Lords Sitting of 18 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
The Viscount Maugham—Took the Oath.

CIVIL SERVICE MANPOWER
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 how they equate the rise of about 5,000 in Civil Service manpower during their first six months in office with their declared policy of reducing public expenditure.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Government have announced substantial reductions in public expenditure in the White Paper, New Poliices for Public Spending. The non-industrial manpower increase of about 4,400 in the period July 1, 1970, to February 1, 1971, has to be set in context. It represented the minimum extra manpower for the work to be done, much of it a legacy from the previous Administration. In the same period there was a reduction of about 3,100 industrial staff.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble Leader for that reply. May I ask him to bear in mind that the majority of the electorate, while appreciating the difficulties, expect the Government to bear in mind the growth of the bureaucracy and to keep it to a minimum—consistent with the efficient running of the country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what my noble friend has said; in fact, I already have it very much in mind.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will not the noble Earl put the Whips on his noble friend for putting such an embarrassing Question to him? Is this not a further exposure of the false prospectus issued for the last Election when the Party opposite said they would reduce prices at a stroke?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we live in a free democracy, and my noble friend is as free as anybody else to ask what questions he wishes of me. I want to underline that it remains our objective to reduce the size of the Civil Service, which is what was said in the Election Manifesto. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Blvton—perhaps it is not for me to say this—that when you are slimming, there are two ways of doing it: you can go on a crash diet, which is probably not the most sensible way of doing it; or you can adopt more rational policies of self-discipline. These take a little more time to work through.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl was clearly embarrassed when giving that Answer—his voice was very quiet and his words were very rapid—but could he indicate where this increase in civil servants has occurred? Which are the Departments? Perhaps he could give an indication how important they are to the national economic development?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord must have got a false impression if he thought that I was embarrassed. I sometimes read fast and sometimes slowly. I think it would be easier if the noble Lord put down a Question. I could easily let him have the information about the Departments where the increase has arisen, but it might be better to do so by Written Answer, rather than that I should read out a long list now, which I could do. That might be better from the point of view of your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Earl indicate which is the Department where the big increases have taken place?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Department in which the biggest increase has taken place is the Inland Revenue.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, in view of the inference that there will be

557
a long period before there can be a reduction, will the noble Earl indicate at what date he expects there will be a reduction in the Civil Service? Or does he agree with what was said by his former leader, Sir Winston Churchill, during the passage of the Iron and Steel measure? Sir Winston said, quite distinctly, in the other place that an Election Manifesto did not necessarily pledge a Party which is elected to govern.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to repeat the words of the Leader of my Party, which he has used on more than one occasion: the commitments in our Election Manifesto, which we intend to discharge, are commitments for the life of a Parliament.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that despite these increases in the Civil Service we have today an increase in the figure of unemployed to over 750,000, which is a much more vital matter? Will the noble Earl say when the Government's plans for reducing unemployment in the country are likely to mature?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, although it is a very serious matter about which he has questioned me, I am afraid I must remind the noble Lord that it is, in fact, rather a different matter.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that there is considerable scope for making economies in Civil Service manpower by looking at legislation as a whole, and in particular taxation, rather than by making increases to meet each new requirement produced by further legislation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would entirely agree that in the long term there are certainly economies to be won by the simplification of our taxation system. In reply to that supplementary question I would also underline that Her Majesty's Government are engaged at present on a systematic review of all the functions of Government; and it is through that process, which is bound to take time, that the longer-term economies will be won.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to legacies from the previous Administration which in his opinion are of an adverse
558
character, did he include the £600 million surplus in the balance of payments?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that every evening in the London evening newspapers the Department of the Environment are advertising for typists, and that two or three times a week the Civil Service Commission are advertising for what are called "Whitehall psychologists"? And has this any relation to the mixed-up condition of Her Majesty's Ministers?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I did not quite catch the last part of the noble Lord's witticism. However, I am aware that there is an acute shortage of typists in Whitehall, as elsewhere: it is a national shortage.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of us would like to pay tribute to the often beaten Civil Service? May I inform him that personally I am delighted—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I ask him whether he is aware that some of us, as a result of the extension of the Civil Service in the income tax department, have received delightful little cheques covering rebates for errors previously made by that overworked department? Having at this moment just received a cheque for £43, I support the slight increase in the Civil Service.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of these pleasanter elements of the situation. Since I have a direct responsibility in this field, I should also like to echo the tribute that he has paid to civil servants and to the Civil Service.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sorry if my question to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, appeared to prove embarrassing. It was not my intention to embarrass the noble Earl; I merely sought to evoke information. Is there any reason why he cannot reply to my question about a legacy which was not adverse in character from the previous Administration; namely, the £600 million surplus on the balance of payments? Is that not worth a reply?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it was not the possible embarrassment of the

559
noble Lord's supplementary question that induced me to refrain from replying; it was the total irrelevance of his particular question.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, the noble Earl, in replying to previous supplementary questions, said that the Government were keeping to their Election Manifesto. Can he say what has happened to the employees of the Land Commission, in view of the policy which appeared in the Government's Manifesto that they were going to close down the Land Commission?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again I should like notice of that question. The position is a little complicated, and I do not think it is susceptible to the short question and answer, let alone on a supplementary question.

LONDON AIRPORT HOTEL SCHEME
3.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now reconsider, on safety grounds, the decision to permit the erection of an hotel beneath the approach path to runway 28R at London Heathrow Airport.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My, Lords, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no present intention of revising the advice on this he has given to the planning authority who are responsible for the planning decision. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade made clear in Written Answers to Questions in another place on February 25, the proposed hotel would conform to the internationally agreed standards for safeguarded take-off and approach slopes and would not interfere with the performance of the instrument landing system or the radar. The building would also be outside the public safety zone for this runway.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the Minister certain that it is a wise thing to
560
allow this hotel to be built on this spot? Is he aware that some airlines will now operate in bad weather with a clearance of only 250 feet over the roof of this hotel? Is he satisfied with a situation in which a pilot is expected to bring probably 300 people in bad weather and under instrument conditions over an unnecessary obstruction in this manner?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so far as bad weather conditions are concerned, I am advised that the all weather instrumentation (automatic landing) for operating in Category II conditions is superior to that for operating in more favourable conditions and ensures that there is less chance of deviation from the approach path. All flights in any conditions use the same glide slope of three degrees.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is a difference of technical opinion as to whether this building will actually distort the beam in this case. I would advise the noble Lord to go further into that question. But, apart from that fact, we are here dealing with a minimum. Certainly the ICAO regulation has been met. But the ICAO regulation applies to countries all over the world—to a hundred countries, some of which probably have only two or three movements a day, and we are here dealing with the busiest international airport in the world. May I ask the noble Lord, therefore, if he will be good enough to say that he will look into this matter again?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before I answer the last part of the noble Lord's question. I think I should say on a point of fact—and this is not a quibble, as the noble Lord knows—that the IACO standard is not a minimum: it is a standard, something which applies and which can be applied in giving planning decisions of this kind. So far as the last part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has given his advice on this, and the planning decision has been made.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that my noble friend Lord Beswick is really an expert on these matters, and will he therefore give consideration to what he has said? Furthermore, in view of the suggestion that there might be a danger to navigation

561
at Heathrow, will Her Majesty's Government speed up the establishment of the new airport at Foulness?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the last part of the noble Lord's question refers to a different problem. So far as the first part of his question is concerned, I fully agree that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is an expert in these matters, and I know that he is well advised upon them, as well. The difficulty is that this decision has been taken, and, as I have said, the Department of Trade and Industry are satisfied that the advice which they gave on this matter was the correct advice.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in Spain an hotel was allowed to be erected in a similar position to the approach path of a runway and is now having to be abolished?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, one can never compare exactly two cases of this kind. I am well aware of what the noble Lord has said, but the point is that no statement has been made, I am advised, by the Spanish Government of the exact reasons for the action that it took.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord can tell me, without binding Her Majesty's Government to his answer, whether he would personally enjoy staying at this hotel, which is in line with the main runway, and has aircraft passing 250 ft. overhead all the time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am told that an hotel of this kind would be soundproofed throughout, and that to that extent it would be very much better off than the houses will be round about it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is soundproofing much good if a jumbo-jet flies in at your bedroom window?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am told that statistically the chances of that happening are over one in ten million.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that any impediment to the use of Heathrow would be welcomed by many people who suffer
562
from noise in that area, and who hope that more impediments will lead to a quicker decision to the use of Foulness instead of Heathrow?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I might accept that, but I would simply observe that in the opinion of the Department of Trade and Industry such an hotel would not constitute an impediment to the use of Heathrow.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, in view of the general concern of planning around the major airports, would my noble friend, and the Government, consider issuing a more precise planning directive than at present exists around the airport, both on safety grounds and on the ground of acceptable noise levels?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the planning directives are perfectly clear on this matter. The ICAO standard is incorporated in regulations of this country. There is also the question of the public safety zone, and, as I have said, this site would be well outside the public safety zone.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is quibbling about my use of the word "minimum"? This is a minimum; it was intended to apply to a hundred different countries in the world, and I am saying that in this country we should allow something above the minimum that is being applied elsewhere. Now may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to say what is the nature of the advice which his right honourable friend tendered to the planning authority?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord may think that this was a quibble, and it occurred to me when I was probing this matter also that it might appear to be so. But this is not so; this is a standard, and it is different from a recommendation. In addition this is above the minimum; it is not just barely the minimum. I have forgotten the second question the noble Lord asked.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it was with regard to the advice—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I remember. It was: what was the advice that was given? The advice that

563
was given was that the height of the proposed building should not exceed 160 feet above Ordnance datum, which is equivalent to approximately 83 feet above the local ground level; and, in addition, there was a condition attached.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this company proposes to erect a hotel so close to the minima that the hotel is to be 87 feet at one end, and 80 feet at the other end, so that the undercarriage of an aircraft can just conform to the figures on the way down?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is not for me to say; it is a matter for the planning authority. But if at any point the height exceeded this 83 feet then it would not accord with the planning permission which has been given.

RAIL FARE INCREASES
3.34 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: 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 to what extent the recently announced increase of rail fares is in accordance with Government policy of restricting price increases in the public sector.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Government's policy is that price increases in the public sector will be allowed only where they are justified by increased costs. The recently announced fares increases are needed partly to offset increased costs and, in London and the South-East, to replace the Government's grants towards unremunerative services.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not what was said at the General Election? Is the noble Lord aware there are some members of the British electorate who actually voted for this Government because they were promised that the Government would break into the wage/price spiral by keeping a firm grip on the public sector prices? Therefore, how can the Government possible justify an
564
increase in this important area of the public sector?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we said in A Better Tomorrow that we would subject all proposed price rises in the public sector to most searching scrutiny. We said that if they were not justified they would not be allowed; but the present increases have been scrutinised, and we think they are justified. Perhaps I might point out, with great respect, that we are in effect doing what the noble Lord's former Minister of Transport, Mr. Marsh, said; namely:
"The Railways Board must fulfil its new financial remit. Market pricing must be the backbone of its pricing policy, and there is no reason why the services should be not priced on the basis of what the market will bear."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said, but is he aware that what his noble Leader actually said was that there was an alternative to what Mr. Marsh was doing. That alternative, and I will quote from the speech of Mr. Heath, was:
"… to break into the price/wage spiral by acting directly to reduce prices. This can be done by … taking a firm grip on public sector prices and charges, such as coal, steel, gas, electricity, transport and postal charges."
In practically every case they have actually gone up.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I just "tiptoe" in for a second to inform the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that Mr. Heath is not my noble friend's noble Leader?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I may put in a word, we are, as the noble Lord opposite knows, trying to do this. But, as my noble Leader, Lord Jellicoe, pointed out in an earlier answer to-day, we cannot do this at a stroke. It takes a little time.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not a fact that "at a stroke" was the claim? Could the noble Lord indicate where the Government have had success in holding down prices?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the claim to hold down prices is going to be a continuing effort, and in the long run the country will benefit.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, to my little

565
knowledge Rome was not built in a day. The reason for the rise in prices is largely due to the policies of the Labour Government.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord be a little more explicit? He said that the reason for these increases in prices was to finance the unremunerative services. But these services are still being cut out and curtailed in so far as subsidies are being given to the bus companies. The bus companies are proving that the services are unremunerative, and therefore they are being cut out. In consequence, the nation as a whole is having a very raw deal in public transport. In these circumstances, how can he justify his statement that the increase in prices is to pay for these unremunerative services that are still continuing to be closed?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think it is fairly obvious that we have to look at everything individually. We pay grants on services which we judge are worthwhile projects. We should like, of course, to do road and rail together, but at the moment we do not have the ability to do this on the same basis. We have to look at everything on its own merits.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has a choice in this problem of putting increased costs on to the taxpayer, or increased costs on to the commuter—speaking particularly of the South-East? Is my noble friend aware that this is a far more complex question than the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested? Is he aware that there are problems with regard to the planning of London and the South-East, and with London trying hard to hold its population down, nothing would be more foolish than to ask the taxpayers of this country to make it more attractive for people to live outside London and to commute back in? Is my noble friend aware that he is taking the right decision?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I once again spring with alacrity to the defence of the Government? May
566
I ask them whether they are aware that they can find £65 million with a stroke of the pen to-day if they have the courage to stand up and denounce this betterment levy trick that is being forced upon us by the Government? The Exchequer is going to lose £65 million as a result of a little Bill to which we are to be asked to give a Second Reading to-day. I suggest that, with a stroke, this £65 million could be put into the railways.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think it is a question of £65 million here or there. We are dealing with a public service, and the public service in this case is able to meet its demands; it is a perfectly ordinary commercial matter. Either we must give subsidies or the taxpayer must pay. Where there is an ability for the ordinary user to pay, we ask the passengers to do this. The wages element of the railways is something like two-thirds, and it is a very important element. We are quite prepared, for social reasons, occasionally to consider grants.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is the policy of the Government, as indicated in his answer to the question of my noble friend on the Front Bench, that people who at present live outside London and work in it should now be forced owing to the increase in the fares in the environs of London, to come and live in London and add to the London population?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. British Railways are giving very good value. If you consider the cost of motoring into London, you will find that British Railways' fares are well under half that cost.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, may I ask a simple question of the Minister? What is the difference between a commuter and a taxpayer?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the two are usually the same.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether it is possible for the Government to induce the Railways Board to disclose how they compute whether a given line is paying or not paying? Is he aware that in many cases the Railways Board refuses to give this information to the public, so the

567
public cannot judge whether the Board's case for an increase in fares is justified or not?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Railways Board is an independent commercial body. It has to work within guidelines provided by the Government. Like any other company, it has to be commercial; it has to compete with bus services and motor cars. And if it fails it will not be in business. We asked them merely to be commercially sensible.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cost of season tickets has gone up less than the cost of most other commodities in this country over the last twenty years?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that is a very good point which my noble friend has made.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask a more simple question about what I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is a very complicated issue? Can the noble Lord say whether these increases of prices in the public sector, together with the massive increases in food prices which were announced yesterday, will break the wage/price spiral, or will encourage it?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is a much wider question than the Question on the Order Paper.

ZAMBIA: COST OF AID
3.33 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 is the total cost of aid and subvention of all kinds to Zambia since November, 1965, including the R.A.F. air lift and supplementary subventions of that kind.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, about £58 million; of which £8 million for development and £814,000 of a £2 million defence aid grant promised in 1965 have not been utilised by the Zambians.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the impressive munificence of the taxpayer in those amounts, will the Minister agree that there is scope for channelling a greater proportion of aid through civilian agencies, rather than from Government to Government? As an illustration of recent experience, Zambia, plagued by a drought, had to import mealies, and did so from overseas—from the Argentine or China. Owing to shortage of transport, these mealies were left rotting at Beira, when they could have been brought quite easily across the border from Rhodesia.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am perfectly aware that some things have been brought into Zambia which might have been purchased more easily elsewhere, but that is a matter for the Zambian Government.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that Zambia has contributed more in aid and subventions to this country, by loyally supporting our policy of sanctions against Rhodesia, from which it has suffered more than any other people?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Zambia is continuing—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD BARNBY: —and continues to trade on a large scale—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should remind my noble friend—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thought it would ease the position for the Minister—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is that Zambia has abided by the resolution of the United Nations' Security Council, as indeed have most other member nations of the Security Council.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that, since the imposition of sanctions, trade between Zambia and Rhodesia has actually increased?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, in view of the good government and sound administration of Zambia, we should be proud of the aid we have given them and of the use to which it has been put?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I would only add that a very large part of this substantial sum of aid has been given because of I.D.I.; it was described as "contingency support" and in fact amounts to £24 million.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in defence of the taxpayers' munificence, will the Minister look into the question of whether some assistance can be given to the transport of fertilisers which are rotting in Beira and are needed for the assistance of the next crop in Zambia? Also, will he examine whether, as was stated, trade between Zambia and Rhodesia has actually increased?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while I appreciate my noble friend's concern, I think it is a matter for the Zambian Government.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, with reference to the original Question, can the Minister give any figures as to the relative amounts spent on African education by Zambia and Rhodesia? Incidentally, the latter country has never received any subvention for that purpose.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with the greatest of respect to my noble friend, that forms the basis of another Question and I could not very well answer it under this Question.

COMMON MARKET NEGOTIATIONS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Common Market negotiations.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATION BILL [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, that this Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I take this opportunity to express my regret that I was not here on the Committee stage. I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I was glad that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was sympathetic to what I said. I did not have an Amendment down on the Committee stage. Nevertheless, a very important debate took place and I did not anticipate the nature of it. The debate concerned in part the position under the Islamic Law of a rather pathetic minority in this country. I am referring to the women who are subject to the Islamic divorce law. On reading the debate carefully, I realised that four of the most brilliant lawyers in the country had differed, and it was decided that the present Bill was not the proper vehicle for the Amendment.
I want once more to remind the House of the conditions of that minority which has fairly suddenly come into our midst. These women, mostly wives of the Pakistanis, come here observing certain conventions. In consequence, they are more or less confined to their houses. This, of course, results in their not acquiring our own language. They become inarticulate, fearful and very backward. Perhaps the few strangers who see them include a doctor—preferably a woman doctor—who can penetrate the household. If the woman comes to the consulting room she is generally accompanied by a small child who can speak English because the child has been to school, and who is there to interpret for the woman. Because of these conditions she does not progress.

571
This woman is subject to the Islamic Law, which means that if a man says, "I divorce you", three times she is thereby divorced. I know perfectly well that a tribunal follows; nevertheless this unfortunate woman is conscious of the fact that her lot will be precarious if she does not behave herself. In a way, I suppose her position is almost akin to that of a slave, because she can be divorced although she is not guilty of any matrimonial offence. Of course, we cannot be very self-righteous about this, because we have recently passed a law which enables the Englishman next door to divorce his wife who has not been guilty of any matrimonial offence; therefore, in that respect the Englishman and the Pakistani are equal. Nevertheless I want your Lordships to imagine the fate of this woman.
I understand that in the Koran it is said that a man who takes two, three or four wives must treat them all alike. In Pakistan that is some help to a woman, because there it would be known that a husband could not afford two or three wives; but in this country if a woman is divorced we do not allow her to starve. We do not let anybody starve. Therefore, quite rightly, she can go and get supplementary benefit from the Ministry of Health and Social Security. We find this unfortunate woman, who comes to this country without her mother, without her father, more or less friendless in this vulnerable position. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has a great deal of sympathy for these women, and I hope that because on the Committee stage we could not find a solution, in the near future he will use his very agile brain somehow to discover a means whereby these women can be helped.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to indulge in a debate at this stage, but I am discussing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whether a way can be found of amending this Bill in Committee in another place. I do not make any undertaking, but we are considering it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
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 Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) 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.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
3.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements the undertakings to abolish betterment levy and to dissolve the Land Commission given by present Ministers when in Opposition at the time the 1967 Act was going through Parliament, in the Election manifesto and subsequently in my Statement to your Lordships' House on July 22 last.
The Land Commission were established by the Land Commission Act 1967 with wide powers, under Part II, to acquire and dispose of land for development, operating through a Land Acquisition and Management Fund; and under Part III, to assess and collect a levy (known as betterment levy) on the development value realised in land transactions or at the start of development. The Commission began to exercise these functions on April 6, 1967, the first appointed day under that Act.
On the land side, this Bill abolishes the Land Acquisition and Management

573
Fund (at the same time writing off its outstanding debts of rather less than £13 million) and charges the Secretary of State with disposing of the land held by the Commission. To facilitate this disposal, the Secretary of State is given a new power to acquire neighbouring land if necessary, though only by agreement and not by compulsory purchase as the Land Commission were able to do. On the levy side, levy is no longer to be chargeable on development and transactions as from July 23, 1970, the day after my Statement. Instead, powers will be taken in the 1971 Finance Act to collect a percentage of development value since July 22 through other taxation legislation.
Allowing for the lengthy processes of notification, assessment and possible altercation, including reference to the Lands Tribunal, we expect it will lake two or three years to collect all the outstanding levy due in respect of development and transactions prior to July 23 last year. To allow for its collection by the Land Commission up to the time of the abolition of the Commission (we hope to make May 1 the appointed day) and by the Secretary of State after that, most of Parts III and IV of the Land Commission Act have had to be retained, including 12 of the original 17 lengthy Schedules. The Bill contains powers for these to be repeated by order in due course so as to tidy up the Statute Book once the provisions have been spent.
Turning now from that general summary to the detailed contents of the Bill, Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. Subsection (1) of that clause makes betterment levy no longer chargeable in respect of acts or events after July 22, 1970. It empowers the Secretary of State to make an appointed day order abolishing the Land Commission—that is subsection (2)—and transfers on the appointed day the functions of the Commission and their property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State—that is subsection (3).
Here perhaps I should say that it is intended that the Secretary of State for the Environment will discharge the functions in England and Wales; and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. Subsection (4) and its associated Schedule 1 specifies some technical
574
amendments to the 1967 Act associated with the abolition of the betterment levy notifications, and repeals those parts of the Land Commission Act either already superfluous or which will become so when the Commission cease to exist. Subsection (5) facilitates the proof of instruments made by the Commission in legal proceedings.
So far as the first of these subsections is concerned—the abolition of the levy as from July 22—transactions occurring after that date will be subject to capital gains and corporation tax. Details of how that taxation will operate were set out in the Written Answer given in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on December 2, 1970. Those are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons, column 421. On subsections (2) and (3), I have already referred to our intention to make the Appointed Day Order on May 1, and from then on the Department of the Environment will be responsible for cases in England and Wales and the Scottish Development Department for cases in Scotland. As a practical matter, in order to minimise administration costs the technical work of assessment, et cetera, is being concentrated at Croydon, which is the only one of the Land Commission's offices that is being retained to wind up the Commission's affairs. On May 1 that unit will become part of the Department of the Environment. A small section at St. Andrew's House will do the corresponding work on Scottish cases.
Subsection (4) provides for the amendment or repeal of those parts of the 1967 Act that are specified in Schedule 1. The amendments and repeals are divided between those coming into operation on the passing of the Act (Parts I and II of Schedule 1) and those coming into effect from the appointed day (Part III); that is to say, when the Land Commission are dissolved. The subsection also provides that as from the appointed day the 1967 Act shall have effect as amended by this Bill. This enables the Secretary of State to use such of the powers of that Act as he requires to discharge his winding up functions, notably assessment of some £9 million worth of levy and the collection of £27 million worth. Where the powers under the 1967 Act will no longer be needed, those sections and complete

575
Parts are being repealed now, and the Secretary of State is empowered to repeal the remainder by Order, laid in draft, when they are finally spent. So much for Clause 1.
Clause 2 is the financial clause of the Bill, winding up the Land Acquisition and Management Fund, requiring all future sums received by the Secretary of State to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and providing for the use of voted monies to carry out the functions and meet the liabilities he is taking over from the Land Commission. It is expected that the debts of the Fund will amount to rather less than £13 million, together with a small amount of interest accumulated since the last interest payment was made. Subsection (1)(b) of Clause 2 provides for this debt to be extinguished, the effect of which is to add to the amount of the Consolidated Fund's residual liability for the National Debt. As the Commission's land assets, vested in the Secretary of State under Clause 1(3), are sold off, some £8½ million should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Subsection (2) of Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to pay into the Consolidated Fund all receipts from betterment levy, after deducting, as the Land Commission now do, any necessary monies for repayments where, for example, levy was overcharged or wrongly charged; and, of course, receipts from the sale of land. In addition to the usual accounts and reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is the Secretary of State's intention to set out in due course in a departmental publication an account of the winding up of the Commission's affairs.
Turning to Clause 3, your Lordships will see that this is about land disposal. It requires the Secretary of State to dispose of the Commission's land holdings in such a way as appears to him expedient in the public interest, and it prohibits the acquisition of any more land, apart from land needed to facilitate disposal of those holdings. Any such acquisition would have to be by agreement, as the clause specifically rules out compulsory purchases for this purpose. Provision is made for monies to be voted by Parliament, like all the other expenses of winding up the Commission and the levy, and, as I have said, Clause 2 has
576
already provided that the sums received for the land in due course will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The general policy will be to dispose of the land as quickly as possible, consistent with the need to do so to the best advantage and in an orderly manner, and the Land Commission (having where practicable given the original owners first offer) already have this in hand through a series of public auctions. Some parcels of land may have to be held for a period of years because of lease complications or to enable the best disposal of them to be made—for example, as serviced building land—but the general aim is to dispose of as much as possible right away.
Subsection (1) of Clause 3 makes it clear that this does not prejudice the power of the Commission, or the Secretary of State, to complete purchases initiated before the passing of the Act. This is necessary because some of these acquisitions will not have been completed by the appointed day, and the Secretary of State must have power to carry on with these transactions to which he has been committed. It may be necessary for the Secretary of State (or, between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, the Commission) to acquire additional land near land already owned by the Commission, in order to be able to dispose of the Commission's land to the best advantage—for example, land to round off a site or to form an additional access to a site. Powers to do this are contained in subsection (2). We do not in fact expect to make extensive use of this provision. Clause 4 makes the normal provision made by successive Governments in respect of members of public boards.
It is the Government's intention that the legislation concerning the Land Commission shall be repealed when this can be appropriately done. Clause 5 provides for the repeal without the need for a further Bill when it appears to the Secretary of State that the legislation is no longer needed. As it may be some years before all disputed levy cases have been determined and the levy collected, and because it may also be some years before the last claim for compensation has been settled in respect of land acquired by the Commission, no Order can be made under this clause in the near future. When an Order is made, it

577
will be in effect little more than an Appointed Day Order for tidying up the Statute Book, because the remaining provisions of the Land Commission Act 1967 and the other enactments will be spent. It will be laid in draft before Parliament.
Clause 6 deals with the consequential amendments and repeals to other Acts by bringing in Schedules 2 and 3. Subsection (1) of Clause 6 introduces Schedule 2, which amends parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1969. This retains the definition of the date when a development is taken to be begun, so that the provisions of these Acts (and also the Transport (London) Act 1969) about a time limit on planning permissions may continue to operate; and also in its appendices sets out in full provisions in the Planning Acts about general vesting declarations which refer, as a sort of shorthand, to certain sections of the Land Commission Act. Subsection (2) introduces Schedule 3, which makes the necessary associated repeals in the two Town and Country Planning Acts, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 and the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
Clause 7 covers the short title, interpretation and extent. Subsection (2) of that clause defines "appointed day" as the day on which the Land Commission are abolished and the Secretary of State takes over. Subsection (3) provides that, except in so far as it repeals Section 1(5) of the 1967 Act, the Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. This is because the 1967 Act itself did not cover Northern Ireland.
My Lords, I doubt whether there is any need for me to go through the Schedules in any detail or at all as I have, I hope, already made sufficient reference to them, and to their purpose and their contents, in the course of going through the clauses. I hope that that will be a sufficient explanation of the purposes and the contents of the Bill which I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but may I ask one question which I think is important because some of us have seen this kind of thing happen before. When
578
these parcels of land are being dispersed and put up for auction, will the Minister ensure that the maximum amount of publicity is given, in the ordinary Press and elsewhere, so that everybody will have an opportunity and not only those concerned with land and particular professional people, who may gain this information much more easily than the layman in this avenue of public affairs? Has the Minister got the point I am trying to make?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I have got the point, but I have not anything to add to the process which I described; namely, that the land is first offered to the owner, then to the local authorities, and then at public auction. All public auction involves publicity.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)

E.E.C.: BRUSSELS MEETING DISCUSSIONS
4.2 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like, with permission, to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is making in another place. This is Mr. Rippon's Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the meeting with the European Economic Community which I attended in Brussels on March 16.
"We noted the progress that continues to be made in meetings at the level of the Deputies, and in discussions with the Commission, on a number of questions such as capital movements, fiscal harmonisation, the modalities of British participation in the European Investment Bank, the method of agricultural transition, and the question of tariff quotas on certain commodities of importance to British industry. We noted also that exploratory contacts on the Community's common fisheries policy, which are without prejudice to our position generally on this issue, would continue between the Commission and the British Delegation.
"I reiterated to the meeting the importance of the problems of New Zealand and of sugar from the developing Commonwealth. On the

579
latter I recalled the extent of the dependence of these countries on sugar; the impossibility of their being able to diversify their production in the foreseeable future; the fact that this is not only an economic but a human problem with alternative employment to that in the sugar industry difficult to find; the need for certainty about future markets in order to assure the necessary financial credits; and the need to ensure the economic and political stability of the countries concerned.
"On New Zealand I stressed that, as with sugar, we were not seeking special economic benefits for the United Kingdom but provisions for reasonable access by New Zealand for dairy products to the enlarged Community as a whole. Nor were we seeking permanent arrangements for New Zealand's dairy produce, but continuing arrangements subject to review. I emphasised the efficiency of the New Zealand industry, the extent of her dependence on those exports, and the difficulty in the way of diversification either of products or of markets.
"I felt certain that on both these questions an acceptable and equitable solution was essential, not least in the interest of the enlarged Community's relationships with the outside world.
"M. Schumann, speaking on behalf of the Community, said that it was accepted in principle that special arrangements needed to be made to deal with each of these problems.
"I noted that the Community had proposed for agricultural transition a period of somewhat over four years proceeding in five steps. I recalled that we had said we needed a full five years for this process. We shall have to revert to this question.
"I reminded the Community that we were still waiting for their proposals on the question of our contribution to the Community's budget.
"I suggested that it was entirely reasonable and possible that we should reach agreement on the main issues at or shortly after the next Ministerial meeting. It was agreed that the Ministerial meeting already scheduled for May 11 should be extended to include
580
also the afternoon of May 12; and that a further Ministerial meeting might be arranged for later in May. Meetings of Deputies will in the meantime take place regularly to prepare the ground for these Ministerial meetings.
It was certainly disappointing that, in the absence of any proposals from the Community it was not possible to make progress at Tuesday's meeting. But I think the agreement that Ministers should meet for a longer period in May reflects the feeling of the Conference that real progress should be possible in that month, not only on the sort of issues I mentioned at the outset of this statement but on the major decisions which are crucial to the success of the negotiations.
"The House will know that earlier this month I visited Ottawa and Washington for discussions with the Canadian and United States Governments both of which have a close interest in our negotiations for entry into the Community.
"On March 5 I met Canadian Ministers, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce, and discussed with them the specific aspects of the negotiations which relate to Canada. In particular, we discussed the problem of the Caribbean. I emphasised our belief that an enlarged Community would be in the interest of all members of the Commonwealth, and our desire to work for liberal trading policies towards their countries.
"We also discussed agricultural questions, linked with the introduction of the interim levy scheme about which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture made a Statement to the House yesterday.
"On March 8 I met members of the United States Administration, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce; and, at the White House, Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Peterson. In Washington my talks covered much the same ground as in Ottawa.
"I emphasised the need for satisfactory arrangements for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries in the event

581
of our entry into the Community. I said that it seemed to me that association of these countries with an enlarged Community would be the best means of securing their interests, but that they should not, as I told the House on February 22, be obliged to choose in any way between Europe and the United States. The Americans are of course concerned about their trade with these countries, and I hope I succeeded in allaying some of their anxieties.
"As in Ottawa I discussed with the United States' Administration the Government's interim levy scheme. For the longer term we also discussed the possible commercial effects on the United States, especially in the agricultural field, of the enlargement of the Community.
"In Canada and the United States I found that both Governments reaffirmed their traditional support for our efforts to join the Community."
My Lords, that concludes Mr. Rippon's Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving us this Statement. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been to the United States and to Canada, to discuss particularly the Caribbean problems which will arise on our entry into the Common Market. I am pleased, too, about the stress on the point that we should continue to ask for liberal trading policies between all the countries concerned. I am particularly pleased with the words of the Chancellor in relation to sugar and the dairy products of New Zealand. I hope that the debate we had in your Lordships' House will be of particular benefit to the Government in their negotiations. However, I cannot help feeling that the more salient words of this Statement are contained in the passage in which the Chancellor says it is
"disappointing that, in the absence of any proposals from the Community it was not possible to make progress at Tuesday's meeting."
The Caribbean countries in particular were anxious about, and were looking forward to news of, Tuesday's meeting. Those countries will now have to wait without any knowledge at all about how
582
negotiations will go until, at the very earliest, May next.
I hope that the Government will stress to our friends in the E.E.C. that in these negotiations time is neither on their side nor on ours, and that the British public are becoming slightly restive, in the sense that they feel that the E.E.C. countries do not wish us to enter, as perhaps some of us on this side of the House and noble Lords opposite feel that this country should enter, the Common Market. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will stress that time is of very considerable importance. It appears to me that the day and a half that seems to have been allowed for the Ministerial meeting in the middle of May, with a possible further meeting at the end of May is utterly inadequate when one considers all the important matters that have to be considered and solutions arrived at. I think that Her Majesty's Government should make it clear to the Governments of the E.E.C. that time is not on our side, and that the month of May should be a period in which all the parties interested should concert and put all their efforts into finding a solution.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, intervenes, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his reception of the Statement which I have just repeated. May I add that in very large part I share the views he has expressed about the need for seeing our way through these negotiations without any undue delay? I think there is uncertainty, not only in this country and the Commonwealth countries affected but also in the Six themselves. And the sooner we can bring this state of uncertainty to, I hope, a successful conclusion, the better it will be, I think, for everybody concerned.
Having said that, I would merely remind the noble Lord of something of which he is very well aware, and that is that the Brussels rhythm is traditionally a rather slow one. This is something of a fact of life, and it is not exceptionally surprising that as we move towards the heart of the negotiations on the three great issues of Community finance, New Zealand and sugar, progress at times should seem, if not be, rather slow. But I think the noble Lord slightly underestimated the importance of the time

583
which has now been allotted in May. It may not be enough, but it is a great deal more than has been the pattern in the negotiations up until now. There will be the extra day at the end of May, and I would remind the noble Lord that, meanwhile, there will be meetings at the Deputy level and through all the bilateral channels which are open and which, I am confident, will be fully used during that period.
4.13 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, these periodic situation reports, as it were, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are very welcome, though we must confess that usually, if not always, they add hardly anything to our information beyond that which we have already read in the Press. So far as we can see (though I should be grateful if the noble Earl could confirm this), the Six, apparently on French insistence, have not so far come an inch to meeting us in regard to sugar or New Zealand exports. All that M. Schumann has stated, apparently, is that both these questions will have to be covered by special arrangements. But it may well be that the arrangements eventually proposed will be totally unacceptable. It also appears, from what we hear, that it is the French who are preventing the Six as a whole from putting forward any figure in relation to our contribution to the Central Agricultural Fund. This has naturally resulted in an impasse. Therefore, would the Government agree that this impasse can be ended only by some willingness on the part of the Six—and that is to say on the part of the French—to put forward some counter-proposal to ours for discussion?
Finally, would not the Government perhaps agree that it is high time for them to come out with some major statement of policy drawing attention to the need, in the general interest, of rising above the present rather sordid bargaining atmosphere and of concentrating on the real issue, which is, at any rate as we on these Benches think, the creation in Western Europe of some body, representative of the general will, that will, apart from favouring economic progress, also provide for a common foreign and defence policy? In other words, would it not soon be possible for the Prime
584
Minister and the French President to try to get the whole debate on to a rather higher plane?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I think I should confine myself to saying (I do not think I would wish to go into the merits of the position of individual countries within the Six) that it is our hope, and our expectation, that between now and May we shall be learning what is the position of the Six on these three important issues. I very much hope that this will be the case. I personally share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn: that it is important that all the countries of the Six, and also the countries who are wishing to negotiate their way into the enlarged Community, should constantly bear in mind the wider considerations which are at stake here. In saying that, I do not for one second underestimate the importance of the issues under negotiation, but there are—and here I am in full agreement with the noble Lord—underlying considerations of the very greatest importance. I hope very much that all of us will bear these in mind.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whether he agrees that it is becoming increasingly obvious that on the outstanding issues of finance, Commonwealth sugar and New Zealand, the French, despite the smooth language of M. Pompidou and M. Schumann, are concerned primarily about the protection of French interests, which are contrary to United Kingdom and Commonwealth interests? In those circumstances, would not the noble Earl agree with me that if it is impossible to overcome the impasse which may well arise during the negotiations in May, it might be worth while deciding not to proceed any further? Would it not also be advisable, in view of the confusion, the misunderstandings, the equivocations, and so on, surrounding this very intricate problem of the negotiations, to tell the people of this country exactly what, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, would be regarded as acceptable terms which would justify British entry?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has spoken in such soft, mellifluous and honeyed terms that I might almost be tempted to

585
agree with him. But knowing the noble Lord's opinions on this matter, I think I should go very carefully. What I should like to say in reply to him is that I think it is far too early yet to prejudge what the final French position in these negotiations is going to be; and I would dissent from his view that there is an essential clash of interests between the French and ourselves in this matter. Bearing in mind the wider considerations to which I have referred, I think that our interests here are parallel.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, in view of the paucity of Ministerial time devoted to these discussions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has drawn attention, and which I think must be patent to all of us and a matter of great anxiety, may I ask whether it has been made clear to the representatives of the Six that British Ministers would be prepared to spend more time?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I would point out that it was at the request of my right honourable friend that the Ministers of the Six agreed—and I am very glad that they did agree—to allot a great deal more time to the May meetings than they have done in the case of earlier meetings. I am certain I can speak for my right honourable friend when I say that he is prepared to spend as much time as need be in order to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion—which means a conclusion that is acceptable to us; and only one which is on fair and equitable terms is acceptable to us.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement to the House, but it contains nothing that we hitherto did not know. Therefore, may I ask him whether he and his colleagues in the Government think that this state of flux is doing the country any good during this difficult transition period? I hope he will believe me when I say that those of us who may be critical of entry into Europe are not adopting this position merely with a view of making carping criticisms, but that we are seeking the truth. It would help us if the Government told us the price which they think should be paid.
586
Finally, is the noble Earl aware that those of us who are interested in the tropical agricultural industry—such as that in Fiji which some of us, including my noble friend on the Front Bench, recently helped to get into the Commonwealth—feel that something must be done to create a positive sense of credibility for this Government and this country at the present moment? From the letters I am receiving, it appears that people are shattered at the progress of these talks. Could we not declare a moratorium on the whole damned thing for a couple of years, until the country gets strong and get down to the job of getting this country on its feet?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is our belief, as it was the belief of the previous Government, that it would be to the fundamental economic advantage of this country if these negotiations were successful. Because of that, I am not able to accept the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I speak as one who is desperately anxious that these negotiations should succeed, but it seems to me that we are working under a very considerable handicap—as my noble friend Lord Shepherd and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, pointed out—if there is a specific time of a day and a half set aside for these discussions, in which we are expected to come to decisions. Ought not the matter to be left rather more open, so that enough time will be available to discuss these matters properly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I personally have a great deal of sympathy with the views which the noble Lord has expressed, but of course this does not depend upon Her Majesty's Government alone or Her Majesty's Ministers.

LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
4.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has given us a very full account of the Government's views on this measure, and I hope that we shall not

587
take up too much time over what is a miserable little Bill. The gravest problems in the field of housing are undoubtedly twofold; first, the lack of building land; and, secondly, the escalating cost of land. But this is a Bill which is not designed or even intended to deal effectively with either of these two problems. It is simply an act of wanton destruction made necessary by the Conservatives' Election Manifesto, though it is clear, from oral Answers in the House to-day, that they are going to be extremely selective in the choice of what obligations they are going to honour and what they are going to ignore.
They have acted in this matter in pursuance of a vendetta that they have carried on for the past three years against the Land Commission and its staff. So I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not join with the Government in thanking the staff of the Land Commission or the Commission itself, because I believe that the Government's thanks will seem to the men and women concerned to have a very hollow ring. Certainly, such heat as Mr. Page injected into the Second Reading debate in another place was more the heat of hatred than the warmth of appreciation. Therefore, my Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I tender quite separate thanks for all that the Commission and its staff have done in the face of what virtually amounted to sabotage by the then Opposition in the last Parliament. Having known and worked with the Land Commission since its creation, I hope that my own thanks at least will be recognised by them as being genuine thanks.
I think that this is a seedy, vindictive little Bill. It will not have escaped the notice of many noble Lords, and it will certainly not have escaped the notice of the more politically educated members of the public, that in this century radical Governments have tried on four occasions to deal with the land problem. Lloyd-George's great Liberal Government set out to ensure that the public would benefit, in part at least, from increases in land values which were due to the energy and enterprise of the community. Those are the words that he used; and the House will know what
588
subsequently happened. In 1931 the Labour Government, in its Finance Act, set up machinery to tax land values. A Conservative Government repealed those provisions. In 1947 my noble friend Lord Silkin, who I am glad to know is going to speak later in this debate, created a development charge, and this, too, was repealed by the Conservative Party a few years later. In 1967 the Land Commission Act established the Land Commission and provided for a betterment levy. The purpose had been defined in a White Paper as being,
"to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community."
In order to stop that from being done, we now have this vindictive measure, which is probably the most complicated Bill of its size that I have seen in a fairly long Parliamentary life. There are only seven clauses, but there are three Schedules, one with three Parts, another with two appendices, and a third with two Parts. The Bill itself takes less than three pages; the Schedules take 15 pages and are almost incomprehensible.
Moreover, in some respects the Bill is retrospective. In other respects we shall have to wait for the Finance Bill, when we shall have more retrospective legislation. The Secretary of State is taking to himself great powers which are to be exercised by Statutory Instrument, including, indeed, the abolition of the Commission itself. He will be, in a manner of speaking, the Land Commission and he, as planning Minister, will have to decide appeals against decisions which he, as the Land Commission, has taken.
But I think there is little point in considering in detail the effect that this mass of muddled verbiage is going to have, and I prefer to devote the time to putting on record the achievements of the Land Commission as I see them. The Commission has had only three short years of life. Staff had to be recruited and trained. It had to survey land throughout the country and, in consultation with local authorities, decide where land was needed. It had to undergo all the delays which are, I think rightly, inevitable in any compulsory purchase order machinery. In the early days, moreover, a number of anomalies had to be put right and, thanks largely to the perseverance and the kindliness of

589
Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Kenneth Robinson, that was done in the Finance Act 1969.
On many occasions the Conservative Party has argued that the betterment levy put up land prices. There is no evidence to support that point of view. The price of land is determined by its availability and by how much the market will stand. If this results in a high price, it seems to me to be proportionately more reasonable to provide that 40 per cent. of the development profit should go to the State, thus symbolising by a reasonable compromise that both the community and the individual have contributed towards that profit. The new proposal of a capital gains tax of 30 per cent. will be a wholly inadequate substitute and, if my arithmetic is correct, the Secretary of Slate will be depriving the Exchequer in the next two years of over £40 million. Moreover, if betterment levy did put up the price of land it would be reasonable to assume that the abolition of the levy would cause a reduction in the price of land. But I am prepared to place a small wager that we are not going to see that during the period of a Conservative Government.
There is one further point. The success of the Land Commission must not be judged merely by the acreage it bought. The very fact of its existence, as I know from my own experience, tended to make land more readily available than would otherwise have been the case. It is not without significance that the judgment of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers was that the Commission was perhaps in existence for too short a time to help in securing that the right land was available at the right time, and they conceded that the Commission had done good work.
I should like to give just three quick examples of some of the achievements of the Land Commission. The first is in respect of a tract of badly-developed land between the Medway towns and the M.2 which the Kent County Council wanted to use for the urban expansion which will be necessary in that county. Much of the land had been sold fifty years ago in small plots, and many of the owners had disappeared. The County Council invited the Land Commission to help by buying the whole site and putting in the spine roads which were needed before development could take place. The
590
second example is a 1,000 acre site near Teesside where the planning authority asked the Land Commission to buy and prepare the land for development. Lastly, there was a case in which the Surrey County Council asked the Land Commission's help in developing land near Woking which had been used as a horticultural nursery and where the water table was only 18 inches below the surface.
Mr. Derek Senior, who writes with some authority on these matters, has described what happened in this way—and I think it is a good example of how the Land Commission worked:
"Asked to help, the Land Commission agreed to buy it up (from willing sellers)"—
that is, the land—
"drain it by creating a 15-acre lake (by arrangement with the Thames Conservancy), put in spine roads to an agreed comprehensive plan, and sell to private developers willing to conform with that plan."
I believe that those three examples show that the Land Commission has been a great deal more successful than most of the organs of public opinion or the Party opposite have been prepared to concede.
My Lords, members of the present Government have given proof that in some respects they have seen wisdom, but I am afraid that this is not one of those instances. I wish they could be persuaded to think again, but I do not think there is very much hope of that. If the Government want to throw away what could be one of the most valuable instruments at their disposal, nothing that we can say is likely to stop them from doing so. So, my Lords, the Bill will go on its way, but it will certainly not go with the blessing of noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House.
4.34 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, at the funeral of the Land Commission there are very few mourners either in your Lordships' House or in the country at large. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has said that the Bill now before us is not designed or even intended to further the objectives of housing policy. Let us examine the objectives of the Land Commission Act, which it is designed eventually to repeal. In the White Paper published

591
in 1965 in advance of the Land Commission Bill, the Labour Government said:
"The two main objectives of the Government's land policy are … (1) to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans; (2) to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced."
My Lords, I would defy anybody to claim that in these three or four years either of those objectives has been secured.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, sought to escape from the charge by saying that the Land Commission must not be judged by the acreage it bought. But certainly his Government's stated objective was to secure that the right land should become available at the right time; and it is at least significant that in three years, according to the information given recently in another place, the Land Commission acquired only 2,800 acres, and made only 320 acres of that land available to builders. That seems a derisorily small direct contribution to solving the problems of the house builders; and the indirect influence which the noble Lord said that the existence of the Land Commission exercised must have been very great indeed if it was to offset the failure of the hopes of those who founded the Commission that it would directly make land available.
The noble Lord said there was no evidence that the price of land was raised by the betterment levy. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the three years of the Land Commission's existence the price of land did rise faster than, so far as I am aware, in any previous period of three years in the country's history, and that since the present Government announced that the Land Commission was to be abolished the rise in the price of land has steadied. I am not seeking to establish any of these as absolute proofs, but nevertheless there is significance in all of them. The previous Government claimed, indeed, that the existence of a Land Commission was going to reduce the cost of land. It was extraordinarily hard for any of us, at the time when the 1967 Bill was before us, to conceive how that was to be done. The only possible clue seemed to reside in the idea of con-
592
cessionary crownhold, which that Bill included. My information is that concessionary crownhold proved so extraordinarily complex in practice that it never operated, and therefore the one positive instrument in the 1967 Act to reduce the cost of land never came into action.
The betterment levy in practice proved unfair and a cause of hardship to people who were in no sense speculators. In my life I have thought a great deal about betterment levy. Before there was any capital gains tax I could always see a strong theoretical case for a tax on betterment or development value. But I had come to the conclusion—indeed I said this in another place, I remember, in 1959—that for various reasons, which I then adduced, it was literally impossible to translate this theory into practice in a way that would be reasonably fair; and I believe the experience of the last three or four years has proved that again.
The betterment levy is founded on the theory that development value is created by the community, and those who uphold that theory would impose a tax at a flat rate on development value or betterment value. There was a 100 per cent. tax under the Act of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in 1947; there was a 40 per cent. tax, threatening to rise further, under the 1967 Act. But, my Lords, what those who uphold this idea of taxing betterment value or development value seem to slur over is that the amount of the increase in the value of land which is actually created by the community may range from something like 95 per cent. down to virtually a nil part of the increase, and therefore any flat rate tax will always be unfair.
Also, the taxation of development value in the 1967 Act was in truth retrospective taxation, because it taxed development value which in very many cases had been accruing over many years past, unlike capital gains tax, which does not go further back than 1965. A capital gains tax will not bring in so much revenue, but it will be much fairer in operation. It will bring in less money because, as I have said, it will not tax that part of increased value which accrued before 1965, and it will not fall on owner-occupiers. Some of the greatest hardship under the 1967 Act and the betterment

593
levy therein has fallen on owner-occupiers. When your Lordships' House, four and a half years ago, voted to exempt owner-occupiers from liability, we were overruled by another place. Experience has proved how right we were.
The application of the single capital gains tax, instead of the combination of capital gams tax and betterment levy, will also vastly simplify the law, which was unnecessarily complicated by the interaction of the two. I was struck by Lord Greenwood's remark that this short Bill was a complicated one, and that it was "a mass of muddled verbiage". He tempts me to recall to your Lordships one sentence out of the 1967 Act which I ventured to read during the Second Reading debate on the Bill which became that Act. It is only one sentence, but I must draw a long breath before starting on it. It is to be found in paragraph 23(2) of Schedule 8 to the Land Commission Act 1967:
"If the operative provision in question is paragraph 8, then for the purpose of calculating the appropriate deduction paragraph 19 or, as the case may be, paragraph 21 of this Schedule shall apply as if the taxable disposal which occurred had been the first separate disposal and not the relevant taxable disposal, and accordingly as if—

(a) in paragraph 19 of this Schedule (where that paragraph is applicable) any reference to the chargeable gain which accrued on the taxable disposal in question were a reference to so much of the chargeable gain which accrued on the relevant taxable disposal as is properly attributable to the first separate disposal, and

(b) in paragraph 21 of this Schedule (where that paragraph is applicable) any reference to the chargeable gain which would have been taken to accrue on the taxable disposal in question if the assumed tax condition had been fulfilled in relation to it were a reference to so much of the chargeable gain which in those circumstances would have been taken to accrue on the relevant taxable disposal as is properly attributable to the first separate disposal."

And the noble Lord said that this short Bill, introduced by my noble friend, is a mass of muddled verbiage! One of the virtues of my noble friend's Bill is that the provisions in Clause 5 will eventually lead to the removal from the Statute Book of that single sentence which I have just read out.
My Lords, one of the saddest effects of the 1967 Act was the ill-will that it created between the Land Commission
594
and local authorities. The Government which put the Act on the Statute Book said that it was designed to help local authorities; but in fact the local authorities soon thought otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has just quoted three cases where, he said, the Land Commission was able to help the local authorities. They were, I think, almost precisely the same three cases as were quoted on behalf of the Opposition on Second Reading in another case. I do not know whether that is an indication that there were not many to choose from.
When the Land Commission Bill was first introduced in 1966, I hoped that the Commission might be of some use in helping inexperienced local authorities to acquire blocks of urban land for redevelopment. I had realised that inexperienced authorities were liable to come up against difficulties in that field and that the Land Commission would be expert. Instead of that, however, the Land Commission seems to me to have gone in too largely for a policy of trying to force councils to approve undeveloped land for building which the councils, as the planning authorities, thought ought not to be approved for development. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, quoted two cases arising in Kent and Surrey; but, certainly on such information as I have, the Kent and Surrey County Councils were by no means enthusiastic supporters of the Land Commission. On the contrary, they felt that the Land Commission took views on planning and development which were contrary to their own. So, instead of smoothing the path of the local authorities, it created extra friction for them.
My Lords, I believe that democratically elected local authorities are responsible bodies that know their own localities best. The Minister should seek to guide them by advice, as the present Secretary of State for the Environment has done by his recent circular, but he should not set up a Government agency to force them against their better judgment. When we had the Second Reading debate on the Bill that became the 1967 Act the Government spokesman said:
"Is it too colourful a claim to say that the Land Commission … is to protect the weak against the strong? I think not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/11/66; col. 1168.]

595
I am unaware of any case during the four and a half years since then in which weak people have actually felt that they were effectively protected by the Land Commission against the strong. It simply has not worked out in that way.
I know that in politics it is always unwise to make forecasts; but just occasionally one has the satisfaction of having a forecast fulfilled. In that debate I said:
"… I forecast that much of this measure, well-intended as part of it is, will suffer the same fate as the 1947 100 per cent. development charge did. It will get hated for itself, and public opinion will turn so strongly against it that hardly anyone, even in the Party opposite, will regret its demise when it is repealed by a Government with greater common sense and understanding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/11/66, col. 1101.]
My Lords, that is exactly what has happened.
4.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is rather remarkable that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who introduced this Bill said not one word about its merits. He laboriously explained each clause and each subsection and talked about the various appendices to the Bill; but not a single word did he say in justification, except a reference to a mandate. May I say just a word about mandates in general? I wonder whether any single person voted for the Conservative Party because of an alleged mandate to abolish the Land Commission. I doubt it very much. Indeed, the Act itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has been at pains to explain, was so difficult and so complicated that he himself did not understand it. I cannot imagine, therefore, that anybody would have given his vote on the strength of what is called a mandate. I wonder, also, how many Members of Parliament who have been elected said specifically in their election address that they were going to repeal this 1967 Act. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply can tell me, but I doubt very much whether there were half a dozen Members of Parliament who actually referred to this subject in their election addresses.
Moreover, the noble Lord and his friends have challenged fate by stating a very large number of things that they
596
intend to do, for which presumably they will say they have a mandate. I doubt whether they will do half of them. From time to time we shall have occasion to remind them of some of the mandates which they say they have been given. Apart from that, my Lords, not a word was said by the noble Lord in justification of this measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made a gallant attempt to show that the 1967 Act had failed and that he had forecast that it would fail. Did he forecast that he would give it only a three-year trial? Does he really justify repealing an Act which has only just got into its stride, only just set up the necessary machinery and is just getting on collecting development charges and acquiring land? He referred to 2,800 acres of land that the Commission had acquired. He did not tell us of the 9,000 acres which they had agreed to acquire and which would have been acquired in the fairly near future. Nor did he tell us of the 16,000 acres of land in the pipeline. If you count all that, then that is not bad going for three years.
The justification for the Land Commission's acquiring land in this way was that it was primarily to help the small builder; it was not to help the local authorities unless they definitely sought help—and in a number of cases they did. But when we realise that 40 per cent. of the houses of this country are erected by small builders employing fewer than twenty people and that these small builders are finding it extremely difficult to get the necessary land, we realised that the Land Commission had a real public function to perform in acquiring land in order to help them. The building industry recognised that; my noble friend Lord Greenwood quoted from one of their statements. It is a fact within my own knowledge that the building industry very much regretted that the Land Commission were no longer in existence in order to help them to acquire the necessary land and to secure continuity in their operations. The larger builders are well supplied: many of them have seven years' supply of land available—and that is not a liability because that land has been constantly appreciating in value. But the small builder is not in that position;

597
and 40 per cent. of the houses are built by the small builder. So that there was not only ample justification but a real need for some authority to have the necessary power to acquire land in this way.
It is now said that the local authorities can do it. Of course, they always could do it; but they never did and they never will, because it means the outlay of money from their ratepayers. At times it may mean acquiring land outside their own area. There is no reason why they should put themselves out to help the small builder. And if I may make a prophecy, as did the noble Lord, to be read in three years' time, then I will say that not one acre of land will be provided by the local authorities to help the small builder to carry out his excellent work in providing 40 per cent. of the houses that are built in this country.
Now, my Lords, I want to say a word about the development charge. It is said that here you have two instruments, the Land Commission and the capital gains tax, for the carrying out of this function and that they are doing much the same job. They are not doing much the same job; they are doing quite different jobs. The purpose of the capital gains tax is to acquire a proportion of the net profits made not only by the land developers but by everybody. In the case of capital gains one is enabled to set off losses against profits; it has nothing to do with the services of the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made very light of the part played by the community in creating value; but if you take a piece of land and leave it as it is, it will not appreciate in value unless you provide the necessary services like roads, sewers and drains and all the facilities such as schools and so on required for a population. Unless those facilities are provided, that land will not appreciate in value. The land appreciates in value only because of the efforts of the community and because of the expense to which the community is put. It seems to me reasonable that the person who gains from the efforts of the community should make a contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that the contribution of the community varies from very little to a great deal. He might have had a case for recognising that in relation to the development
598
charge. But what case has he got where, as he admits, 90 per cent. of the increased value is due to the efforts of the community? He is taking a case where perhaps 3 per cent, or less was due to the efforts of the community; but in the case where 90 per cent. of the value is contributed by the community—and I would say that in a vast majority of cases a very substantial amount of the value, though not all of it, is due to the community—is it not just that the person who benefits should make a contribution?
The noble Lord also talked about hardship. Hardship to whom? Surely this levy is imposed only on people who gained as a result of development which has been permitted. It is a proportion of the gain that they have made. I cannot see the hardship in that—even in the case of widows, who are always trotted out as great examples of hardship. Not all widows are hard up, anyway. But in those cases the widow has made a gain as a result of being given permission to develop and there is no reason why she should not make her contribution. In fact, the Commission have been very reasonable—I could almost say "compassionate"—in casing matters for people who found it difficult to make a payment at once. In many cases they have reduced the demand, with authority or not: they have been very gentle with people who have made the profit but found it difficult to meet the development charge. And I would point out that the development charge is not imposed except where there is planning permission to develop. In cases where development can take place without planning permission, no development charge is levied; but they are subject to capital gains tax.
My Lords, I must confess—and I hope that I am looking at the thing fairly; although I might be thought to be prejudiced in favour of some kind of levy—that I cannot see that there is any hardship to anybody in making this contribution towards the expenditure of the community in making their land viable and capable of being put to the best use. Like my noble friend, I am afraid that what I am saying is largely wasted, because I imagine that this Bill will go through, and that we are not even going to vote against the Second Reading, for reasons perfectly well understood in this House. But we very much deplore

599
this. If I may make another prophecy, in the not too distant future there will be a fifth attempt to impose some kind of levy on those who obtain planning permission and benefit from it at the expense of the community.
5.0 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, I cannot helping feeling that this is really not so much a Bill as a chopper. That is the instrument that the Party opposite usually bring into play when any question of land reform is under discussion. Nevertheless, I must say that I felt sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in having to bring such a (as my noble friend Lord Greenwood called it) miserable little Bill before this House, framed in the way that it is. There is one assurance—that is not quite the right word, but it is the only one I can think of—that I should like from the Minister, and it is this. I gather from his remarks that no legislation is contemplated to replace what is now being chopped into small pieces, and that the Government have no legislation on the stocks to bring in any kind of land reform, even if it could be made acceptable to their Party.
This particular Bill is retrospective, which itself is enough to condemn it. One must say that in the three short years of their life, the Land Commission obviously never had an opportunity to show their mettle. Anybody who has had to deal with land will understand that three years is an extremely short period indeed. I feel—and since nobody has referred to this, I propose to do so—that the Land Commission, under the distinguished leadership of Sir Henry Wells, were capable of doing a great job for the British people. That the Commission and Sir Henry have been deprived of that opportunity is something which I can only think is to be deplored.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, read an extremely difficult sentence from the Land Commission Act; and I confess that I found the Land Commission Act very difficult to follow and understand. But was there a reason? I think there was. The Land Commission Act was only necessary because Mr. Harold Macmillan, when he was the Minister of Housing and Local Government, chopped all the financial provisions of the 1947
600
Act, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Silkin and has been the cornerstone of all post-war planning, without any real regard for the effect that that would have on the other sections. But that was the difficult position in which planning had been until we came to the Land Commission. Now they also are going.
I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of my noble friends, Lord Greenwood and Lord Silkin, when they say that there will have to be another round. Another Government at another time will have to come back to this problem, when it will be even more complicated, unless some simple—but probably too drastic—solution can be found. This problem gets more and more difficult the longer it lives. But that another Government must come back to it, there can now be no question. We have tried in 1909, 1931, 1954 and now 1971. Efforts to bring land into use for the benefit of the people of this country have been thwarted by the Party opposite. That is something that I am sure will on a suitable occasion be brought to an end. That is why I particularly want to hear if the Minister can tell us whether the Government are proposing to do anything in this field of activity, or whether we may consider that, this Act having been duly buried, any question of land reform during the rest of the life of this Government is something that just will not happen.
It is interesting at this time to look at the unfolding of the policy of the Government in this way. I have always considered that two of the main supporting pillars of the modern State are, on the one hand, a contented, well-rewarded labour force with money in their pockets to spend, and, on the other hand, the provision of land for public needs rather than for private greed, to provide the necessities of the modern State for housing, education, recreation, industry, travel or whatever it may be. These things are essential. We see the Government opposite bringing a quite different approach to these important twin parts of modern life.
The question of purchasing power, of the economic strength of the workers, especially the lower paid workers, was something that had to be tackled with all the force, and vigour of the Tory Party. We know what is

601
going on in the fields of wage rates and labour relations, and we can see a Party fully extended in its efforts to bring about its own policy. But on the other great field of public activity that I have mentioned, that of bringing land forward for public use, there is, as I assume, no question of Government interference or activity. That is something which this afternoon, although we may be powerless to do much about it, we must deplore. I could tell the Minister what I think he should do with this Bill; but instead I will content myself by asking him to take away this miserable little Bill and bring back something that is worthy of one of the great Parties in the State, worthy of Government and worthy of the people they govern.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I remember that when the Land Commission was set up I said that I thought there was room for a Commission of a different kind, with ample funds, and with the sole job of redeveloping city centres. I said that because, with such knowledge as I had (I do not pretend that it was extensive), it did not seem to me that the smaller local authorities had sufficient expertise to do this by themselves. I was told—and it was quite true—that the Bill provided that one of the numerous jobs the Commission would be asked to take on was the redevelopment of city centres. But I have never heard of any such scheme being undertaken. I was interested to hear of three schemes cited by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, which are an instance of the Land Commission acting as an agency for a local authority—not entirely without some remarks, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has mentioned. The real truth is that the Land Commission does not have sufficient money to do this, or sufficient money to supply land on concessionary terms to such bodies as housing associations. The reason it does not have enough money has been to some extent touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood: he put it down to the campaign against the Land Commission and the question of time—that the Commission has not had sufficient time.
I suggest that when this Bill was introduced there was a third source of income which appealed to some branches of the Labour Party—though we have had no
602
reference to it to-day; we have a very sophisticated Back-Bench Labour representation to-day. The theory was that speculators were earning enormous profits out of buying and selling land. The argument was that if the Land Commission was to take on that job, if it could muscle in on the profits and take the profits, then there would be a lot of money available for the Commission to carry out all these various functions. It has surprised me that not one word about speculators has been heard to-day. People who know about this know that there was not much in that argument. I was for twenty years chairman of a town planning committee, and I never met such a person as was talked about in that debate.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I interrupt? Has not the noble Lord, in his experience, come across land which has an agricultural value, which was given planning permission to develop, and became worth 20, 30 or 40 times as much as it was before?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I agree that that has happened. I am challenging the existence of these sinister people who, by deliberate intention, set about making money in that way. I agree that a number of people have profited, more by luck than anything, by reason of this increase in value. We all agree that that increase should be taxed; I do not think there is any difficulty about that.
On the question of the finances of the Land Commission, I hope that somebody can explain this point. If, as in all other acquisitions of land by statutory body, the price to be paid is the district valuer's price, and if the Commission has also to sell at the district valuer's price, how can it make large profits? I know that it has the benefit of the levy. I remember the Land Commission at one time rather wistfully suggesting to local authorities that, if they did more work through the Commission's agency, the Land Commission would become richer. The scheme did not work, and I do not think it could have worked. It would have taken years, and the acquisition of enormous tracts of land, to produce through that agency enough money for the Land Commission to fulfil all these rather grandiose projects that it was asked to take on. I feel

603
that the financial structure (and I know this is not quite what the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said) of the Land Commission is unsound; and for that reason I view with equanimity its abolition and the taking over of its fiscal duties by the Board of Inland Revenue.
But, my Lords, having said that, I agree with some noble Lords opposite that the positive contributions supposed to be made by the Land Commission were good objects. I believe that city centres ought to be redeveloped on some priority basis, and that housing associations ought to be helped. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandford that these things can be done by local authorities. I also think that the task will be exceedingly difficult, particularly in areas where the market price of land is very high. People talk about the price of land as if everybody knew what it was. I once carried out some research into this subject, and I remember consulting the late Lord Cohen of Brighton (who was an authority on it), and it became quite obvious that nobody knew what the price of land was, except in particular areas which were always given great publicity.
It is impossible to say whether, by doing this, we shall put the price of land up or down. A great deal, it seems to me, depends on other measures, such as Strategy for the South-East, or these other economic plans. Clearly the high market cost of land in certain areas is going to be a very serious problem. I wish that the high cost of land were due to speculators, because speculators are comparatively easy to deal with. But when it comes to trying to reduce the market price of land, that really is a man's job, and everybody in all parts of the House will have to help to reduce it. I can only hope that in this great turmoil of local government reform, and in the financial rearrangements that are going with it, particular care will be taken to see that local authorities are at least enabled to carry out these difficult and necessary tasks.
5.18 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but having heard the contribution by the noble Viscount, I should like to point
604
out that there is land speculation in the area where I live at the present time. I live in the Solent area. A short while ago, the South-East Planning Council recommended that there should be a city region developed in the Solent area. Immediately following that, we had the Buchanan Report, and now there is a local joint planning team, sponsored by the county and the two county boroughs of Southampton and Portsmouth.
There is already speculation taking place; farms are being bought, and they are being bought in accordance with recommendations made by Buchanan. The speculators are hoping that they will make a profit out of their present-day purchases. In effect, this means that the community will pay twice, because the value of that land is created by the expenditure on roads and sewers, and the community will have to pay for both the roads and the sewers, and for the added value which those create to the land. This speculation will continue until one Government or the other find a way of dealing with it, and that is accepted by the Party in opposition at the time. Until we find a way of dealing with it, development will be very difficult. It is extremely doubtful whether the development contemplated in the Solent area can take place on economic grounds because of the speculation which is being allowed at the present time; it will prevent the future development.
5.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not a bit surprised, and I do not think any of your Lordships will be surprised, that noble Lords opposite have not found themselves able to receive this short Bill with acclaim. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and others, find the Bill difficult to understand and the Schedules incomprehensible, because the longest and most substantial part of the Schedules only consolidate provisions enacted by the previous Government. It is rather sad and surprising that the previous Minister of Housing who was the author of the words in the Act, does not understand them. I would have hoped that he, at any rate, would be the person who might be expected to.
The noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who has held such an eminent position in the

605
Greater London Council, would, I should have thought, have been among the first to take this opportunity to describe how the Land Commission have helped, if it were possible for the Land Commission to help bring forward and deal with the problems of housing where housing stress is greatest.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, may I interrupt to explain that during the currency of this Bill I have not been a member of the G.L.C.
LORD SANDFORD: But, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, knows a great deal about the affairs of Greater London and, I am sure, has as much concern as anybody for the tremendous problems of housing stress in Greater London. This, I should have thought, was a moment par excellence, if it were possible, to describe how the Land Commission have in practice helped to deal with the problems of housing stress; and I should have thought we would have heard about it from the noble Lord. But we did not. What I should like to say to him, however, is that although no legislation is contemplated to take the place of the Commission which this Bill abolishes, this does not by any means mean that the present Government are inactive or have no further plans for dealing with the problems.
May I invite the noble Lord to look particularly at Circular No. 10/70, published on December 14 of last year, where he will find set out, at a length too full for me to repeat it now, some of the measures that we are proposing and inviting local authorities to take. All I will say now is that the Press comment on this Circular has been almost overwhelmingly favourable. The builders have welcomed it and we know that a great many of the local authorities are now taking steps to discuss it in detail with all concerned.
In the course of this short debate a good deal was said, and certainly implied in the original debates on the setting up of the Land Commission, about how the Land Commission would be able to deal with the problem of those people who bought up a lot of land, hoarded it, waited for its value to increase, and stymied and hindered proper development. But, in fact, one of the first tasks which the Commission themselves carried
606
out was a land availability survey. This established that land shortages for housing were the result not of speculators hoarding it in order to make huge profits, but of the insufficiency of land with planning permission for development, particularly in the pressure areas. This was a most important finding and one of the first things the Commission themselves discovered. However, I will not say any more about land.
What I should like to turn to now is the operation of the levy—and I refer to an extract from the last Report of the Land Commission. A good deal of the debate in the earlier days was about the way in which the levy would operate so as to get at the people who were making huge profits at the expense of the rest of the community. But all questions as to whom the levy is biting upon and whom it is affecting are made quite clear if one studies the Report. One finds in the last Report that, of the 18,000 transactions on which the levy was charged, 12,500—that is just over two-thirds—concerned transactions on £5,000 or less, and the vast majority of people on whom the burden of the levy fell were therefore those of modest means, including many people who suffered real hardship as a result of it. It was for that reason that the previous Government had to ease the impact of the betterment levy in their 1969 legislation, which has already been mentioned.
At the same time as that kind of burden was falling on people of that kind, only 2½ per cent. of transactions on which levy was charged involved sums of £50,000 and above—a tiny percentage. The changes from the betterment levy to the other forms of taxation—capital gains tax and corporation tax—has the effect, in some cases, of putting up the rate at which profits are taxed in the case of large corporations, and at the same time of reducing the impact of the levy on smaller people of more modest means to whom the great bulk of these cases refer. I cannot believe that that is not a tremendous gain in fairness all round.
I should like to end this debate by paying a tribute to the staff of the Land Commission for the work they have done in administering the 1967 Act. The differences that divide us Party politically on this issue need not divide us at all

607
in paying this tribute to the staff; because, by any account, they have had an extremely difficult task to perform. It has involved most complex legislation—not incomprehensible but complex—and their dealings with the public in administering it have shown humanity and understanding in circumstances which, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has o well illustrated, have been highly controversial and complex.
My Lords, in closing my remarks I would reiterate what in fact it is we believe we are doing with this Bill. We are restoring the situation where decisions about bringing land forward for development rest where they ought always to be: with the democratically elected local authorities and central Government working in co-operation with one another. We cut out the need for some 1,000 unnecessary Civil Service posts, and bring the collection of tax back into a unified system which is simpler and fairer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS BILL
5.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill designed to strengthen and rationalise the existing law dealing with means of escape and other relevant fire precautions in places of public entertainment and resort, and in certain kinds of residential premises. The need for a measure of this kind has long been recognised. Indeed, it was my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he was Home Secretary, who set up a committee of officials to inquire into this problem and, on the basis of their findings, arranged for the first draft of the present Bill to be prepared. The previous Administration also accepted the need for this legislation, but, unfortunately, the pressures on the Parliamentary timetable have been such as to prevent it from being brought forward before now. In another place, the Bill has been welcomed and no differences between the Parties have emerged.
608
Uncontrolled fires, my Lords, have long been one of the greatest natural forces that have threatened mankind. In these surroundings we need look no further back than 1834, when on the evening of October 16, a fire was first noticed in the Palace of Westminster. It spread so rapidly that the firemen had no option but to let the old Houses of Parliament burn out in the interests of saving Westminster Hall.
Public opinion (which is a feature of this subject) tends only to be aroused when there is some particularly serious fire—such as at the Rose and Crown Hotel in Saffron Walden at Christmas, 1969, when 11 people lost their lives, or more recently at a dance hall near Grenoble in France when 140 people, mainly young people, died. But the evidence points to a continuing and steady loss of life resulting from fires, while injuries caused by fire are also considerable. In 1968 (the latest year for which accurate, detailed figures are available), fire brigades in the United Kingdom attended about 215,000 fires. There were 865 deaths in these fires, and there were 4,612 non-fatal casualties excluding those requiring first-aid treatment only. As for fire losses—that is to say, the loss of buildings and their contents in fire—the British Insurance Association statistics show that these are already in excess of £100 million a year. And this figure, large as it is, takes no account of the loss of markets, unemployment and the other consequences which fires inevitably bring in their wake. It is against this background that this Bill has to be considered.
Before going on to describe the existing law concerning fire precautions it would, I think, be right to pay tribute to the admirable and efficient work done by the fire brigades. The British Fire Service has earned a high reputation and without the vigilance and courage of its members there is no doubt that the loss of life, injury and material damage caused by fire would be far greater than it is. The committee of officials to which I have already referred carefully studied the nature and extent of fire prevention legislation as it existed in 1962. They concluded that, so far as employees were concerned, the fire protection provisions of the Factories Act 1961, and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, were broadly satisfactory and

609
they proposed no change. For this reason, premises already within the scope of these Acts, mainly places of work, are outside the scope of this present. Bill.
The committee also came to the conclusion that it would be neither appropriate nor practicable to try to compel owners, by legislation, to protect their property against damage by fire, but that this should continue to be left to voluntary arrangements between owners and their insurance companies. The committee nevertheless stressed the need for more education and publicity, and urged managements in industry and trade to seek the advice of the fire authorities on fire protection measures in factories, warehouses and other business premises. The Departmental Committee on the Fire Service, the Holroyd Committee, which reported in May of last year (Cmnd. 4371) took a somewhat similar line. In particular, they did not consider that direct legislation to deal with fire losses was practicable, although they recommended certain other procedures which are currently under discussion with those concerned. But I should point out that while it is not the purpose of this Bill to deal with fire losses, of course it remains true that any measure which leads to a reduction in loss of life clue to fire will also lead to a reduction in the amount of damage done to property.
The Bill, then, is concerned with the protection of life in the event of fire, but even in this field its scope is limited. Except for certain types of dwellings where the occupants are particularly at risk—for example, in high-rise blocks of flats—the ordinary dwelling-house is not covered by the Bill, even though rather more than half the deaths and injuries resulting from fires which I mentioned earlier occurred in private homes. But, as both the Holroyd Committee and the earlier official committee recognised, legislation to require adequate fire precautions to be observed in the ordinary home is impracticable. Even if the large number of extra inspectors who would be needed to deal with the 15 million or so homes in this country could be justified, their work would be ineffective without powers of entry to the private home. Thus we must continue in this field to rely mainly on publicity and education, a matter to which both central and local government are giving
610
increased attention and one to which the Holroyd Committee attached particular importance. What we are left with are premises, other than ordinary dwelling-houses, and other than factories, offices and shops, to which the public may resort for purposes of recreation or amusement, or where they may stay for holidays, residential care and so on.
The Bill will apply in practice to four main categories of premises: places of amusement, recreation and public resort, theatres, cinemas, dance-halls, bingo clubs and the like; residential establishments, such as hotels, boarding-houses, hospitals, and institutions for the residential care of the elderly, the young and the handicapped; educational establishments—mainly schools; and certain private dwellings—chiefly the high-rise blocks of flats to which I have referred—but not houses in multiple occupation, for which fire safety provisions already exist in the Housing Acts.
There are, of course, some safeguards under the present law, particularly under the Public Health Act 1936, but the present position is far from satisfactory. The laws concerning fire precautions have developed piecemeal to meet different needs which have arisen from time to time in the past. They are applied by different authorities for different purposes, and are not easily adapted to meet new hazards arising from technical developments or from changes in social habits.
The object of the Bill is to remedy these defects as far as possible by substituting a comprehensive and flexible system of fire prevention control covering the type of premises that I have described. It will enable new fire hazards to be dealt with promptly and without the need for further legislation. It will apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales.
The main instrument of control under the Bill will be by way of fire certificates. These will be issued by local fire authorities once they are satisfied that the provision made for means of escape, and other relevant fire precautions in the premises concerned, are of a satisfactory standard. In this, the Bill follows the precedent of the fire safety provisions of the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railways Premises Act 1963.

611
The next important point to note is that the Bill will operate according to the use to which premises are put rather than to their description, and Clause 1(2) sets out the various classes of use from among which the Secretary of State has power to designate, by order, a particular use. This method of bringing the Bill into operation, by designating orders, will have three advantages. First, it can be done in stages taking account of relative hazards and the capacity of the fire service to deal with the work involved. Second, it is an adaptable system, and one that can take account of leisure patterns as they develop in the future. And third, there will be no difficulty about applying the Bill to premises which are used for different purposes on different occasions—the village hall, say, or the cinema regularly used for bingo on certain evenings of the week.
If we move on to those categories of dwellings coming within the scope of Clause 3 of the Bill—as I have explained, mainly blocks of flats—the procedure is somewhat different. The question of imposing adequate fire precautions in such cases is so closely tied up with other questions of social and housing policy affecting the area concerned, that it is proposed in this instance to leave the matter to the discretion of the fire authority acting in consultation with the local authority which is responsible for housing. There will thus be no general order applying to all dwellings within the scope of Clause 3. Particular premises will be dealt with by the authorities concerned who will have to serve a notice in each case applying the provisions of the Bill to that particular property.
If premises are brought within the scope of the Bill, either by way of the designating order procedure visualised under Clause 1 or a notice under Clause 3, an application for a fire certificate will have to be made to the fire authority in the form prescribed in Clause 5. The fire authority will then be under a duty to inspect the premises, and if satisfied as to the adequacy of the means of escape and other relevant fire precautions, to issue a fire certificate. If the fire authority are not satisfied, they must indicate what they consider should be done to bring the premises up to a satisfactory
612
standard. The applicant is not compelled by the Bill to do this. He could, for example, decide not to continue to use the premises for the purpose which brought it within the Bill, but a fire certificate will not be issued until the fire authority are satisfied as to the adequacy of the fire precautions. Clause 7 makes it an offence, subject to stated penalties either on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment, to use premises without a fire certificate or to contravene any requirements imposed by the certificate.
Clause 6 sets out the various detailed requirements which may be imposed under the fire certificate in order to ensure the safety of the occupants in the event of fire. It should be noted that the main purpose is to ensure that people will be able to escape quickly and safety from the premises in the event of fire, even before the fire brigade arrives, and only those measures necessary to achieve this end may be imposed. Clause 8 provides the fire authority with the necessary powers of entry and inspection to deal with any change of circumstances affecting the fire precautions and generally to ensure that the fire precautions are maintained at a satisfactory standard. Rights of appeal for occupants and others affected by the fire authority's decisions or requirements are provided by Clause 9.
My Lords, this is the broad pattern of the way in which the Bill will operate, but before closing I ought briefly to mention one other matter dealt with in the Bill. As I said earlier, the Bill is mainly concerned with the way in which buildings are or will be used. But Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to make Building Regulations regarding means of escape in new buildings; that is, buildings under construction or buildings for which substantial alterations are being planned. Although this power exists in Scotland, it has hitherto been lacking in England and Wales. It is obviously desirable for a builder or developer to know in advance what will be required in the way of means of escape in any new building he proposes to erect. The new power will now enable this to be done. He is also entitled to some assurance, however, that having satisfied the building authority he will not subsequently be confronted with a separate set of requirements from the fire

613
authority which will involve him in much heavier expense than if he had known about these, too, from the outset. The Bill deals with this problem in two ways.
First, Clauses 13 and 14 prevent the fire authority, save in very special circumstances, from requiring more than is required by the Building Regulations. Second, Clauses 15 to 17 lay appropriate duties on the various authorities concerned to consult one another in defined circumstances. In this way, we hope that developer, building authority and fire authority will work in close co-operation from the outset, especially where a new building is being planned, so that the question of overlapping or conflicting requirements between authorities will not arise. These arrangements for statutory consultation apply, of course, only where the authorities for building and fire are different. We cannot legislate for relationships between different departments of the same authority, although the Government are sure that the authorities concerned will see that appropriate arrangements for consultation are made in the spirit of the Bill.
Finally, my Lords, I should say that it is not the intention to bring the Bill into force for any particular use (unless the matter is too urgent for delay) until we have had the fullest consultations with all those concerned—central Government, fire authorities and representatives of other interests—and have worked out a code of practice for that particular use. This will mean that everybody will know what is required, leading to as great uniformity as possible in the operation of the Bill.
My Lords, this is, I am afraid, a rather technical measure, but, as I have explained, it is one that has a very simple aim, and it is this: to apply to places of public amusement, hotels, institutions, and certain residential premises broadly similar standards of fire precautions to those that already apply in places of work. The method of control envisaged is the same—a system of fire certificates—and we must all hope that in placing this measure on the Statute Book we shall be doing something to reduce the number of lives lost as a result of fire in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Windlesham.)
5.47 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, both for the clarity and for the brevity with which he has introduced a quite important and lengthy Bill. As he said, this Bill is welcomed by all Parties in both Houses, and, so far as I am concerned, the sooner it gets on the Statute Book the better. I shall certainly not go over the ground so fully and efficiently covered in another place, and by the noble Lord in his admirable speech, but I should like, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, to add my tribute to those he paid to members of the fire services, a tribute which was indeed well deserved.
So far as the Bill is concerned, there are two points of criticism which might be made. One is against the Parliamentary system—or possibly I ought to say the Whitehall complex—which has prevented this Bill from getting an appropriate place in the Parliamentary programme before now. That is not a Party point, because I think we ought to have introduced it in the previous Government. The second point is that the Bill does not go far enough: it leaves important areas of the fire problem entirely uncovered. For example, the Bill, as the noble Lord said, is concerned with the loss of life by fire; yet I am told that of 1,000 lives lost in each recent year by fire, only about 30 or 40 were in premises covered by this Bill. That gives me certainly pause to think. It would seem, surely, that we have as yet not really tackled the fire hazard problem.
Most of the fatalities occurred in private houses, which, as the noble Lord says, are not covered at all, except in certain cases of high-rise blocks of flats. I am not quite sure about the position of what one might call houses of multiple occupation. The noble Lord made some reference to those, and to the fact that they were covered by the Housing Act. But what about those older types of house, sub-let into bed-sitting rooms, or probably divided up into what are sometimes called self-contained flats? Are they or are they not covered by the Housing Act to which he referred? Are there regulations made to ensure adequate exits, and so on, in such buildings?
I know that there are difficulties in extending the area to be covered by

615
legislation. Mostly it is a matter of inspection and enforcement. It is a real problem, which I suppose involves the most profound of economic and political issues. How are we to ensure in the sort of acquisitive society which the present Government are seeking to set up, adequate public services, when large wage claims go unchallenged in the private sector and we turn down essential services like the postal service? How are we to get the essential work done?
My Lords, I will not pursue this thought on this Bill, but it is relevant. It is a fact that we could reduce the national loss of hundreds of millions of pounds if we were to pay more, and to attract more staff, to the fire services. We can do more. An increased expenditure in public services can be a positive investment in terms of material goods saved. There is a tendency to say that the loss was covered by insurance. The fact is that goods and property destroyed by fire are real losses of national assets, whether they are insured or not.
There is another angle from which the problem might be tackled, rather than by penalty and enforcement of regulations: it is by using the carrot rather than by the stick. Is it impossible to conceive incentives to go beyond minimum safety requirements? Can we do something to encourage extra precautions by some form of tax relief; or, at the very least, can we not ensure that work done to property specifically for fire precaution will not mean an increased rateable value? It is ironic and unjust—indeed, absurd—that if a property owner spends money to try to reduce the chance of calling upon the fire brigade he has to pay an extra amount for the payment of their services because the rateable value is increased as a consequence of the precautions he has taken. I know that these matters do not come under this Bill. Nevertheless, they are part of this problem and they deserve consideration.
Finally, may I ask the Minister a little more about the consideration which he says is being given to the possibility of increased education and publicity of this fire risk. The losses in life and property are of such an order that something similar in kind, if not in degree, to the road safety campaign would appear to be justified. The noble Lord said that the
616
local authorities and the national Government were giving attention to the possibility of a publicity campaign. Is he satisfied that they are envisaging something on an adequate scale? Certainly the road safety campaign is a massive campaign, and it costs a lot of money. I would not necessarily say that we should duplicate that campaign, but we ought to do something along those lines if we are really going to bring some of these points home to all the people concerned.
As I have said, I do not propose to rehash all the many interesting points already made in another place, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some indication that the time we shall save by a speedy consideration of this Bill in this House will be used to consider the further Bill which really is necessary to supplement this one, or at any rate the other efforts such as publicity campaigns, which are needed to complement it.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in my experience—and I believe it is general and not confined to my term of office—the Home Secretary hardly ever received any complaints against the operating efficiency of the fire brigades throughout England and Wales in fighting particular fires. Bearing in mind the almost innumerable complaints which a Home Secretary receives about almost every other part of his responsibilities, I think this is a significant fact which ought to be known, and I cite it today because it underlines the tributes which we pay, and rightly should pay, to our fire service throughout the country. But of course they are helped or handicapped by the state of the law, and by the conditions which they find when they are called to a fire.
Some seven years ago it gave me deep concern as Home Secretary to discover that the law relating to fire precautions in places such as hotels, boarding houses, clubs and places of entertainment—what I think are known collectively as places of resort—was patchy, confusing and out-of-date. My Lords, death through fire is a terrible death, and it is not always swift. From that day on it has weighed on my mind that there might at any time be in this country a fire with grave loss of

617
life which could have been prevented if the law on fire precautions had been sounder and stronger. There was that terrible fire at Grenoble the other day. I am not in a position to say where the responsibility for that lay, and whether, therefore, anyone was at fault. But we as a Parliament should have it on our conscience if there were a similar fire in this country in any premises and it were to be found that we had been partly responsible because we had allowed the law to fall out of date.
What I did at that time when I was Home Secretary was to give instructions that a Bill to modernise the law in this field should be put in hand. That is the origin of this present Bill, and that is how I know that a draft of it has lain in the Home Office for years in readiness for introduction. That, indeed, is my excuse for speaking on two different Second Readings of Bills this afternoon—something that all your Lordships would wish should happen seldom, because no one person should take up too much time.
In Session after Session of the last Parliament, not for the sake of controversy but for the sake of public safety, I used to ask the Government why this Bill was not included in the gracious Speech and I urged them to bring it forward. I therefore congratulate the present Government on recognising its urgency and including it in the programme for their very first Session. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, the Bill is not in its provisions controversial and, like him, I feel sure that it will go through your Lordships' House quickly. It was the act of recognising its importance and giving it priority in the legislative programme which was crucial.
I, too, am not going into technicalities, and I have only one general point to make. It is not enough to have the most perfect fire prevention equipment in the physical sense, if the personnel who will have to act in an emergency are not fire trained and fire conscious. I do not know how many of your Lordships have had experience of this—I hope very—but even a small outbreak of fire is a frightening thing if you are not mentally prepared for it. It is easy at such a time to lose one's head, at the very moment when cool thinking may be all important. Secondly, it is often easy, surprisingly
618
easy, to put out a fire in the first half minute of its existence, whereas if it is not discovered until five or ten minutes later it may have gained an unbreakable hold.
The assurance I should like from my noble friend is that the Home Office and the local authorities, in using their powers under this Bill, will not only insist on modern and efficient material and equipment, but will do one more thing too. I should like to be sure that they will bring home to owners and occupiers of the premises covered by this Bill the importance of always having someone on the spot who not only understands the fire prevention and fire escape arrangements, but is trained as a fire guard, trained in fire vigilance; a man whose duty it is to ensure that, at any hour of the day or night, any outbreak of fire is swiftly detected and warning flashed to the fire brigade. The existence of first-class equipment, fire escapes, and so on, may otherwise lull people into a sense of false security, because although it may be impossible to save life if the equipment and the escapes are not there, the fact of their presence does not by itself ensure that they will be used properly; and still less does it ensure that the fire brigade will be called at the earliest possible moment.
It is not the business of those who are working on the premises to fight fires; that is essentially the technical business of the fire brigade. If serious fire is to be avoided, the fire brigade must be notified as swiftly as may be. An outbreak of fire may go undetected, and even when detected may not be met with the cool, quick thinking that is required, unless those who may have to deal with such a situation are trained as to what they may have to expect, and as to what they will need to do instantly. I am not sure whether the provision for regulations in Clause 12 of this Bill adequately covers this point of mine. I trust that it does, but in any case I hope that it will be looked at before the Bill becomes law.
6.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me when I say that when anyone with the experience, knowledge and clarity of the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat

619
speaks, we are only too happy that he should speak twice on Second Readings of important Bills such as these. I would add just a few words in this debate to underline what was said by my noble friend Lord Beswick in his admirable criticism of this Bill. Of course, so far as the Bill goes it is a very good Bill. I have been interested in these problems—particularly problems of fire prevention—ever since the War years, when I spent much of my time in the National Fire Service. It was in the National Fire Service that fire prevention first began to be studied and applied in a really scientific manner. It has always seemed to me a great pity that the remarkable progress which was made at that time has not been adequately carried through in the 25 years and more since the end of the War. We had not very long ago the Holroyd Committee which produced an admirable Report, but nothing seems to have come from it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, this Bill was on the stocks before that time.
It seems to me that this Bill does not go anything like far enough, not only in the provision for safety of life, which is obviously very important indeed, but in that it makes no effort whatever to safeguard property—and property which is of really outstanding national importance and value. It is quite absurd to say that it is all right to leave this to private insurance; it is not. Some years ago there was a terribly destructive fire at the Jaguar Works which could have been prevented very easily indeed. This matter was raised in your Lordships' House at the time. Some millions of pounds' worth of damage was done, and export of that very valuable export commodity was seriously held up. That was a matter of importance not only to the Jaguar company and to the workmen who were employed there, but to the national economy and the country as a whole. The destruction by fire of valuable property in this country has been going up since the end of the War until, I think, last year, when there was a slight recession. That recession was very welcome indeed, but the destruction has now been standing for a year or two at over £100 million in value per annum. I think the country ought to be ashamed to allow this to
620
happen, because although this is no doubt private property from one aspect, it is national property from another, as my noble friend underlined.
It is high time that fire precaution inspection and fire precaution desiderata were made compulsory over the wide range of British industry, to prevent the terrible loss to the national economy which has been going on year after year and which, over the last twenty years, has amounted to a really frightening sum. It is high time that the Government tackled this problem, and I hope that, already plans are in progress in the Home Office for the implementation of the proposals of the Holroyd Committee, which attached great importance to this question of fire prevention. It must be three years since the Holroyd Committee reported, and, as we understood it at the time, the Government accepted the Report.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. I think I mentioned in my speech that the Committee reported in May of last year.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I apologise. It seems a long time ago. If the noble Lord can tell me that active preparations are in fact being made in the Home Office for a Bill which, I hope, will be brought before Parliament much more quickly than this Bill was, I shall be very grateful.
As I say, I have been very interested in these things over these years. The late Lord Morrison of Lambeth did me the honour of making me a trustee of the Fire Research and Training Trust, which has done very valuable work, within its rather limited financial resources, over these last years. They will be very happy to co-operate with the Home Office and with the Fire Service, with whom we are in close contact already in these matters. In the Trust, fire prevention has always seemed to us to be of outstanding importance, and I hope that measures which will enable it to be carried through, not only for the prevention of danger to life but also for prevention of destruction to property, will soon be brought before Parliament.
6.8 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for not having

621
put my name down on the Order Paper to speak. I should also like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having given him only the briefest notice that I was intending this afternoon to introduce a note of dissent into this debate. I am afraid I did not realise until late this afternoon that this matter was coming before the House to-day. I do not quarrel with anything that has been said up to now by noble Lords in support of the Bill; indeed, I am in no way qualified to speak on the major aspects of the Bill. But there is one part of the Bill which causes me considerable surprise and alarm, and that is the provisions which deal with the enforcement of the law. They are contained in Clauses 18, 19 and 20 of the Bill. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, speaking on behalf of the Opposition and making no criticisms of the Bill other than technical criticisms, I must say I was a little surprised, because it seems to me that one has only to read these clauses under the heading of "Enforcement" to realise that we are giving to fire inspectors powers that we give to nobody else in the land, including, in particular, the police.
Clause 19 provides that a fire inspector can do the following at any reasonable time. He may enter any of the premises which are set out thereafter—which are the premises with which we are concerned in this Bill—and he may inspect in those premises,
"the whole or any part thereof and anything therein";
and he can do that without any suggestion of a search warrant. Those are far wider powers than we give to a police officer because, as I understand it, a police officer can enter premises only if he has either a search warrant or reasonable grounds for believing that an arrestable offence is being committed in those premises.
The clause goes on to say that, having entered the premises in that way—and it is important to bear in mind that some of these premises are dwelling-houses, places where people live—the inspector has power to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary to establish certain facts, such as who is the owner of the premises and matters of that kind. The clause goes on to state that on entering any premises the inspector may
622
"take with him a constable if he has reasonable cause to apprehend any serious obstruction in the execution of the powers conferred on him by this subsection."
Then we come to the most remarkable provision of all. Paragraph (d) of subsection (1) gives the inspector power,
"for the purpose of any examination or inquiry under paragraph (b) above … to require any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be the owner or the occupier of the premises or to be a person employed to work therein or otherwise having responsibilities in relation thereto"—
such as, I suppose, a caretaker—
"to answer … such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask and to sign a declaration of the truth of his answers."
Not only that, my Lords. I have left out a parenthesis which states that, in requiring that person to answer any questions which the inspector thinks fit to ask, the inspector can insist that the questions are answered
"(in the absence of persons other than any whom the inspector may allow to be present)".
So if the man says, "I should like to see my solicitor", and the inspector replies, "I do not want your solicitor to be present", the inspector can require the man to answer his questions in the absence of his solicitor, and indeed of any other adviser. Under the Judges' Rules this is the very thing we forbid the police to do, yet this is what is being written into this Bill.
Then subsection (3) of Clause 19 states:
"A person who—
"(a) without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an inspector under subsection (1) above"—
that includes answering questions—is guilty of an offence. If he says, "No, I do not want to say anything", he is then guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50. Furthermore, any person who
"(b) prevents, or attempts to prevent, any other person from appearing before an inspector or from answering any question to which an inspector may, by virtue of that subsection, require an answer"—
that is, any person who advises the man or attempts to prevent him from giving an answer to the inspector; for example, a solicitor who advises his client to say nothing—also becomes liable under this subsection on summary conviction to a fine of £50. I always knew that my profession of a solicitor was a hazardous

623
one, but I did not realise until now that it was so hazardous as that.
Subsection (4) states that when a person, who is called upon to give an answer of this kind, is called upon to make a declaration as to the truth of his answers, that
"answer given by a person in pursuance of a requirement … shall not be admissible in evidence against that person or, in England and Wales, the husband or wife of that person in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, other than proceedings for an offence in respect of that answer under the Perjury Act 1911".
Under Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911, to give a false answer on an occasion of that kind—not under oath, but when called upon to make a declaration or a statement under the provisions of a general public Act of Parliament—is a misdemeanour carrying with it a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
So we have the position that a fire inspector can go in and ask anybody on the premises whatever questions he thinks fit, and if the person refuses to answer he immediately renders himself liable to a fine of up to £50; while anybody who assists him or advises him not to give any answer renders himself liable to a fine of up to £50. Then, if the man sees fit to comply with the inspector's requirement he is not allowed to call in his solicitor or other adviser, and if he will not answer he is liable to a fine. But if he sees fit to make any false statement at all, he can be prosecuted under the Perjury Act or under a clause of this Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is not perjury unless it is deliberately false.
LORD FOOT: Certainly, my Lords. I accept that it is only if it is wilfully and knowingly false. But if he wilfully makes a false statement he becomes liable under the Perjury Act, as well as under a subsequent provision of this Bill.
I do no more than draw attention to these provisions. I realise that it may very well be said that almost corresponding provisions appear in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. But they are no better for having been on the Statute Book since 1963, and they may have been on it for a great deal longer. Only the other day in another
624
connection, when talking about the Dangerous Drugs Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was prepared to concede to me that something which had been on the Statute Book since 1923, which touched upon civil liberties, was objectionable and he was good enough to put it right. I hope that between now and the Committee stage, the noble Lord will be ready to look at this provision, too, to see whether it is really necessary, for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Bill, to strike such a serious blow, as I think, against the cause of civil rights in this country.
6.19 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, in the Explanatory Memorandum on page iv of this Bill there is a glancing reference to the question of additional fire avoidance provisions in establishments such as hospitals and homes for old people. As I read Clause 30, which is not a particularly happily drafted clause, it brings within the general scope of the Bill responsibility for fire precautions. These have heretofore not been the responsibility of the local authorities. The question of fire in hospitals, especially hospitals for the mentally ill and subnormal as well as homes for old people, is one which has exercised the minds of successive Ministers and Secretaries of State for a long time. Several of your Lordships have made reference to the recent tragedy at Grenoble, but only three and a half years ago we had a serious fire at a mental hospital which caused many deaths. The real problem there was not so much the existing provision of equipment or the drills which were to be put into operation if fire should break out but the peculiarities of a system which had been prejudiced by gross shortages of staff.
Again, up and down this country there are hospitals for old people, for the mentally infirm and for the subnormal, which were built over a hundred years ago and which have been added to piecemeal; and although it would be grossly unfair to say that the authorities concerned—namely, the group hospital management committees or the Regional Hospital Boards—have neglected this matter, the whole thing has been subjected to lack of capital available to carry out rebuilding, to provide improved access

625
and the like. Only two years ago, in a hospital for elderly women in East Anglia, the cost of reconstruction was so severe that a decision to improve the situation, to make the place safe, had been postponed from year to year, and the local hospital management committee quite rightly, quite justifiably, were incensed when criticisms were levelled against them for not having carried out work which was obviously necessary. Everybody, right up to Ministry level, knew it was needed.
If this were a single case of an old building in the country, perhaps not too much consideration would be given to this example, but I do not think it is. These old buildings, so many of which have still to be used for these purposes, are not easily nor cheaply altered in order to make them safe. Yet, so far as I am aware, even under this Bill there is no obligation to secure an independent, an individual, provision of finance to carry out the necessary work. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about the need for this sort of work, and then goes on to say:
"However, it is not considered that the total would be significant, in view of the attention to fire precautions which is already paid by the Crown and local authorities in premises for which they are responsible".
I have no doubt at all that group hospital management committees and Area Boards have paid a lot of attention to this problem, but if you have not the finance necessary to do the work, nothing can be done. I believe it is a huge financial problem, and not a matter of insignificance, as is suggested in this Memorandum.
Clause 6 of the Bill relates to the contents of fire certificates, and subsection (1)(e) refers to the listing of the points where equipment is sited and the location in the buildings of the means for giving to persons in the premises warning in case of fire. One can have the best provision, the best equipment and the best accesses, but if the staff are not there to deal with the weaknesses of certain types of patient, what can be done? Indeed, the problem of surreptitious smoking by certain categories of old and mentally-feeble people is well known. Many tires start from smoking in bed, and although such behaviour is extremely difficult to control, it seems to me that much more attention
626
should be paid in this Bill to this particular problem. I understood the Minister to say that the provisions of the Bill would not be enforced rapidly unless some incident which was too urgent to be neglected cropped up, but I think that in the case of these hospitals this is a matter which needs urgent attention. I certainly do not blame existing authorities, but I do blame a long line of Governments who have failed to see that there is adequate financial provision for the purpose.
6.26 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. It seems to me that most, although not all, of your Lordships feel that this is a desirable Bill, and have welcomed it. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is the political godfather of the Bill, which has taken many years to arrive in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in opening, reflected on the nature of a Parliamentary system under which it has taken some six or seven years for this Bill to be introduced; and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had a very profound point when he remarked on the burden which would have lain on the consciences of those in successive Governments who had some responsibility in this respect had a really serious fire occurred in premises which are covered by this Bill. He said that the burden would have been the heavier if the Bill, having been drafted, was in existence but had not been introduced for want of sufficient Parliamentary time, other matters being thought to be more pressing. We can all be grateful that this has not in fact been the case.
My noble friend Lord Brooke also remarked, very wisely from his experience in this subject, on the need to have properly trained people in the premises covered under the Bill—places of public resort, institutions and others—and this is obviously of considerable importance, because people can place too much reliance on mechanical forms of escape. The need to have trained personnel is extremely important, and the fire certificate procedure in this Bill can require trained staff to be present, and the provision of attendants in appropriate places—in this connection, one thinks, particularly of

627
theatres and cinemas. The fire services are already closely in touch, and I gain the impression that they are increasingly in touch. They are turned to for advice in getting one or two members of the staffs of different establishments to acquire some familiarity with fire prevention. But I should make the point that fire-fighting, of course, is the responsibility of the fire services, and nobody else; and this is the real safeguard.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked what improvements had been made in fire prevention techniques since the end of the war. I think it is one of the most significant statistics that I have seen that in the Greater London area the average time taken by the London Fire Brigade to answer a "999" call is between three and four minutes. That speaks very well for the efficiency of the fire services.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, felt that the Bill should go further than it does. He remarked on the fact that he understood that only about 30 deaths had occurred in the premises covered under the Bill. I am informed that that is true of places of public resort, but it is not true if all the premises covered under the Bill, including blocks of flats, are taken. We get a figure of about 230 deaths in all premises covered under the Bill—230 out of a total of 865, which is a very significant number indeed. I could perhaps also make the comment that although, happily, there have been very few deaths in places of public resort, when they do occur—such as the fire at Grenoble which has been mentioned several times—they can be very serious. In that one fire, 140 people lost their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also asked me—pressed me, correctly—on what is being done in the way of public education on the subject of fire prevention. This is a matter of importance, and the Holroyd Committee emphasised that it is. We are aware of the need not only to maintain what has been done so far by way of printed publications, lectures, demonstrations and so forth, but also to use other media. Television has been used fairly consistently by the Central Office of Information, and the noble Lord will be interested to hear that a
628
pilot television campaign is taking place in the North-East of England, accompanied by a built-in research project into the effectiveness of this particular type of publicity. We hope that the information gathered in this campaign, which is in the nature of a test, will enable us to plan national campaigns with greater effectiveness in the future. The noble Lord can be assured that the programme is one of expansion.
The noble Lord also asked me about houses in multiple occupation, which are not covered under this Bill. The reason why they are not covered, although they may be divided into smaller lettings, into rooms or small flats, is that provision is already made for them in the Housing Acts, as I mentioned in opening. Under these Acts, the housing authorities may require such means of escape as they consider necessary to be provided in any house in multiple occupation. "Means of escape" has been taken by the local authorities—the housing authorities—to deal with such matters as external fire escapes; fire-proofing of doors and staircases; self-closing fire-resisting doors; separation of basement and upper floors; smoke stopping and so on. Given the nature and state of repair of many houses in multiple occupation and the limited means of the occupiers—matters which were given close attention during the passage of the Housing Act 1969—it scarcely seems right to impose on those concerned the full rigour of the fire certificate procedure, which will apply to the premises we have been debating this afternoon. In the circumstances, we believe that the local authorities have adequate powers to deal with the basic requirements for the safety of occupants of houses in multiple occupation in the future. So I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the local authorities are very conscious of their duties in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, made a powerful speech on Clauses 18 and 19, the clauses concerned with enforcement. As he said, these provisions are modelled on those contained in recent legislation—in the Factories Act 1961 and in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. He remarked that it did not make them any the better for that. If Parliament placed them on the Statute Book at that time and if, in his view, the powers

629
were too great, that was no justification for including them in the present legislation. But in this particular instance it is relevant to say to him that if in the last ten years these powers of entry had given rise to instances where people felt that undesirable intrusion by fire inspectors had occurred, we should have heard of it. What I can say to him is that I want to study his remarks, as I think he would like me to do, for this is something that we could come back to in Committee. It is in a sense a Committee stage point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said at this stage, for it will give me plenty of time to look into it in greater detail and to debate it with him on Committee. But as my noble friend Lord Brooke remarked—and this is also my impression—out of all the thousands of complaints that Ministers in the Home Office see every year on a very wide range of activities by people with power under legislation, the police and others, there are very few which relate to the fire services. I hesitate to speak without checking on the position, but I shall have an opportunity to do so. This is something that we ought to look at and discuss at a later stage.
This comment also applies to the detailed points made by Lord Burntwood, with his considerable knowledge of hospital administration. I should like to study what he had to say about Clause 6 and other parts of the Bill, and to follow up his remarks at a later stage in the Bill. I am grateful therefore to noble Lords who took part in this debate, and although the Bill is a long and technical measure, we have to-day discussed some of the issues of policy that arise out of it. I shall be happy to follow up these and other issues at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMITS) REGULATIONS 1971

  MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMITS ON MOTOR WAYS) REGULATIONS 1971
  6.37 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, for the convenience of the House and with your Lordships' permission, may I take together the two sets of Regulations standing on the Order Paper in my name? I beg to move that the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1971 and the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1971, both dated the 28th January, 1971, copies of which were laid before this House on February 4, be approved.
  Maximum speed limits for specified classes of vehicles were set out in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967. Under Section 78, subsections (2) and (4), of that Act, the Secretary of State for the Environment may, by regulation subject to approval of each House of Parliament, vary the speed limits. Schedule 5 to the Act sets out the limits currently applying to the specified classes of vehicles on roads generally. Under the identical power of Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which Section 78 of the 1967 Act replaced, the Minister of Transport made the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Motorways) Regulations 1966 which continue to have the effect of substituting as respects vehicles driven on motorways a different schedule of speed limits from that applicable to vehicles on roads generally.
  The first set of Regulations for which approval is sought substitutes two new sub-paragraphs for sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) of the 1967 Schedule, so making the following changes in limits apply on all-purpose roads. The speed limit of 40 m.p.h. applicable to goods vehicles is raised to 50 m.p.h. where the unladen weight of the vehicle does not exceed 30 cwt. and a trailer is not drawn. The increased speed limit for light goods vehicles on general purpose roads will enable the vehicles concerned to keep up more

  631
  readily with the general traffic flow, and the reduced need for other vehicles to overtake them will benefit road safety.
  The current speed limit of 40 m.p.h. is unrealistic for these vehicles, which are basically derivative of private cars, with comparable performance and braking capacity. The removal of the speed limit altogether, in line with the position of private cars, is not warranted on grounds of safety, having regard to the somewhat poorer accident rate. Light goods vehicles are frequently more heavily loaded, with correspondingly longer braking distances, than private cars; and the driver has more restricted visibility. The 50 m.p.h. limit is a sensible compromise.
  The effect of the second Regulation for which approval is sought is to introduce a speed limit of 60 m.p.h. applicable to goods vehicles exceeding 3 tons unladen weight when driven on motorways, while retaining the existing limit of 50 m.p.h. applicable to public service vehicles when drawing trailers, and 40 m.p.h. applicable to all other motor vehicles, including the goods vehicles I have mentioned, when drawing a trailer which has less than four wheels or is a close-coupled four-wheeled trailer. The 60 m.p.h. motorway speed limit will apply to those classes of vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden which exceed 3 tons unladen weight; that is to say heavy motor cars, motor tractors and locomotives.
  These classes of vehicles are prohibited from using the third lane on motorways and are currently subject only to the overall motorway speed limit of 70 m.p.h. Although better standards of maintenance are now being achieved for these vehicles under the goods vehicles plating and testing scheme there is still room for improvement. Other reasons for the special limit are that the vehicles require longer braking distances than light vehicles and generally their tyres are not suitable for sustained high speeds. The Secretary of State intends, however, that the limit shall be kept under review in the light of progress with improvements in design and maintenance. I hope that the House will now approve the two sets of Regulations. I beg to move:
  Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1971, be approved.
  That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1971, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
  6.42 p.m.
  LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think it entirely sensible that the speed limit should be under constant review as our road network improves and standards of maintenance are improved by enforcement. I think it right that the very valuable and very expensive capital equipment which goes trundling along the trunk roads of this country should reach the maximum speed and productivity, and travel at the maximum safe speed. For this reason I think it entirely sensible that the Government should introduce these two Orders.
  I have one question about a point which has just struck me, having travelled on the motorways and observed the very heavy transport from all over Europe which uses them, including vehicles from as far away as Bulgaria. Is a Bulgarian road transport driver, who may be driving down the M.1, informed about these speed limits? What is the machinery which ensures this, and what guarantees are there that the standards of maintenance of these foreign vehicles are as high as we expect from our own transport vehicles? I expect that in fact it is very high and is carefully supervised by the State. Nevertheless, that thought struck me. A foreign driver may be in this country for 24 hours and may get involved in a minor accident resulting from a defect in some part of his vehicle; or he may exceed the speed limit. Is there any way of ensuring that any infringement of the regulations is brought to the notice of his employer?
  6.44 p.m.
  LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, at this late hour I want to speak briefly on these Orders for two reasons; first, to put on record the views of the Freight Transport Association with which I have a commercial connection, and secondly, to say a word as Chairman of the Trustees of the British Industry Roads Campaign whose members have an active interest in any progressive move to lessen congestion on our roads. And, of course, higher speeds, with due regard to safety is one such move, as noble Lords have said.

  633
  The increase in the speed limit for light vans from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. is long overdue. Although I wholly accept what my noble friend has said as to the possible top limit of speed for these vehicles, this will contribute to road safety for the reasons he gave, in that it will make a better combination between the speeds of slow and fast moving vehicles in one traffic flow. It will, in fact, benefit some 900,000 vehicles. The 60 m.p.h. limit for most goods vehicles on motorways is also acceptable for the time being, and I am very glad that my noble friend has said that this speed limit will be kept under review.
  I do not have to remind my noble friend that in the letter of consultation circulated in April, 1970, by the then Minister of Transport, it was said that that review would be made in the light of progress in vehicle design and maintenance by the end of 1972. I do not want to tie my noble friend down, but at the same time this would seem a reasonable target date. By that time all load-carrying vehicles will have the same braking standards as private motor cars, and annual testing should by then be firmly established for all commercial vehicles over 30 cwt. unladen weight which are more than one year old. All these are safety factors.
  Equally, by that time the majority of drivers will have had to qualify for a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence; and as my noble friend has said we have the effective enforcement of operators' licences, which should ensure higher maintenance standards over all commercial vehicles. Therefore, by then it should be no longer necessary to differentiate between the speeds of commercial vehicles and other traffic on the motorways.
  It has already been said, and I have no need to remind my noble friend of it, that these things can bring about a considerable reduction in congestion and a consequent saving in industrial costs. The third point is not in fact covered by these Regulations, but I think that I am in order in referring to it briefly. It concerns the speed limit for commercial vehicles on dual carriageways as opposed to motorways. It is the opinion of people in the industry that the time has come when these limits could safely be increased from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h., again with
  634
  consequent benefits accruing and congestion reduced.
  My fourth point is that goods vehicles with draw-bar trailers, other than certain light trailers, are still restricted to 30 m.p.h. I think this limit must be considered to be out-dated in the light of modern developments in braking and in vehicle stability. The use of these vehicles which tow draw-bar trailers has greatly increased since it became unnecessary to carry an attendant on vehicle trailer combinations. Therefore an increase in the speed limit of 40 m.p.h. would bring them into line with goods vehicles generally, including articulated vehicles, and again it would have a beneficial effect on traffic flow.
  These points were put to me by the Freight Transport Association, but I put them forward not only for that reason but also on their individual merits; and because they make a positive contribution to the reduction of road congestion which at this present time is adding some 2 per cent, to the costs of industry. Tomorrow, with the possible increase in the cost of fuel, congestion may add very much more. There is no doubt at all that at a time when industrial costs are soaring the provision of roads which will speed traffic from the factories, and particularly to our ports, must be the top priority of Government. But sensible easement of commercial speed limits, consistent with safety, on good roads, is certainly a positive aid to effective distribution and to keeping down costs. I hope that my noble friend may be able to give me a reply to one or two of the points I have made.
  6.50 p.m.
  LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wish to comment on one point. I am quite happy about these two Orders as they stand, but there is one point about which I am not certain. My noble friend said that heavy goods vehicles were prohibited from using the third lane on motorways. I am wondering whether it would be practicable (I am not at all certain that it would be) to confine them entirely to the first lane, because of one fact that is overtaking. Lorries overtaking each other can sometimes take a long time to do so. I saw one frightful case on quite a narrow road only a few days ago when

  635
  there was not much more than a difference of about 5 m.p.h. between the speed of the two lorries, and it took well over a minute for the one to overtake the other. That could be a source of danger. I do not know whether, in confining lorries to the first lane, it might be necessary to make a minimum speed limit so that one would not get behind a slow moving vehicle and not be able to overtake it. Perhaps my noble friend would give consideration to this point.
  LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have supported what is contained in these Regulations. I intervene only because I am impressed by the common sense that has been shown. I thought your Lordships would like to know that I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in Australia, from the office of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It was held up by the postal strike, but I got it on Monday. He writes about the debate in your Lordships' House on January 13 and says:
  "I am having the record of the debate photocopied to send to State and Federal Ministers of Transport in this country, who would be the better for reading it."
  I thought that particularly the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would be glad to know that the proceedings in your Lordships' House on this subject do not go unnoticed.
  6.52 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken and welcomed these proposals. With regard to the questions that have been asked, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, wanted to know whether foreign lorries and heavy vehicles, when coming on to our motorways, would be aware of these regulations and whether it would be possible to enforce them. As to the latter point, regulations between the countries are getting tied up more and more. As to the question about speed limit signs I am advised that it will be open to the operators' Association to make sure that foreign operators are informed. The operators will be responsible for the knowledge of the foreign driver who may be driving a foreign vehicle.
  636
  My noble friend Lord Redmayne, whose interest in this matter is well-known, asked several questions, and some of them I am able to answer to a small degree. We shall certainly be reviewing the 60 m.p.h. speed limit, to see whether it is having a good effect or otherwise. He wanted to know also whether commercial vehicles might be allowed to have an increased speed on dual carriageways other than motorways. I am advised that this is open to objection, because the dual carriageways in our country are not of any standard nature: some are of short duration, some of long duration and some end very suddenly, and there are all sorts of hazards. Then we are somewhat unwilling to impose on heavy goods vehicle drivers too many regulations. They are already going to have to remember two limits, one of 60 m.p.h. on motorways, and the second of 40 m.p.h. on other roads. If we introduced yet another limit for dual carriageways, we should perhaps complicate matters too much, and it might result in less observation of limits.
  My noble friend Lord Redmayne also asked that the limits for goods vehicles with draw-bar trailers should be increased to 40 m.p.h. We feel that if we were to raise the present 30 m.p.h. limit for these trailer combinations on all-purpose roads to 40 m.p.h. it would not be safe. It may be possible to reconsider this point when braking standards of goods vehicles are raised. These regulations, which were made, I think I am right in saying, in 1968, had to take into consideration that there are a great many old vehicles on the road, and concessions were therefore made in the regulations of efficiency standards which we should like to see altered. When this has been done, and conditions have improved, we have to consider also the ratio to be imposed between the weights of the lorry and the trailer if we raise the speed limit.
  My noble friend Lord Redmayne asked me also about the general flow of traffic, and this is one of the most important functions of any transport advisory body advising how to keep the transport moving. We all know that time is money, and in the interests of industry and everybody we must do this. My right honourable friend is keeping this very much under review.

  637
  My noble friend Lord Somers wanted to know about heavy goods vehicles being confined to one lane. We will take note of what he has said, but with a speed limit of 60 m.p.h. (up to now there has been no speed limit on the motorway for these heavy vehicles), it would be slightly unfair to confine all vehicles of this sort, because even if there is a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. for some heavily laden vehicles, there will still be the need to overtake. On the whole, long-distance lorry drivers are considerate drivers, rather better than average, and this must be left to their common sense.
  I thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier for giving us the heartening news that the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in Australia is following our debates. It is heartening to us to know that our words go so far. With those few words, I hope that your Lordships will approve these two measures.
  LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Casey, in his letter indicates that he hopes to be in the House again in June.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW BROKEN HILL CONSOLIDATED LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Examiner's Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported with Amendments.
TORBAY CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
TRENT AND LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.