. But surely it would not be inconsistent for the Government, in view of the disquiet which has now been expressed, to say that they will stats their view to the Disarmament Conference but seek the reactions of the Disarmament Conference. The noble Lord suggested that the Conference had more important matters to deal with, and I recognise the part that he has played in the discussions. But the Conference is now discussing the most relevant issues—the Biological Warfare
1306
Convention, its extension to chemical agents and its relationship to the Geneva Protocol. Surely nothing would be more logical in this context than to consider the scope of the Protocol as I have suggested.
I do not ask the Minister for a decision today. I ask him only not to turn down this proposal. I ask him to take it to his colleagues and to say to them how wide is the support and how deep is the concern.
6.35 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and to speak particularly to that part of his Question connected with CS gas, I would say that I hope your Lordships will not judge it as a sign that I do not regard this matter as of the deepest importance if I do not detain you long. There are two basic reasons for this. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his very thorough and wholly admirable speech has covered so much of the ground. The second reason is that, while it is easy to get involved in the juridical and scientific arguments about this matter, it seems to me that the fundamental point is a simple one and not very involved in queries about who did what, when or why.
The basic assumption, ever since 1930 when we signed the Protocol, has been that gas has been included in the Convention. It has been the assumption of the British Government; it has been the assumption of other countries involved. International opinion has always viewed it so, and continues to do so, finally reaching a peak in the United Nations debate at the end of last year. In my view, international opinion is right to have taken that line. The broader such a Convention is, or the larger ground it can cover, the better and happier we must all feel; and, indeed, there is a very strong case for saying that this is the only line which can be drawn, the line which bans all gases.
I cannot accept for a moment the idea that in war, even with the best will in the world by the best Government in the world, this gas could or would be used only to save life. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, war is a much more savage matter than that, and the

1307
experience that we have already had of CS gas in the hands of one of the civilised countries of the West shows us that the danger is quite enormous.
It seems to me that there would have to be a very good reason for us to disagree with world opinion on interpretation in this matter; and no good reason, except the one which I think has been shown to be fallacious—the one that it might save lives in war time—has been given for taking it on ourselves to interpret the Convention in this way. If anything, this is a case for rethinking. I know that everyone in this House joins in the most tremendous admiration for the work that Britain has been doing in Disarmament Conferences. It is one of the things we can be very proud of over the last few years, and to no one does more credit go than to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I think it would be very sad indeed if we were now to spoil this record.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in asking not for any kind of hasty answer to the Question, but that in a matter as important as this the Government should go back and think again, and take into account and consult, if necessary unofficially rather than officially, with other countries so that we may not act unilaterally in such a dangerous and difficult matter.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I usually try to take the view in any debate that if the ground has been covered before I speak (and, if so, it has usually been covered very well) I should try not to repeat the same arguments. On this occasion, however, I fear that I shall have to go over some of the same ground in speaking to the Unstarred Question raised by my noble friend Lord Brockway, because it seems to me a matter of such importance and such concern to the people of this country; and I do not think that what the Government have decided to do has received as much publicity or has been as clearly understood as it should be.
On February 3, in another place, the Prime Minister referred to CS gas as "smoke". I would only say that a gas by any other name smells just as bad. However, on looking up the word "smoke" in the Oxford Dictionary one finds the following interpretations:
1308
"The visible volatile produce given off by burning or smouldering substances".
I do not think that is what we are discussing. Then:
"A mist, fog or miasma. Fume or vapour caused by the action of heat on moisture"—
and may I say that I understand from experts who know much more about the technical side than I do that in any case the substance we are discussing, CS, is too thin ever to be called a smokescreen.
My noble friend on the Front Bench was very anxious to get quite specifically what it was that my noble friend Lord Brockway was saying when he referred to the effect of CS gas in concentrated doses in enclosed spaces, and whether or not this was lethal. I do not think we are discussing whether it is lethal: we are discussing whether this obnoxious substance should be made legal and whether, in doing so, we should break the legality of a Convention which we entered into and in fact promoted for very many years. But on the point of whether it is lethal or incapacitating, it does not seem to me, with great respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, that this is very relevant—although I appreciate the difficulty facing anybody speaking for the Government on this matter, since it must be extremely hard to find any arguments at all for the decision. A group of consultants working on behalf of the World Health Organisation recently reported that:
"No sharp line of demarcation can be drawn between lethal and incapacitating agents used in chemical and biological warfare, because incapacitating agents can be lethal or permanently disabling in certain circumstances (e.g. in the presence of malnutrition or preexisting disease; in infants or the aged …). For similar reasons, no sharp demarcation line can be drawn between harassing agents and other antipersonnel chemical agents ".
That quotation comes from Health Aspects of Chemical and Biological Weapons, W.H.O., page 12.
Now I take the view that for us to make a decision of this sort is a completely retrogressive and retrograde step, so far as disarmament is concerned; and it has a rather unfortunate irony in that my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to answer this Question did have (I do not know if he still has) the title of Minister for Disarmament. To argue also that CS gas is O.K. if taken in small doses is really like saying that a girl is

1309
just a little bit pregnant. What we are all concerned with, of course, is not to argue whether it is a little bit worse here or a little worse there.
My noble friend Lord Brockway dealt with the question of its use in warfare to flush people out in order that other weapons could be used to make quite sure that they are killed. This must mean an escalation in the whole field of weapons, whether they are chemical, biological or nuclear. Once we do a thing like this, we cannot be surprised if the floodgates of armaments are opened, because we ourselves are driving a coach and horses right through a Protocol which we were very instrumental in bringing about and which we have been promoting for many years. What we are doing—and this is really, I think, the core of it—is abandoning the standard of "No gas". This, I think, is the most important point, and this is something that people—the general public—can understand quite clearly and quite simply.
It also seems to me to create a moral problem over and above the one which faces all of us as individuals. Take the case of the scientist who feels that he has a responsibility to society and is concerned not just with the scientific results of his work but also with the social results. If he is working on a gas like this, having taken the trouble to read up the Protocol of Geneva and to read the different comments of support that we have made over the years, he can be put in the position of actually helping to produce something which, in his opinion up to that point, was not going to be used in warfare and was simply outside the bounds of involvement in warfare, but which he suddently finds has now been included as a weapon of war by his own Government. These, I think, are some of the problems that face the individual.
Here, I really must take up some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Chalfont when answering my noble friend's Question in the House on February 26. He said that it was up to the individual signatories to interpret the Treaty. My Lords, this seems to me an extraordinary way to go on. We do not allow somebody who is up before a court for breaking some law to say: "I find it very difficult and I do not accept the legal
1310
argument. I did not interpret that as stealing; I was borrowing it according to my lights". This, evidently, is in fact what we are going to do. I think it is quite clear that that part of the Protocol dealing with the use of chemical weapons in war is a declaration of customary international law. It is not contractual; and even if it were, we could withdraw only if a fundamental change of circumstances had occurred. This has not happened; and in my view—and, I think, in the view of most Members of this House—it was a declaration to which we were a party and which we should still be keeping.
My noble friend on the Front Bench also said that developments since 1925 and 1930 have led us to the view that a different interpretation can now be made. To save time I am paraphrasing my noble friend's words, but I think he will see that this is what he said. I should have thought that what had happened in the last 40 years would surely lead us not to loosen the bonds of the Protocol but in fact to tighten them. In any case, CS gas, as I understand it, was synthesised in 1928, which was two years before Hugh Dalton, in another place, promoted the Protocol.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont also suggested—in fact, he did not suggest: he said—that when it was proposed that tear gas should be excluded the reaction was not unanimous, and it was not true that only the United States was not prepared to go along with us. Of the 13 countries taking part in that particular debate, all except the United States agreed that to use tear gas in war was forbidden. In my view, there is no evidence to show that the other half-dozen silent countries were opposed to this. Indeed, if one is opposed to something one is much more likely to get up and speak about it than if one is in sympathy with it. What I think is very significant is that so far not one Member of your Lordships' House, whose name was on the list of speakers has spoken in favour of the Government's decision.
The noble Lord made a further point: that he did not see why our interpretation of the Geneva Protocol should have any effect on our draft Convention on biological weapons. If I may say so, with respect, this seems a curiously naïve attitude. Moreover (we do not know but

1311
it may have been true when he was last in Geneva because they had not then realised the implication of what we were doing), I doubt whether this will hold water for very long. Even if it could be argued on that basis, what price is our credibility worth when, on July 2 last year, U Thant appealed to the members of the United Nations to affirm once again that gas and chemicals and biological weapons should not be included in any form of warfare? Then in December of last year there was a vote in the United Nations Assembly, and by 80 votes to 3, with 36 abstentions, it was again affirmed that international law forbade the use in war of any chemical agent which had direct toxic effects on man. This must include tear gases.
Another curious point, it seems to me, is that, again in answering my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out that the Himsworth Committee were studying in greater depth the problem of the use of CS gas in Ulster and that there would be a long-term report. If the Government are going to take notice of this report, why not wait until the report is produced before going ahead? The experience, as I understood it as a nonscientist, from reading the short report on Ulster, makes quite clear that unless people can emerge very quickly from the enclosed surroundings, and come out into the open air, they are bound to be affected.
It was also stated in the report that people who are bronchial or asthmatic, or who have other complaints which are responsive to this gas, can suffer effects as bad as if they had naturally had a bad attack of the ailment from which they suffer. It seems a rather curious thing if it is to be said, as an argument to support the use of CS gas, that if it makes people as ill as they might naturally be, it is not too bad. Does it mean that even when we use this gas in riots at home, or in any civil war, in order to be absolutely fair there would be some people who would be licensed to be gassed and others who would not? We should get ourselves into a most tremendous tangle. Whether we use it or whether we do not, in Ulster or in any other place, when we are not involved in international warfare, is, to me, quite irrelevant in this debate. We come back to
1312
the principal point: that we entered into an agreement under international law, and we have broken that agreement.
So far as the war in Vietnam is concerned, I support entirely what has been said by my noble friend Lord Brockway, and by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I would only add that in 1965, when it was decided to use CS gas in Vietnam, it was stated that it would be used in order to save lives. That, in fact, is on the same basis as it has been put to us in this House and in another place. Yet at the hearing before the Committee of the United States House of Representatives from November 18 to December 19, 1969, Han Swyter, who was on the staff of the Assistant Secretary for Defence, said that about three-quarters of the 6 million pounds of CS gas used in 1968 was used essentially to kill people. So, my Lords, let us get rid of that "fairy tale" right away. I do not know whether it will make any difference now—possibly not—but there are some occasions when, even though one may be repeating what others have said, even though one may be doubtful about the outcome of one's words and the words of one's colleagues, one has to stand up and be counted. I feel deeply upset and ashamed that the Government which I normally support should have made such a decision.
6.55 p.m.
LORD RITCHIECALDER: My Lords, I apologise for intervening without notice. I did not expect to be able to be present, but if I had known that I should be present I certainly would have put my name down in support of the Question put by my noble friend, Lord Brockway. I agree with everything that has been said. As one who has been involved in international work for many years and has defended and justified British decisions, I have a sense that it is almost impossible to defend this situation; not just on the question of expediency but because we have set a deplorable example of what we are capable of doing unilaterally in a situation which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been challenged, except perhaps on some basis affecting not what we were going to do but what other people were doing.
I wish to point out that this gas is not smoke, despite what was said by my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister.

1313
It can be a heat vapourising principle. By any definition, or however you like to qualify what you say, or defend or excuse its use in riot situations, and so on, I can assure your Lordships that under war conditions, for example in Vietnam, its use is biological and not chemical warfare. The very nature of tear gas is progressively to exhaust the tear ducts of the eye. As your Lordships will realise, the eye is probably the most vulnerable portal of the body, yet we never get heavy infection through it because we are defended by the tear ducts. If in such a situation as that in Vietnam, in a jungle situation of that kind, you exhaust the tear ducts, you are exposed to the invasion of biological infection.
My Lords, a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the fact that we can qualify the meaning or uses of gases. I would go even further and oppose its use even in civil disturbances, and the ultimate abuse of it in civil disturbances. We could be very bighearted and say that it is used to avert more serious circumstances. But let us choose the situation that we are trying to avert and see what would be involved. I say with some hesitation, because I do often accept objective evidence, that I have not seen objective evidence to satisfy me about what happened in Ulster. Incidentally, the report of the World Health Organisation referred to by my noble friend, Lady Birk—I am subject to correction because I have not had a chance to check the reference—was endorsed by Sir Solly Zuckerman or by Britain's representative on that Group.
This means, my Lords, that we are spelling out the things which in fact we are allowing; we are spelling out what is wrong with it and in the next breath we are justifying its use. There is one ultimate in this matter which has nothing whatever to do with the scientific or any other justification. By destroying—and I mean destroying—the credibility of the British Government on the Protocol, we have done immense damage to the power of initiative and our sense of direction in our disarmament negotiations.
6.59 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I also apologise for intervening without giving notice? I want only to express the deep sympathy which I think all on
1314
these Benches have for my noble friend, Lord Chalfont, on the Front Bench who has to reply on this matter. I think he is in the unfortunate position that he has no support from his own Back Benches.
7.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I do not envy the role of the Minister on the Government Front Bench. All the more so when I think of the work he has done to scale down these horrible engines of war. If my intervention is brief, it is not because I or any of my noble friends on these Benches do rot attach great importance to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. If I may say so, I thought that his speech was very moderate in tone, and I support him. He said that we should be encouraging this tendency. Surely there will be no doubt about that. He also said that we should be seeking the reaction of the Disarmament Conference.
I am not going into, nor am I qualified to do so, the technical details of whether CS gas is smoke or whether it is a vapour. This is something quite beyond me. But it is not beyond the comprehension of the Geneva Conference, and it is for this reason that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again. I know perfectly well that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, in replying to the question which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was replying perfectly sincerely when he said that perhaps CS gas was less horrible than bullets. That may be so but, as has been pointed out, CS gas, of course, can be used as a means of smoking people out like fillets (if I may use the expression), bolting them out, and then killing them by some other means. There is, I think, no comparison between the use of CS gas for riot control and the use of CS gas in war.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I can well see that if this gas is allowed for civil uses, it will also be allowed in war. I beg Her Majesty's Government to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and refer this matter back. It would not be an undignified thing to do. I think that it would be something of which we could all be proud, and certainly we on these Benches would not crow or in any way

1315
be jubilant if Her Majesty's Government had to submit to a little humiliation.
7.3 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising it, though I must confess that a good deal of what has been said has nothing much to do with my noble friend's Question. If your Lordships look at the Order Paper, you will see that the Question refers to nerve gases and defoliants, and we have spent a good deal of this evening talking about other things. However, the Rules of your Lordships' House are elastic. In the course of the few remarks I have to make I shall try to answer some of the extremely powerful and, to my mind, valid, points that have been made, valid in the sense that I think it is right that they should have been raised. Before I do so, I should like to express my gratitude to noble Lords for some of the remarks they have made about the role that Her Majesty's Government have played in disarmament negotiations. I am particularly touched by some of the remarks that have been made about my own modest contribution.
I should like first to answer my noble friend's Question, because even though it is an Unstarred Question, I think it deserves an answer. The short answer, I am afraid, is, No. This may seem unequivocal and unaccommodating, but what my noble friend asked was whether we will refer the question of nerve gases and defoliants to the Geneva Conference. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, nerve gases fall clearly into the category of chemical methods of warfare covered by the Geneva Protocol, of which we are a party. I know of no controversy about this and I see no reason to refer it to the Geneva Conference. On the subject of defoliants, we have never regarded defoliants and herbicides as being covered by the terms of the Geneva Protocol nor do I know of any Power which does. I think again that there is no point in referring this to the Geneva Conference. So the answer to the Question on the Order Paper is, No.
However, I think that it would be right to take up the point that has been made by most noble Lords who have
1316
spoken this evening, referring to the Government's recent decision on CS gas and the Geneva Protocol, but which was not mentioned (I hope I am not labouring the point) in my noble friend's Question. This subject has already been exhaustively discussed in both Houses and I do not propose, obviously, to go into the matter in any great detail here. The Government's view on this and the reason for taking this decision were made plain both by me in this House on February 26 and by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place on February 2.
However, I think there are a number of points that have been made that are so important in their implications that I should try to reply to them. The first point I would make is that references to the way in which the substance CS has been used, or is alleged to have been used, by United States Forces in Vietnam are not entirely relevant to the decision which Her Majesty's Government have taken. I am not going to be drawn into a debate here on what American troops are doing in Vietnam. However, I would say that to match the document which has been adduced to show one way in which the Americans can use this gas in Vietnam, there is adequate documentation to show that it has also been used very considerably to facilitate the taking of prisoners and the saving of lives in Vietnam, both of noncombatants and of American forces. I beg my noble friend Baroness Birk not to dismiss this entirely as fairy tales. This substance has been used by the Americans in many different situations. As I said, this is not entirely relevant to our own decision but I think it right to point out that there is more than one side to this particular question.
My noble friend Lord Brockway has rightly said that we should be encouraging any tendency in the United States towards arms control, particularly in the field of biological warfare. I think that at the time he was referring to President Nixon's historic denudation of the use of biological weapons on behalf of the United States. I know that my noble friend, who is an expert in these affairs, must have noted the exact United States position. I will not labour this point, but I think that he will have read President Nixon's statement and he will know

1317
the American position not only on biological warfare but also on the Geneva Protocol.
The only point I want to make in your Lordships' House is that there is no sign whatsoever that anything we have done in our interpretation of the Geneva Protocol has had any kind of discouraging effect upon the United States in their search for a multilateral agreement on biological warfare. Although the United States have made this unilateral renunciation, they have over and over again, in various places, given the fullest support to the British attempt to reach a multilateral agreement on this issue.
Can I assure my noble friend Lord Brockway that there was no misunderstanding in my answers to him in your Lordships' House on another occasion. I did not misunderstand his reference to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I merely said that in my view our action was not relevant to any interpretation that we or anyone else may make of any other treaty. I think this is a valid point to take, although I understand fully what his argument is about.
I think there is some misunderstanding in our minds about the whole question of interpretations of international instruments—and both my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lady Birk referred to this. It is indeed the case that signatories to international instruments are entitled to make their own interpretations and reservations about an internationally agreed instrument. That has been done on many occasions: indeed, noble Lords will recall that in the case of the very Protocol about which we are speaking the United Kingdom Government made two clear reservations in the period between 1925 and 1930 when the Protocol was signed and ratified. These reservations were to do with the use of weapons in retaliation and the use of weapons against non-signatories of the Protocol. Those were unilateral reservations entered about the Protocol, and it is quite normal and customary for Powers signing international agreements to do this.
If I may diverge for a moment to the analogy of my noble friend Lady Birk, I do not think her legal analogy is a particularly good one. Like most analogies, it falls down if you attempt to
1318
follow it to its logical conclusion. She said that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 was a declaration of customary international law. That may be her opinion, but it is not universally agreed. So far as I am aware, the Geneva Protocol is an international agreement arrived at by agreement among the signatory Powers. Whether it is a declaration of customary international law is another matter, and that is something about which lawyers have different views.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? The British Government did have reservations; but is it not the case that those reservations were made during the discussions of the Protocol, rather than after it had been ratified? And were they not part of the negotiation for its ultimate ratification?
LORD CHALFONT: That is indeed the case. This is another example of where comparisons and analogies fall down if they are ruthlessly followed to their logical ends, as my noble friend has done. It is true that these reservations were made in the course of negotiations; but they were unilateral negotiations. It is true, also, that it is possible to make unilateral interpretations. After all, although the Protocol is dated 1925, we made an interpretation of the meaning of that Protocol in 1930. We have now reaffirmed that interpretation with the change that is now the subject of this debate. However, I do not want to labour the point, because I do not think it is the substance of our argument.
Nor do I think we need to make too much of another point that has been raised and which I should like to dispose of at this stage; namely, the question of whether CS is a smoke or a gas. That, frankly, is a matter of no importance. As a matter of scientific fact, my best advice is that it is more accurately described as a smoke, because it is delivered by aerosol in solid particles. But there may be different views about that. I do not think it worth while in your Lordships' House or anywhere else to argue whether the substance is a gas or a smoke, because its effect is very much the same, whichever it is.
LORD RITCHIECALDER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will now define it as a gas?
LORD CHALFONT: I do not think it would be for me to define this substance; it is a matter for scientists. The definition that I have been given is that it is an aerosol of solid particles and therefore might be described accurately as a smoke. If people want to describe it as a tear gas, I should not argue with them. It has always been called a tear gas, and I am happy that it should go on being called a tear gas.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has intervened on this subject, and I think he may have created some confusion in people's minds by suggesting that it might be called a biological weapon. As I understand it, a biological weapon depends on the definition contained at any rate in the Secretary-General's Report on this matter; that is to say, it depends on its ability to reproduce in the living organs: and whatever effects CS gas has on the human body, I do not think that it has such an ability. I think we should be doing clarity and lucidity a disservice if we suggested that this was a biological and not a chemical weapon. Again, I think this is no more than a debating point.
To come back to the substance of what my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, of course we shall, as he has asked, look constantly at the implications of this problem. I cannot promise him or noble Lords that there is likely to be any change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government about this subject. The matter was given long thought; it was the subject of a great debate and a decision was made. It is right that criticisms on it should be put forward and views should be expressed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere; and I certainly promise— this is all I can promise—to bring to the notice of my colleagues the views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House.
In order to set this question into some kind of perspective, may I say a few words about what exactly our policy is in the field of chemical and biological weapons? As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, I think Britain has every reason to be proud of the role that she is playing in this particular field. It was the British Government who in 1968 took the lead in advocating new arms control measures specifically to strengthen the 1925 Geneva Protocol. That was a fairly
1320
controversial measure at the time. As noble Lords may recall, it was a measure to deal with biological weapons. But although controversial at the time, I think it is fair to say that it was largely responsible for arousing the present worldwide interest, which is now very intensive, in the field of arms control and disarmament in relation to chemical and biological weapons.
I think we might recall, too, that the report of the United Nations Secretary-General on this matter, which was published in July, 1969—it has been widely acclaimed throughout the world, and quoted often in this debate in your Lordships' House—had its origins in the suggestion by the British Government. It was we who put the idea forward, and the report sprang from that idea. But I think we have done more than simply arouse interest. We have put forward some real proposals for negotiation. We have put forward as the best way of strengthening the 1925 Geneva Protocol the proposal to ban all use, production and possession of biological agents for hostile purposes. I and others have explained on many occasions the reasons why we thought it right to tackle biological weapons first and separately from chemical weapons, and I do not want to go over that again. It is sufficient to say that we tabled in July, 1969, at the Conference in Geneva, our Convention for the prohibition of biological weapons of warfare. That document is now one of the basic documents in the discussions in Geneva on chemical and biological weapons, and it has, since we tabled it, aroused a great deal of support, which is increasing all the time, for its practical and workmanlike approach to the problem.
This gives the lie to suggestions that any interpretation we might have made of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 in terms of CS gas has undermined our disarmament position in Geneva. On the contrary, our biological warfare Convention is gaining increasing support. I do not disguise the fact that there are a number of countries who want to deal with chemical and biological weapons together, rather than seeking progress first in the biological field. We took the step for sound, practical reasons. It does not mean that we regard the question of chemical weapons as being of any less

1321
importance. As I made clear recently in Geneva, if the other countries there want to discuss the prospects for progress on chemical weapons and biological weapons together, we are ready to do so. I am bound to add—and this is going to become an important point in the negotiations—that there are compelling practical reasons why we should deal with biological weapons first and not try to combine our attack upon the two together.
I have taken a little of your time, my Lords, briefly to set this question in what I believe is its right context. The question of the use of CS (and perhaps if we call it that we shall avoid the sterile debate about whether it is a smoke or a gas) is a problem to which the Government gave very deep thought for a very long period. I assure my noble friends, and noble Lords in all parts of the House, that this was not a decision lightly taken. We took it after deep thought, after seeking advice in all quarters, and the Government believe that the decision taken was the right one. Whatever my noble friends may think about that, I ask them to believe that in our view the main consideration is that there should continue to be progress in the main field of chemical and biological weapons. There should continue to be effective attempts to reach international multilateral agreement on the whole field of chemical and biological warfare. Nothing that has been said tonight, nothing that the Government have done, can alter the fact that we have played, and shall continue to play, a leading part in seeking this progress.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put a question? He referred to consultations in all quarters. Does that include international quarters, our allies in NATO and other countries at the Disarmament Conference? Also, does it include sounding opinions at United Nations, or does it mean just in this country?
A NOBLE LORD: NO.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, although my noble friend behind me has just said "No", the answer is, "Yes". In the course of the debate on this matter, I personally was at both the Disarmament Conference in Geneva and at the General
1322
Assembly of the United Nations. I can assure the noble Lord that while I was there I consulted many representatives of many countries and organisations about this problem—not only Governmental representatives, but nonofficial organisations as well. There are very few countries and organisations in the world that I have not talked to about this.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS BILL [H.L.]
7.24 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision, as respects England and Wales, for discontinuing the classification of handicapped children as unsuitable for education at school, and for supplementing awards under Section 1 and restricting awards under Section 2 of the Education Act 1962, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,— (Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NORTH RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.