Lords Sitting of 16 December 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol):
The LORD AIREDALE on the Woolsack.
The Lord Cunliffe—Sat first in Parment after the death of his father.
The Lord Kenilworth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AIR FARES
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Queswhich stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a Statement, either in full or in part detail, concerning the introduction of cheaper air fares in Europe, and also to give more details on the new package of North Atlantic fares, ratification of which is still under discussion in Geneva.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the IATA negotiations on European air fares have ended without an agreement, due largely to B.E.A.'s insistence on special low fares on certain routes. We are awaiting full reports from the United Kingdom airlines concerned, and shall discuss the position with them. The negotiations on North Atlantic fares have now been concluded. The agreement reached is much along the lines of those laid down by the airline chairmen and presidents in Honolulu last month, except that all fares have been increased by 4 dollars for each round trip to cover the costs of international route charges which some Governments began to levy on November 1, 1971. The agreement also includes reductions in normal economy fares at certain times of the year, and reductions in some individual excursion fares and in affinity group and inclusive tour group fares during the year.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while appreciating the courtesy of the Minister, may I ask whether he realises that his caution over the past 12 months has been somewhat excessive; and although he has given certain details to-day, is he aware that the cheaper fares, the conditions and the actual dates when they come into operation are known? Is he further aware that in to-day's Press—and I have here The Times, the Guardian and the Financial Times—there is a large advertisement for National Airlines, giving details, and stating:
"In accordance with the agreement just reached by the International Transport Association, National Airlines offers new fares from London…"6 et cetera?
May I ask the noble Lord why we in this country cannot have similar details about our own airlines, either in the Press or in this House? Do we always have to wait?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the position is that these arrangements have not yet been formally submitted to the Government for approval. With regard to the winter inclusive group fares which are likely to be brought into effect on January 15, these are likely to be submitted in the near future, but it is unlikely that we shall receive the full details until probably the middle of next month. The information that is given in advertisements in the Press is very partial. For example, National Airlines are only referring to trips to the South and the Southern States.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to be aggressive when the noble Lord is so pleasant, but may I ask him whether or not he would agree that these fares are part of this IATA package which was agreed? And I am asking the noble Lord whether a similar statement could not have been made on behalf of B.O.A.C. fares. Finally, as the first of these new fares comes into operation on January 15, and if I put down a Question for the noble Lord to answer about a week later, would the Government by then have official knowledge of what is going on, and could I have a reply?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I say straight away that the noble Baroness's forms of aggression are

1257
always agreeable. The difficulty is this: that certain Press statements have been made and the advertisements that have appeared make it abundantly clear that all these fares are subject to Government approval. Until Governments give their approval, these fares are not final. Secondly, because of the great complication of these fares I do not think it would be right to use Hansard for information which is available in every agency.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the fares which have been published are not necessarily the fares which are going to exist? If that is so, is that not an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; because so far as I can see—though of course this is not a matter for me—the advertisements have covered themselves by saying, "All these fares are subject to Government approval."
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the House is very patient, but I am asking the noble Lord why we cannot say the same, and that, so far as B.O.A.C. are concerned, these fares have been agreed subject to Government approval?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to that question is simply, as I said before, that all we have at the moment as a guide are the Press statements. I think it would be wrong to make use of Hansard to publish Press statements.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, in support of the Question asked by the noble Baroness, this matter could be made very simple for the ordinary public to understand? We really are now totally bewildered as to what fares relate to different places, when they are to be changed, and so on. The suggestion by the noble Baroness could help to resolve a totally confused situation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, all Governments have to give their approval to the fares structure. The fares structure is extremely complicated. There are something like 64 separate fares for the North Atlantic alone. These are sets of fares, and each of these is divided up
1258
according to the destination. I do not see how we can publish all that information.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government are just as confused as the public, and ought not the Government to do something about resolving the confusion?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, it is not a fact. The Government are quite clear about this and they do what is necessary to be done. At the first stage this will be approval so far as the North Atlantic fares are concerned and, as I have said, so far as the European fares are concerned discussions will have to take place with the airlines.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, ought not the Government to take the public into their confidence?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the Government say whether they approve the inclusive fares or only the scheduled fares?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government have to approve the whole fares structure. What I said was that the group inclusive fares will come before the Government first, so far as North America is concerned, because they have to come into force on January 15.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord having got himself into this difficulty over these questions, does he not now think that there was more force in our argument than he then accepted, that the Civil Aviation Authority should have been allowed to be the arbiter on the fares policy?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, because in all cases except the United States of America, this is a matter for Governments.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there are not precedents where a Member of either House has made a statement or has quoted from the Press and this has been included in Hansard?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. It is not for me to say what should or should not go into Hansard; I am merely pointing out that this would

1259
be detailed information of a character that is readily available outside.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the indeterminate and never-ending state of these negotiations, does not the Minister think that it would be to the advantage of this country, and of this country's air passengers, if my noble friend Lady Burton were appointed to take charge of the British delegation in the fares negotiations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not certain that it would be possible for her to take part in the negotiations on IATA, because that is a matter for the airlines.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE AND LICENSING LAWS
2.41 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: 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 purpose the Inner London Compensation Committee, as constituted under the Licensing Act 1904, now serves, in view of the provisions of subsequent legislation.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the compensation system has been in abeyance in Inner London following its designation as a licensing planning area under the provisions of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1945 and 1946. Whether the system will have any future purpose to serve, in London or elsewhere, cannot properly be judged in advance of the report of the Committee on Liquor Licensing, of which the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, is Chairman.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that information, all of which was already at my disposal? May I ask him whether he does not think that an end should now be called to the burden of time this system places on many busy people who have to attend a number of formal meetings every year in order to reinvest the proceeds of a fund of £150,000? How many other
1260
moribund committees of this sort exist in other licensing areas?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I would not dissent from the view that the whole compensation system is one that has continued for a long time and needs to be reviewed. The Government think that the Committee they have set up to review the licensing laws is the proper body to investigate this aspect of the licensing legislation as well.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, inasmuch as the Minister has introduced the general question of licensing, may I ask him whether he noted in yesterday's financial columns the fact that the Carlisle State Management Scheme have nearly doubled their profits for the past year? Will that factor be taken into consideration in assessing the amount which private brewers will have to pay to take over this State organisation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that even my previous answer should lead me to deal with a supplementary question of that kind.

THE WATERWAYS BOARD: PROPOSED BREAK-UP
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: 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 why the British Waterways Board were not consulted or even informed in advance on the contents of the memorandum which announces their abolition.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, as I said in reply to the noble Lord on December 9, the memorandum is itself a consultation document and discussions on it with the Board are proceeding.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord put right a confusion which seems to be in the minds of a number of people in this House and elsewhere? He and his colleagues have

1261
said that consultation on this matter has been going on for 18 months. In point of fact, there has been no consultation going on on the subject of the break-up of the British Waterways Board and of its navigations. Will the noble Lord make it clear that there has been consultation, as everybody knows, for this period on water supplies, but none whatever on the subject of the break-up of the British Waterways Board?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to respond to the invitation to clear up any confusion that there may be about the nature of the consultations that have been going on. The circular which was issued a fortnight ago is based upon the Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee. That Committee took evidence from the British Waterways Board.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the noble Lord has still not cleared up the confusion. Was not the evidence given by the Board, and the whole business of the Committee, concerned with the subject of water supply? It was not part of their duty to consider navigation. Was there not therefore consultation on the subject of water? Is the noble Lord aware that I have in my hand a letter from the Board saying that no consultation had taken place with the Board on the subject of navigation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the circular that has just been issued is concerned with the reorganisation of water services as a whole, including navigation, supply, sewerage, conservation and recreation. It is a consultation document and consultations are now beginning on that basis.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the Minister admitting, by implication, that no previous consultation has taken place with the British Waterways Board on the break-up of the Board?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Is my noble friend aware—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Will the Minister answer, "Yes" or "No"?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the main point I want to make in answer to the noble Viscount's original Question is that what we are talking about is the consultation document, and consultation on the basis of that document is just beginning. The document has been published for only a fortnight. I also alluded to such consultation as there had been in the previous 18 months with the Central Advisory Water Committee.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that noble Lords on the other side should not be so sensitive about navigation alone?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SHACKLETON: Ask a question.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am asking a question, and that if it upsets the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, he will have to listen to it for a moment? Is my noble friend aware that not only was the navigation interest not consulted in the British Waterways Board, but local authorities, river authorities, water undertakings and sewerage authorities were not consulted? No other authority was consulted, so this is even-handed treatment to everybody.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am aware of that.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that even the Chairman of the British Waterways Board did not know until 24 hours before the announcement in Parliament that his Board was going to be broken up? Is he aware that he was informed secretly, and told to keep the information "under his hat", 24 hours before the announcement was made? No other member of the Board, or anyone in the British Waterways Board, knew that any such thing was contemplated until the announcement was made in Parliament. Is this a way of dealing with industrial relations on the part of a Government who are busy getting out a code of industrial relations?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. All the other bodies in a similar position to the British Waterways Board, and the

1263
chairmen of the boards, were advised as a matter of courtesy, as is the usual form, shortly in advance of the publication of the document. We are now consulting on the basis of the document produced for the purposes of consultation.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, after these Parliamentary "fun and games", that nevertheless everybody concerned with water is very keen that the whole subject of water supply and navigation should be taken up? We regard the method by which it has been done as clumsy, but, nevertheless, we regard the process as being very necessary.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. There is a great deal to be discussed with a number of authorities, including the British Waterways Board.

BRITISH WATERWAYS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: 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 whether they wish British Waterways to make agreements by which local authorities help them financially, and what action is to be taken on the twenty or so such agreements in progress but now frozen as a result of the recent announcement of the abolition of British Waterways.]
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, it is indeed the wish of Her Majesty's Government and of the British Waterways Board not only that such negotiations with local authorities should continue but also that agreements should be concluded as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is a short-term matter, and not a long-term matter such as we have been discussing
1264
on previous Questions, and that therefore something needs to be done now? Is he aware that there are some twenty or more of these negotiations going through between local authorities, individual groups and the British Waterways Board, and that all these negotiations are frozen solid by this sudden announcement? Will the Government issue to these people an authoritative statement to the effect that the Government are keen that these agreements should continue and that these negotiations should not be frozen for a matter of years?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I have just said that we are keen to see all these agreements continued and, if possible, concluded. My information is that negotiations of this kind are going on with 37 local authorities in respect of 11 stretches of remainder waterway; and if anything I have said as a result of being asked this Question by the noble Viscount helps to reassure authorities, so much the better.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Lord please assure the House that the growing number of canal users who can afford little boats, and who, in this neophiliac age, love the peace and serenity of the canal hedgerows and the quiet, will also be drawn in, because of the immense therapeutic value of the canals to people living in a cacophonous country to-day?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords. I can assure the House that these people do not need drawing in; they are there already.

PENSIONS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Aberdare will be making a Statement on pensions.
WELLINGTON ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the control of zoological gardens, to make provision for the care of wild animals therein, 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 —(Lord fanner.)
On Question, Bill read lª, and to be printed.

PEERS' EXPENSES
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move, That this House approves the raising from £6·50 to £8·50, with effect from January 1, 1972, of the limit upon the daily allowance payable to Lords attending sittings of this House or of Committees of the House. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Yesterday, in answer to a Question for Written Answer by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I announced that the Government had decided that the limit on the daily attendance allowance for Peers should be raised from the current rate of £6·50 to £8·50. This allowance, as your Lordships know, covers the reimbursement of expenses actually incurred within the permitted maximum. I regard this, and I hope your Lordships too will regard it, as a modest but significant increase in your Lordships' attendance allowance, and I trust that the House will agree to the Motion I am moving to-day.
Perhaps I should add that when I repeated a Statement on the remuneration of Members of Parliament and ministerial salaries on December 6, a number of noble Lords raised with me the whole question of pensions. On that, I should like merely to confirm what I said then. I took careful note of the representations which were made to me then across the Floor of the House and the representations made to me subsequently. I have already undertaken to ensure that those representations in this particular area will be carefully considered, and I
1266
should like just to confirm to noble Lords that this is in fact being done. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the raising from £6·50 to £8·50, with effect from January 1, 1972, of the limit upon the daily allowance payable to Lords attending sittings of this House or of Committees of the House.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
2.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. This modest increase comes at a very appropriate time of the year. It is worth recalling, in the light of one or two remarks I want to make, that these allowances have gone up by something like 130 per cent. since 1964. The figure was three guineas a day until the Lawrence Report. The 130 per cent. is not an official figure it is obviously a bit more than that. When I say this, I appreciate that the noble Earl has difficulties in matters of this kind, as any Leader of the House would have. The situation in the House of Lords has changed somewhat in recent years. A great deal of work is done here, and an increasing number of Peers are I think finding difficulties. Whereas I should not wish to discuss in any way what is proposed for another place, I certainly do not regard anything that is suggested for them as in any way over-payment at all. The fact remains that they also will be receiving certain expense allowances.
It is just for consideration, though I certainly do not press it now, whether at some time the Boyle Committee ought to be invited to consider the position of Members of the House of Lords. I am choosing my words, I hope, with great care and great moderation and I am not even suggesting that that should specifically be done. What I am suggesting is that there are still a number of noble Lords, especially those who come from the far North or the far West, who have difficulties, and will have difficulties even with this quite considerable increase. It has always been to me something of an anomaly that a Scottish Peer is able to claim his travelling expenses even if he does not attend a third of the time, whereas a Peer living in the North of England is not able to. Some noble Lords have

1267
to put their hand in their pocket quite deeply to come down here, say because of a three-line Whip or some such occasion.
What I would ask the noble Earl is this. He is always extremely accessible to any noble Lord. May we have discussions informally? If noble Lords in the House wish something more formal, perhaps we could consider that. I think, however, in the first instance it is a matter for some informal private talks in relation to pensions and other relevant questions. I know the noble Earl has given some attention to pensions. It is a very difficult question, I admit, but it may well be that we ought in fact to consult the House a little more widely. With that, I welcome this increase, and I certainly acknowledge that the noble Earl has done everything he can within the conventions at the moment.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we think that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is establishing a fine reputation as a good shop steward for the movement we have in this House. I wish to dissent a little from what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It would be misleading to quote 130 per cent. increase since 1964. While that may be factually correct, it is based on the assumption that £3 in 1964 was an adequate amount for expenses. I should not like to sec 130 per cent. in the headlines to-morrow as the increase in the attendance allowance.
2.58 p.m.
LORD SHIN WELL: My Lords, I wonder whether I may raise a question which may not be strictly relevant to the Motion moved by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. It has reference to the privileges of Members of your Lordships' House. I was for many years a Member of the other place and it was a custom for Members there to pay for notepaper and envelopes they used. In recent years, however, a privilege was conceded to honourable Members in the other place of something like £25 a year allowance for notepaper and envelopes used by them. When I came to your Lordships' House I discovered that one had to pay for envelopes and notepaper. It is not a very large amount. I have had
1268
three bills presented to me, and I want to assure your Lordships that I have paid every penny, so I am not in difficulty. However, it seems to me anomalous that Members of your Lordships' House should have to pay for the provision of notepaper which in amount may vary as between Members. Some have considerable correspondence, as I have myself, while others may have a limited correspondence. It seems to me that a privilege should be conceded to Members of your Lordships' House in this connection.
I am much more concerned about privileges and concessions of the character I have ventured to specify than I am about an increase in the attendance allowance, though naturally noble Lords welcome that concession. Will the noble Earl the Leader of the House give this matter consideration, because it seems to me that, quite apart from the expense involved, which is not a great deal, it is anomalous and illogical that Members of your Lordships' House should have to pay for stationery used by them, whereas Members of the other place have an allowance of something like £25.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, bearing in mind the headlines in to-morrow's Press which the noble Lord has referred to, may I ask my noble friend to confirm once again that the so-called "attendance allowance" is in no sense automatic, and that every penny that a noble Lord claims, whether he claims the whole or a part, is in fact repayment of expenses actually incurred in attending your Lordships' House, and that if he spends more than the attendance allowance he is not able to recover that cost?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot speak again, but by leave of the House and on a point of correction, I think perhaps the figure I gave previously was extremely misleading in the context and it is necessary that it should be corrected. It was really intended to show that successive Leaders have done their best in the matter.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, before my noble friend the Leader of the House replies, may I ask one question in clarification? Does this proposed increase have to be approved by the House of Commons and carried on the House of Commons Vote?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I say that my arithmetic makes it a 31 per cent. increase between 1964 and 1972, and the all-items cost-of-living index in the same period has gone up from 107 to 156·4, a rise of 50 per cent. That shows that relative to the position in 1964 your Lordships are very much worse off.
LORD LEATHER LAND: My Lords, as usual I want to be helpful. In his welcome Statement, the noble Earl the Leader of the House made reference to pensions. I have a fear that some bright sub-editor on one of the newspapers might put up a heading to-morrow morning "Pensions for Peers". If it is the fact, I should like the noble Earl to indicate to us that such pensions as he mentioned were pensions to certain people who are now Members of your Lordships' House but that those pensions are in respect of services which they rendered in the House of Commons.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the care with which they have received my Statement. I can of course confirm straight away that my noble friend Lord Inglewood is right. I can also make it quite clear, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that what we are talking about here are the pensions which some Members of your Lordships' House may or may not receive as a result of their service in another place. I am not absolutely certain, having regard to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, whether his electronic mind has functioned correctly, but he is a skilful mathematician and I certainly would not wish to query the estimate which he has given.
I should like to say straight away that in this as in other matters, I will bear in mind the problems with which Members of your Lordships' House are faced, whether they come from the far North or the far West, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned, or indeed from the far East or the deep South, for that matter. This is a matter which is in my mind and I am very willing to enter into discussions, be they informal or more formal, with noble Lords. To begin with, I think possibly the maximum informality might probably be desirable in this not indelicate area. Certainly such discussions could well cover the sort of
1270
question which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has raised, although it is my understanding that any letter which he writes with his own fair and beautiful hand in this House and on House of Lords' notepaper he is not charged for, so far as I know, or indeed for the envelope which enfolds it. But this is the sort of matter which could well be discussed, I would hope informally to begin with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
3.6 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee to inquire into the procedures and practice by which the control of each House over delegated legislation is exercised, and to report how they might be improved;
That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

The Lord Brooke of Cumnor,

The Lord Cawley,

The Lord Diamond,

The Lord Diplock,

The Lord Fletcher,

The Baroness Sharp,

The Lord Wade:

That such Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That leave be given to the Joint Committee to hear parties interested by themselves, their Counsel, agents and witnesses so far as the Committee think fit;
That the evidence taken before the Joint Committee be printed but no copies be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order;
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships will know, the Commons Select Committee on Procedure in their Report on the process of legislation, recommendation No. 24, proposed that a Joint Committee should be appointed to inquire into delegated legislation. Last month both

1271
my right honourable friend the Lord President in another place and I myself here in your Lordships' House announced that the Government accepted this particular recommendation. As your Lordships will also recall, the Lord Chairman of Committees, my noble friend Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I gave evidence to the Commons Committee during which we said that speaking in our personal capacities we should welcome such a Joint Committee to look into the whole process of subordinate legislation which has not been thoroughly examined since the Donoughmore Committee in 1932; and yesterday the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House also agreed that such a Joint Committee would be useful.
The Motion I am moving to-day is the last step so far as we are concerned in setting up such a Joint Committee, and it contains the proposed membership of the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.8 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) had given Notice of his intention to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. CO-OPERATION WITH THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Government's conclusions of the Second Report of last session of the Commons Select Committee on Procedure dealing with the Process of Legislation were set out by the Leader of the House in a Statement made on 9th November (H.L. Hansard, cols. 237-8). The Committee have now considered a Report from Lord Jellicoe amplifying that Statement.
The Committee recommend that the House should:—

(a) welcome the proposals for:

(i) a Government Enquiry into the Process of Legislation;

(ii) a Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation;

(b) welcome any measure which may be taken by the Commons to facilitate more equal distribution between the Houses of the Bills introduced; and

1272

(c) note with approval that experiments in the use of pre- and post-legislation Committees may be made.

2. REPORT FROM THE GROUP ON THE WORKING OF THE HOUSE
Last Session the Leader of the House appointed, with the approval of the House, an informal Group to report to him on the working of the House. The Group made two Reports, which were published by this Committee without commitment in the Tenth Report of last Session and the First Report of this Session. These Reports were debated in the House on 23rd November, 1971. The Committee wish to record their appreciation of the value of these two Reports which they have considered in the light of the debate of 23rd November. They submit their recommendations on each conclusion of the Group (Tenth Report of the Procedure Committee, 1970/1, paragraph 50), as follows:—
(i) Self-Government: the Simple Guide and Speakership—Conclusions (a), (b) and (c)
The Committee accept these recommendations. In particular, they consider that the procedure and practice of the House should be better known and understood in order that all members of the House may play their part in maintaining order. For this purpose a Simple Guide to the procedure and practice of the House should be prepared and published.
(ii) Talks by the Clerks—Conclusion (d)
The Committee agree that talks on the procedure and practice of the House should be given by the Clerks on an all-party basis at regular intervals (say once a year).
(iii) Further Improvements in Procedure—Conclusion (e)
The Committee accept this recommendation; as a first step they intend to consider at a later meeting the proposals made in the debate on November 23rd.
(iv) Advisory Committee of Back-Benchers to the Leader of the House—Conclusion (f)
The Committee are not in favour of this recommendation which, if effective, would tend to replace the existing channels of communication open to Back-Benchers, and would not be therefore in the best interests of Private Members or of the smooth working of the House.
(v) Wednesday Debates—Conclusion (g)
The Committee support the proposal that one Wednesday a month should be set aside experimentally until Whitsun for limited time debates of two and a half hours each, which would be initiated by Private Members and chosen by ballot. They consider that for the purposes of the experiment the operation of the time limits should be left to the good sense of the House subject to an understanding that adequate time should be left at the end of the debate for winding-up speeches from the Government and Opposition Front-Benches. The Committee recommend that the subjects

1273
for the other Wednesday Debates should continue to be chosen as at present, by agreement through the usual channels.
(vi) Monday Sittings—Conclusions (h) and (i)
Conclusion (h) states that "the House should normally meet on Mondays"; the Committee recommend instead that the House should sit on Mondays when the business of the House requires it to do so. The Committee agree that it is desirable, where possible, that business of special interest to Peers living a long way from London should not be taken on Mondays unless arranged well in advance. The arrangement of Monday Sittings at short notice may cause inconvenience.
(vii) Choice of Subjects for Debate—Conclusion (j)
The Committee recommend that the subjects for the two limited time debates for Private Members on one Wednesday a month should be chosen as an experiment by ballot to be conducted by the Clerk of the Parliaments. There should be a separate section in the Order Paper devoted to the names of the Peers entered for the ballot and the terms of their Motions; Peers should only have one such Motion down at a time. Detailed arrangements will be formulated and brought before the House in due course.
(viii) Timing of Sittings—Conclusion (k)
The Committee agree that there should be no alteration in the time of the sittings of the House.
(ix) Speakers List—Conclusion (l)
The Committee are in agreement with the Group's recommendation that the Leader should have overall responsibility for the drawing up of the Speakers List. In practice however, he does not always have opportunity to give detailed attention to the list, and it must, therefore, continue to be drawn up largely as at present. They endorse, however, the proposal that the Mover of a Motion should be consulted when the list is being compiled. The Committee are not in agreement with the Group's suggestion that "better speakers" should be spread throughout the debate, because of the impossibility of deciding who are the "better speakers".
(x) Length of Speeches: Time Limits: Clocks—Conclusion (m)
The Committee agree that it is undesirable at present to impose any specific limitation on the length of speeches. They recommend that two clocks of a suitable design should he installed on either side of the Chamber, with indicators to show how long a Peer has been speaking.
(xi) Debates on Matters of Urgency—Conclusion (n)
The Committee are not in favour of the Group's conclusion that there should be emergency debates on the pattern of S.O. 9 Debates in the House of Commons. They consider that through the usual channels adequate opportunities exist at present for arranging debates on matters of urgency at short notice.
(xii) Starred Questions—Conclusion (o)
The Committee agree with the Group's recommendations. They are, however, concerned at the growing disorderliness of Question Time and deprecate the following undesirable features of Question Time which they draw to the attention of the House:—

(a) the tendency for small debates to develop;

(b) lengthy Ministerial replies which encourage lengthy supplementaries;

(c) the practice of advancing a point of view under the guise of a supplementary question; and

(d) the habit of reading out prepared supplementary questions.

(xiii) Starred Questions on Matters of Topical Interest—Conclusion (p)
The Committee do not accept the Group's recommendation for the introduction of one double starred question each day on a matter of topical interest. They are unwilling to recommend anything which would increase the claims of Question Time upon the time of the House and are impressed with the extreme difficulty of defining topicality. They consider that the four questions at present allowed on each sitting day, together with the opportunity of a Private Notice Question when it fulfils the criterion of urgency, should be sufficient to meet present needs.
(xiv) Questions for Written Answer—Conclusion (q)
The Committee note with approval that there has been a considerable increase in the use of Questions for Written Answer which provide a useful method of saving the time of the House, especially on matters of technical or local interest. They recommend that in appropriate cases it should be open to Ministers to answer a QWA on the day when it is tabled. This would require a small amendment of Standing Orders. They agree that QWAs should be answered as quickly as possible, but do not consider that an attempt should be made to lay down a precise time limit of seven days within which they would normally be answered.
(xv) Ministerial Statements and PNQs—Conclusion (r)
The Committee are not in favour of the Group's view, referred to in paragraph 45 of the Report, that
"(3) Front benchers have an established right to comment …" while
"(4) Back bench supplementaries should be asked for information only …"
The Committee recommend that all members of the House should have a right to comment briefly on Ministerial Statements. But they agree with the Group in thinking that more restraint should be exercised in all parts of the House in discussing Ministerial Statements and that under the terms of S.O. 33A the exchanges should not develop into a debate. They further agree that no change in the arrangements for the timing of Statements is feasible.
(xvi) Legislation-Conclusion (s)
The proposed enquiries into legislation and delegated legislation will examine the role of the House of Lords in the whole legislative process. Meanwhile, a number of detailed suggestions for improving the procedures of the House in dealing with legislation will be further considered by the Procedure Committee.
(xvii) Composition and Membership of Sessional Committees-Conclusion (t)
The Committee endorse in principle the proposals for a regular turnover in the membership of most sessional committees, with all members (save the Leaders and Whips, Lord Chancellor, Lord Chairman, two Deputy Leaders and the Chairmen of Sub-Committees) retiring after three years service. If the House agrees in principle with the Group's proposal, they suggest that it should be modified in detail so that for the first three years retirement from committees should be governed by length of service on committees, and those who have served longest should leave them first. The Committee recommend that if the House accepts this recommendation, sessional committees should be reconstituted after the Christmas recess, so far as necessary, in accordance with suggestions made by the Group which were printed as an Appendix to the First Report of the Procedure Committee for this session.
3. PROCEDURE ON DIVISIONS
Current procedure on Divisions is governed by S.O. 48 to which a number of experimental amendments have been made. The authority for these amendments expires at Christmas. The Committee are satisfied with the experiment and recommend that the House should now adopt S.O. 48 in the following form:—
Mode of taking divisions 27 June 1965.
48.—(1) When, on the question being put, a division is called for, the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall order the Bar to be cleared, and thereupon the Bar and also the division lobbies shall be cleared of strangers, but not the galleries and the space within the rails of the Throne, unless the House shall so order; and the doors at either end of the division lobbies shall be locked.
(2) During the three minutes after the Bar has been ordered to be cleared, two Tellers shall be appointed by the Contents and two by the Not-contents, and their names communicated to the Clerk at the Table.
(3) If, after the lapse of three minutes, Tellers have not been so appointed either for the Contents or for the Not-contents, a division cannot take place, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall, instead of again putting the question, declare the question decided in favour of the side which has appointed Tellers.
(4) After the lapse of three minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall again put the question, and the doors at the exit from each division lobby shall be unlocked.
(5) A Lord may vote in a division although he did not hear the question put.
(6) On a division, the Contents shall go forth through the door on the right side of the House near the Throne which leads to the right lobby, and shall proceed through the right lobby, and re-enter the House through the door on the right of the Bar; and the Not-contents shall go forth through the door on the left of the Bar which leads to the left lobby, and shall proceed through the left lobby, and re-enter the House through the door on the left side of the House near the Throne.
(7) After the lapse of six minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to he cleared, the doors of the Chamber shall be locked, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall inform the House or the Committee of the question which is the subject of the division.
(8) One Teller for the Contents and one for the Not-contents shall be appointed for each division lobby without respect to their degree and Clerks shall be in attendance in each lobby to record the names of the Contents and Not-contents respectively; the Tellers shall count the votes and announce the numbers to the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair.
The Committee also recommend that the following amendments to Standing Order No. 50. which formed part of the experiment, should be made:—
Line 11, leave out from ("whether") to ("he") in line 13;
Line 14, leave out ("on such question").
4. COMPANION SUB-COMMITTEE
The Companion Sub-Committee has been reappointed as follows:

The Chairman of Committees (Listowel, E.).

Amulree, L.

Beswick, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Henley, L.

Merthyr, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Salisbury, M.

Sherfield, L.

Strang, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and
with the power to co-opt further Lords.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered. Before we debate the Report itself, which the House will recollect it is our custom to do on the subsequent Motion, That this Report be agreed to, may I perhaps outline to your Lordships the manner in which it has been suggested that it would be convenient for the House to take the questions on the whole Report and the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? It may be for the convenience

1277
of the House if we debate the whole of the Report of the Procedure Committee, which is before the House this afternoon, on the Motion which follows this present Motion, That this Report be now agreed to. Would any noble Lord who has general observations to make on the body of the Report therefore speak then, so that we may have a general debate at that stage, except for the subject matter of the two Amendments. Thereafter, and before the Motion is put the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will move his Amendment, which will then be discussed and dealt with; and after that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will move his Amendment, which will be similarly dealt with.
I hope this procedure will be acceptable to the two noble Lords who have Amendments, as well as to the rest of the House. After these two Motions have been dealt with, the Motion on the Report as a whole will be put to the House from the Woolsack. I hope that this procedure, which may sound a little complicated, will be the most convenient way for the House to handle this Report and the two Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the point that the noble Earl has made, I am quite sure the procedure he has suggested is the best one. It will, of course, be a full debate, not a Question and Answer period; that is to say, nobody can speak more than once, so except for the movers themselves, speakers will have to seize their opportunities. There is, however, one point that causes me a little concern. I entirely applaud the energy with which the noble Earl has pressed on with this matter, but the fact remains that the House has not had very long to consider it. I hope that the House will come to decisions on these points to-day; but if there is a lot of discussion and there are certain matters which the House wants to look at further, then I hope that the noble Earl would not object, if necessary, to adjourning the debate. I hope very strongly that such a course will not be necessary.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the general procedure outlined
1278
is acceptable, and, of course, I should be entirely willing to adjourn the debate to a later date if that is the wish of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. In doing so, I would only say that the Report speaks for itself and I shall say nothing more on the subject matter of the Report, except to mention one point which requires clarification. Your Lordships will see in Item 2, subparagraph (xvii), a reference to those noble Lords who, it is suggested, are not to be subject to the retirement rule for sessional committees. I should like to make it clear that the expression "Leaders and Whips" in line 3 is intended also to cover the co-ordinator of the Cross Bench Peers. This point is made clear in paragraph 1 of the Appendix to the first Report of the Procedure Committee for this Session where the co-ordinator of the Cross Benches is included in the exempted category. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(TheEarl of Listowel.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like again to congratulate the noble Earl, and indeed the officials who have been working on this Report, on the speed with which they move. We have, of course, very fully debated this question in the debate we had on November 23. There are one or two points in the Report on which I think it may be desirable to get some sort of opinion from the House. There is one matter that causes me slight concern. I am a little 'concerned about the rejection of the proposal for the Back Bench Committee. When I say I am concerned, I must also say that I was and remain against the idea of this additional channel, because I think we ought to use the existing machinery. But to those noble Lords who may feel that something still ought to be done, I would say that it is for them in fact to express their views now, or, shall I say, for ever hold their peace. I know that the noble Earl was not averse to such a committee, but I think the Procedure Committee did not see the special case for it. As for the other proposals, we have debated all those at some length. We shall be coming on

1279
to the Division procedure on a subsequent Motion to include a new Standing Order. I hope that this will be accepted, and I certainly once again congratulate the special Working Party on the measure of success they appear to have achieved.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I was not able to be present on the previous occasion when this matter was discussed, but I am very concerned to put on record my own view with regard to the putting in of clocks. I regard it as completely beneath the dignity of this House that any of us should stand in our place and address the House, with a clock in front of us ticking away to the minute the time that we are addressing the House. It seems to me to be quite sufficient to have just the present clock which noble Lords can keep their eyes on. I hope I am one of those Members of your Lordships' House who does not speak for longer than is necessary; I try to make my points as quickly as possible. But some people cannot do so quickly. I feel that this is purely and simply a question of dignity. I do not know what people in the galleries will think of something ticking off the minutes. I protest very strongly against the whole idea.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Royle, on this matter. I think these clocks would be quite objectionable. I remember very well hearing a notable performance of the Schubert Octet in a B.B.C. hall before an invited audience. Seven o'clock was rapidly approaching, and then they had to stop. The performance was ruined for me because I could not take my eyes off the beastly clock. I thought it would reach seven o'clock and the musicians would have to finish before the final chords were sounded.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I have sat regularly in your Lordships' House for 25 years and been a Member for somewhat longer. The length of speeches goes in waves. I remember several occasions in past years when there were great complaints and grumbles about the length of speeches emanating from the Front Bench. The Departments think they have not done their Minister justice unless they produce a 30 minute brief,
1280
which he takes 35 minutes to deliver; that starts off a wave of complaints, and of course the other speeches are lengthened in proportion. I regard the new Wednesday debate with some degree of apprehension on that particular score. When we say that it is going to be a two-and-a-half hour debate and sufficient time must be left for the Government and Opposition spokesmen to answer, if we are to have 30 minutes for the Government and the Opposition need 30 minutes too, there is not much time left for debate. I do not think the clock idea is a good idea. In other assemblies sometimes one has a red light which comes on after 10 minutes. I personally would much prefer an oubliette which opened when sufficient buttons were pressed.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, as one of the relatively young Members of the House, I rise to say that I very strongly support the idea of the clock. I feel that this sort of thing is even more necessary to-day when your Lordships' House has so many more speakers. A debate with 25 speakers in one day can get extremely boring for those who are speaking and feel it their duty to remain throughout. I am in favour of the clock. I think a good many noble Lords are in favour of clocks, though they would not necessarily get up and say so. It is those who are against it who speak up.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, perhaps I am striking a somewhat discordant note in the congratulations which have been passed to the Procedure Committee when I say that I feel that this is a most disappointing Report. I feel that to a very large extent it has wasted the work which was put in over some time by those who formed part in the Advisory Committee to the Leader. Those of your Lordships who have studied carefully this Report will realise that the proposals made by that Committee which have been accepted are those which tend in all probability somewhat to curtail rather than extend. he responsible position of private Members in this House, whereas those which have been turned down by the Procedure Committee are those which, on the whole, would have helped private Members to play a more effective part in the House, though it might have been to some extent an embarrassment to the management of the House, to the usual channels and to

1281
the two Front Benches. I think this springs from a difference of philosophy as to the role which your Lordships' House should play in the present Parliamentary constitution of this country and in the political life of our country at the present time.
I have always assumed that the role of your Lordships' House, since we have had the powers taken from us, is that of an independent Chamber consisting, to all intents and purposes, of independent Members who are in a position to give whatever their experience, background, knowledge, or wisdom can provide for the general benefit of the political life of this country. We are not here as a machine in order to process Government legislation. We do our best during the process of the legislative period to give to the legislation which comes up to us from another place, or which originates here, our attention and our best endeavours to ensure that it reaches the Statute Book in the most acceptable and effective manner. But in my view, the processing of Government business through this House is not the main object.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed that the initiative which my noble friend the Leader of the House undertook in order to set up this Committee should, to a large extent, have been vitiated by the very powerful influences which exist in this House and which are determined to ensure that the control rests securely and permanently in the hands of the usual channels. There is an unholy alliance, if I may put it that way, between the two Front Benches to ensure that this is the case.
Some time ago I called together a number of colleagues in the House in order to consider this problem. We had one meeting, and we had the advantage, on that occasion, of the thoughts of a number of very experienced Members of your Lordships' House. When the Report of the Leader's Advisory Committee was received, I thought perhaps that it would be right to call together those colleagues once again, or some of them who might be interested in it. I informed, as I always do on these occasions, the Whips on the Government side and the Opposition side, and also the Liberal Whip. In replying to me my noble friend the Chief Whip said that while he was glad to have the information which I passed to
1282
him, he hoped we would not make up our minds before the debate that was to take place. I thought that that was a right and proper point of view. I was somewhat surprised—and I hope I am correct in the information which has been given to me—to find that in fact the Procedure Committee considered these matters before that debate took place, and that it is recorded that their objections to certain points were already made known at that time.
I do not think—and I say this with all sincerity and quite frankly—that your Lordships, who, after all, are in all cases experienced people, who have a responsible role in the public life of this country, are being properly treated in the way in which the business of this House is managed at the present time. I realise that it is one of the most difficult things in the world to try to get into this House the reforms which I believe are of value to it, and in being able to obtain from the talents and experience of its Members the best service to the country. Although I regard this Report of the Procedure Committee as a rebuff to the Leader of the House, and to those noble Lords who took part in the Advisory Committee (and at the same time to those of us who have tried to serve this House in the best possible way through our individual and independent roles), I hope that this will not discourage noble Lords who think along my lines from continuing their efforts to ensure that your Lordships' House continues to play an effective part in the political life of this country.
3.25 p.m.
LORD NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly add a word, and apologise for a momentary departure from the Chamber. I should like to thank my noble friend for this Report. I feel that it is helpful to us, and that it incorporates many of the ideas that we discussed on the Report of the Group which my noble friend Lord Aberdare introduced to the House, and which I feel will help marginally in the operation of the business of the House.
I speak, like a good many other Life Peers, as a relative newcomer here, but my impression of the House is quite different from that of my noble friend Lord Alport. I feel that the procedures here work extremely well. Sometimes I feel

1283
that my noble friend, with all his distinction, is almost out-Jeremiahing Jeremiah with his sense of disappointment in the general trend of affairs. This House does work well: there is an independence. Naturally the Party loyalties mean something to all of us who sit in Parties, and naturally that has an influence on how we vote and what we say; but the freedom for Peers to speak as they wish to, and draw upon their experience and expertise, is to me a matter worthy of constant admiration; and I am sure that that applies to all other noble Lords here. Therefore, I would feel that my noble friend is wrong in his sense of disappointment.
Things are working pretty well. This is a remarkably flexible Chamber, and it caters for really everything. I feel that we are right to maintain the general form that exists here, with its very pleasant spirit and polite way of doing things, but nevertheless having the substance underneath. It seems to me that this is a very good way of doing business; it provides for everything. These marginal changes that are suggested may, and I hope will, make the Chamber work even better. I hope that noble Lords will accept these proposals as being something which will strengthen the life of the House, will serve this House well, and in addition continue to serve Parliament and the country well.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I am sure that when we meet outside the House my noble friend Lord Alport will again, as he once did before, call me "old shellback" if I say how very strongly I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent. I ventured to address your Lordships in the debate we had a short time ago on the Report of the Group of which my noble friend Lord Aberdare was chairman. I said then, and I still believe, that there is adequate machinery already existing in this House which noble Lords can make use of if they feel inhibited in any way. Apart from that, there are these other channels. I am quite certain that the noble Earl the Leader of the House need be left in no doubt whatsover about the feelings of noble Lords, or their inhibitions and frustrations, and so on. I cannot help feeling that my noble friend Lord Alport
1284
is a little less than generous in his reception of this very good Report.
3.28 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, the Report undoubtedly shows that an attempt is being made to get over the problems of this House in regard to procedure, but I really am surprised to find that there is no reference at all to the reading of speeches in the House. I do not think the Committee could have been unaware of the fact that a resolution was passed in this House—I think it was in July, 1937—deprecating the reading of speeches, on the ground that it was injurious to the conduct and dignity of the House, or language to that effect. When I came to this House about 13 or 14 years ago, I was appalled to find speaker after speaker reading their speeches from end to end. This practice I have seen on so many occasions that often I have wondered whether the House was listening to the remarks of the speaker. It is very simple for a speech that is compiled by others to be read by a Member of this House. I do not allege that that has taken place. But when I was Secretary of the Trades Union Congress I remember several times that speakers, particularly those critical of the General Council of the T.U.C., read speeches in which they could not pronounce the words. I have not seen that disability in this House, but no doubt there might be a rehearsal or two to get over that sort of difficulty.
It seems to me that the spontaneity of debate lies in the fact that one speaker will make some comments on the speech of a previous speaker. Surely that is the essence of debate. Yet it is very seldom in this House—whether from an overdose of courtesy, or something of the kind—that we hear anything of that sort. I feel sure that these debates, to say the least, would be much more animated if an attempt was made to avoid the reading of speeches. I realise that there is a problem in regard to ministerial statements; I understand that quite well. We are to some extent a sort of gramophone record of what occurs in another place, particularly in regard to questions dealt with by the Front Bench. That is inevitable. I am not criticising it; all I am saying is that some attempt ought to be made and some thought given to obviate this House being turned into a

1285
place where speakers are simply reciting essays some of which may have been prepared for them.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, having sat in this House now for quite a long time, I should like to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Citrine. Over the years we have had this discussion often, and everybody knows what it means, but there have been cases of long speeches, doubtless of great virtue, which have been read without any attempt at extemporary exposition. It is boring, it is contrary to the rules and traditions of the House, and it would be fortunate if some way of delicately but appropriately giving something of a warning, as the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, mentioned, could be discovered.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I suggest to the Leader of the House that surely the choice is this: whether someone should read a speech which he has worked on and which is short and reasonably good, or whether he should speak off the cuff, usually at great length. This is what we have to make up our minds about.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, those who sit in the Back-Benches notice noble Lords opposite, and I have no doubt that people who sit on the Back-Benches looking at noble Lords on this side of the House see what appears to be a row of elderly gentlemen suffering from spondylitis, with their heads bowed and plunged in the papers they hold in their hands. It is contrary to what has always been, to my mind, a tradition of this House—and I have been a Member of it for a very long time. Surely the remedy is in our own hands. Any one of us can stand up at any one moment and draw attention to the fact that a noble Lord is reading a speech, which is contrary to the traditions of the House. If more noble Lords would do that, we should have fewer speeches read.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, in regard to recommendation (m), about which five or six noble Lords have spoken, I wonder whether my noble friend the Leader of the House would be able to confirm that no such devices as clicking clocks will be installed in the Chamber during the Recess and that no orders have been placed for so doing.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, will the noble Earl the Leader please understand that to some of us extempore speaking is very difficult and we depend not only on notes but even on written texts. Of course one should not read, or at least be seen to be reading, but some of us are not gifted with the power of spontaneous speech, and perhaps tolerance can be found for people like ourselves.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in regard to the reading of speeches, I notice that the habit is growing for some noble Lords to read supplementary questions, which is perhaps the reason why some Questions are turning into mini debates. For supplementary questions to be read is certainly a practice to be deplored.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the other day we had a long debate on the Report of the Group, and I wonder whether, in fairness to some of the very loyal servants of this House who, I gather, have their annual Christmas dinner this evening—and I understand that the House will rise by 6.30 p.m.—we could come to a conclusion on this debate. I rather stand between the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport: I am not quite so complacent as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, nor as critical of the procedures of this House and the way we carry them out as the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I should like to say one thing about the clock. I believe it can safely be said that the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House are not exactly a radical group of people. It takes years for them to come to a conclusion. Some seven years ago I recommended the installation of such a clock for the object that we have still in mind—the reduction in length of speeches. I felt then, as I now feel, that unless noble Lords have a clear indication of the length at which they have been speaking there is no way in which speeches can be made shorter. I thought the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, amply bear that out. If we knew how long we had been speaking, I am sure we should be shorter than we are at present.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords. there are better ways of doing things than by having clocks and strict regulations. I think particularly of the

1287
tolerance which this House usually shows to me when I overstep the mark on points of order, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Citrine, made some very apt comments. Like him, I have had something to do with running organisations and dealing with people who will insist on taking up time at conferences, as noble Lords do in this House, by very long speeches. Those who arrange the order of speakers could cure this. If speakers have a record of fairly long speeches, they could be put at the end of the debate, so that those who made short speeches could go home.
3.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to come in on the note which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, struck. I think there are reasons affecting the staff, who serve this House loyally and conscientiously, which point in favour of our keeping this particular discussion fairly short, as we have two Amendments to come and a good deal of business thereafter. I should like to say, as respectfully as I can, that it is rather a pity that some of the points which have been put in this short discussion on the Procedure Committee's Report were not put when we had an opportunity for debating this matter at length on November 23. It seems to me, if I may say so with all respect, that that was the right moment to do this, as, apart from anything else, it would have given the Procedure Committee an opportunity of bearing these points in mind in their consideration. If I may say so, again with respect, I think this applies particularly to the question of the clocks. Again, the Procedure Committee would have liked to know the views of the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I realise he could not be present at that stage, nor could the noble Lord, Lord Platt, my noble friend, Lord Hawke, and some others. It was a very clear recommendation, and made in the report of the Working Group, and it was not queried save on Lesthetic grounds by my noble friend, Lord Sandys, who referred to it in the debate on November 23. I hope we can leave it as it is. I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asks for: that he will not find any infernal devices, of this sort at least, when he comes back at the end of his well-earned Christmas Recess.
1288
I must say, once again, how much I value the report of the Working Group and how useful I think it has proved. I was not a member of it, nor, incidentally, was my noble friend, Lord Aberdare, the chairman of it. His name just happens to begin with A. That is why he was the first to speak in our debate on November 23. But I do not think that the members of the Working Group, some of whom may have some reservations about some omissions or commissions in the Procedure Committee's Report, would wish to endorse the strictures which my noble friend Lord Alport has poured on that Report. I believe that my noble friend Lord Alport, speaking with all sincerity—and I know how much he has the interests of this House and of Back Bench Members of this House in mind—was being a little ungenerous in his interpretation of the Procedure Committee's Report, because there are a number of recommendations embedded in it which are clearly designed to favour the private Members of your Lordships' House.
The Simple Guide will help the new Member. Recommendations (v) and (vii) for the short Wednesday debates will also assist. Indeed, the ballot, right or wrong, is something which takes the ordering or the choice of business out of the hands of the usual channels, and is purposely designed to help the Back Bench Member. Again, there is what was said about Ministerial Statements. The freedom of Back Benchers to comment, if need be, on Ministerial Statements is, right or wrong, also designed to safeguard the interests of Back Bench Members of your Lordships' House. In considering this, I know that the Procedure Committee had very much in mind what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said when we debated this whole subject on November 23. Again, my Lords, the recommendation about the greater turnover in our Committee structure, in the composition of our Committees, is designed to give a greater say to private Members of your Lordships' House and is, almost consciously, an anti-Establishment measure.
With all those factors, I believe that my noble friend was going a little far in his choice of epithets, as if suggesting that this Report was the product of an unholy alliance between the Front Benches and the Establishment in your Lordships'

1289
House, whatever that may be. There was one particular comment which he made to which I am afraid I must refer, and that was his implication—and I speak here as only one member of the Procedure Committee—that the Procedure Committee made up their minds about all this before the debate in your Lordships' House on November 23. If I may say so, I think my noble friend was labouring under a misapprehension. The exact position is that I made a report to the Procedure Committee, giving my reactions to the Working Group's Report. The Procedure Committee considered my Report and decided that, before taking any action on this, they wished to listen to the view of the House as a whole. This is, in fact, what the Procedure Committee did, and their late subsequent discussion was very much in the light of the views expressed in your Lordships' House on November 23. For all those reasons, I certainly do not regard the Procedure Committee's Report as a rebuff to me, nor do I suspect that the members of the Working Group regard it as a rebuff to them.
In conclusion, all I should like to say at this stage of your Lordships' discussion is that I personally should like to express the hope—the two Amendments apart, which we shall be considering separately—that your Lordships will give these suggestions a try. On the whole, they are not very revolutionary. There may be some noble Lords who feel that they do not go far enough, and others who feel that they are rather too radical. All I would suggest is that we give them a try, because there is no finality in these matters and your Lordships' House is used to working by an evolutionary process. That said, I should once again like to thank the Working Group for what has been a small, but possibly significant step in the workings of your Lordships' House.

PENSIONS REVIEWS
3.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, this might be a convenient moment for me to act as what the noble Lord,
1290
Lord Citrine, referred to as one of the gramophone records on the Front Bench, and to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about reviews of pensions. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House knows, the Government are pledged to protect the purchasing power of the National Insurance retirement pension and related benefits by a review every other year. In September this year the up-rating restored the value of the 1969 pension in full and provided a small improvement in addition.
"The Government have been aware of the growing concern during recent months, which has been shared by honourable Members on both sides of the House, about the position of pensioners at a time when prices have been rising sharply. The Government are confident that their policies are bringing inflation under control. But on general social grounds they have come to the conclusion that the arrangements for reviewing pensions should be brought into line with those for supplementary benefits, which are already reviewed annually. This would end the difficulty that, at the present biennial upratings of contributory pensions, those on supplementary benefit receive a smaller increase because they have already had part of it in the preceding year. The Government have, therefore, decided that in future pensions and related benefits, including war pensions and industrial injuries, will be reviewed every year.
"This improvement on the arrangements proposed in our White Paper Strategy for Pensions will be embodied in due course in the Bill to implement our pension proposals but the adoption of annual reviews will not have to wait for the main reconstruction of the National Insurance scheme to take effect. There will be an uprating in the autumn of 1972 and every year thereafter, with, of course, a review of contribution levels.
"Because of the organisational requirements for annual reviews both in my Department and in the Inland Revenue Department, the upratings will, after next year, take place regularly in the latter half of

1291
November. The uprating in 1972, however, will be in October, half-way between the 1971 and the 1973 upratings.
"We also intend to move to annual reviews of public service and Armed Forces pensions, and these reviews will take effect from December 1 each year beginning in 1972. At the same time the opportunity will be taken to reduce from 60 to 55 the minimum age from which increases are normally paid under the public service and Armed Forces schemes.
"We have made good progress this year with improvements in social security benefits both by general up-ratings and by selective measures to give extra benefit to particular groups, and the Pensions (Increase) Act has already greatly improved the position for public service and Armed Forces pensioners. I am confident that the House will welcome this further evidence of our determination to give practical help to the elderly and other vulnerable members of the community."
3.48 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, bearing in mind the previous remarks, I shall he brief and will speak without written notes. I should like to say without reservation that we give a very hearty welcome to this Statement, and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on it. There is something slightly amusing—which I think the Minister will appreciate—in the fact that last week I asked him whether we could have an annual review and he produced some excellent reasons why that was not possible. That is in line with the announcement of the engagement of two film stars which was hotly denied, and then the next week we read that they are married. I can only hope that, somewhere in the heart of the Social Security Department, there is somebody who realises that what the Minister says one week can quite easily be converted into something practical the following week. We are delighted with this. Of course I am sorry that it will have to wait until the autumn, but I shall not press my luck by asking whether there is any hope of an emergency winter payment earlier than that. I am sure that when they read about this the old people will realise that they are not going to get
1292
it immediately in time for Christmas. Having said that, I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on that very welcome Statement.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Baroness in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. Obviously, this is an occasion for displaying one's restraint. I have noted a number of occasions on which Governments of the day have told us that this would be administratively impracticable. I gather that the administrative difficulties have been overcome, and I welcome this decision.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, in joining in the chorus of congratulation and admitting an interest, I should like to call attention to what seems to me one small inconsistency in the Minister's Statement. He said that he was hopeful that their plans for controlling inflation would succeed—and were succeeding, I think he said. At the same time, he did not speak of annual reviews but of annual upgradings going as far as 1972 and 1973. Are these two sentences entirely consistent?
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, the announcement by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will be very well received by the public service pensioners and by the Armed Forces pensioners. We are delighted to hear that a review is to take place annually and not biennially. Also, the announcement that the age at which pension increases will be received is to be reduced from the age of 60 to 55, which, within the life of this Parliament, has now got a firm date attached to it, will be very welcome.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend the Minister on the contents of his Statement, may I ask him whether he is aware that this is almost a unique occasion in so far as a Statement of this nature has not previously been leaked to the Press? May I ask him to congratulate the Department concerned?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has welcomed this announcement, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. who, as she has quite rightly said, raised this subject during our debate last week. It only goes to show the

1293
influence that she has within our thoughts. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, for his welcome on behalf of the Armed Forces. May I say to my noble friend Lord St. Helens that it is a very striking fact that, for the first time that I can remember, a Statement of this significance has not been known to your Lordships before it was actually made from this Box. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, we are certainly expecting that there may have to be an upgrading in 1972, but thereafter, if Her Majesty's Government's policies take effect, we can only hope that these upgradings will at least not be of a substantial nature.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether, as a revolutionary proceduralist, he has now decided to take all the questions at the end instead of dealing with only the first two speakers? I say this in a spirit of Christmas good cheer. Secondly, may I congratulate, not Lord Aberdare but the Lord Privy Seal, who also argued with such absolutely convicing logic that it was impossible to have reviews of public service pensions at intervals of other than two years, and who persuaded me even so far as convincing me that there was no point even in my trying to move an Amendment to that effect? This gives us a feeling of hope that there will perhaps be a little more flexibility in what has hitherto been a rather inflexible Government.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the procedural point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I can only say that our procedures in this House are very flexible, and in fact neither of the first two sneakers asked me any questions. They merely exuded Christmas joy, to which I was very pleased to reply.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this may be technically incorrect, but I am intervening in a spirit of Christmas good cheer. May I say just two things? First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. It was I who suggested to my noble friend that the noble Lord should be designated as "noble and gallant", which I think is technically incorrect
1294
although personally and professionally entirely correct.
LORD SHACKLETON: Field Marshals only.
EARL JELLICOE: Nevertheless, my Lords, speaking with my responsibility for the Civil Service Department, and therefore on the public service pensions field and the Armed Forces pensions field, I should like, if I may, to thank him for the remarks which he has made, and to assure not only him but also the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins (who pressed, if I remember aright, on one occasion not very long ago for annual reviews in this particular field), that although one cannot always immediately assent, they who are experienced in the ways of Government know that sometimes these matters are taken down in the tablets of memory and a process of processing then goes on.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved, as an Amendment, to the Motion, That the Report be agreed to:
after ("Report") to insert ("except, in Item 2 (Report from the Group on the Working of the House), the words "and chosen by ballot" in line 3 of sub-paragraph (v), and subparagraph (vii), which should be referred back to the Procedure Committee").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I have hesitated to question the wisdom of the Procedure Committee, but I have been comforted by three things. One is that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is also questioning their wisdom; the second is that, in the Report of the Working Group, we gave two choices to your Lordships on this particular matter; and the third is that, when we had our debate on November 23, this subject was touched upon very little. Now what is the purpose of my Amendment?—because I must confess that as it is written here it is pretty complicated. Quite simply, it is that, instead of the subjects for the mini-debate being chosen by ballot, I would suggest an alternative. Before I tell your Lordships what my alternative is, let me

1295
say that I am not against chance, I am not against ballot, in its proper place—in bingo halls, for example; but when it comes to your Lordships' House, I frankly do not think that this is appropriate. I feel that so strongly that I am moving the Amendment which is before your Lordships.
Your Lordships will naturally ask me, "What is your alternative?" My alternative, my Lords, is that the subjects for mini-debate—and there maybe 20 or 30 down for possible debate—should be chosen by four Back-Benchers who will be nominated by the Leader of the House, with the usual channels assisting them. That would be a rational way to choose the subjects. It would give a role to the Back-Benchers—some small role, but a role—which I think would ensure that the Motions that they chose for debate would be, if I can put it this way, non-Establishment. As I understand the procedure, it is that if several (or, as I hope, many) of your Lordships are of my view that, rather than ballot, we should have reasoned choice, and if they get up and say so, then there is a good chance that the Chairman of Committees might say, "This is a matter which we can take back and think about again"; whereas if those who feel as I feel do not let their views be known, then I am afraid I am lost, and ballot it is. With that short introduction giving your Lordships the reasons why I move this Amendment, and remembering that we must be brief and that it is Christmas, I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, although this is entirely contrary to what we always did in the House of Commons, I think it is a great improvement. I like it very much and I support it.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Perth because it seems to me that the ballot is rather a "pig in the poke" method and people are likely to be chosen who have not the faintest idea of what they are going to say. It stands to reason that if the subject is to be, say, canals, it is no good somebody who knows nothing about canals being chosen to speak on it. I should like to support my noble friend.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment. I say nothing against the principle of balloting in certain instances where there prevails ignorance as to the right principle of an action; but so far as the business of your Lordships' House is concerned surely the dominating consideration should be relevance. I refuse to believe that ignorance of what is relevant in the given circumstances is so dominant in the councils of those who decide the business of your Lordships' House that we need to resort to this second-rate expedient. In this connection may I take occasion to express sharp disagreement with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on the conduct of business in this House. It was not my good fortune when I was introduced to the House to have explained to me all the terms of art which arise in the course of discussions. I do not remember receiving any detailed instructions as to the exact composition of the "usual channels". I have, in fact, often speculated privately on that problem, and it seems to me that the solution is somewhere to be found among the distinguished and eminent people who sit on the Front Benches on either side. But whatever the "usual channels" may actually be, it seems to me, speaking as a Cross-Bencher, that they usually function pretty well and that the business of your Lordships' House which they arrange seems to be conducted in a way which must be the admiration of Second Chambers throughout the rest of the world. I think that in this connection the addition of the four Back-Benchers suggested in the noble Earl's Amendment is perhaps an improvement. But even if that were not carried, I should still prefer that matters should be arranged through the usual channels rather than leaving things to the accident of the ballot.
4.3 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I apologise for absenting myself from your Lordships' House when the debate on procedure was initiated, but I was called away to the Westminster studios of the B.B.C. to take part in a programme which is not relevant to the discussions that are taking place now. I have occasionally to appear on the B.B.C. I retired from the other place about 18 months or two years ago; now I have to make an honest

1297
living. That was the reason for my absence. But I reappeared just in time to hear the noble Earl moving his Amendment. I want to support him wholeheartedly. Mini-debates are not for the Front-Benchers but for the Back-Benchers. That is the position in the other place. It is true that for many years they have operated on the basis of the ballot. We in this House must choose 'between the ballot (which is a chance, a mere gamble and which throws up a variety of exponents of the art of debate whether they are interested or acquainted with the subject or not) and with dealing with matters deliberately and with foresight and considering what is best in the interests of this House and in the interests of the country.
I must confess that although the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was rebuked by another noble Lord (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Nugent) for the observations in which he indulged. I support him. I should have supported him if I had been available at the time. It seems to me that the usual channels—and I hope your Lordships will forgive the expressions I am about to use; but I have been acquainted with the usual channels for almost half a century of Parliamentary life—have become a bit murky, a bit muddy, a bit silted up. It should always be realised—and I say this without any disrespect to my noble colleagues on the Front Benches—that while they have a role to fill, so have the Back-Benchers; and in the matter of mini-debates—that is to say Motions which may deal with a variety of subjects of public interest, of national interest and even of international interest which are not related to Government legislation or even to Government policy—the Back-Benchers have a fundamental part to play.
My Lords, how will we operate this mechanism? It has been suggested that there might be some sort of Back-Bench Committee. If I support the advocates of this Back-Bench Committee, I want to reassure the noble Earl the Leader of the House that I am not asking to be a member of that Committee. I have too much experience of Committees in my time. I can recall one occasion when I was at the War Office when it was suggested to me that we should form a committee. I agreed so long as there was only one member of that committee
1298
—myself. When one is on a committee one is subjected to variegated views which are often in conflict; but when one is the sole member, the exclusive member, of a committee one has one's own way; and this leads to greater progress. Therefore I am a little troubled about this Back-Bench Committee but I think it ought to be tried out. It is worth initiating; it may well work to the advantage of thins House and certainly to the advantage of the Back-Benchers.
So I would ask the House to reject the idea of a ballot or a gamble, an operation by chance which may throw up this or that or what-have-you. I would ask the House rather to depend upon the deliberations of a number of experienced Back-Benchers from all sides of the House. I should even include the members of the Liberal Party; although occasionally I am not too happy about them. I would naturally include the Cross-Benchers who are the most expert people in your Lordships' House. Of that there can be no doubt; they say so themselves and I accept it. Therefore I would accept the idea of some kind of Back-Bench Committee—a Committee of, say, eight members, two from the Government (not representing the Government but from the Government side) two from the Cross-Benches, two from the Liberals and two from this side of the House—who would consider the nature, character, quality and content of the kind of mini-Motions that should be presented to the House and debated without Government intervention, without even asking for the support of the Leader of the House at the end of the debate, as to whether the Government accept the Motion or not; but just an exercise and I think with the hope of some measure of publicity in the public Press.
Here I should like to make this observation. I have endeavoured since I joined your Lordships' House—although "endeavoured" is a mild term. Let me say that I have striven (that is less mild); or I could say I have almost struggled (and that is even less mild than what I have just said)—to get a lot of publicity for my operations in this House. But there was hardly a word! I make this gratuitous advertisement. I look at The Times. I read The Times—all the "top people" do. I am astounded sometimes when I go into the Library and

1299
see noble Lords reading The Times. I ask myself, "Do they not read it in the morning at breakfast time, after topping an egg?"—because that is what I do. Indeed I read The Times even when no egg is available.
Even in the Daily Telegraph I do not find a single word of what I have said in the House—those pungent questions that I ventured to put, those supplementary barbs. And not a word in The Times either. It is just too bad. Therefore, I hope that in the future, as a result of this Back Bench Committee and the formulation of mini-debates, one may perhaps gain a little publicity. This is the reason for my advocacy; this is the reason why I venture to offer support to the noble Earl, and it seems to me that it is a much better exercise than it would be if we left it to chance. My Lords, chance may throw up somebody with the most remarkable and phenomenal expertise. On the other hand, it may be somebody—forgive me for saying so—who is very dull indeed; who moves a Motion in terms that are meandering and so placid that hardly anyone cares to listen. On the other hand, it may throw up someone quite different, as happened yesterday when we had from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham a most scintillating speech on a very important topic. That is the sort of thing we want in the House. I notice that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will permit me, I hate to interrupt him, but I have a feeling that he was not present when his noble friend Lord Shepherd drew the attention of the House to the fact that we have a certain amount of business to get through, and that the Doorkeepers are having their very important annual dinner to-night. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did not hear those remarks, and I thought that perhaps I should draw his attention to them.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, that rebuke is more effective than the proposed clock. I prefer the interruption of the noble Earl, which brings me to
1300
my conclusion, rather than the clock which it is proposed shall be established in this Chamber.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, noble Lords will still be able to go on speaking, but I wonder whether I might make this observation as my noble friend Lord Shinwell suggested that there was a certain amount of murkiness on the Front Bench. I am bound to say that there has been a certain amount of murkiness about the proposal now before the House. The proposal is perfectly simple, and is designed to provide a better opportunity for Back Benchers. Anyone who has been concerned with the usual channels in selecting Motions for ordinary Wednesday debates knows that the number of days available for this purpose is severely limited and that therefore they will tend to choose the more important Motions which frequently are not of a Party political nature, although sometimes they are.
Going back to the original proposal, the Committee suggested that we should have two mini-debates. I do not believe that any Motions of the kind that appear on the Order Paper are ones that this House ought not to be ready to debate. If they look at those Motions on the Order Paper they will see that there are none that are not worthy. At this moment we are not debating whether or not there ought to be a Back-Bench Committee for other purposes. This was one of the proposals put forward, and in my opening remarks I said that it was for noble Lords who wanted a Back-Bench Committee for general purposes to say so. So far as I can recall, no one did say so. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, may have done, but nobody else. Now we are proposing a Back-Bench Committee for a very limited purpose.
My Lords, Back-Benchers can, of course, be approached and convinced and persuaded as much as the usual channels are. But I cannot for the life of me see why a simple ballot will not meet the case. I know of Motions—the noble Lord, Lord Somers, had one—which have stood on the Order Paper year after year. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, kept putting his Motion back on the Order Paper, but he never got it debated, for reasons which, perhaps, had something to do with the Government and the Opposition Chief Whip. In the end, I think,

1301
he put it down as an Unstarred Question. There is nothing to stop any noble Lord from putting down a Motion and having it debated, but we have conventions that produce a rather more orderly approach.
The Leader of the House equally cannot say what Motions should go on the Order Paper—I emphasise this to my noble friend Lord Shinwell—or what is to he debated. It is the House who entrusts this to the usual channels. But the rights of every noble Lord remain untouched, and it seems to me that an arrangement by which there are two lists, one for main debates and one for these Wednesday debates, with the mini-debates subject to ballot, would be a simple proposition. Furthermore, it is proposed that this should be an experiment only. Let us try it as an experiment. If the Leader of the House feels that, in the light of this debate, the matter ought to go back to the Procedure Committee to consider again and to put forward their views, I certainly would not object. But I think that the original, very carefully thought out proposition is well designed to provide a better opportunity for BackBenchers who exercise so much restraint in not forcing their Motions on to the Order Paper.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I take 30 seconds of your Lordships' time to ask a question? Are there not two quite distinct meanings to the word "ballot"? One is to put a lot of names in a hat and draw one out. That is merely a chance procedure and that is what I think we are discussing. But there is such a thing as a ballot for a Member of Parliament, for instance, which is not regarded entirely as a chance proceeding. There is nothing that I can see to inform me which of these methods is to be used. Are we to draw names out of a hat? Or are we to be given a list of names and be asked to vote, and then some noble Lord will get the biggest number of votes and so will be able to hold his debate?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would come to the opposite conclusion to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for this reason. I think it important that mini-debates should be a success. I believe this to be an extremely important innovation and therefore the subjects to
1302
be debated should be good subjects. I mean that they should not be simply local subjects which can more properly be dealt with by Unstarred Questions. There must be a certain element of general interest even in a mini-debate. It should not be on a purely local subject. I think that this could be dealt with perfectly well by a Back Bench Committee.
My other point is really the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is making in his Amendment which will be discussed later; that there should, if possible, be a topical interest in the debate. One of our problems which occurs constantly is how to handle Statements. They are very important and many people are deeply interested and wish to talk. We all know that Statements drag on, and one of the reasons is that it is not easy to discuss a Statement in the immediate future. Mini-debates would provide an immediate opportunity for Statements of significance to be discussed. I think it would be a pity if the mini-debates were bad debates or of only limited interest. There are a number of smaller points, my Lords. You can "jockey for position" in a mini-debate just as well as you can with one of the Whips. You can get your friends to put their names down for debates on similar subjects and eventually one is likely to be drawn. I do not think that this is a very strong argument, but I hope that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will be accepted.
LORD CROWTHER: My Lords, may I with the utmost seasonal brevity simply say that, in spite of the remarks that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Perth. The purpose of the Amendment is not to ban the ballot once and for all. The words arc that the matter should be "referred back to the Procedure Committee". I should have thought that, in view of the widespread and deep feelings that have been expressed in all parts of the House, that would be the right thing to do. I am not sure whether my view should be addressed to the noble Earl the Leader of the House or to the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who proposed the original Motion; but whoever it is, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
4.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am very conscious of the minute hand of our one existing clock, especially in view of the function to which noble Lords have been alluding. I personally have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I have myself thought that this carefully considered recommendation of the Procedure Committee—and a great deal of attention was given to this in the Procedure Commitee—was well worth trying, on the basis that this was for a purely experimental purpose until Whitsun. We can see how this experiment goes until Whitsun, and if it does not work, we can then try out something on the lines recommended by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I also have in mind that this recommendation only extended to the area of so-called mini-debates, and for only one Wednesday a month. So it is of an extremely limited extent.
I have in mind the words of my noble friend Lord Alport, that this was specifically designed to help the BackBenchers in your Lordships' House. If I may say so, I think there have been some misconceptions about what is intended. For example, my noble friend Lord Cromartie suggested that we might well end up with a mini-Motion moved by a noble Lord who knew nothing about the particular subject. The Motion would have to be moved by the noble Lord in whose name it stood, the subject would have to be included in the Motion, and presumably the noble Lord who put the Motion with its subject matter down for debate would do so knowing something about it. But, in view of what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, so valued a member of this Working Group; my noble friend Lord Swinton; the noble Lord, Lord Robbins; my noble friend Lord Cromartie; the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell; the noble Lord, Lord Crowther the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who had his doubt—the answer is that it would be drawn, as it were, out of a hat, but the subject matter would be attached to it—and, of the considerable concern expressed in your Lordships' House, and also in the light of the fact that my noble friend is not suggesting more than that the matter should be taken back to be looked at again in the
1304
light of this discussion, my own suggestion to your Lordships' House and to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees is that we should accede to what my noble friend is suggesting.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is clear from the course of this debate that a large number of noble Lords wish the Procedure Committee to reconsider this proposal, and I am glad to give the undertaking that I will ask the Committee to do so.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, in those circumstances, I thank those noble Lords who supported me, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SHACKLETON: Withdraw the withdrawal.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD ROYLE): My Lords, the question is—
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not wish to be awkward, but there is no Amendment before the House. There is at this moment no Amendment on the Order Paper, because the noble Earl has withdrawn it.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, with respect, I made a mistake, and I was advised that I had done so. My Amendment is still before your Lordships.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since we are on procedure, no Amendment is withdrawn until the House gives leave for it to be withdrawn. It is still before the House.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I assure your Lordships that the noble Lord on the Woolsack at the moment understands what is going on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.25 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved as an Amendment to the Motion, That the Report be agreed to:
after ("Report") to insert ("except sub-paragraph (xiii) of Item 2 thereof, which should be referred back to the Procedure Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot but reflect that the recommendation of the Group that there should be a simple guide to the procedure of your Lordships' House has been amply

1305
endorsed by the proceedings this afternoon. I find myself, if I may say so, in an intolerable position. I have an important issue that I should like to put to the House on oral Questions. This relates not only to the convenience of the House—abuse that can arise, and has arisen, on oral Questions—but also to the constitutional position, in the sense of the ways and means by which an Opposition can perform its constitutional role as a check upon the Executive. We have a debate of some eight speakers on an Unstarred Question, a Bill with at least four proposed Amendments, and we wish to rise by half-past six. I wonder whether the House would agree for me to move my Amendment formally. I would do this without in any way wishing to ask the House to approve what I might say on this occasion or on others, or to disapprove of what may be in the Report, and only to give an opportunity for new submissions to be made to the Procedure Committee as to how we can get out of the difficulties with which I believe the House is confronted.
I hope that the House will accept this offer. I do not think there will be any future difficulty, because we have already agreed to consider one matter in this Report, and there will clearly be a Report of the Procedure Committee in the new year. I make this offer. If the House agrees with me, I formally move my Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think we are in time difficulties. I have discussed the subject matter of the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not wish to prejudge what your Lordships may decide or what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, might have said had he taken the lime of your Lordships' House, but I feel that in the circumstances the House would be wise to follow the suggestion made by the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as there is no objection to the noble Lord's proposals, and as approval has been expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, I take it that it is the wish of the House that this matter should be considered by the Procedure Committee, and I gladly undertake to ask the Committee so to do.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1ª.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 2ª:Committee negatived; Bill read 3ª, and passed.

STANDING ORDERS RELATING TO PUBLIC BUSINESS
4.30 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move. That the amendments made, on an experimental basis, during the last session to Standing Orders No. 48 and 50, relating to divisions, be now permanently adopted, so that the said Standing Order No. 48 reads as follows:—
Mode of taking divisions 27 June 1865.
48.—(1) When, on the question being put, a division is called for, the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall order the Bar to be cleared, and thereupon the Bar and also the division lobbies shall be cleared of strangers, but not the galleries and the space within the rails of the Throne, unless the House shall so order; and the doors at either end of the division lobbies shall be locked.
(2) During the three minutes after the Bar has been ordered to be cleared, two Tellers shall be appointed by the Contents and two by the Not-contents, and their names communicated to the Clerk at the Table.
(3) If, after the lapse of three minutes, Tellers have not been so appointed either for the Contents or for the Not-contents, a division cannot take place, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall, instead of again putting the question, declare the question decided in favour of the side which has appointed Tellers.
(4) After the lapse of three minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to be cleared the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall again put the question, and the doors at the exit from each division lobby shall be unlocked.
(5) A Lord may vote in a division although he did not hear the question put.
(6) On a division, the Contents shall go forth through the door on the right side of the House near the Throne which leads to the right lobby, and shall proceed through the right lobby, and re-enter the House through the door on the right of the Bar; and the

1307
Not-contents shall go forth through the door on the left of the Bar which leads to the left lobby, and shall proceed through the left lobby, and re-enter the House through the door on the left side of the House near the Throne.
(7) After the lapse of six minutes from the time when the Bar is ordered to he cleared, the doors of the Chamber shall be locked, and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall inform the House or the Committee of the question which is the subject of the division.
(8) One Teller for the Contents and one for the Not-contents shall be appointed for each division lobby without respect to their degree; and Clerks shall be in attendance in each lobby to record the names of the Contents and Not-contents respectively: the Tellers shall count the votes and announce the numbers to the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair.
And that Standing Order No. 50 be amended as follows:—
Line 11, leave out from ("whether") to ("he") in line 13;
Line 14, leave out ("on such question").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the third Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships will see from the Second Report of the Procedure Committee to which we have just agreed, the Committee believe that the experimental procedures on Divisions which we adopted during the last Session have proved themselves to be satisfactory and we should now adopt them as a permanent basis. I hope that your Lordships will also agree that the Standing Orders should now be made permanent. I beg to move.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I certainly support what is now proposed. I should like to say only two things. I still have a certain anxiety that noble Lords do not have to be in the House to hear the voices. We have given this method an experimental run. I am not sure that it is long enough, but, even so, I am certain that the procedure is so convenient that we have to accept what I believe to be a real disadvantage. I think, however, that even though I am sure we should make this permanent now, we ought not to exclude the possibility of looking at the procedure again at a later date if we find that there are consequences which lead to different results in a decision of the House.
May I again make a plea that when we wish to make a change in our Standing
1308
Orders we suspend the Standing Orders under a Motion of the House, and do not make temporary Standing Orders, as happened in this case?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW TOWNS BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: 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 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª: Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendment of provisions relating to approval of structure plans and local plans etc. by Secretary of State]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No.1:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) An examination under subsection (3)(h) of this section shall constitute a statutory inquiry for the purposes of section 1(1)(c) of

1309
the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, but shall not constitute such an inquiry for any other purpose of that Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. It was always our intention that the Council on Tribunals should have general oversight of the new procedure on the new examination in public of structure plans. This is the Amendment which in the course of the Committee stage I said I should be introducing to make this point clear. If your Lordships wish me to elaborate on the Amendment or the form that it takes I am of course willing to do so, but I shall be elaborating on this and a number of other points in a short speech at the Third Reading. I have brought out that the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure an appropriate role for the Council on Tribunals, and in that sense I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
Recovery of costs of works for preservation of unoccupied listed building in cases of urgency, and rights of appeal.
"The following new subsections shall be inserted at the end of section 101 of the Act of 1971 (which provides for works for the preservation of unoccupied listed buildings in cases of urgency)—
(2) Where the period of notice under subsection (1) above has expired a local authority may recover from the person who is the owner of the building any expenses reasonably incurred by them in that behalf.
(3) An owner of a building on whom a notice under subsection (1) above has been served may, at any time within the period specified in the notice, appeal against the notice and may also appeal against the cost of any emergency work done by a local authority in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) above.
(4) Any appeal under this section shall be made to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which the building in question is situated.
(5) Where an appeal is brought under this section, any notice to which it relates shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
(6) On an appeal under this section the magistrates' court may correct any informality, defect or error in any notice if satisfied that the informality, defect or error is not material.
(7) On the determination of an appeal under this section the magistrates' court shall
1310
give directions for giving effect to their determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing any notice or for varying the terms of any notice in favour of the appellant.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 standing on the Order Paper, and in doing so I must apologise to the House for the fact that I was absent from the country during the Committee stage and was therefore unable to speak at that time. I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds and my noble friend Lord Kennet for their contributions to the debate. To-day, because of the rather circumscribed timetable within which we are operating, I do not propose to press our criticisms too far, but I do ask the Government to think again about the point raised in Amendment No. 2. It was at the time of the Committee stage Amendment No. 6, and its purpose was explained at that time by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds. Since that time my noble friend Lord Kennet and I have consulted a number of associations. My noble friend consulted the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association and the Civic Trust, and I myself consulted the A.M.C. and the Urban District Councils Association. It appears that all those associations support the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Kennet and I have tabled. They would like to see the Amendment made. Indeed, the A.M.C. and the U.D.C.A. would like to see other Amendments made as well; but my noble friend and I selected this Amendment because it seemed to command the maximum support.
The last Government, as your Lordships will remember, toughened up the provisions for protection of listed buildings very much indeed, and made it much harder than it had been up to that time for what one might call "materialistic vandals" to benefit from their misdeeds. But there is at least one patent absurdity which remains and which this Amendment is intended to remove. If a listed building is falling down, the local authority can order the owner to do repairs to it at the owner's expense. If the owner refuses or fails to do so, the local authority can step in and do the work, but they cannot recover the cost from the owner of the building. I hasten

1311
to add that I am referring of course to emergency repairs like the restoration of doors which may have fallen off or windows which have been broken—emergency repairs of a kind which, unless undertaken, can result in serious and growing damage to the property.
When my noble friend Lord Milner moved this Amendment at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, seemed deeply unhappy. He said, at column 774 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for December 7, 1971, that the Government had of course considered these points about conservation and that:
"…we came to the conclusion, regretfully…that with the pressure of legislation upon us, these particular proposals were not sufficiently urgent or free of complexity and controversy to be included in our programme at the moment."
It is very difficult to see how this matter is one of great complexity or highly controversial. This is, in the view of the associations we have consulted, an Amendment which urgently needs to be made. What is more, I think it is a dangerous excuse for the Government to make that because they are embarking upon some highly objectionable legislation they cannot find time to do something which commands general support. It is no consolation to me that we are having to postpone a discussion on the problems of historic towns like York in order to make it easier for us to have access to the Continent or to put up rents in Manchester, Birmingham and other parts of the country. I am sure that many of your Lordships would be much happier discussing the conservation of our historic towns than they would be discussing some of the controversial legislation which is taking up your Lordships' time. I understand that tomorrow the Secretary of State for the Environment is visiting York and, if I may suggest it, it would be a happy gesture on his part if he were able to tell the Lord Mayor and the people of York that he had been able to make, through the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, this small concession. It would he a gesture to the people of York, and a seasonal gesture on the part of the noble Lord to your Lordships' House.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having canvassed all this support for a proposal
1312
which we support. I am attracted by his suggestion that this should be among the good news that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State takes with him to York tomorrow. But, quite honestly, the noble Lord has not added anything to the arguments adduced by his noble friend at the Committee stage, and I do not think I can add anything to the points I made in response to his noble friend which I thought convinced the Committee that we had good reasons for not accepting this Amendment at this stage.
The debate at that time moved forward to consider a number of other proposals which were advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and which I thought attracted more attention and interest in the Committee than the proposals we have before us. They are necessary proposals but they are negative and protective. I thought that we spent time, properly, in discussing in Committee a number of purposeful, constructive measures for enhancing the conservation areas. These are things to which we are giving a good deal of attention, and to which we want to give more attention. I do not detract at all from what we said in indicating our general attitude towards these proposals from the Preservation Policy Group. We agree with these in principle hut, for reasons which I gave at the Committee stage, we do not feel that we can find time for them in this legislation at the moment.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that I have not added anything to the arguments that were put forward on the previous occasion. Equally, I do not think the noble Lord has made a more convincing reply to-day than he did on that occasion. The other Amendments were rather more controversial than this one; they were a great deal more complex and were not wholly free from various constitutional undertones or overtones, whichever is the right word to use. This is so uncontroversial a proposal that I find it very hard to understand why the noble Lord is digging in his heels about it. My advice to the House would be to support this Amendment, and to test the opinion of the House in the Division Lobby.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question on this

1313
Amendment? When he says "at this stage" is he talking about this stage of this Bill in this House, and that he may do something in another place, or is he referring to this stage of time which means that as he apparently supports this proposal some further legislation must be envisaged in the future?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will answer my noble friend by saying that what I meant
by that was that we do not find room in our legislation in this Session for this particular Amendment.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
4.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Ardwick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Davids, V.

Arwyn, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Seear, Bs.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

Silkin, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Moyle, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strabolgj, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ogmore, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Tanlaw, L.

Fletcher, L.

Rea, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Royle, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Effingham, E.

Morrison, L.

Albermarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rathcavan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Bethell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Selkirk, E.

Boothby, L.

Jessel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brock, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers, L.

Colgrain, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lothian, M.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Courtown, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Cromartie, E.

Masham of Ilton, Bs.

Thomas, L.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Monck, V.

Wakenfield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I think, subject to the guidance of the noble Lord opposite, Amendment No. 3 falls, as the previous Amendment was not agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, 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 Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it has been proposed, referring to Clause 7 of the Bill, that control of demolition—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, it is not perhaps my place to say, but my noble friend may wish to speak on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. We have passed the Third Reading and it is now for him to move the privilege Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the privilege Amendment.
Moved, That the privilege Amendment be made.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.54 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I will get in the few words I have to say before worse befalls. I have one remark on Clause 7, which is that it has been proposed that control of demolition in conservation areas should apply automatically to all buildings in all conservation areas. This is, I suggest, going too far. Not all buildings in a conservation area will be of value to the character of the area, and it would be quite unreasonable to legislate to control the demolition of such structures. However. I am advised that a local planning authority may, if it wishes, use the provisions as they now exist in Clause 7 of the Bill to make a direction which shall apply to all the buildings in the area, if necessary specifying only the exceptions. I am sure that this is as far as we reasonably can go. That is all I wanted to say on Clause 7.
However, in moving the passing of the Bill I have to fulfil an undertaking which I gave at Second Reading and at the Committee stage to elaborate somewhat on the Government's proposals in relation to Clause 3 of the Bill which concern the examination in public of structure plans. Earlier this afternoon we were discussing long and short speeches, and although I have a number of things to say now I can assure noble Lords that that which occupied 26 paragraphs this morning now occupies a mere 12. The Town and Country Planning Act 1968 paved
1316
the way for the replacement of the 1947 system by two tiers of plans, structure and local plans. It introduced statutory provisions for publicity and public participation on both types of plan, including a duty on the local planning authority to consider representations. For local plans, which deal with the detail of individual properties and interests, it is clearly right that there should continue to be the right not only to object but for any objections not withdrawn to be heard at a public local inquiry—the public local inquiry with which we are all familiar.
This Bill provides for a new, different, more appropriate form of inquiry or, rather, examination into strategic issues involved in the new and different form of plan—the structure plan. When a structure plan is submitted to the Secretary of State it is his duty to consider it. It will be accompanied by an account of the publicity the authority has given to the proposals they put forward during the formative stages, of the consideration they gave to the views put to them, and of the extent to which these have been reflected in the plan. It will be followed up by objections which anyone has the right to make. Under the procedure we have in mind the consideration of the plan. of the information about the participation stages and of the objections will provide the source from which the Secretary of State will draw up the list of matters he considers should be examined in public. I think it can be seen that this proposed basis is a wide one. It should enable the Secretary of State to identify those key matters in a planning authority's strategy which have proved controversial during public participation: which appear to raise doubts which should be examined where necessary by testing major proposals against alternatives; or which seem likely to call for changes in the plan.
Some concern has been expressed in this House and during the consultations about the selection of issues for examination; but it hardly seems profitable to have an examination in public of those matters on which there is no controversy or doubt and about which there is general agreement. The examination will most profitably be concentrated on the "pinch points". It has been suggested that there should be some opportunity for views to be expressed about the list of matters that the Secretary of State has selected, so that

1317
these could if necessary be adapted or enlarged, and that there should be some way in which, as the examination proceeds, matters could be added which could not have been previously foreseen. This we are considering further to see what opportunities should be provided. As I have said, it should not be the actual objections but the key issues which they raise or relate to which should be the subject of the examination. The structure plan examination would thus not be the proper opportunity for objectors to elaborate orally the objections made in writing, as they do, and will continue to be able to do, at the local plan inquiries. But of course—and this needs to be stressed—all objections, even at the structure plan stage, will be considered by the Secretary of State; but there will be no right for the objector to demand the opportunity to elaborate his objection orally, as there is and as there will continue to be at the local plan inquiries. In this connection I should add that we intend to provide effective means of ensuring that objections are made in a written form and the grounds set out to a degree of detail which should preclude the possibility of doubt as to their purpose and the grounds for them.
It can be expected that among those invited to participate in the examination would be those who have objected to some element of the plan, but we wish to see them not as "objectors" but as embodiments of opinion which should be voiced on the strategic matters falling to be examined. We suggest that the procedures should encourage the grouping of views so that a concerted case can be presented covering similar interests relating to one issue. The greater the disposition to co-operate with others holding common interests, either through existing or through new groups, the more influential the voice of the amenity and other groups concerned will be, and the more readily they will be able to have, if they think fit, an appropriate, skilled professional adviser. Some objectors would thus be among the "participants". I say "among" because other participants could well be the supporters of a chosen strategy. The overall objective would be to secure as broad and representative a basis of opinion as will assist those conducting the examination to report on the matters before them.
1318
As to the examination itself, the clause provides for this to be held by a person or persons, and as we see it we need to provide for a panel—an independent chairman with other members who are versed in the area and on the issues to be examined: and, as appropriate, assessors. This panel would thus be able to discuss the matters before it with the planning authority and other bodies, to probe those aspects which have been seriously challenged or have given rise to doubts, and to assess worthwhile alternatives, and to make a report to the Secretary of State which will provide him with the basis for deciding a plan far more relevant to the structural issues than could ever be the case if the examination had been concerned with the detailed objections. The report giving an account of the outcome of the examination would be published, quite apart from any fuller material by way of transcripts.
It is, as your Lordships know, the intention of my right honourable friends to issue a detailed document as the basis for a further round of consultations with the organisations concerned. We are sure that we need to shape the procedure in consultation with them, and I should like to take this opportunity before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House to pay a tribute to the constructive way in which they have so far responded to our outline proposals.
There are many other points to be covered in these further consultations. I have concentrated on the selection of issues, on participants for the examination and on the consideration of objections, and on the sort of form and character which the panel could take. I felt that I owed it to the House to elaborate on these key points. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
5.3 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I should like briefly to thank the Under-Secretary of State for having given this further explanation of the measure to your Lordships' House, and to say that we have listened with genuine interest during the discussions we have had, to the explanations that he has given us. I think perhaps it would

1319
be in keeping with the Christmas spirit but a little dishonest if I said that the noble Lord had wholly convinced me about the wisdom of some of the steps he is taking, and I am particularly sorry that he has not been able to meet us at any rate half way on the various questions about conservation areas. I very much wish that the Government would, in the near future, introduce a measure which would apply to all buildings in conservation areas, instead of as at present.
Also I confess that I am still far from satisfied about the new proposal coming from the Government about inquiries into structure plans. I am very doubtful indeed whether the new procedure will save time. I think it is probably right to say that in matters of this kind most of the time is taken up not by the actual inquiry but by the consideration which is given after the inquiry to what has emerged in the course of hearing the various points of view, and I do not think that will be reduced by the present proposals. What is more, I think the officers of the Department of the Environment will probably find themselves fully engaged in advising the Secretary of State on which particular "swarms of bees" to attract when a structure plan is coming up for consideration.
So although I am not wholly happy about the proposals put forward by the Government we do not propose to hold them up any further. However, may I put one last question to the noble Lord, concerning the further consultation which is going to take place. I am glad to hear that this is to be the case, but I was not clear from what he said whether this consultation was going to take place after the Bill has gone on the Statute Book or before it reaches its next stage in another place. If the noble Lord could advise us on that we should all be in his debt.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to assure the noble Lord that consultations have already begun and are being continued, but I will certainly write to him and let him know further details about the timing, and so on.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC (FOREIGN VEHICLES) BILL [H.L.]
5.6 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND MOTORWAYS CONSTRUCTION
5.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the rate of destruction of archaeological evidence of cultural value to the community caused by the construction of motorways; and whether, in view of the small funds available to Her Majesty's Inspector of Ancient Monuments for rescue work, they will consider financing archaeological observation and rescue work in advance of and during the construction of motorways as one of the charges in the total cost of the motorway.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. A little earlier to-day the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, made the remark that in his opinion speeches should not be read, and although I agree to a great extent with that view, I nevertheless think there are occasions when it is difficult to avoid reading a speech. When one is asking a Question or introducing a Motion one wants to be absolutely clear on the points, and the quickest way of doing so is to speak from what I believe are sometimes referred to as "very full notes". I think it is important this evening to be as short as possible, and therefore I do not propose to depart from my notes to any great extent. For that reason I can assure your Lordships that it should not take me more than about 12 minutes, at the most, to introduce this subject, and I believe that most other speakers will be even more brief.
The value of archaeological sites and the evidence of our past which they can provide has been recognised increasingly in the laws of this country since the first Ancient Monuments Act was passed in 1882. There should be no need to-day, in 1971, to argue the case for the cultural importance of the work of archaeologists or the discoveries which they make. There is, however, a need to spell out some of the difficulties under which their researches are carried on. In the first place, there is often no sign on the surface that an archaeological site is there. It may be found, for example, only by the laying of pipes, construction work or farming. Where major works of this nature are not observed as a matter of routine by competent archaeologists, amateur or professional, many archaeological sites are being destroyed unrecorded and the evidence which they would provide is being lost to us for ever. It was in this way that the Roman place of Fishboume, now one of the major tourist attractions of the South Coast, was discovered through the perspicacity of local archaeologists who recognised the importance of what they were shown in a water main trench.
The second major difficulty is the fact that even when it is known that there is a site it is rarely, if ever, possible to predict confidently its potential before it has been investigated. In fact the true value of a discovery, or of a site, may not emerge until several years have passed and the discovery has been put into a better perspective by related evidence from other sites. Here I would mention the case of Durrington Walls, a henge monument lying astride the main road from Amesbury to Devizes. Faint traces of a ploughed-out ditch had long ago been recognised here, but when it was excavated in 1966–67 in advance of road-straightening operations, it was found to be larger than Avebury, and more than four times the size of Stonehenge. It is radically altering nearly every aspect of the study of these monuments. Once archaeological evidence is destroyed it can never be recreated, of course, and there can be no certainty that an uninvestigated site does not contain important or even crucial evidence.
The third difficulty—and this is worth underlining—is the fact that the value of any archaeological discovery, from a stone implement to the remains of a
1322
mediaeval palace, lies in its relationship to its surroundings. An object recovered during an archaeological excavation, or even recovered by a trained person from a contractor's excavation, will tell an expert, and through him ourselves, far more than the same object would if found on the contractor's spoilheap. In fact objects may well provide useful evidence only if they have been recovered by a trained archaeologist.
If I may turn to the problems of archaeological sites on the lines of motorways, it is worth noting that the first motorways to be subjected to anything approximating systematic archaeological search before and during their construction were the M.4 and the M.5, where they pass through Wiltshire. Gloucestershire and Somerset. This was financed by ad hoc methods—by grants from archaeological societies, trusts, local authorities and so on plus finance for specific excavations from the then Ministry of Works and the loan of personnel from a sympathetic university extra-mural department and a city museum. The work was carried out by mixed amateur and professional teams operating on minimal budgets, but with the physical cooperation from day to day of the motorway construction unit and their contractors. No finance was available from motorway funds. The results of this effort were startling. An average of two sites every motorway mile were identified, and, wherever possible, examined. Few of these sites were known beforehand, and so most of them were discovered only as a result of continuous observation—and I stress that word "continuous". As a result, a completely new picture of the pattern on settlement in the past in that part of Gloucestershire and Somerset has emerged.
I do not want to suggest that a major site, of tourist potential, lies under the scoop of every contractor's bulldozer, for archaeological information comes from a totality of small sites and not just from one major discovery. Motorways are being built at an increasing rate over the remainder of the country. It is impossible to expect the same superhuman efforts from people in these new areas. Additional finance is essential. In a few areas, small ad hoc groups are being set up to try to cope with the challenge—for example, in Oxfordshire on the route of

1323
the M.40, in Cambridgeshire on the route of the M.11, and in Surrey on the lines of the M.23 and M.25. However, only by tile employment of sufficient professional archaeologists will they make certain that all the important sites are discovered. People in full-time employment in other walks of life, who volunteer to do this work in their spare time, cannot guarantee the daily vigil which is needed.
The Ancient Monuments Inspectorate of the Department of the Environment is powerless to help in this vital work, because the Inspectorate has an annual vote of only £150,000 for rescue excavation work. The West German Government has in recent years spent more than this on a single site, the Viking trading town of Haitabu, in Schleswig-Holstein, while the Dutch Government are currently spending some £150,000 on the single site of Dorestad at the mouth of the Rhine, and at the same time they use this project for unemployment relief. Our Inspectorate has to spread its vote over sixty to seventy sites a year throughout Great Britain. A major excavation here can absorb £10, 000, and minor ones with a minimum of paid labour and the use of no earth-moving equipment at all could cost £100 to £200. The Inspectorate just does not have the resources within its present Treasury vote, or the personnel to cope with the continuous observation of any major motorway construction.
Motorway costs have been stated to lie between three-quarters and one and a half million pounds per mile. The sum needed to finance adequate archaeological investigation is, by comparison, infinitesimal. One thousand pounds per mile for this purpose would probably finance a thorough archaeological surveillance; and there would still be considerable scope for participation by enthusiastic volunteers. They are to-day carrying the great archaeological burden virtually unaided by the State. All of the ad hoc groups I have mentioned operate on very slender funds indeed, and this must restrict the quantity of the work.
In brief, my Lords, and finally, what I am asking is that archaeological observation and rescue work should be financed from the motorway Vote. This I should have thought was equitable, and other nations have thought so, too.
1324
Although I am fully aware that the cost of each mile of motorway is carefully scrutinised by the Treasury, and although this may be a problem to the Department concerned, it is, logically and sensibly, to my way of thinking, no reason whatever for turning down this proposal, which amounts at the most to one part in a thousand of the cost of the motorways. The motorways are being built for our benefit. Their construction inevitably destroys evidence which is the tool of archaeologists and historians. It is up to us to see that as much as possible is saved.
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount and to thank him for having raised this very important Question, because it vitally affects far more than the purely archaeological culture to which he referred. I think that so far as that is concerned all of us are bound to argue from the particular to the general. In my own part of the world I happen to know of a Roman site of about 20 acres or so through which a main road is shortly to be driven, and where it is absolutely essential that money should be forthcoming to pay for the excavation before the damage is done and so that we can learn the maximum possible before the new road is driven through.
I want to draw the Government's attention to that area where archaeology and biology cross in these sort of sites. I am not referring to the discovery in archaeological sites of early domestic animals, how the earlier tools show when the people ceased to tear the wool off sheep and started to cut it with shears like we do to-day; I refer to the sort of things which very few people notice, but which some of your Lordships may have noticed walking on Scottish hills—where you suddenly see the remains of a croft from which the people were taken during the clearances, where the vegetation is entirely different. There you see such things as clovers and docks, and the like, on a site which was otherwise unremarkable from the rest of the hill perhaps a hundred or a couple of hundred years ago. But also in places you can find evidence of mesolithic middens where the phosphate added at that time is still being turned over by the plants, and you

1325
can identify sites not hundreds but thousands of years old.
There are other places where the same sort of thing is going on but it is completely hidden from all eyes, and is not likely to be noticed by the person who is planning the site of a motorway. That happens particularly when you get what we are going to have quite shortly on the M.25, along the North Downs, where a very large number of underground workings are to be filled in with cement in order to support the new motorway. These are underground workings which are not only of interest to the archaeologist proper but to the biologist as well. These workings go into total darkness. Your Lordships will know that all life depends on sunlight and green plants, and that life in total darkness can only be supported if there is some connection with the outside world—perhaps by animals which enter the place. I recollect seeing a hen pheasant at the end of a long dark cave. If I had not happened to come across it, it would have died there, and by dying it would have set up a cycle of successive living creatures, plants and the like, which would have been of the greatest interest to a biologist in a dark cave. In these workings you find the remains of primitive man's food, primitive man's ordure when he obeyed the demands of nature thousands of years ago, still being turned over by living creatures which ought to be investigated before they are utterly destroyed.
The noble Viscount referred to the pittance which is given to the Ancient Monuments Department, and I think it is worth contrasting that with the very large sum of £100, 000 which I.C.I. produced for the investigation of the reservoir which was about to be made at Cow Green in Teesdale. This enabled botanists and zoologists to investigate what was about to be flooded and which was of extreme interest. That is what the Government ought to be prepared to do. That is what the noble Viscount is asking the Government to do, and I wish strongly to support him.
I cannot resist, before I sit down, referring to one other thing about these caves which are about to be covered up along the North Downs, because it will be expected from me. It is a site where bats in large numbers go to roost, and
1326
in particular a site which might be occupied by a particularly rare bat called the mouse-eared bat, which has very recently come across from the Continent to this country and is found only in underground workings. Underground workings are disappearing right and left. They are being used by local authorities for filling up with rubbish, and these unfortunate creatures, to which I am so devoted, are finding their homes rapidly destroyed. I hope that perhaps the Government will bear them in mind when they answer this Question.
5.25 p.m.
LORD FLETCHER: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in support of the Question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I suppose I ought to begin by declaring an interest. I speak as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and also as a Member of the Council for British Archeology, to whose honorary secretary I am indebted for a good deal of information which, if time permitted, I should have liked to put before the House. I realise the circumstances in which the time for this debate is circumscribed, and I shall therefore try to be as brief as possible.
The point I should like to urge chiefly upon the Government and, through the Government, the public in general, is the very widespread concern that is felt by all who are interested in archaeology and our island history at the very rapid destruction of sites of archaeological interest. This is due not only to the construction of motorways, but also to urban development, the building of new towns, the formation of city centres, the excavation of very large quantities of sand and gravel, and, in addition, to the deep ploughing which has resulted in the destruction, in recent years, of a great many ancient monuments. There is a great and growing interest in this subject. Our knowledge of archaeological sites of interest and their potentialities has been increased very considerably in recent years as a result of the revelations produced by aerial photography. It is therefore particularly sad that those developments have coincided with the very rapid destruction of sites, which could otherwise have been excavated with profit to this and future generations.

1327
There is no need for me to emphasise the growing interest in archaeology in this country. It is evidenced, for example, by the increasing number of chairs in archaeology which are being established in British universities, and by the increasing number of students who are taking degree courses and undergraduate courses in archaeology; and also, as the noble Viscount has said, by the large number of amateurs up and down the country who undertake incessant and invaluable voluntary work in this field. Nevertheless, the position is very serious, as the following figures will indicate. I am told that 50,000 acres of land are being submerged under development every year. This is the equivalent of one medium-sized county every seven years. I am told that of 100 recorded Romano-British settlements in Wiltshire alone, only 10 were still well preserved in 1964. I am told again that in Wiltshire, out of 640 scheduled sites, 250 were completely destroyed, and a further 150 damaged, by 1964. I am told that in Gloucestershire, of 360 round barrows half have already been destroyed, and only one barrow cemetery now survives intact. I am told that sand and gravel areas, which have very often been occupied for thousands of years, are being removed at the rate of about 200 million cubic yards a year.
Your Lordships will appreciate that this not only means an alarming diminution of invaluable archaeological evidence, but it also seriously affects the availability of sites for study by archaeological students of this and future generations. Notwithstanding the voluntary work which has taken place, I am convinced that, unless the Minister is convinced of the need to give further financial help in this direction, this alarming tendency will continue. Having said that, I would of course be among the first to pay my tribute to the excellent work which is being done by the Ancient Monuments Division within their limited resources. I gratefully acknowledge also the innumerable cases in which, thanks to the public spirit, sometimes of Government Departments, sometimes of local authorities, and sometimes of private contractors, work which otherwise would have destroyed important sites is being delayed to enable investigation and preservation to take place. A notable
1328
instance of this occurred recently at Dover, where, as a result of the intervention of those interested in the subject and, if I may say so, local pressure on the Minister, road construction was delayed to allow more time for excavation; indeed, the road level was raised to limit the amount of destruction to the Roman structures and levels. This is an instance in which co-operation between the archaeological societies and the Minister can save some of these valuable sites from destruction. Other instances of local co-operation where town planning is in progress occur at Winchester and Oxted. These indicate what could be done if good will exist, and illustrate how much more could be done if public attention were concentrated on the opportunities that exist and the possibilities of rescue work. I hope that sufficient public attention will be given to the alarming prospect of this widespread destruction if nothing occurs to stimulate the Minister to respond to the suggestions of my noble friend Viscount Hanworth.
May I add that there is one other aspect of this matter which I think should be drawn to the attention of the Minister and, I hope, to a wider public. There has been introduced in recent months an additional and novel menace in this field. I refer to the development of metal detectors and the use by misguided persons of metal detectors for the purpose of seeking out treasure trove. I am well aware that a good deal of the law of treasure trove is archaic and will, I hope, in the near future be brought up to date. But I venture to draw attention to the fact that, as I understand it, it has been the law of England, at any rate since the time of Bracton, to go out and search for treasure trove is a criminal offence, and to go out and take treasure trove by the use of metal detectors is equally a criminal offence; namely, the criminal offence of stealing, the reason being that it is just as much stealing to steal the property of the Crown, which is what treasure trove is, as it would be to steal any of your Lordships' private property. Therefore, I hope that some publicity will be given to the fact that if people are sufficiently misguided as to go around the countryside with metal detectors seeking for treasure that does not belong to them but as treasure trove belongs to the Crown, they may be inviting serious consequences.

1329
There was a significant instance of this which occurred only recently at Aston Bromley. I do not make any reflection on the two persons who happened—I think it happened quite spontaneously—to come across a valuable hoard of Anglo-Saxon coins. The British Museum, in accordance with what has been the tradition for a long time, acquired the coins at market prices in the interests of the Crown and in the interests of preventing valuable articles from leaving the country. If the use of metal detectors is allowed to go on on any scale without being stopped by some measure or other, it will aggravate seriously the problems with which those interested in archaeology are concerned at the present time, and will lead to the further erosion of sites and the contents of sites which should be scientifically excavated and which lead to a growing interest in the study of this subject. I apologise for detaining your Lordships longer than I intended, but I hope that my remarks and this debate in general will draw attention to what I regard as a very pressing problem.
5.33 p.m.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I have my back to the only clock we have at present, but I think I can guarantee that I shall not be responsible for any delay in the festivities which will follow our proceedings this evening. I shall be brief, and that particularly because I am not an archaeologist like the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, nor even the husband of one like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. But I should like to support what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have said and to emphasise briefly what seem to me to be the most important aspects of this matter.
Speaking as an ordinary citizen with enough interest in the subject of archeology in general to be a member of a Surrey archæological society, may I say first that those responsible for the planning and building of motorways are naturally fearful of the difficulties that may arise if archeological discoveries are made on the line of their route. But those difficulties will be minimised if an expert survey is carried out before work begins. In this way, requests for delay will be avoided, and if any really important site is discovered it will be
1330
possible to make orderly and considered arrangements for preserving it.
Secondly, it is not always understood that archeologists will only ask for the most significant discoveries to be preserved. For the most part, the essential thing is to have time to record the details of any discovery before it is destroyed and so add to the sum of our knowledge of the life and works of our remote ancestors. It is a matter of recording the exact position in which objects are found, the methods and materials used in the construction of buildings, the strata which indicate the periods of time in which the site has been occupied and so on. Once this work has been done, the destruction of the great majority of archeological sites can be accepted as inevitable.
Lastly, the sums of money involved are large in relation to the resources available to the Inspector of Ancient Monuments—very large indeed in relation to the resources of local archeological societies but, as the noble Viscount said, infinitesimal if considered as part of the enormous overall cost of building a motorway.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree that there is a good case here; that they will be prepared to make it possible for archeological surveys of motorway routes to be carried out in good time and that they will accept this as a proper charge against the total cost of a motorway. I understand that the present Government make a point of looking at the overall effect of their policies and seek to get away from the piecemeal and departmentalised approach which has caused difficulties in the past. There seems to me to be a good opportunity to apply that principle here.
5.39 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, may I also support the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his admirable speech. I have one reason for detaining your Lordships and others at this late hour; that is, that this issue is arising in a critical manner in an area which I know very well where the M.23 and the M.25 will intersect. This is the area which was my constituency and which I represented for twenty years in another place. I know the area well. My Lords, I knew that at that time I represented 61,000

1331
constituents and 120,000 inhabitants, in a beautiful part of the world, with many historic houses, and a historic borough, hut never, until the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, spoke, did I realise that I also represented a large number of bats. I sometimes thought that my constituents were a little fractious and I now realise what might have been part of the reason.
The area is traversed by the A.22, the London-Eastbourne Road, the A.23, the I_ondon-Brighton Road and the A.25 which is that appalling West-East highway along which I am sure many of your Lordships travelling from Hampshire to Kent have suffered traffic congestion. We are now also going to have the M.23 and the M.25 all concentrated in this very small area. And even in this area, the area that lies between the North Downs and the Southern boundary of Surrey between Redhill and Godstone, we are going to have 17 miles of motorway and the intersection of the M.23 and the M.25 alone is to involve the destruction of 88 acres and virtually the obliteration of a hamlet. It includes the area of the fascinating quarries and mineworkings to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred. I would plead that we should get a sympathetic hearing from the Government on this cause, because I doubt whether the need for this research has ever arisen in so concentrated a form in any one area.
As was said by the noble Lord who preceded me, the Surrey Archaeological Society are doing their best. They have already identified 10 worthwhile antiquarian sites that should be worked on. It cannot be left only to volunteers. We all hope that the Surrey County Council will help; but Her Majesty's Government should help as well. In conclusion, I would repeat that the Department of the Environment now encompasses a very wide range of responsibilities from the building of roads to the preservation of ancient monuments. Surely, now that it is under one Ministry, it would be a chance to prove that the amalgamation was worth while and that at last we have a Government Department which cares for the environment in its totality.
5.42 p.m.
LoRD SANDFORD: My Lords, we ate all grateful to the noble Viscount for
1332
the stimulus which this debate has provided for all those who are concerned about, or work in, this field. I am grateful for the opportunity it gives me to say what the Government are doing and what they intend to do about the problem he raised. I am also grateful to all other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their various contributions. As the noble Viscount said, archaeological sites can be affected by modern development of all kinds: housing, mineral working, agriculture (ploughing, in particular) and industrial schemes, as well as by road construction, of which the M.23–25 complex is as good a case as any.
In some cases the importance of the monument justifies amending the proposals to keep them clear of the monument and to protect it. Recent instances of this in relation to highway schemes are those at Dover (mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher) where the road level is being raised to avoid damage to the buried remains of two Roman forts; Dicket Mead, near Welwyn, where the road is being raised over the ruins of a Roman bath-house; and one in Hertfordshire when the line of the road has been altered in the interests of a Roman and Iron Age settlement site. In all these cases, the extra cost of construction of the highway which has been moved for these purposes is being borne on road funds. Where, however, archaeological sites have to make way for modern development, of whatever kind, our practice is to arrange for them to be investigated or surveyed beforehand—the whole line of a road if necessary—sometimes by observation and frequently by excavation, thus increasing in the process the fund of archaeological knowledge. My Department itself conducts some of these investigations and arranges for others to be undertaken by local archaeological groups and societies, with the help of grants provided by the Department. In all, there were some 160 such excavations and surveys in 1970. Recent instances of excavation in advance of road schemes are: Durrington Walls, in Wiltshire (a Neolithic site); on the M.5 route (Iron Age settlements at Dibbles Farm in Somerset) and on an Essex section of the M.11 (prehistoric and Roman sites and a Roman villa complex at Hutton's Ambo).

1333
In general, rescue work can he planned well in advance but there are occasions, as noble Lords will recogise, when finds are made after the roadworks have started. In principle, once again the cost of any unavoidable delay occasioned by rescue work would be met from road funds; but in practice this more often than not can be avoided and prevented by making suitable arrangements ad hoc with the highway authority and the contractor in a spirit of give-and-take. I should like to pay tribute to the contractors, in particular, for their very helpful co-operation in enabling last-minute rescue digs to proceed. Instances of this arc on the M.5 at Crandon Bridge, in Somerset, where Roman structures, possibly warehouses, were investigated and on the A.66, in Westmorland, where a Roman cemetery was unexpectedly encountered.
In all types of rescue work our aim is to maintain close links with archaeologists outside the Department. In the liaison between the Department, which is responsible for trunk road schemes, and the archaeologists, who are concerned that the sites affected should be fittingly recorded, the key central role is played by our Ancient Monuments Division. They are consulted by the highways planners at the earliest planning stages. In cases where archaeological sites are expected to be affected, the Division enter into discussions with outside archaeologists; they encourage the setting up of local excavation committees on which they are normally represented; they allocate Government financial help towards the rescue work; and they help to ensure the close co-operation between highways authorities and contractors once the roadworks start. But, as all who have spoken will recognise, whatever the degree of liaison and whatever the degree of skill and enthusiasm shown by archaeologists within and outside the Department, the central issue before us is the adequacy of the financial resources at the Department's disposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, said, this is a matter which is a test of our earnestness.
Let me say at once that these resources are considerably greater than has so far been suggested in our debate. For rescue work in advance of modern developments of all kinds—not just highways—the
1334
direct annual allocation has increased over the past ten years from around £35,000 to £210,000. But this is only the direct expenditure. In addition, quite substantial amounts are spent on excavation supervisors' fees—something like £70,000 this year—to say nothing of the Department's own staff costs. We must continue to be selective to ensure full value for what is, after all, taxpayers' money. For instance, although highway works reveal previously unknown sites, by no means all of them warrant the expense of full excavation. We must also relate allocations to the availability of experienced archaeological skill. Nevertheless, and subject to Parliamentary approval of our Estimates, we propose next year to increase the direct allocation for rescue work of all kinds—not just highways—from £210,000 to some £310,000, an increase of nearly 50 per cent.
As Parliamentary procedure requires, the extra money will be an addition to the Ancient Monuments Vote through which all types of rescue work are accounted for and controlled; though I would remind noble Lords of the two circumstances in which the extra costs resulting from giving due weight to the importance of ancient monuments are borne on road funds. In this I am saying nothing of the extra sums which are being allocated on the Ancient Monuments side in respect of the Field Monuments Bill, which I was instrumental in taking through your Lordships' House a week or so ago. Recognising the special need here in the field of rescue work occasioned by highway construction (which is the particular point to which the noble Viscount addressed his Question) we propose to apply a much more than proportional share of this general increase to archaeological rescue work in advance of highway construction. Our present allocation for this is about £40,000 a year and we intend to increase this by £50,000; that is to say, to more than double. We shall continue to watch the situation and will stand ready to consider the provision of further resources if and when this should seem necessary.
I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Reigate, that this does provide a challenge and test for a unified Department. This is one of the things in which we should be able to make progress more readily and effectively than

1335
was possible when the planning, highways and ancient monuments all resided in three separate Departments. But whatever we can do in the Department of the Environment, we must also continue to rely very greatly on the voluntary efforts of individual archaeologists and local societies whose services, and particularly whose vigilance, is essential and very greatly valued.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.52 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:
Consolidated Fund (No. 3), Banking and Financial Dealings,
New Towns,
Baird Trust Order Confirmation.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation.

BETTING AND GAMING DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments concerning the duties of excise relating to betting and gambling. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the said Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.