Lords Sitting of 21 May 1971

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

ARMED FORCES BILL [H.L.]
11.5 a.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to the first Commons print—Bill 78]
[Nos. 1 and 2]
Clause 2, page 3, line 29, leave out " calculated " and insert " likely ".
Clause 2, page 4, line 14, leave out " calculated " and insert "likely"
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I should like to take No. 6 with them. The Select Committee in another place took the view that the Bill should, where appropriate, use the word " likely " or the word " calculated ", but not both of them. The legal advice was that neither word is preferable to the other, but the Select Committee felt that " likely " would be more intelligible to Servicemen. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, since it is a virtue in a Bill that it should be understood, the Amendments are sensible.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4]
Clause 8, page 8. line 37, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
" (1) Section 33 of the Army Act 1955 and section 33 of the Air Force Act 1955 (insubordinate behaviour) shall each be amended by substituting the following for the proviso to subsection (1) (which limits imprisonment to two years for offences not committed on active service and not involving violence)—
" Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged under this subsection to prove that he neither knew nor had reasonable cause to believe that the person in relation to whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was his superior officer.""
Clause 8, page 9, line 20, leave out from first " provisions ' to " shall" in line 22.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4; and I should like to take with them Nos. 13 and 14. The effect of these Amendments is that the specific offence of behaving with contempt to a superior officer in the Naval Discipline Act has not been extended to the Army and Air Force Acts. Although this results in a minor exception to the general commonality of the scheme of offences prescribed by the Bill, I would not object to it, for this reason: that I think what it is important to bear in mind is that contempt to a superior officer has been, and must remain, an offence in all three Services. What is in question is very largely a matter of how charges are framed for the offence. I do not think we need be disturbed by the fact that such an offence will continue to be charged under a specific section of the Naval Discipline Act while in the Army and Royal Air Force it will continue to be charged as the more general offence of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 5 and 6]
Clause 17, page 16. line 30. after "Act" insert ", by the substitution, in the provision to become section 29A, of " 29 " for " 44 " ".
Clause 28, page 22. line 19, leave out "calculated " and insert " likely ".
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Amendment No. 5 is purely a drafting Amendment to correct a deficiency in the original wording of the clause. I dealt with No. 6 earlier, together with Nos. 1 and 2. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 7 and 8]
Clause 44, page 36, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
"(1) Section 103 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (arrest under warrants of naval authorities) shall be amended by adding the following subsection at the end:—
"(4) A certificate under subsection (3) above shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State by statutory instrument and shall for the purpose of this Act be evidence of the matters stated therein."
(2) The following provisions (being provisions corresponding to section 103 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (as amended by subsection (1) above) and section 104 of that Act) shall "
Clause 44, page 36, line 33, at end ensert—
"(4).A certificate tinder subsection (3) above shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State by statutory instrument and shall for the purposes of this Act be evidence of the matters stated therein."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos 7 and 8. Clause 44 of the Bill has been amended so as to provide that the certificate handed over to the Service authorities by the police when they deliver a person who has been arrested on a warrant into Service custody, shall be in,
"such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State by statutory instrument and shall for the purposes of this Act he evidence of the matters stated therein ".
This is the formula used elsewhere in the Acts where certificates are prescribed, so we are really only putting this new
714
certificate on the same basis as the existing ones. There is, however, an important practical advantage, because a certificate of this kind ordinarily makes it unnecessary to call the police officer concerned to give oral evidence of the arrest. I commend these Amendments to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 9 and 10]
Clause 62. page 51, line 19, leave out " by adding the following subsection at the end " and insert "as follows—

(a) subsection (2) (service of process for a hearing more than twenty miles away to be of no effect unless travelling expenses are paid) shall be omitted, and

(b) at the end there shall be added the following subsection:— "

Clause 62. page 51, line 24, at end insert—
"(2) Section 101 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (rules for service of process in maintenance proceedings where the defendant is subject to that Act) shall be amended by omitting subsection (3) (service of process for a hearing more than twenty miles away to be of no effect unless travelling expenses are paid)."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I should like to take Nos. 19 to 21 with them. Section 153 of the Army and Air Force Acts and Section 101 of the Naval Discipline Act provide that service of process on a member of the Services in connection with maintenance proceedings requiring his personal appearance at a hearing more than twenty miles from his station shall not be valid unless he is also provided with sufficient money to enable him to attend the hearing and return. In practice. this means that the complainant, who is usually a deserted wife. is compelled to provide the sum required before the hearing can take place. This provision goes back to the days when Servicemen were much less well-paid than they are to-day. It was introduced to obviate the danger that a Serviceman might have to allow his defence to go by default for lack of means to attend the hearing. In present-day conditions, it is out-dated and these

715
Amendments remove this provision from the 1955 and 1957 Acts. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, is the Secretary of State absolutely certain that present circumstances remove this objection? A man who is a deserter probably has financial troubles as well; in fact, desertion often comes as a result of financial troubles. Is he satisfied that we are so affluent that this provision can be removed?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think so. Generally speaking, this really bore rather more hardly upon the wife than upon the soldier. If the money had to be provided before the hearing could take place, it was the deserted wife who had to provide the money. I think that, generally speaking, it was more unfair to the wife than it was fair to the soldier. In the circumstances, I think this is right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
Appeal against sentence by civilians
(1)The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 (under which appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court are confined to appeals against conviction) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2)In section 8—
(a) at the end of subsection (1) (which confers the right of appeal) there shall be added the words " and, if he was a civilian (as defined in subsection (5) below) both at the time of his conviction and when the offence was committed, may also with the leave of the Court appeal against his sentence, unless it is one fixed by law ", and
(b) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (4)—
"(5) In this section ' civilian ' means any person who is not subject to service law (meaning military law, air-force law and the Naval Discipline Act) and any person within section 208A or 209 of the Army Act, section 208A or 209 of the Air Force Act or section 117 or 118 of the Naval Discipline Act (which apply certain provisions of those Acts to passengers in Her Majesty's ships and aircraft, persons employed by or accompanying Her Majesty's forces. families of members of those forces etc.)."
(3)The following section shall be inserted after section 16:—
"Powers on appeals against sentence
16A. On an appeal against sentence the Appeal Court, if they consider that the sentence is not appropriate for the case, may quash the sentence and pass in substitution for it such sentence as they think is appropriate, being a sentence which the court-martial had power to pass and which is not of greater severity than that for which it is substituted."
(4)The provisions of Schedule (Amendments about appeals against sentence) to this Act shall have effect, being provisions making in the said Act of 1968 and the other enactments there specified amendments consequential on, or otherwise connected with, the preceding provisions of this section."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I should like to take No. 16 at the same time. Your Lordships will remember that at the Committee and Report stages of this Bill last December you considered Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, which were designed to give civilians sentenced by court-martial a right of appeal to a higher court against sentence, in addition to their existing rights to petition the Service authorities against conviction or sentence and to appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court against conviction. The noble Lord was good enough to withdraw his Amendments upon my assurance that I would seek to amend the Bill to provide what he wished.
The new clause proposed to the Select Committee in another place gives a civilian convicted by court-martial a new right of appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court against sentence. His rights in the matter of appeal to a superior court will thus be similar to those of a person convicted by a civil court.
We have not been able to follow the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that the appeal should lie to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. The provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 are geared to trial by jury and would need lengthy adaptation if that court were to hear appeals after trial by court-martial. Moreover, to provide for appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court avoids the difficulty which could otherwise arise of two different courts considering the appeals of two persons, a serviceman and

717
a civilian, convicted of the same crime. The Amendments attempt to provide, in the most practical way, what I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had in mind. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should like to express to the Secretary of State the thanks of my noble friend for this new clause, which will carry into effect the reform that he wished to see. If I remember the case correctly, it was based on his experience of a very sad case of infanticide in B.A.O.R. I am certain that this Amendment will remove what has caused hardship and injustice in the past, and will put the matter right for the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 12]
Leave out Clause 74 and insert the following new clause—
Amendments for introducing naval rate, and marine rank, or Warrant officer
"77. The enactments specified in Schedule (Amendments for introducing naval rate, and marine rank, of warrant officer) to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule, being amendments connected with the introduction of the naval rate, and the marine rank, of warrant officer."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I should like to deal with Nos. 17 and 18 at the same time. It was found that the introduction of warrant officers in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines involved amending further Statutes as well as those dealt with in the original clause. These are entirely technical Amendments which in no way alter the intention of the original clause.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 13–21]
Schedule 1, page 61, line 11, leave out subparagraph (13)
Schedule 1, page 61, line 11, leave out lines 17 to 19
Schedule 1, page 61, line 22, at end insert—
"() In Schedule 3 to each Act, the following shall be inserted after the paragraphs numbered 7:—

" 7A. Using threatening, abusive, insulting or Provocative words likely to cause a disturbance.

7A. Using threatening, abusive, insulting or provocative behaviour likely to cause a disturbance.

7B. Using threatening, abusive, insulting or abusive insulting or provocative behaviour likely to cause a disturbance.

7B Using threatening, abusive, insulting or provocative words likely to cause a disturbance ",

() In Schedule 3 to each Act, the following shall be inserted immediately before the paragraphs numbered 10:—

" 9A. Misapplying public or service property.

9A. Wastefully expending public or service property,

9B. Wastefully expending public or service property.

9B. Misapplying public or service property."

After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—
"SCHEDULE
AMENDMENTS ABOUT APPEALS AGAINST SENTENCE
Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968
1.—(1) The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 8(2)(a), after the word " quashed " there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may require, that his sentence be quashed of (if a sentence of a naval court-martial) annulled ".
(3) In sections 13(a), 14(1), 15(1), and 15(2), after the words " Appeal Court" there shall be inserted the words " on an appeal against conviction ".
(4) In section 16(1), after the words " on an appeal " there shall be inserted the words " against conviction ".
(5) In section 17(1). for the words "or 15" there shall be substituted the words " 15 or 16A "; and in section 17(2), after the words " conviction by", in both paragraphs, there shall be inserted the words " or the sentence of"
(6) In section 31(1), after the words " an appeal " there shall be inserted the words " other than an appeal against sentence".
(7) In section 34, the words " under subsection (1) above" shall be substituted for the words " this section " in subsection (2), and the following subsection shall be added after subsection (3)—
"(4) Where a person convicted by court-martial is a civilian as defined in section 8(5) of this Act, the Secretary of State may, if consideration thereof by the Appeal Court appears to him for any reason desirable, refer the sentence of the court-martial to the Court; and any such reference shall be treated as an appeal by the person convicted against sentence for all purposes except those of section 32 of this Act."
(8) In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraph 1(1), after the words " the right of appeal " there shall be inserted the words " against conviction and any right of appeal against sentence ", and

(b) in paragraph 4, after the words "a conviction involving sentence of death " there shall be inserted the words " or against such a sentence itself ", and after the words " any such conviction " there shall be inserted the words " or sentence ".

The Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955
2. Section 113(3) of the Army Act 1955 and section 113(3) of the Air Force Act 1955 shall each be amended by inserting after the words " leave to appeal " where first occurring the words " against conviction or sentence", and by adding at the end " or, as the case may be, to the sentence to which the application relates ".
The Naval Discipline Act 1957
3. Section 70(3) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended by inserting after the words " 63(1)" the words " or a sentence of a court-martial ", after the words " the finding " the words " or sentence", and after the words " or finding " the words " or sentence".
Insert the following new Schedule—
"SCHEDULE
AMENDMENTS FOR INTRODUCING NAVAL RATE, AND MARINE RANK, OF WARRANT OFFICER
The Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865
1. Section 2 of the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865 shall be amended by inserting, in the definition of " seaman or marine ", the words " warrant officer " immediately before the words " petty officer ", and the words " warrant or " immediately before the words " non-commissioned officer ".
The Greenwich Hospital Act 1865
2. In section 5 of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1865, immediately before the words " non-commissioned officers", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted the words " warrant officers".
The Navy and Marines (Property of Deceased) Act 1865
3. Section 2 of the Navy and Marines (Property of Deceased) Act 1865 shall be amended by inserting, in the definition of " seaman or marine". the words " warrant officer " immediately before the words " petty officer" in both places where they occur, and the words "warrant or" immediately before the words " non-commissioned officer ".
The Army Act 1955
4.—(1) Section 210 of the Army Act 1955 shall be amended—
720

(a) by inserting, in subsections (2)(b) and (3), the words " warrant officer " immediately before the words " non-commissioned officer" wherever occurring, and

(b) by inserting, in subsection (4) the words " warrant officers " immediately before the words " non-commissioned officers" in both places where they occur.

(2) Schedule 7 of the said Act shall be amended—

(a) by inserting, in paragraph 10, the words " a warrant officer and " immediately before the words " a non-commissioned officer",

(b) by inserting, in paragraphs 19 and 22, the words " warrant officers " immediately before the words non-commissioned officers " wherever occurring, and

(c) by inserting, in paragraph 23, the words " warrant officer " immediately before the words " non-commissioned officer " where they first occur.

The Naval Discipline Act 1957
5.—(1) Section 45(2)(h) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended by inserting the words " warrant officer " immediately before the words " chief petty officer".
(2) Section 112 of the said Act shall be amended by inserting the words " warrant officer " immediately before the words " noncommissioned officers".
(3) Section 132 of the said Act shall be amended by inserting, in subsections (7) and (8), the words " warrant officers " immediately before the words " non-commissioned officers".
(4) The following subsection shall be substituted for section 133(2) of the said Act:—
"(2) In this Act ` rating ' means a member of Her Majesty's naval forces of or below the rate of warrant officer: and any reference in this Act to a rating, or to a rating of any particular rate, shall include a reference to any warrant officer who is subject to this Act without being a member of those forces, and to any non-commissioned officer, marine, soldier or airman who is so subject, or, as the case may be, to any such warrant officer or non-commissioned officer of rank corresponding to that rate."
The Reserve Forces Act 1966
6. In section 21(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1966, the definition of " man " shall be amended by omitting the words " (except in relation to the marine forces)" and by substituting the words " warrant officer" for the words " chief petty officer ".
The Armed Forces Act 1966
7. In section 14(1) of the Armed Forces Act 1966, in the definition of " rating ", for the words " chief petty officer" there shall be substituted the words " warrant officer "."
Schedule 2, page 67, line 4, at beginning insert—

"28&29 Vict. c,73,

The Naval and Marine pay and pensions Act 1865.

In section 2, in the definition of ' officer' the words 'warrant, or subordinate' and the words 'or assistant engineer'.

28 & 29 Vict. c, 111.

The Naval and Marine (property of Deceased) Act 1865.

In section 2, in the definition of ' officer ',the words 'warrant, or subordinate' and the words 'or assistant engineer',"

Schedule 2, page 67, line 21, column 3, at end insert "section 153(2)"
Schedule 2, page 67, line 28, column 3 at end insert "section 153(2)"
Schedule 2, page 67, line 42, column 3 at end insert "section 101(3)"
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons in their remaining Amendments, Nos. 13 to 21 Amendment No. 15 is a technical and drafting Amendment, and I have covered the remainder in dealing with earlier Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DANGEROUS LITTER BILL
11.17 a.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down for this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects. I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2). that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged,—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to resolution) Bill read 3a, and passed.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
11.20 a.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered. —(Lord Sandford.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert " but as if in the said subsection (3) for the words 'river authority' there were substituted the words 'parties'".
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The Bill confers powers on water undertakings and river authorities to enter into agreements. As originally drafted, it provided for these agreements to contain such provisions " as appear to the river authority necessary or expedient ". This form of words was felt by some, including my noble friends Lord Ilford and lord Waldegrave, to create an appearance of imbalance as between the parties to such agreements. The new formula should remove any suspicions on the part of water undertakers but should not impair the powers and responsibilities of the river authorities. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 and 3]
Clause 2, page 3, line 4, leave out from " section " to second " at " in line 5 and insert "which—

(i) authorises the making of discharges of water".

Clause 2, page 3, line 8, after " beauty". insert "within the meaning of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: or

(ii) specifies such a place as a place at which water to be discharged in pursuance of the order is to be abstracted or impounded."

LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
There are two points on these Amendments. First, during the Committee proceedings in another place it was argued that, as the Bill was drafted, any order authorising discharges of water which had originated, however remotely, in a National Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. These Amendments are intended to remove any doubt about the scope of the provision for orders authorising discharges of water derived directly from a source wholly or (as may be the case with a reservoir) partly in a National Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty to be subject to Negative Resolution. But orders authorising a discharge from, say. a river running from a National Park, where the water is abstracted at a point outside the Park. Will not be subject to the Negative Resolution, since the water there would not be abstracted or impounded at a place either wholly or partly within a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The second point is a legal one, to define the name " area of outstanding natural beauty " by reference to the Act which provided for them to be established. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendmcnts.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we are at one on the substance, but I should like to be reassured by the noble Lord about the wording here. This was the point about which we in this House thought that, if a reservoir were to be created in a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty, then the order creating it should be subject to the Negative Resolution Procedure in Parliament, and we so amended the Bill. Then the Government found that we had overdone it somewhat and had made a lot of abstractions outside National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty subject to Parliamentary approval, as the noble Lord has just explained, and everyone agreed that there was no point in this. So the Bill was amended again in the House of Commons to take those abstractions
724
out of Parliamentary control. So far we are together.
However, I should like to be reassured that, in the form of words we have before us, there is not a danger that a Scheme for a reservoir that is to be built half in and half out of a National Park, and from which the water is to be abstracted outside the National Park, might not come before Parliament. I think that it would be the wish of both Houses that it should come before Parliament. For that reason I seek reassurance on the wording.
Looking at the Bill in its present form, as amended by the House of Commons, one finds that the order is to come before the House either if it
"authorises the making of discharges of water … within a National Park "
or if it
"specifies such a place as a place at which water to be discharged in pursuance of the order is to be abstracted or impounded".
The words which worry me are:
"at which water…is to be…impounded ".
My question to the noble Lord is this. Is water impounded at the dam, which may be outside the National Park although the head of the reservoir may be in the National Park, or is water impounded at the reservoir taken as a whole and defined in such a way that it will be clear that part of it lies within the National Park? The question is really in what form the Secretary of State will make orders. Will they always include a geographical definition of the entire reservoir? And in that case, will the word " at " in the Bill apply to the entire reservoir as so defined?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. It is an important matter and it will be a very good thing to get it absolutely clear and on the record. I am also grateful to him for having given me advance notice of the point he intended to raise. I was thus able to look into the matter thoroughly. I can confirm as follows. The order authorising a discharge will specify a place— in cases of this kind the reservoir or the site of the proposed reservoir where the water to be discharged is to be impounded. I am advised that " place " for this purpose means the whole reservoir or the whole site. If any part of it is within a National

725
Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty, its specification will render the order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Furthermore, under the Bill the Secretary of State has power to modify the terms of any draft order submitted for his approval. He will thus be able to ensure that the order is correctly drawn from that point of view.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful for those reassurances, which will be of the greatest interest to all concerned in this matter throughout the country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
In the Schedule, page 4, line 27, leave out " twenty-eight days " and insert "six weeks".
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7 is to extend the period during which a draft order authorising the discharge of water is available for inspection and during which objections may be made to the Secretary of State, from 28 days to six weeks. This is in recognition of the difficulties which face some people living in remote rural areas who may have to travel considerable distances to inspect orders and maps. My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5]
In the Schedule, page 4, line 35, after "situated", insert——

" (b) every nagivation authority, harbour authority and conservancy authority appearing to the river authority to have functions relating to any inland water into which any of the proposed discharges may be made;

(c) all statutory water undertakers appearing to the river authority to be entitled to abstract water from any inland water or underground stratum at places at which it appears to the authority that the flow, level or quality of the water may be affected by any of the proposed discharges;"

LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in its original form the Bill confined the right to receive notice of an application for an order authorising discharges of water to local authorities
"within whose area any discharge point is situated"
726
and to those persons or bodies who have notified the river authority in advance that they require such notice. After further consideration, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it was right to extend the notice requirements, and the Amendment requires notice to be served additionally as follows: first, on every navigation, harbour and conservancy authority appearing to the river authority to have functions relating to an inland water into which discharges are to be made; secondly, on all statutory water undertakers appearing to the river authority to be entitled to abstract water at any place at which it appears to the river authority that the source concerned may be affected by the proposed discharges. Thirdly, the general position is safeguarded by the provision in paragraph 3(d) of the Schedule to the Bill, which provides that other persons or bodies who are not specifically named but who, nevertheless, wish to receive notices of applications for orders authorising discharges may still do so by giving notice to that effect in advance to the appropriate river authority. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 6 and 7]
In the Schedule, page 5, line 6, after " to", insert " the period of twenty-eight days referred to in".
In the Schedule, page 5, line 7, after second " to", insert " the period of six weeks referred to in".
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which I have already described.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STRANGE: I am sure I am wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but I have searched this Bill through from end to end and I have seen no—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!

HIGHWAYS BILL
11.32 a.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I am coming in again to bat. I am sure I am wrong and I stand to be corrected, but I have searched this Bill through and I have seen no reference to the fact that in the case of new reservoirs a geological survey should be made for faults.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
Clause 14 [Amendments of procedure for making certain orders and schemes]:
THE EARL, OF KINNOULL THE EARL, OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 14. line 24. leave out ("six") and insert (" eight").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 14 of the Highways Bill sets out to amend the existing procedure for objections to any draft order in regard to new motorways or principal roads. The main effect of this clause is to reduce the old statutory period for objections from three months to a period of six weeks. The House will appreciate that there are many responsible bodies and associations who are deeply concerned at the new period of time of six weeks. Many of these associations consider that this is something which will erode the protection of property and of people's rights.
My noble friend Lord Sandford will recall that I raised this point during the Commitee stage, which was held outside this Chamber. It has already been pointed out that if the Minister stipulated six weeks—and it is only a minimum period; he can stipulate a longer period if he should so wish—in practice this would mean a period of 30 days for actually seeing the plans and lodging an objection. If the draft order was laid just before Christmas, this period would be reduced yet again to what I estimate to be only 24 days. It has also been pointed out that plans are only available between Mondays and Fridays to be seen and inspected at the offices. Here again, this can prove difficult to any
728
objector who is presenting his case by himself.
My noble friend advised us in Committee that the six-week period was a minimum period to be used in practice only where there were no objections, or where there were no anticipated objections; and, secondly, that under subsection (9) of this clause the Minister was being granted a power to extend this period if he should so wish. My noble friend went on to point out that this approach would give the Minister the necessary flexibility to prevent undue delays in draft orders proceeding, particularly in relation to stretches of road where there were clearly no objections.
I have carefully examined subsection (9), and after reading it three times and noting that it amended a Schedule which, in turn, was amending a Schedule. I came to the conclusion that the wording of the draftsman was a masterpiece of obscurity. I should be grateful if my noble friend, when he comes to reply, would define exactly the meaning and interpretation of subsection (9). The advice I have been given on the affect of subsection (9) is that in practice a draft order, before it is laid, will be considered by the Department and consideration will be given as to whether or not any objections will be raised. If the Department consider that there will he no objections, it can choose a minimum period of six weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks or any period it likes, but it is likely to choose the shortest period. If it chooses six weeks, and if in the end there proves to have been a misjudgment, the Minister may extend this period of time—and I should emphasise the words " may extend this period of time ".
Therefore, we see that the Minister has a grace under subsection (9), which I submit is unacceptable for three reasons. In the first place, there is no obligation put on the Minister to reconsider this period; secondly, there is no procedure laid down; and, thirdly, there are no criteria on which to judge the issue.
It is right to recall that, although it may be said that there are certain stretches of road which do not cause great trouble when draft orders are laid, in this very crowded Island most orders affect a lot of people. It is also as well to remember that new motorways often cause ruination of property and severe

729
damage to the way of life of the people. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the period of time from six to eight weeks, which is something I hope my noble friend can accept. 1 beg to move.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl who has just spoken, although I know very little about this matter except in a general way. I should like to thank the noble Earl for a phrase he has just used —" a masterpiece of obscurity ". It seems to me that it is very useful and applies to so many of the Government's Bills.
11.40 a.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I also add a word of support to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Having had a fairly long experience of local government, it was long ago impressed upon me that nothing causes more trouble, nothing gives rise to greater feelings of injustice, than when a local authority plans to run a road through somebody else's property. Houses have to be knocked down; little estates have to be cut in two. There should, in all justice, be ample time for the owner of the property to prepare a case against the plan the authority is seeking to implement.
Many years ago I was the victim of a plan which the local authority had prepared. At that time I owned a nice little estate in Essex; an old rectory standing in the middle of 20 acres of fields, with a moat within 30 yards of the house. That moat was scheduled as an ancient monument. The local authority planned to build a road right through the middle of my property and to run it right up to the edge of this ancient moat. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will recall this occasion, because at the public inquiry that was held the noble Lord acted as counsel in support of the plan. He questioned me at some length about my motives for wanting to preserve this little estate intact. I could easily then have been a victim of what I regarded as a very grave injustice. I feel that to lengthen this period from six to eight weeks is a mere act of justice.
As the noble Earl has said, six weeks does not give a person very much time
730
to go to the council office and inspect the plans, to consult his surveyors or solicitors, or to seek other professional advice, and for the solicitor to brief counsel, if necessary, to appear on one's behalf. Six weeks is too short; we should be fair to these people.
11.43 a.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the Committee that met off the Floor of the House some weeks ago was as glad as I was when the noble Earl first moved his list of Amendments. This Amendment bears on Clause No. 14, which is one of the most important clauses of the Bill. We were grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter and I was particularly glad to have an opportunity to put the Government's case for the changes which we are making here. With the aid of the explanation, the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment without any reservations. I am therefore, reluctant to take up the time of the House now in going over again the reasons I gave the Committee for the Government's proposed action, but I shall restate them briefly.
We are proposing to reduce the minimum period for lodging objections from the long period of three months to six weeks. Three months is certainly appropriate for some cases, but by no means for all; it is far in excess of other periods normally used in planning cases, and is in excess of the period we have now settled for water orders, where we have increased the period from 28 days to six weeks.
I should, however, point out two important points which the noble Lord did not stress. In the case of highways, we are stipulating not a standard period but a flexible period, of which six weeks is the minimum. Furthermore, this is not the period in which people have to prepare their whole case, as the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, appeared to think; this is the period in which they have to do no more than see what the scheme is and lodge an objection to it. Six weeks is not unreasonable.
As I said a moment ago in the course of discussion on the Water Resources Bill, it was thought appropriate to extend this period from four to six weeks in the case of water orders, to take account of the difficulties of people who are

731
living in rural areas. For the reasons I gave in the Committee, I think six weeks as a minimum for a flexible period is appropriate. In many cases this period may be longer. It is the period required for the lodging of objections and not for preparing the case. It should be borne in mind that this period can be adjusted not only when the order is first published, but subsequently if, in the light of the weight of objections that are received and the controversy that seems likely to arise, the original period appears too short.
I hope in view of those assurances, in addition to the assurances I first gave in Committee, and which then seemed to satisfy the noble Earl, he will not feel disposed to press the Amendment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's argument that six weeks is the period only for lodging the objection. But during those six weeks the owner of the property has to consult his surveyor and solicitor, and probably make contact with some of his neighbours; searches may have to be made, and he has to go through all kinds of procedures in order to make up his mind as to whether he has a reasonable objection to lodge.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, we must be careful and remember that we are on Report stage.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, might I ask for clarification on one point? Suppose, on the occasion about which my noble friend has told the House he had been abroad for two months. What would happen if an order is served which escapes the notice of the owner because of his absence abroad? The house is empty; my noble friend is in the sun in the Carribean. What happens then?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are constantly making exceptions when there are good reasons for them. This is the kind of case where a reasonable exception would be made. In answer to what the noble Lord was saying about Christmas and Whitsun, these are among the considerations which the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding what the objection period should be. Summer holiday
732
periods are always taken into account in adjusting an objection period.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question. When a person makes an objection, has he to specify the nature of the objection, or can he object purely in general terms? That is to say, he can subsequently consult his surveyor and find out what the nature of his rights in the particular case is.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I can confirm that the objection has to carry with it only the briefest and most general explanation of what the objection is based upon. It does not have to carry with it a full and prepared case.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord to answer one further question which I specifically put to him: namely, to make clear the meaning of subsection (9), to which he has not referred.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the explanation of how all these clause's tie together would be somewhat laborious, but it can be done. Would the House be willing to accept from me the assurance that the effect of subsection (9) is that if the Secretary of State, having set a period of, say, eight or nine weeks for an objection period. finds that the weight of objection and the scale of public controversy is such that that period has been misjudged, he can, even after the scheme has been published and the objection period set out, extend it further. I hope that will satisfy the House. But if the noble Lord looks at Schedule 13 to the Bill, to paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b), he will find the main part of his question settled for him.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It was material for him
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I carry on?
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Earl moved the original Motion, and he therefore has the right to reply to the debate. On Report stage no one else has the

733
right to speak twice, excepting with the permission of the House.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: The difficulty is that my noble friend has asked one or two questions of the Minister, and he has already exhausted his leave. We must be careful, but on this occasion I suggest that the noble Earl continues his remarks.
THE EARL. OF KINNOULL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, then, may I say that I am grateful for my noble friend's reply to the questions. When I withdrew my Amendment on the Committee stage, it was not because I was satisfied but because he told me that subsection (9) contained a safeguard which I said I would examine. I have examined this safeguard, and I still believe that it lays no obligation on the Minister. It is only that the Minister, after taking the weight of evidence, may take the necessary action to extend the period. I am still not satisfied, and I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 18 [Agreements for the provision of walkways]:
11.52 a.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 18, line 44, at end insert—℄
("() entitling the local highway authority to enter on any building or structure in which such walkway will he situated and to execute any works necessary to secure the performance of any obligation which any person is for the time being liable to perform by virtue of the agreement or of subsection (3) of this section; ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be for the convenience of the House if we were also to discuss Amendments Nos. 3 to 12, inclusive. These Amendments have been put down to meet the views of property owners and developers, and to meet the points put by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford at the earlier stage. Their main effect is to delete subsection (5), to make more provisions negotiable in the agreement, and to make express provision for some other matters, all in connection with walkways.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 have the effect of removing the automatic right
734
of a highway authority to enter, after notice, buildings or structures to carry out necessary works. As amended, the clause will enable this right of entry to be provided for in the agreement establishing the walkway. Amendment No. 3 removes a possible restriction on the maters which can be covered by agreements, and specifically enables an agreement to provide for the termination of the public right to use the walkway. Amendment No. 4 makes it clear that subsections (3) and (4) of the clause, on enforcement of covenants, apply both to positive and to restrictive covenants. Amendment No. 5 is consequential on that.
The Amendments to the provisions dealing with by-laws, Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, enable the control by by-law of the times at which walkways are open to the public, and make certain changes with respect to notice and advertisement in the procedure for making and confirming by-laws. Amendment No. 11 requires the Secretary of State to consult representative parties before making regulations, and the final Amendment (No. 12) is a permissive power for the Secretary of State to include in the regulations he makes, among the incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions, specific provisions relating to agreements made under the clause, but prior to his regulations. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for the Amendments which he has put on the Marshalled List. The National Association of Property Owners feel that he has dealt with the anxieties they expressed. I am bound to say that in my opinion they had a point. They are grateful for the manner in which he has dealt with it, and the consultations he has allowed them to have. There is no doubt that the developers, who have such an important part to play in urban development, are now reassured. I thank my noble friend. I hope the House will agree to the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 3 to 12.
Amendments moved—
(" () the termination, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may he Page 19, line 3, at end insert—
specified in the agreement, of the right of the public to use such walkway;
() any incidental and consequential matters.")
Page 19, line 4, after (" covenant ") insert (" (whether positive or restrictive)")
Page 19, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.
Page 19, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
Page 19, line 40, at end insert—
(" () the times at which any such walkway may be closed to the public; ")
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—℄
(" () Not less than two months before they propose to make byelaws under subsection (6) above a local highway authority shall display in a conspicuous position on or adjacent to the walkway in question notice of their intention to make such byelaws, and the notice shall specify the place where a copy of the proposed byelaws may be inspected and the period, being a period of not less than six weeks from the date on which the notice was first displayed as aforesaid, within which representations may be made to the local highway authority, and that authority shall consider any representations made to them within that period.")
Page 20, line 1, leave out (" authority ") and insert (" Minister of the Crown ")
Page 20, line 4, at end insert (" and if he proposes to confirm the byelaws with modifications he may, before confirming them, direct the local highway authority by whom the byelaws were made to give notice of the proposed modifications to such persons and in such manner as may be specified in the direction.")
Page 20, line 5, at end insert (" after consulting such representative organisations as he thinks fit ")
Page 20, line 33, after (" provisions ") insert (" (and, in particular, provisions relating to walkways provided in pursuance of agreements made before the coming into operation of the regulations) ").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Extension of powers relating to drainage of highways]:
LORD WINTER BOTTOM LORD WINTER BOTTOM moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 22, line 42, leave out from (" subsections ") to (" that ") in line 2 on page 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Pargiter. The Amendment has been inspired by the County Councils Association. During the preparatory discussions leading up to the drafting of the Highways Bill, discussions took place in 1968 between the County Councils Association
736
and the Ministry of Transport. At a meeting held in November of that year, it was agreed that the highway authority should be able to exercise the draining powers provided by the Public Health Acts, and that their proposal should go into the Highways Bill. This was in addition to the proposal that for the purpose of draining highways highway authorities should have the same powers as were granted to the Secretary of State by Section 103(4) of the Highways Act, 1959.
Clause 21 of the Bill amends Section 103 in a number of ways supported by the County Councils Association. It does not cover the 1968 proposal. It is not quite clear why this is so. Your Lordships expressed a view on this point in the Unopposed Bills Committee of the House of Lords, when it considered the relevant clause of the Cornwall County Council Bill. It was suggested that the opportunity given by the presentation of the Highways Bill should be taken to draft an appropriate Amendment. The Amendment, drafted by my noble friend, Lord Pargiter, is such an Amendment. For that reason, I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: The Government will be glad to accept the Amendment, and they agree that it will make a useful addition to the highways authorities' powers to drain the highways. If it would help the noble Lord, I can assure him that the Government will accept Amendments Nos. 14, 29 and 30 which, he will agree with me, are linked with it.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: On behalf of my noble friend, may I express my thanks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
(" () In subsection (4) for the words from the beginning to " trunk road " there shall be substituted the words " Without prejudice to their powers under the foregoing provisions of this section, a highway authority may, for the purpose of the drainage of a highway or proposed highway for which they are, or. as the case may be. will be, the highway authority ".
() After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
" (4A) Before a local highway authority, being a County Council. exercise any powers under the Public Health Act 1936 by virtue of subsection (4) of this section, they shall give notice of their intention to do so to the Council of the County District within whose area the powers are proposed to be exercised." ").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD ILFORD: I desire to add a few words to this discussion. Clause 22 will result in duplicated powers being conferred upon certain authorities. I do not think anyone has any objection to that, but it has been found by experience that it is desirable that before either authority exercises these powers notice should be given to the other authority. That was done by an Amendment in the earlier part of the Bill, and I welcome the Minister's proposal to do it on Clause 14.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Provision of picnic sites and public conveniences for users of certain highways]:
12 noon.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is no more than a drafting Amendment, and Amendment No. 20 is almost precisely similar. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 12, leave out (" and ") and insert (" or ").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Provision of areas for parking heavy goods vehicles, etc.]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 29, after (" carried ") insert (" or hauled ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main Amendment here is the new subsection (9) to Clause 30. which provides definitions for various terms used in the clause, including in particular a new definition of the term heavy goods vehicle " as a goods vehicle having an unladen weight of 2 tons or more or a trailer. The amendment of subsection (1)(c) is consequential, on the extension to include trailers. As drafted, subsection (9) attracts the definition in Section 199(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960. This is a somewhat involved definition which is generally taken to mean, in effect, goods
738
vehicles with an unladen weight of more than 3 tons. By virtue of subsection (1) of the clause, only heavy goods vehicles, as defined, will be able to use lorry areas solely for the purpose of parking. The trouble is that the weight limit of 3 tons will exclude many vehicles which are large but not heavy: for example, furniture vans. It is important for this concept of lorry areas that relatively light vehicles should be able to use lorry areas for overnight parking, if such areas are to play their proper part in helping to reduce the adverse effect of the environment caused by large lorries parked in urban areas. The Department believes that the 2-ton weight limit will cover most large lorries of the furniture van type. I beg to move.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It completely satisfies the questions I had regarding the mystique of this particular weight limitation. I am sure it will go all the way to providing for entry of all the kinds of vehicles that one can envisage using the lorry area.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 is a minor drafting Amendment, the need for which was pointed out by my noble friend Viscount Colville, at a previous stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 30, leave out (" hereinafter ") and insert (" in this Act").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 29, line 32, leave out from beginning to I" area ") and insert (" For the purpose of enabling a lorry area to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the highway authority by whom the ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments, Nos. 18, 21 and 26, make it clear that services and facilities on lorry areas will not be available to the general public but only to those persons who have business in the area. This, I think, is the theme which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quite rightly wanted to have stressed more emphatically and defined more precisely. We have been glad to accept his suggestion at a number of

739
points, of which this Amendment, No. 18, is the first. I beg to move.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Again, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for accepting these suggestions and putting them down in this manner.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 29, line 36. at end insert ("and, if the lorry area is to be used for either or both of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(b) and (c) above, parking places for other vehicles which will be on the area in connection with that purpose or those purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also make it absolutely clear that the services and facilities provided on a lorry area arc for the benefit and use only of those persons who are on the area in connection with the parking of heavy goods vehicles. This further Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment. It makes clear that parking places may be provided on lorry areas for use by vehicles other than heavy goods vehicles, being vehicles which are on the area in connection with the storage of goods or the transfer of goods to or from heavy goods vehicles. It is clearly necessary, in spite of what I was just saying, to provide parking space for all vehicles which have business on the lorry area. I beg to move,
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I take it that this Amendment also provides for the parking of a vehicle which may be brought into the area to carry out some repair or service facility, which may not be provided for under the appropriate paragraph in the later subsection, but may be used by an outside contractor.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, that is the sort of purpose for which this is provided, but we are here dealing with the basic legislation. There will have to be precise regulations which will vary from one lorry area to another.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 is connected with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 37, leave out (" and ") and insert (" or ").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21, which I dealt with on No. 18.
Amendment moved—℄
Page 29. line 39. leave out paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) and insert—

" (c) facilities for the accommodation of persons who will be on the lorry area in connection with any purpose for which the area may be used in pursuance of subsection (1) above or with the provision on the area of any such facilities as are mentioned in this subsection:

(d) facilities for the provision of meals and refreshments for such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above;

(e) facilities for handling and storing goods which have been or are to be carried or hauled by heavy goods vehicles;

(f) service station facilities for such vehicles and for other vehicles entitled to be on the lorry area;

(g) sanitary conveniences (including lavatories) for such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above; ").—(Lord Sandford.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendent goes so far towards meeting all the points I raised earlier that I hesitate to make too many comments lest the noble Lord thinks I am ungrateful for the great help that he has already given. However, I should have preferred to see in these subsections some particular provision for a security pound within the lorry area. It seems to me that throughout the clause we have no emphasis on security, although noble Lords will agree with me, I think, that this is a generally accepted fact contained in the provisions for a lorry area. If we are not careful, I foresee the whole lorry area becoming a security area. It is concerning this eventuality that I would ask the noble Lord to give us some further assurance.
Perhaps I may briefly return to paragraph (f), which deals with service station facilities. A moment ago I mentioned the question of a haulier with contractual arrangements for the repair of vehicles in a certain part of the country. It may be that he also has contractual arrangements for refuelling. I emphasise again that although a lorry area may at some time provide such services, refuelling and repair facilities, it would not be prohibited for an outside contractor to provide them. I mention refuelling in particular because we may reach the stage where regulations

741
permit refuelling from mobile tankers or refuelling for special fuels. Although the lorry area has such facilities provided, it will not preclude outside contractors from entering the area and providing such services. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to help me on those questions, but I should not like him to think that I have any further criticism of the Amendment as it stands.
12.11 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I confirm, and am glad to give the assurance, that although the question of security is not mentioned specifically in the Bill it is only because it is unnecessary to do so. There is nothing in the drafting of the Bill which would put any impediments upon the provision of security as regards the whole area and a higher degree of security in respect of valuable goods within the area. That is the basic intention. I am sure I mentioned it when I introduced the clause, and I am glad to give the assurance that it is the full intention that security for goods vehicles and goods from heavy vehicles shall be provided in these lorry areas. There is nothing in the clause to prevent that from being done. I also want to confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the service facilities being provided in the lorry area by a contractor other than the one who takes out the whole lease, and the question of subcontracting parts of it is certainly open. I would rather not discuss now the hypothetical case of what might he clone in the way of refuelling from mobile vehicles. This practice is not yet with us, though I realise that it may not be far off. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to agree with this group of Amendments, and with this Amendment in particular.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22 formally.
Amendment moved℄
Page 30, line 1, after (" install ") insert (" or provide ").—(Lord Sand ford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. This is linked to Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—℄
Page 30, line 1, after (" subsection ") insert (" or elsewhere on the lorry area ").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30, line 15, after (" above ") insert (" or of the powers conferred on him in his capacity as a highway authority by virtue of subsection (5) below ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 24, which amends subsection (4), merely allows the Secretary of State, in respect of a lorry area provided by him, to delegate to a local authority any of the powers exercisable by him by virtue of subsection (5). Amendment No. 25 deals with a slightly different point which has arisen from further examination of the clause, showing that it is also necessary to attract the provisions of Section 84D and Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. Amendment No. 25 achieves that. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25 formally.
Amendment moved—℄
Page 30, line 23, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(" (5) Section 31 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (power to make orders as to use of certain parking places) shall apply in relation to a lorry area as it applies in relation to an off-street parking place provided under section 28 of that Act as if for references to a local authority and such a parking place there were substituted references to a highway authority and a lorry area respectively, and sections 84A, 84B, 84C, 840 and 85 of that Act (provisions with respect to certain orders and offences, including orders and offences under the said section 31) shall have effect as if—℄

(a) references therein to the said section 31 and a local authority included references to that section as applied by this subsection and a local highway authority respectively;

(b) references in section 84D to a parking place included references to a lorry area; and

(c) the reference in section 85(2) to the local authority for the parking place included a reference to the highway authority by whom the lorry area was provided.").—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26. We considered this Amendment in the discussion which we had on Amendments Nos. 18 and 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 41, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27. We considered this Amendment in our discussion on Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 1, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
(" (9) In this section—
" goods "includes goods or burden of any description;
" heavy goods vehicle " means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage or haulage of goods, being a vehicle having an unladen weight of two tons or more, or a trailer;
" local authority " has the same meaning as in section 27 of this Act;
" motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1960;
" trailer " means a vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods and drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Procedural and other provisions supplementary to s.44]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 52, line 24, at end insert—
(" () Where there are proposals for the provision of a lorry area on land adjoining, or in the vicinity of, a special road or proposed special road, then, if that land, or any land of which that land forms part. is compulsorily acquired under section 44(5) of this Act or in pursuance of a notice under section 129. 135 or 136 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (which relate to the protection of owners of land affected by certain planning decisions) or in pursuance of a notice under section 139 of that Act (which relates to the protection of owner-occupiers of land affected by planning proposals), section 139 of the Transport Act 1968 (which provides for the assessment of compensation in certain cases of the compulsory acquisition of land required as a service area for a special road) shall have effect for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition—

(a)as if for references in subsection (1) to section 215(2)(c) of the principal Act (acquisition of land required for the provision
744
of service stations. etc., for use in connection with a special road there were substituted references to the said section 44(5); and

(b) as if service area development, as defined by subsection (2), included development for the purpose of providing a lorry area for use in connection with a special road or proposed special road.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides that the rules governing compensation in Section 139 of the Transport Act 1968 shall apply for the compulsory acquisition of land for lorry areas on motorways. These rules apply already to compulsory acquisitions for service areas on motorways. Your Lordships will agree that the same rules should apply to land for lorry areas, since the same considerations apply. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Schedule 2 [Section 103 of the Principal Act as amended]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29 formally.
Amendment moved—℄
Page 85, line 34, leave out from the beginning to (" exercise") in line 36 and insert (" Without prejudice to their powers under the foregoing provisions of this section, a highway authority may, for the purpose of the drainage of a highway or proposed highway for which they are, or. as the case may be. will be, the highway authority ").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
Amendment moved℄
Page 85, line 38, at end insert—
(" (4A) Before a local highway authority, being a County Council, exercise any powers under the Public Health Act 1936 by virtue of subsection (4) of this section, they shall give notice of their intention to do so to the Council of the County District within whose area the powers are proposed to be exercised.").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD ILFORD: I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment, because this is another case where the Bill is again conferring duplicated powers on two different authorities. There is no objection to that, but it has been found that where duplicated powers are conferred in this way upon more than one

745
authority it is very desirable that, before those powers are exercised, notice should be given by the authority that proposes to exercise its powers. That is provided for in this Schedule, and I know that it will be welcome to local authorities. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (SPECIAL ADVANCES) ORDER 1971
12.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1971, laid before the House on May 3, be approved. If the draft order is approved, it will enable a building society to advance to an individual up to £13,000, instead of £10,000 as at present, without the society having to treat the advance as a " special advance " for the purpose of the Building Societies Act 1962.
Traditionally, the work of the building societies has been to lend money to owner-occupiers, and Parliament sought to recognise this in the Building Societies Act 1960, later consolidated in the Act of 1962. But the concept of owner-occupier was not easily caught within a statutory definition. The Act therefore defined as " special advances the part of building society business which was generally regarded as falling outside their traditional business of lending to owner-occupiers, and then put a limit on the proportion of its advances which a society could lend in the form of special advances.. The Acts defined " special advances " as all advances to companies and advances above a specified limit to individuals. The purpose of this Order is to raise this limit to £13,000,
The Building Societies Act 1960 originally set the limit at £5.000. which was then regarded as the normal maximum level of advance for an owner-occupier. But it was recognised in 1960 that the limit might need revising from time to time, and the Act included a provision to do this by Order. In 1963 the limit was raised to £7,000, and in 1967 it was raised to its present level of £ 10.000. The
746
Building Societies' Association have recently suggested to the Government that the limit should be raised to £15,000, but the Government have come to the conclusion that £13,000 is the right figure. This takes account of the general rise in house prices since 1967 and, as with the 1967 Order, to some extent makes allowance for future prices rises. It is of course for the building societies to decide, within the limits laid down in the Acts, their policy on special advances, but I am sure that the societies will be anxious to ensure that an increase in the limit to £13,000 will not reduce the amount of funds available for mortgages for smaller amounts. I invite the House to approve this Order.
Moved, That the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order 1971 be approved.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a most lucid explanation of this Order and I do not think it is likely to provoke any opposition in your Lordships' House, but it is right that I should preface my own few remarks by saying that only yesterday I was invited by the Building Societies' Association to be one of their vice-presidents. I was delighted to accept, and I am very pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the President of the Association, here to-day. The office which I now hold confers no financial advantages upon me, but it gives me an opportunity to demonstrate my belief in the social value of the building society movement, a belief of which I hope I gave some concrete proof in a previous incarnation.
I think the proposed increase in the limit of ordinary loans is a reasonable one. It is not an easy decision to take, and I think it is right that the views of the Registrar General should be given very careful consideration. In 1967 the figure went up to £10,000, as the noble Lord has reminded us, and the new increase to £13,000 takes care of the increase in house prices since that time. I think we should remember that the proportion of special advances, except in very unusual circumstances, is restricted, under Section 22 of the Act, to 10 per cent. I wish that my noble friend Lord Jacques could have been here to-day, because I know that this

747
is an aspect of the problem which interests him very much indeed.
It is also right, I think, to look at the general context of special advances, because I think that the effects of Sections 21 and 22 can be seen in the Registrar General's report for 1969, which showed that special advances by all societies in that year amounted to £22 million, or only 1.41 per cent, of all advances. The figure in 1968 was just over 2 per cent., and it is very unusual to find a society which goes very much higher than that. To go much higher than that figure would probably be undesirable.
Finally, I should like to express the hope that if the demand for mortgages does once again exceed the available resources the building societies will concentrate on the lower end of the scale, and so help more people to buy their houses than would otherwise be the case. This is a matter which, I for one, am happy to leave to the good sense of the societies, who show great social responsibility in matters of this kind and who have made a great contribution to helping solve the nation's housing problem.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I just want to endorse what my noble friend has said. I think a happy medium has been reached, but I hope that from time to time the Government will listen to the responsible approach of the building societies as and if they need to move the ceiling. I should take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord opposite for bringing the Order forward to-day.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Order which is before your Lordships and ask the House to endorse it. I must declare an interest, in that I am chairman of a medium-sized building society, and we entirely agree with the objects of this Order. Before saying any more, I should like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, on his appointment as a vice-president of the Building Societies' Association, and I wish him every happiness in that important office. I felt when the noble Lord was a Minister that the building societies had a good friend in him. In spite of the pressure that was sometimes
748
put upon him by those less knowledgeable in that field than he is himself, he was always prepared to listen sympathetically to representations about the great problems that occasionally arise in the building society world.
As to the general proposition before us, I am certain from my own experience that it is quite time this limit for ordinary loans was raised to £13,000. Most building societies would be of the opinion that perhaps it would be better to raise it to £1 5,000. £13,000 being rather an odd amount. But £13,000 is better than £10,000; and, speaking for my own society, we welcome this advance. The point is that in Greater London, and in many of the great conurbations, and also in parts of the Home Counties, the purchase price of a house now is very often more than £13.000. The cost of what is called, I think, " middle-class housing"—anything other than the normal terraced house—is often £15,000 or more. I have three children, and five grandchildren, and one of the three children has just bought a house. As we all know, it is extremely difficult for young people to-day to save money for the deposit—and I am very glad to see that the Government have made a contribution in this field. In addition to that, young people know that they will have to buy furniture, carpets, and all the things necessary to set up a home, so that in many cases they are unable to produce the considerable sum required for the deposit. In effect, what happens is that they have to go to mortgage brokers outside the building society movement and pay exorbitant rates of interest, not so much to the brokers as to the various finance houses; or they have to get an insurance policy, which again is very costly. Therefore, every time one can raise the limit it helps a large number of young people who want to buy a more expensive house and who otherwise would have to pay very much more to service the loan—if, indeed, they could get the loan. That is the first point I want to make.
As to second point mentioned both by Lord Greenwood and Lord Davies of Leek, fortunately the building societies now have a large amount of funds available for house purchase. It is not going to affect the person who wants the £5,000 or £6,000 house at all. The combined assets of the building societies are £11.119 million. and they are all most anxious

749
to help the owner-occupier whether he wants to buy a very medium-priced house, £2,000 or £3,000, or a more expensive one. For this reason, I should like to endorse most emphatically what Mr. Amery said in another place on May 6. He said, regarding a high rate of advances:
" It is more important that they "—
that is, the building societies—
" should have enough money to lend at present rates than that they should cut the rate and have to turn people away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 6/5/71, col. 1680.]
I am glad to say that that was also Lord Greenwood's policy. He was quite right in that. I know he was under pressure to go the other way, but I commend him for the very realistic point of view he took on that matter. As both the previous Minister and the present one have taken this very realistic—and in my view, correct—point of view, I see no reason at all why the building societies should not be able to do a great deal to help the person who wants to buy the higher-price house—those persons of whom Lord Davies of Leek spoke. With these few words I should like to reiterate that I endorse and welcome the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
12.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I declare an interest in this matter as President of the Building Societies Association, an honourable but unremunerative occupation, in which I speak wholly without any authority of the organisation. The basis of this increase is said to be simply that the price of houses has doubled in ten years. This is a very serious matter indeed and of course it makes this Order absolutely necessary. It is a very unfortunate problem which we have to face. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has said, in the case of approximately 981½ per cent. of the money advanced no use whatsoever is made of special advances. Only a comparatively small number of the smaller societies use this at all.
I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore is important. I believe that one of the major tasks of the next twenty years or so will be in the centre of our big towns. Very big steps are being taken in this direction, and a great deal of money will be needed. I
750
believe the building societies must make a contribution to it. For that reason, I think it is desirable that they should be able to do so, although, frankly, at the present time they are not moving greatly in that direction. I believe it to be a great advance that owner-occupation is not now a political subject in this country; it is accepted absolutely by all sides of the House. I believe that progress in this view will be to the advantage of all political Parties.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported this order. May I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood on his election as a vice-president of the Building Societies Association. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, of the need to provide mortgage facilities for those at the lower end of the scale who find it more difficult to put down money for a deposit. I think I should refer to the meeting which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned, between my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Building Societies' Association. As a result of those discussions he said that the Association would advise its member societies that, first of all, if a man saves regularly with them for a period even as short as six months, and at a rate equivalent to his future monthly repayments, he should be favourably considered for an advance. That should benefit those who have not the necessary capital for a deposit. Secondly—
LORD OGMOREM: My Lords, I appreciate that and think it is a very good point that the Minister made, but the actual point that I was making was that in the case of option mortgages the Government have now decided to encourage 100 per cent. mortgages. That is a very important point indeed. The Government themselves will guarantee at least 5 per cent. of the advance. For instance, my own society already grants 95 per cent. in suitable cases, with a mortgage guarantee, but the Government are now going to cover that extra 5 per cent., which I think will be very valuable to young people starting life. Those are the people we particularly want to help.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I much appreciate what the noble Lord has said from his long experience of this matter. I am glad that he welcomes the action of the Government. I was just referring to a way which I think would help those who might not otherwise be able to find deposits. I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1966 (COMMENCEMENT No. 3) ORDER 1971
12.37 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft National Insurance Act 1966 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1971, laid before the House on May 6, be approved. Flat-rate unemployment benefit is at present payable, subject to the usual conditions, to workers who are temporarily laid off or are working short time. Section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act 1966 introduced a rule which prevented the payment of unemployment benefit for the first six days of each period of suspension by the employer.
The rule was applied to earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit from October, 1966, and was to be applied to flat-rate unemployment benefit from March 10, 1969. The delay was intended to give both sides of industry an opportunity of progressing towards voluntary guarantee payments. The previous Administration undertook to review the progress being made half way through the transitional period, and at that stage decided that legislation would be necessary. It became obvious that there would be great difficulty in establishing a statutory scheme of guarantee payments in the time available, and accordingly the National Insurance Act 1969 postponed the full implementation of Section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act 1966 until an appointed day.
The Government have examined the problem carefully and consider that the payment of unemployment benefit to suspended workers who are not unemployed and not looking for a job is a misuse of the National Insurance Fund. The Government
752
are convinced that it is right in I principle that responsibility for workers during short periods of lay-off or short-time working should rest with the industry concerned. Several industrial agreements reached in recent years have included provision for lay-off pay, and both sides of industry have now had a period of five years to prepare for the change which, indeed, is to be extended for a further period, in that the appointed day will be January 1, 1972. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance Act 1966 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1971, laid before the House on May 6, be approved.—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that explanation of this Order. Unhappily, the question of unemployment is all too topical at the moment, whichever aspect of it we are concerned with. I should like to ask the Minister how much this Government appreciate that even in operating this Order there is some slight anomaly in relation to a suspended worker. The unemployment basic pay, as I understand it, is £5 per week, or 16s. 8d. per day—or, in new pence, 83½,p. If a worker is able to obtain some temporary employment during this time he cannot earn any more than 33½,p per day. I think the noble Lord will agree that the kind of man who has the energy and initiative to do something during a lay-off period should not have less in his pocket than one who is receiving a straightforward benefit.
I hope the optimistic idea that all industries have come to their own arrangements is correct. It would be very sad if there were groups of workers who, because of the six-day period, were without any money at all. Of course, as we found in the past, all this means is that if one does not draw from one source one will draw from supplementary benefit, and therefore it cannot really be any solution. However, I accept the Order moved by the noble Lord.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has accepted the Order. There is not a great deal between us. I think we both realise that it is an anomaly that those who are not, strictly speaking, unemployed should at present be able to draw unemployment

753
benefit. It has led to a good deal of difficulty in certain cases where employers have treated this as a kind of subsidy to pay unemployment benefit to their workers while they are working only short time. The noble Baroness asked me a complicated question which I hope I can—
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I do not expect the Minister to reply at this point of time.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, as I am not sure that I have the answer handy. But I will certainly let her have the answer to her question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1971
12.42 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move. That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971, laid before the House on April 21, be approved. The purpose of the Order is continue for a further year from June 1, 1971 to May 31, 1972, the fertiliser subsidy scheme at the current rates. They are now expressed in decimal terms, of course. The proposal is in accordance with the decision taken at this year's Annual Review.
The House will be generally familiar with the history and background of the fertiliser subsidy scheme, but it may be helpful if I briefly remind noble Lords of the salient features. Schemes similar to the one now proposed have been in operation continuously since 1952. They have provided for subsidy based on the nitrogen and phosphoric acid content of all inorganic fertilisers used in agriculture. It may be an indication of their success that since the first scheme was introduced consumption has more than doubled. It has never been thought desirable to subsidise the third important plant food—potashߞall of which is imported and which, in any case, is by far the cheapest of the three main nutrients. There is no evidence, however, that the absence of subsidy has inhibited the use of potash, which has doubled during the life of the schemes. Nor is it administratively practicable to
Vol. 319
754
subsidise organic fertilisers, which vary enormously in nutrient content.
During the 1950s, increases in the rates of subsidy and in consumption of fertilisers had, by 1959, brought the annual cost of the subsidy to £30 million. It was clear that the expansion in the use of fertilisers was gathering momentum. At the same time, prices were beginning to fall. Since 1960, therefore, it has been the practice to adjust the rates of subsidy from time to time, so as to keep the annual cost within reasonable bounds. The one-year increase in fertiliser subsidy from March 19, 1970, was introduced following the 1970 Annual Review as a means of injecting an additional £9 million capital into the agricultural industry in a way which would benefit the great majority of farmers. The decision did not indicate a departure from the general policy of containing the cost of fertiliser subsidy. From March 19, 1971, the subsidy rates reverted to the previous levels.
The general upward trend in consumption has continued, with some setbacks, throughout the past decade. I have little doubt that most farmers are now fully aware of the importance of inorganic fertilisers to their industry. Nevertheless, there is room for further expansion in their use, particularly on grassland. Although the subsidy is only one of the many factors affecting consumption, I hope the House will agree that the Scheme should be continued for a further year with subsidy at the current rate, as proposed in the Draft Order now presented for the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971, laid before the House on April 21, be approved. —(Lord Denham.)
12.44 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is one of the forms of subsidy to agriculture with which I am in complete agreement. It is one of those subsidies which bring a handsome return to the economy as a whole via agriculture. I must admit that I was in some little doubt about this when one of my noble friends said to me, " Would you mind looking after this Order? It is about mushrooms and fertilisers." Knowing

755
that the expenditure was about £30 million a year, or a little more, I thought that in future if ever I ate a mushroom it would have a heart of gold. Clearly, the Scheme extends to the whole of the land upon which the fertiliser will be used. I welcome the Scheme entirely, especially the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that the general use is on the up-turn. I think that that is right.
I am sure that he is correct about the grassland. It is a feature of our agriculture which I always feel is rather sadly neglected, that we do not get full value for the grassland in this country where we can grow grass so well. If we can do nothing else we can grow grass, provided that we fertilise it and look after it properly and do not think merely that it will always be there and provide
756
a useful return without our doing anything about feeding it. Feeding it is the point of this subsidy. I certainly welcome this Scheme, and sincerely hope that the Minister's prognostication that there will be an increased use of and more money spent on this aspect will be borne out.
LORD DENHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his welcome to the Order. I would only say that, although the entire £32 million, which is the approximate cost—it has marginally risen—will not be spent wholly on mushrooms, mushrooms are of course included in the general scheme. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before one o'clock.