Lords Sitting of 5 August 1971

Preamble
The House met at twelve noon: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

CROWN AGENTS' INVESTMENT POLICY
12.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: 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 are satisfied that the investment policy pursued by the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations is calculated to render best assistance to the economy of this country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the Crown Agents invest funds on behalf of their overseas principals, who are mainly independent Government and other public bodies. They do this on the instructions and authority of their principals and the British Government do not intervene in these operations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think that I should say that I have no team co-ordination with the Guardian although I am aware that some of the staff were not uninterested in this subject. May I ask the noble Marquess whether I understood him to say that although the Crown Agents invest very large sums of money—and it is public money—the Government have no routine discussions on investment policy and give no approval to investments, and certainly have no power to direct the Crown Agents in any way?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is quite correct. The Crown Agents are entirely responsible to their own principals in these matters and are
1258
not responsible to the British Government.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether or not in the initial stages the Crown Agents are appointed by Her Majesty's Government? May I also ask whether Her Majesty's Government can confirm or deny that executives of the Crown Agents hold, directly or through nominees, shares in companies promoted by Crown Agents' funds?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is certainly true that the Crown Agents are appointed by Her Majesty's Government. I think that I should need notice of the second supplementary question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I sup-post that we have all read the Guardian this morning; and I am sure that the noble Marquess will appreciate that we should wish to have some comment from Her Majesty's Government about the allegations mentioned by my noble friend, which are very disquieting.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, my attention has been drawn to the article in the Guardian this morning although I must confess that I have not yet had time to read it closely. I have no reason to suspect that it is substantially inaccurate but on behalf of my right honourable friend I would appreciate time in which to consider the matter.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, in view of the uncertainties which may have been created abroad, as well as in this country, could not the noble Marquess promise that there will be an investigation and that we shall have a report as soon as possible?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I shall certainly undertake to convey to my right honourable friend the feelings of the noble Baroness, and indeed of the House, in this matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the statement by the noble Marquess that in his view the Guardian article is probably accurate, can he answer two questions? First, to whom are

1259
the Crown Agents responsible? Secondly, are the developing countries aware that their money is being used to benefit London property owners, bankers and other private enterprises enabling, in the words of the Guardian, individuals to build up personal fortunes?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, as I hope I made clear in my original Answer, that the Crown Agents are responsible to their principals, the Governments concerned or whoever they may be, in this matter. So far as the noble Lord's second question is concerned, this is a matter for the Crown Agents' principals. I should have thought that they have every right to ask the Agents how they are investing their money and in what activities they are indulging. I think that I cannot say more than that. This is something that the principals are perfectly entitled to find out from the Crown Agents.
LORD FLETCHER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? When he has had the opportunity to read the article published in to-day's Guardian he will observe that the Crown Agent is quoted as saying that he has some kind of responsibility to the Foreign Secretary. The degree of that responsibility is not obvious, but it seems that there is some kind of responsibility for which, presumably, the noble Marquess's right honourable friend is responsible to Parliament. Would the noble Marquess bear in mind that it would be very disquieting if it were the fact, as is suggested, that in pursuing the investment policies which the Crown Agents are following, they are not supposed to have any regard to the best interests of the economy of this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point and I will certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Marquess say whether or not Crown Agents, as Crown Agents, enjoy any legal immunity under the Crown?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot answer that question.
LORD THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, may I put it to the noble Marquess, before we pursue the hunting of the Crown Agents too far, that we might bear in mind that for many years they have probably done a remarkably good job of work and that we might possibly end up in a much worse position if we start changing everything too rapidly without thinking very carefully about it.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, my question relates to existing circumstances. What immediate steps would be taken by Her Majesty's Government if the disquiet which could be generated arising out of recent discussions involved a substantial and immediate withdrawal of funds on the part of the principals who are now associated with the Crown Agents?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not want to dodge that question; but I think that it really is a matter for the Treasury. I will undertake to pass all these questions to my right honourable friend. I hope that I have satisfied the House at any rate that in these matters the Crown Agents are basically responsible to their principals, with whom they have to deal.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is some misunderstanding about the responsibility here. Who appoints these people in the first place? And who has the power to dismiss them? On what basis are they appointed? And on what basis would they be dismissed if the occasion arose?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Crown Agents are appointed by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask one more question? Is the Minister aware that there is a document published by the Crown Agents which lists their investments. Although this document is secret, I have had a copy. May I ask the Minister why, if these are public funds, it should not be publicly announced where these investments are placed?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has been more fortunate than I. I have not seen a copy of this document, I am afraid.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, when the noble Marquess has had time to read the article, I think he will find that it is not a Treasury responsibility but that the officials who are there now were appointed by the Minister of Overseas Development.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while no one wants to cast aspersions on the Crown Agents—I have had some experience of the excellent work done by them in South-East Asia—may I ask that, when public money is involved, the Government will try in future to see that the greatest possible information is given to both Houses of Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that I can undertake to accede to the noble Lord's request.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that it is very important not in any way to impugn the integrity of the Crown Agents, and that the sooner these points are announced in public the better?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I feel that we have had a good hunt on this subject, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Arran, may now be allowed to get into the act.

HEATHROW TELEGRAPHIC AND POSTAL COMMUNICATIONS
12.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: 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 it is true that:—

(a) the lack of postal and telegraphic facilities in Terminal No. 1 at Heathrow is due to a dispute between the British Airports Authority and the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications;

1262

(b) this lack of facilities is causing many passengers, especially foreign journalists, to use Terminal No. 2, thereby depriving B.E.A. (which uses Terminal No. 1) of much traffic; and

(c) the Minister undertook through the Telephone Manager of the London Western Area almost two years ago to supply adequate postal and telegraphic facilities in Terminal No. 1.]

LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the provision of postal and telegraphic facilities at Heathrow is a matter for the Post Office and the British Airports Authority, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has not been involved in a dispute with the Authority.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that under the Post Office Act 1969, Section 11(1) and (2), the Minister of Posts has power to give directions of a general nature to the Post Office? Similarly, are Her Majesty's Government aware that under the Airports Authority Act 1965 the Minister of Trade and Industry has powers to give similar directions of a general nature to the British Airport Authority? May I ask whether, between them, the Ministers concerned will in the public interest sort out this unseemly interdepartmental wrangle?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, it would not be appropriate for the Ministers to give general directions in a case of this kind; but I can tell the noble Earl that negotiations between the Post Office and the British Airports Authority seem to be nearing completion.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while I am very glad to hear that, may I hope that the promise given 15 months ago will be implemented?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl is talking about the time before the Post Office Act came into force, and my right honourable friend does not now have the authority that the Postmaster General had in those days.

PAKISTAN/INDIA RELATIONS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative in arranging for a meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations in view of the danger of war between India and Pakistan arising from the conflict in East Bengal (Bangla Desh).]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on August 2, I am not sure that the cause of peace between the two countries would be served by calling a meeting of the Security Council. I believe the best hope to achieve the results we want is for the United Nations Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to continue in their efforts to assist the refugees. At present I do not think the Security Council could do more. We are concerned that there should be no further deterioration in Indo-Pakistan relations and we shall be watching the situation with close attention.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate the details of that reply, may I ask the Minister this further question? Have not both the President of Pakistan and the Foreign Secretary of India indicated that there is a real danger of war? Is it not the duty of the Security Council, when a threat to peace occurs, to take action, and while we go into Recess would not the Minister keep a very alert eye on this situation in case the appalling tragedy of refugees and massacres and hunger is added to by war, which might easily extend beyond these two nations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, of course I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will keep a very close eye on the situation in West Bengal. As I said, it is really a matter of judgment. We do not feel that the time is right at the moment for an appeal to the Security Council.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Marquess's attention has been drawn to a report in The Times newspaper this morning about the reputed resignation of all members of the Pakistan Diplomatic Corps at U.N.O. or in their Diplomatic Service at large in America, implying that they are all East Pakistan subjects? Does this not in itself represent a threat to the communications between the Security Council and the Government of Pakistan?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords; I noticed the news about the resignations, particularly in the United States. What the noble Lord is saying may be true to some extent, but I should like to consider it a little further. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, at present we do not feel that any purpose would be served by bringing this matter before the Security Council.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess for some indication of how bad things have to become before we think it right to bring them to the attention of the Security Council?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that must be a matter of judgment of the facts at the time.

NATIONAL AND TATE GALLERIES: ENTRANCE CHARGES
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 can give details of the existing legislation which would permit them to require the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery to impose entrance charges but not to retain the sums raised for the benefit of the galleries concerned.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, except for the provisions of the National Gallery Act 1856 and the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, which deal with the acquisition, lending and disposal of

1265
the collections, the affairs of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery are not regulated by Statute. The questions referred to in the noble Lord's Question are therefore not matters for legislation.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that information, may I ask him whether he thinks that a Treasury Minute of 1880 proposing charges on two days a week for quite a different purpose is sufficient legal basis on which to rely in the present circumstances? If the Government are so keen and believe so much in what they are trying to do, why do they not ask Parliament to approve?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, Parliament has debated the charges and approved them. Treasury Minutes, as the noble Lord must realise, can be changed at any time. As a matter of fact, the Treasury Minute initialled by Sir Winston Churchill is dated February 5, 1955, and in paragraph 5 it details the responsibilities as regards finance. There is nothing in that which prevents charges from being collected.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask whether that Minute of Sir Winston Churchill dealt with the question of charges?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: No, my Lords. If it is necessary to amend a Treasury Minute, it can be amended without any form of legislation. It is not necessary to amend this particular Treasury Minute. If it were, we should do it.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, whatever the legal position may be—and I despair, I am afraid, of converting the Paymaster General to the views of some of us on museums and galleries charges—does he not feel that he will be spending money on putting up turnstiles, and all the rest, which will be inconvenient to the public, doubly inconvenient to cripples and triply inconvenient to cripples who are young children? Cannot he do something to get, if not a candle burning for himself in heaven, at least a tiny match, by seeing that crippled children are not subjected to charges?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness knows that our
1266
estimate of the cost of collection is 10 per cent. of the net take. We have no reason, now that conversations are being pursued with the galleries, to think that it will not come within that. On the second question, I may say that I am in correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he agrees that it is illegal to impose taxation without the authority of Parliament? Secondly, if so, what will happen to Trustees who may decline to impose such charges on the ground that, while they may have a legal right to impose such charges, they have no legal right to impose such legal charges for the relief of the general body of taxpayers?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, this is not a tax; this is a charge. It is something quite different. It is a small part of the cost of the service. There are similar services in many other parts of the Arts and in Social Services. Museums do now impose charges, as the noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well—the Apsley Museum and other museums—and for every special exhibition which they put on. The money from the charges raised in that way has always been paid straight into the Consolidated Fund and taken account of in the ordinary Appropriation in Aid procedure.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, if the Trustees of these two particular galleries say that they do not propose to levy any entrance charges, whatever the Government may say, is there anything that the Government can do about it, short of introducing legislation?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, as the Trustees of the two galleries are at this moment making the arrangements for introducing the charges, the noble Lord's question is hypothetical.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the current report of the Trustees of the National Gallery is on record as saying that they are firmly opposed to these charges and they hope that wiser counsel will prevail?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, so would the noble Lord be against

1267
charges, and so would I, if we were looking at it in isolation, as Trustees. But they are part of a large policy the net balance of which is very much in their favour.

HOUSING BILL
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

ATOMIC WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT
12.25 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the future of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. The Rayner Report on Government organisation for Defence Procurement and Civil Aerospace (published in Cmnd. 4641 in April) recommended that responsibility for the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment should be transferred from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence. The White Paper announced that the Government would examine, in consultation with the Authority, how best A.W.R.E.'s functions could be rationalised with those of the other defence Research Establishments. The Government have consulted the representatives of both the management and the staff of the Authority and have decided that the substantial rationalisation required can be effected only if the A.W.R.E. and the other establishments concerned are brought under the same management. Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation the A.W.R.E. will therefore be transferred to the Ministry of Defence. The future arrangements for the civil work now done in the Establishment will be discussed with the Atomic Energy Authority: the continuity of the civil nuclear work and in particular that of the important work on the fast breeder reactor will be ensured.
The Government intend to introduce a Bill in the next Session, so that the transfer can be implemented in the summer of 1972. My Department will take the lead in preparing and handling
1268
the legislation, and dealing with all questions that relate to the actual transfer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will of course continue to deal with matters affecting the rest of the Authority.
During the next few months my Department will consult the A.E.A. and the appropriate staff and trade union representatives about the terms and conditions on which staff will be transferred. Some adjustments will probably be inescapable. But the general aim will be that the terms and conditions taken as a whole shall be no less favourable than those provided for in existing contracts. I realise that successive changes have been unsettling for the staff of the Authority. I cannot rule out the possibility of further changes at some time—the Government are considering how best the electricity supply industry and the nuclear industry could be more closely involved in reactor research and development. But if a change in the Authority's statutory functions and organisation should be decided on, resulting in further transfers of Authority staff into some new structure, such transfers would be on a comparable basis to that for staff transferred to British Nuclear Fuels Limited and to the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, although some continuing reduction in Authority staff is envisaged, the Government foresee the need for a substantial long-term programme of important civil research and development work.
12.29 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for making that Statement. I should like to congratulate him as Secretary of State for Defence on winning a victory which the Secretary of State for Defence in the previous Government was, rightly, unable to win; namely, the transfer of the development of weapons to the Ministry of Defence. May I ask the noble Lord whether we alone of the three Western countries which have the capability of producing nuclear weapons will now have this within the control of the Ministry of Defence rather than of the purely civil establishment? I acknowledge the logic within the terms of the Government's policy. The noble Lord is always extremely logical and clear, but I should like to ask him whether in this respect we shall be different from the French and the

1269
Americans. May I also ask him how far—though perhaps he may not be able to say—consideration was given to the very sensitive nature of this particular change?
Not having realised that the work on fast breeder reactor and other nuclear work was done at A.W.R.E., may I ask how much of the A.W.R.E. work concerns the civil side and how far there will be a split in the Authority regarding this matter? May I also ask him whether, under the Government procurement organisation, the work on weapons and defence will come within the purview of the ministerial Aerospace Board, or will it only be the civil work? This is not unimportant, because whereas nobody would doubt or distrust the Secretary of State himself, one of the protections in this area has been that another Minister has been concerned in it. I should like to ask how far the Atomic Energy Authority welcome and approve of this proposal. It is clear that what the Rayner Report recommended was very logical. I would not criticise that, but there are important policy angles which are outside the purview of that Report.
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord how many people who have not been civil servants for some while are again about to become so, thus swelling the ever-growing number of civil servants for which the Government, when they were in Opposition, criticised the then Administration?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for congratulating me on winning a victory which he thinks I ought not to have won. I think I should have won it, and that this is the right place for the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. About 19 per cent. of the work done there is civilian work and all the rest is military work. Of that 19 per cent., 10 per cent. is on nuclear work. The vast proportion of the work done there is military and I am quite certain that it should come to the Ministry of Defence and within the scope of the Procurement Executive with the other research establishments, because I believe that a rationalisation and a saving is possible; and it makes a great deal more sense. I know that the Americans do it differently; I am not entirely sure about the French. But I do not think that we always need to do what every-
1270
body else does, and perhaps when the Americans and the French have seen how successfully we are operating under this new scheme they may follow us.
The working of the A.W.R.E. will not come under the Aerospace Board; I do not think there would be any advantage in that. But of course anything which is done in my Department not only comes under my direction but under the direction of the Defence and Overseas Policies Committee and also under the Cabinet. Of course there will be some people who will not agree with this decision, and some of them may work in the Atomic Energy Authority; but I am quite convinced that the decision is right, that it is logical and will save money.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, in view of the Rayner Committee's recommendation it would seem, certainly at first sight, that this would be a logical step to take. May I ask the noble Lord about one point. The A.E.A. in its relatively brief life has already had a number of changes, as the noble Lord recognised in his statement. I wonder whether he may be in a position in the near future to give some indication as to when a decision will be taken on the next round of changes, so that people may have some warning?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I agree that this should be borne very much in mind: it is extremely unsettling and the only solution I can offer, if it does not seem too lugubrious, is that at any rate the staff of the A.W.R.E. have come to their last resting place.
I forgot to answer one of the questions put by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. He and I have for years played the numbers game, whether it be in relation to the size of the Army, the Navy, or whatever it might be, and he is now playing the numbers game about civil servants. I think that, even on this last day of term, it is really rather an empty question to ask me since whatever the people are called, whether they are called civil servants or workers for the Atomic Energy Authority, they are still there.
LORD BYERS: Could the noble Lord find a more felicitous phrase than the one he used—" their last resting place "?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, whose masterly

1271
display at the Box I have enjoyed during the short time I have been in this House, whether in future, in conjunction with the Leader of the House, he will draw up a formula by means of which the rest of us may know when a vital Statement like this is going to be made to your Lordships' House? It would be very valuable for Members who, like myself, have been interested in these problems for many years. Finally, in this world so full of anachronisms and neologisms and abbreviated phraseology, at the beginning of a Statement might we be told what the terms and the letters mean? This would help us all very much.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I very carefully did that, as a matter of fact. I had hoped that the noble Lord would have recognised that that was precisely what I have done. We do announce in advance that Statements are going to be made. But I never worry about the noble Lord because he is always in his place and is an assiduous attender.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to play the numbers game with the noble Lord. It has always been the Party opposite who have played a numbers game. I will not add to the problems of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—he will just have to tot this up—so I make no further point on that. May I just say two things to the noble Lord? The first is that I fully accept the logic of his proposal. There may be a good case—and if he says there is I believe him—on administrative grounds, but there are rather profound policy issues which certainly caused us some concern when we were in Government with regard to these particular establishments. It is not a question of our doing the same as the French or the Americans. For some interesting reason they have also chosen not to put this responsibility directly under the military. I do not want to press this point further because there will be legislation, and we shall have an opportunity to talk about it later.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House always co-operates very well in trying to get information on Statements, but I think that, perhaps because it is the end of term, we were all caught on this one. Perhaps he would give a little consideration as to whether some notice
1272
could go into newspapers, or something of that kind. I was told late last night and came down specially for it, but I do not know how any of my noble friends knew about it.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I absolutely refuse to let the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition have the last word. Of course, I apologise to him if this Statement comes inconveniently. On the substance of this issue, I really do not think it makes sense for an establishment which works to the extent of over 80 per cent. for the Ministry of Defence to be under the control of someone else.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this change will reduce or increase the power of Parliament over the manufacture of nuclear weapons?
LORD CARRINGTON: It will have no effect at all, my Lords.

ROYAL ASSENT
12.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation Act,

Finance Act,

Medicines Act,

Hijacking Act,

Mineral Workings Act,

Industrial Relations Act,

Social Security Act,

Education (Milk) Act,

Civil Aviation Act,

Housing Act,

British Transport Docks Act,

Torbay Corporation (No. 2) Act,

City of London (Various Powers) Act,

London Transport (No. 2) Act,

Oxfordshire County Council Act,

Bournemouth Corporation Act,

Exeter Corporation Act,

Flintshire County Council Act,

Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Act,

Scunthorpe Corporation Act,

Aldridge-Brownhills Urban District Council Act,

Chichester Harbour Conservancy Act,

Isle of Wight County Council Act.