Lords Sitting of 25 October 1972

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

NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS: CONSULTANT GROUP'S REPORT
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet received the report on British companies' participation in offshore oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, and its supporting activities commissioned from the International Marine and Engineering Group; what are the conclusions, and whether they will publish the report.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, the Government have now received the report from the International Management and Engineering Group on the market for goods and services which will be associated with the development of hydrocarbons in the North Sea. As the report contains a good deal of confidential material relating to individual firms, we have invited the consultants to assist in preparing a version suitable for publication. We recognise the need for speed. In the meantime, the recommendations are being given our urgent attention.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that forthcoming reply, may I ask him this question on the matter of urgency? Would he not agree that the day for exhorting British firms to get in on the
2140
North Sea operation is past; that what they need is convincing market research in depth to persuade them to risk investment, and that with every week that passes others are gaining knowledge of the North Sea which British firms are missing? Will he therefore be so good as to assure the House, and through the House the country, that urgency really does mean urgency and not a month or two hence?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I quite take my noble friend's point, and I repeat that we are looking on this as a matter of urgency.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether the censoring or editing of this important report is consistent with the idea of open government?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, the terms of reference of the consultants made it inevitable that they should obtain access to a lot of information from individual firms, otherwise they could not have produced a sensible report. It follows that not all of this is suitable for publication; hence the need for some editing. We shall publish what we can.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is generally accepted in the industry that this study was necessary and that it had to call upon unpublishable information, but that, by the same token, it is most valuable to the industry in general and the public at large to have available whatever can be made available by way of market research?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree with that.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in view of the answer that the Minister has given to the question from his noble friend, when he said that the Group had been in consultation with firms in regard to the investigation that has taken place and that the report will be published, could he say, as he has talked about hydrocarbons, whether the National Coal Board, through its research departments, were taken into consultation along with the outside firms?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister aware, when we talk about hydrocarbons, that a lot of these emanate from the mining industry and from the production of coal, which is the basic material? One would have thought that they would have taken the National Coal Board into consultation along with other outside interests.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, the purpose of this inquiry was to establish the degree to which British industry could participate in the work following up the exploration for oil in the North Sea.

EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE: PROPOSED TALKS
2.36 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet reached a decision, in association with their NATO allies to be represented at the projected meeting at Helsinki on November 22 to prepare for a Conference on European Security and Co-operation.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie made clear in her reply to a similar Question from the noble Lord on September 20, the Finnish invitation causes us no difficulty. The Finnish Government are aware of this. But the date has still to be accepted by all the Governments concerned. As she said on September 20, we must keep in step with our allies.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords; but is it not the case that the NATO Governments have this week agreed to participate in the Helsinki preparatory Conference, and have accepted the date of November 22? May I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government would now change the rather lukewarm attitude with which Governments have approached this proposal for six years, and seek to make it a breakthrough in the beginning of peace relations between East and West?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I can agree with what the noble Lord has said, and that we want to see this Conference proceed on a thoroughly practical and, we hope, constructive basis. What he said about the North Atlantic Council's meeting this week is substantially correct, and there was a report on this meeting in The Times yesterday. I think that I can say that it seems very likely that, in practice, there will be no difficulty about the date of November 22, but I understand that there are still one or two points which remain to be cleared up.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Marquess has said, when would he expect to be able to tell Parliament that the Government have decided specifically to go to this meeting?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I can tell the noble Lord now that if, as we all hope, the meeting should take place on November 22, the Government will be there.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his second reply, which was much more reassuring and complete, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government's conception of the proposed European Conference on Security and Co-operation is of just one Conference, or whether they endorse the idea that there should be continuing commissions which would seek progressively to bring about agreement between the East and West?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that I would need to have notice of that specific question. Of course, as the noble Lord realises, this is only a preparatory Conference we are talking about; but if the arrangements to be made at this Conference are satisfactory then I understand that a specific Conference will be held, probably in June of next year. However, I should not like to go further than that at the moment.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether, if and when this Security Conference is held, the French Government will be represented? If not, what is the use of talking about security in Europe without the support of the French Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that I can answer to-day for what the French Government's views on participation at the Conference next June will be, but I will certainly take account of what the noble Lord has said.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that the French Government have already indicated their support for this Conference?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in that case, may I ask the noble Marquess how the French Government can be associated with a Security Conference when the Conference envisages the representation of the NATO allies? As France has contracted out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, how can she be represented?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think it is envisaged that this Conference will consist of something like 32 or 33 different nations.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true that, although the French Government have contracted out of NATO, they never cease to be represented at all meetings?

B.E.A. WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL
2.41 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the assurance given to the House on September 21 last that B.E.A. had decided not to withdraw check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal in the course of 1973, they have any further statement to make on the matter.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I confirmed on October 18 that the assurance which I gave on September 21, in which I stated that B.E.A. had decided not to withdraw check-in facilities at West London Air Terminal during the course of 1973, stands, and I have nothing further to add to that assurance.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I quite understand that, my Lords. Is the Minister aware that I put down this Question originally because in the London Evening Standard, The Times and the Financial Times respectively on October 12 and 13 there were statements to the effect that these facilities would be withdrawn in the summer, in June and in September/October, and that all these are long before the end of 1973? Does not the Minister think it likely that all this incorrect information came from the same source and should it not be corrected? Also, may I ask the Minister whether by any chance he saw a small paragraph in to-day's Times which states that:
"British European Airways said yesterday that it had made no decision to withdraw check-in facilities for passengers and their baggage at the West London air terminal. The statement, a major reversal of policy, contradicts a statement 12 days ago in the airline's staff newspaper."?
May I ask the Minister whether he does not think that it would be advantageous if some general publicity were given to this fact, both to the Press and to the general public, and not just by hole-in-the-corner methods by some small paragraph in an individual paper?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I was not aware of the various newspaper reports to which the noble Baroness referred and which caused her to put down this Question. I could not help thinking that if the noble Baroness were less gullible about what she reads in the papers and accepted more of what she is given by way of assurance, she might not have put down this Question. But it is not for me to say what B.E.A. publish following newspaper reports. I have no control over that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of your Lordships are quite unaware of what this is all about, and that they are encouraged in this situation by the sort of answers we get from the noble Earl? Also, may I ask him not to refer to noble Lords as "gullible" if, although the Government do not take official notice, they quote a number of newspapers? I think an apology is called for.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, of course I will apologise if I have been in any way offensive. That is the last thing

2145
that I wish to be. I merely tried to explain that I have given an assurance in this House that a decision to close the check-in facilities will not be made until the Metra Group has reported. I have also given an assurance on more than one occasion to the noble Baroness that any decision to close the check-in facilities will not be taken during the course of 1973. I am prepared to repeat both of those statements, but I cannot give her the assurance that they will find the publicity which she requires.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I am not in the least offended? I am sure he would not wish to be offensive and I certainly do not take umbrage. Also, may I ask him whether he is aware that if I had been less persistent we should not have reached the stage which we are at to-day?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very well aware that the noble Baroness is very persistent.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, might not the solution to this problem be some form of modest rebuke to the source of the original B.E.A. remark, perhaps in line with the public rebuke administered to the unfortunate Governor of Holloway Prison?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that might be one of the solutions, but it is not the one which the Government have chosen.

MOTORWAY CRASH BARRIERS
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the single-line crash barriers now being erected on motorways are in agreement with the standard safety views of the Road Research Laboratory; and whether Her Majesty's Government have permanently shelved the alternative scheme of steel cable safety fences.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, they are; the tensioned corrugated beam safety fence being installed was designed and developed by
2146
the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Wire rope safety fences are recommended for use where their minimal obstruction to wind-borne snow is advantageous in avoiding the formation of drifts.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I must say that I am slightly bewildered by his full Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that in many ways steel cable safety fences are preferable, because of course they catch the cars and take them along the side of the central reservation, which gives some hope of cars following at speed in the outer lanes avoiding a crash into the rear of a vehicle?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Road Research Laboratory are quite content that the standard crash barriers which we are installing are quite suitable for our roads. If we used a cable we should have to harden the reservation to stop low sports cars and other such cars riding up underneath the ropes, which would approximately double the cost of the installation.

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.

RATES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
2.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That the Draft Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on August 9, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am keenly aware that in asking your Lordships to approve the two draft Orders in Council this afternoon, dealing with rates and planning, there is a danger of appearing to be remote from the violent conflict that is all too evident in Northern

2147
Ireland. On a previous occasion of this kind I remember the noble Lord, Lord Wade, from the Liberal Benches, referring to the air of unreality which can pervade debates of this sort. In a sense, of course, this is so. But at the same time I believe we ought to acknowledge the absolutely essential need to keep the public administration in Northern Ireland going, and to keep it going as normally and as efficiently and as fairly as possible.
I might add that this is one of the factors that makes our present undertaking so demanding. First of all, there is the necessity to respond quickly, and often totally in terms of time, to the urgent needs of the security situation. But, simultaneously with this, there are the claims made by the administration of the basic public services—housing, education, the social services, local government—and the need to ensure that the ways these services are organised are in line with the requirements of those for whom they are provided. If, by their efforts, the terrorists caused the Government to shelve the second of these two responsibilities they would have achieved an objective more significant than many of them would realise
So for this reason, without in any way minimising the importance of the operations of the security forces against those who are seeking to get their own way by force or by threats of force, I am sure your Lordships will agree that we should at times, methodically and calmly, turn our minds to the kind of issues which are covered in the two draft Orders before us to-day. In moving these Orders I shall not speak at any great length, but I shall try wherever possible to explain the present law and practice in Northern Ireland; where it differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom; and how it is being changed. Both the Orders before your Lordships to-day arise out of local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland. The first, as its title implies, concerns rates—the financial basis upon which local government rests. The draft Order consolidates the present law on rating and valuation and modifies it to provide for determining the level of rates and for their collection after the new local government structure becomes effective, and also for improvements in the system of valuation for rating.
The present situation in Northern Ireland is that rates are determined and collected by county councils, county boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban districts; and in the case of water rates the Belfast Water Commissioners determine and collect rates in their own area of supply. When local government is reorganised next year, all these bodies will disappear and their functions will be taken over either by Government Departments, or by other public bodies, or by the 26 new district councils. It is therefore proposed that, for the future, the Northern Ireland ratepayer should be asked to pay, first of all, a district rate towards district council expenses; and this will be determined independently by the council of the district in which he lives. Secondly, there will be what is described as a regional rate. This will be determined by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance and will be charged uniformly throughout the Province. It will take into account the fact that by far the largest part of present local authority expenditure (something of the order of 85 per cent.) will be borne directly or indirectly by central Government. In order to minimise inconvenience to the ratepayer and to make for greater administrative efficiency, both the district and the regional rates will be collected together by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance, which will then hand over to each district council the product of its own rate.
The present arrangements for paying rates in two parts with the option for domestic ratepayers of paying in monthly instalments will continue, and there is a provision for discounts for prompt payments. As some of your Lordships will know, similar provisions operate in Great Britain. An advantage of the centralised administration of rating is that it will remove the administrative difficulties which previously prevented the introduction in Northern Ireland of a rate rebate scheme on very much the same lines as the scheme which has operated in Great Britain since 1966, and Article 28 of this Order provides for such a scheme to take effect in Northern Ireland. Since the administration and collection of rates is to be organised centrally by the Ministry of Finance, it seems fair that ratepayers throughout the Province should enjoy the same terms for payment and the same

2149
discounts. It is therefore intended to use powers proposed in this draft Order to make transitional arrangements for the new rating system to phase out special discounts and reliefs given in Belfast and some other local areas. I believe that most of these are historical in origin, dating from the 1920s, and have little relevance to the ability of the occupier to pay rates on his property.
I turn now, my Lords, to valuation. The most important new proposal is the introduction of a continuous review of valuations on a basis similar to the system which operates in Great Britain. At present there is a system in Northern Ireland of annual revision, which means in most cases that there is a delay of anything from 9 to 21 months before the valuation of a property for rating can be changed. Under the new arrangements, this period should be reduced, on average, to something closer to three months. Apart from this, the only proposal for changing exemption from rates concerns accommodation which is provided by a charitable body to house persons, such as caretakers, teachers or clergy, who carry out the functions of the charity. Some recent cases in the courts have considerably widened the extent to which this sort of occupation can be regarded as charitable, and therefore exempt. This is not a problem peculiar to Northern Ireland; and there is a considerable difference at present, in that exemption in Northern Ireland means 100 per cent. exemption, whereas in Great Britain it means 50 per cent. exemption with an option for the rating authority to grant more. The Order before your Lordships proposes to move nearer to the position in Great Britain by creating a separate category for such property and providing for 50 per cent. exemption. An exact parallel will apply between the positions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding clergymen's houses. These will in future obtain 50 per cent. exemption.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should say that the changes which I have outlined have been thoroughly discussed with representatives of local government and with other interested parties in Northern Ireland. They have been widely regarded as desirable in themselves; as a necessary part of the reform of local government; and as being in tune with much contemporary practice and thinking on local
2150
government finance in the rest of the United Kingdom. As such, I commend the draft Order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on August 9, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could say what are the rates paid by a person resident in Northern Ireland on a typical property as compared with the rates paid by a person living in England.
2.58 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I expect the noble Lord will be replying to questions, and if I intervene now it will give him a little time, if he has not got an answer, to get it. I intend to intervene only very briefly, but my noble friend's question underlines once again the impossibility of this House dealing with these matters. We have said this before, but I am saying it again because I am sure some other noble Lord will say it if I do not. This is probably the fifth time that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I have agreed that the situation is totally unsatisfactory. He does his very best to help us. It is helpful that we have these explanatory memoranda available in the Printed Paper Office for us to read, but when I start to study this Order, as indeed is so in the case of the Order following it, I see that there are a number of subjects which many of my noble friends, like my noble friend Lord Pargiter, with experience of local government, would probably wish to debate at length; and it just is not possible because, in any case, this Order is not amendable. In a way, this will be relevant to the matters to be debated later this afternoon on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, because this is an additional chore imposed on us: that the Parliament at Westminster has now taken on the duties of Stormont, while Stormont is busy taking on the duties of local government in Northern Ireland.
I think, therefore. there is little useful that I can say although there is so much that one would wish to say, both on this and on the following Order. No doubt in the new Session, when another place has decided how it is going to handle

2151
this sort of matter, we shall be able to face this problem ourselves, but until another place does that it is very difficult for us to do so. So I personally exculpate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has always been extremely co-operative. Everything we have asked for he has done his best to produce; and the papers are available in the Printed Paper Office for us to read. He referred to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, last time; but here we are, stuck just as badly as before, with what really is a Bill of 57 clauses, or thereabouts, and a number of enormously long Schedules. My feeling is that it would be a pretence if we discussed it in detail. There may be particular points in which noble Lords are interested which, if raised, may help clarify certain aspects; but since there is little that we can do about it, I would prefer officially from these Benches not to pretend that we are giving it all the consideration that it should have. There may be some further points on the draft Planning Orders. That Order is perhaps a little more intelligible to me than this one; but I did not seek advice from my noble friends who know more about this because I thought—and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would agree—that it would be a waste of time to do so. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I recommend the House to approve this Order.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining these Orders, It was not my intention again to refer to the air of unreality. I recognise in present circumstances that the day-to-day business has to be carried on and that these Orders have to be laid. There is one point which I should like to raise with regard to rates. I hope that it is quite a simple one but it may be otherwise. Regrettably, a certain amount of property has been damaged or destroyed in Northern Ireland. What is the effect on other ratepayers where property is so damaged that rates can no longer be raised upon it? Does it have the effect of throwing an additional burden on to the other ratepayers, or is the burden borne by the Exchequer here? That is the only point that I have to raise. With regard to valuation, which is dealt with in the next Order, it seems to me that the proposals are an improvement.
3.4 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for the welcome they have given to this Order, and to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition particularly for sparing us a detailed debate on local government finance in Northern Ireland. There are certain fundamental differences but, as I sought to explain in my opening speech, this Order is bringing rating practice much closer—though it is not always exactly parallel—to what takes place in the rest of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, asked about the level of rates paid in Northern Ireland compared with that paid by the occupier of a similar property in Great Britain. The guiding principle here is that of parity: parity of taxes and parity of local government taxation. This means that both the taxpayer and the ratepayer in Northern Ireland should bear a burden which is equitable by comparison with that of his counterpart in Great Britain. Parity applies to rates in the same way as to any other tax. The best means of achieving parity is to make a comparison with rate levels in regions of Great Britain which have a similar structure of household incomes, and then to strike a regional rate which allows for the fact that in Northern Ireland a district rate will also be payable. Therefore what will happen under the provisions contained in this Order is that comparable areas in Great Britain will be studied, and in order to get an approximately similar level of rating they will be treated as models for the regional rate in Northern Ireland.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the cost of local government services is met as to about 85 per cent. at the moment from central Government funds. Therefore the cost of compensation, which comes from central funds, would not in the main fall on ratepayers in any particular area. I might add that in certain city centres such as (I speak from memory), Belfast, Londonderry and Newry, which have been particularly damaged, a system of rate relief has been introduced recently by the Secretary of State to help the ratepayers who have suffered exceptional loss of business. They have been either exempted completely from payment of rates, or have been enabled to pay at a lower level. Local authorities—from my

2153
own knowledge of Belfast Corporation, for example—have tried to be flexible in not demanding prompt payment of rates in certain harsh cases where it has been difficult for ratepayers to pay. Sometimes they do not have funds to do so, when they are perhaps awaiting financial compensation under a claim which may be before the county court.
My Lords, that deals briefly with the points that have been raised. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, has something more to say.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I gather that to achieve parity for ratepayers requires an 85 per cent. grant in Northern Ireland as against an approximately 50 per cent. grant in Great Britain?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should not like to give an absolute reply on that point. The general picture that I find it helpful to have in mind—and it may be helpful for other noble Lords—is that around 85 per cent. of the cost of local government services in Northern Ireland is met by central Government funds—that is Stormont funds—and 15 per cent. by the ratepayers. The proportion of the 85 per cent. which comes from tax yield in Northern Ireland and the proportion which comes from tax payers in the rest of the United Kingdom is quite another calculation and one on which I should be very rash to give a quick answer to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLANNING (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
3.8 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on August 9 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The draft Planning Order in Council also results from the proposals of the Macrory Review Body on the reorganisation of Local Government in Northern Ireland. One of these proposals was that planning should become a regional service carried out by the Ministry of Development. I should explain to those who are not
2154
familiar with the structure of Government in Northern Ireland that the Ministry of Development covers much the same range of responsibilities as the Department of the Environment at Whitehall; that is, local government, housing and transport. It is, therefore, a very large Department. In addition, however, to making this transition the draft Order provides a new code of planning law for Northern Ireland bringing it broadly into line with that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps before going any further I ought to say that in this context planning means the formulation and co-ordination of policies for securing the orderly and consistent development of land and the planning of that development. The whole question of the way the use of land is planned, and its effect on the physical environment is a large one, but the definition I have given is that which is contained in Article 3 of the draft Order.
The current situation is that responsibility for planning in Northern Ireland is held by over 30 different local authorities which handle most of the day-to-day decisions on applications for planning permission. The Ministry of Development has in recent years, with the agreement of the local planning authorities concerned, taken on the responsibility of preparing development plans for various parts of the country—although on a non-statutory basis—and also is the planning authority in New Towns areas. The Macrory proposal for planning administration' was that all planning powers should be vested in the Ministry of Development as the sole planning authority in the Province. This recommendation was accepted by the then Government of Northern Ireland, was subsequently endorsed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and is now given effect in the draft Order which is presented to your Lordships to-day. The principles on which it is based were summarised in paragraph 2 of a document published in February, 1972, entitled Town and Country Planning—Proposals for Legislation. Copies of this document are available in the Printed Paper Office. Paragraph 2 stated:
"It matters to everybody that we should have an up to date and effective land use planning system. It matters too, that the system should ensure openness, consistency

2155
and fairness so that people can know about important changes before they take place and can have an opportunity to influence them."
My Lords, the state of planning law in Northern Ireland is some way behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom. The sort of controls on planning which exist at present are broadly the same as those which applied in Great Britain before the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947—the Act with which the late Lord Silkin is so prominently associated. The current law in the Province is, in the main, contained in the Planning and Housing Act (Northern Ireland) of 1931 and the Planning (Interim Development) Act (Northern Ireland) 1944. Legislation in 1965 was placed on the Statute Book at Stormont dealing with compensation and that put this aspect of planning law on to a more modern footing. Certain other changes, including provisions to alleviate planning blight, were made in 1971.
In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that a comprehensive new planning code was required, together with provisions for the preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic merit, and trees, and for carrying out town centre development. This draft Order, the proposals for which have been the subject of extensive consultation, is the result. From the date it is approved and comes into force it will provide systematic control based on statutory development plans, thus putting Northern Ireland on the same footing as Great Britain has been since the 1947 legislation.
My Lords, rather than try to summarise all the provisions in this long and, in places, complex draft Order, I think it would be more appropriate, on this Order as on the last, to mention a number of points which are of particular significance, either intrinsically or because they represent a divergence from planning law in Great Britain. The position of the Ministry of Development as sole planning authority in Northern Ireland in itself, of course, creates a problem which does not apply in Britain. The Ministry will, among other things, be responsible for preparing development plans and deciding in the first instance on applications for planning permission. In Great Britain these functions lie with the local planning authorities and the Department
2156
of the Environment has an approval function in relation to structure plans and an appellate function in relation to planning decisions.
The absence of a two-tier planning structure in Northern Ireland means that there is no separate planning body to carry out this appellate function. The draft Order meets this situation by the device of what is described as a Planning Appeals Commission. This will be completely independent of the Ministry of Development and will have the function of hearing and deciding planning appeals against adverse Ministry planning decisions. Part XII of the Order provides in normal circumstances for the Commission members to be appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland, so as to emphasise the independence of the Commission from the Government of the day. That will be the situation with regard to planning decisions. As to the approval of development plans, the procedure proposed in Part III of the Order is for the Ministry of Development to adopt a plan after a public local inquiry has been held by the Planning Appeals Commission. While the recommendations of the Commission on the inquiry will be published and, I may say, will be given very full and thorough consideration by the Ministry, they will not be binding. The reason for this is because of the nature and the importance of development plans which will set out planning policy and development proposals, the implementation of which will be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government Departments and other public authorities. It is essential, therefore, that the ultimate responsibility for development plans should remain with the Ministry. Let me stress, however, that a development plan will be adopted only after full public participation, in line with the recommendations of the Skeffington Report, that is the Report of the Committee on Public Participation in Planning chaired by the late Arthur Skeffington. There will be a public local inquiry held before the Planning Appeals Commission and, after consideration of the Commission Report, the Ministry will be required to issue a public statement of its decisions on all recommendations made by the Commission.
My Lords, because of the Ministry's role in adopting development plans, planning applications in respect of development which would be a departure from the plan are made subject to a special procedure by virtue of Article 22 of the draft Order. Such applications of major importance are decided by the Ministry after a public inquiry before the Planning Appeals Commission. This procedure is, I believe, is similar to the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment to call-in "for his decision planning applications of particular significance. Another new and important feature of the draft Order is contained in Article 15 which provides for the advertisement by the Ministry in the local Press of all applications for planning permission. Thus local people will know of any applications that have been made which may affect them and will have at least 14 days after publication before any decision can be reached. Reconstruction of bomb damage in commercial areas and in town centres, such as Belfast, will also be facilitated by this Order. Part VII provides powers, where necessary, not only for work of this kind but also for schemes of comprehensive redevelopment of central areas of towns which have become decayed and outdated. The powers provided by this part of the Order are of some importance, enabling the Ministry of Development to acquire and develop land in accordance with a development scheme which, before it is adopted—I repeat again—must go through a public inquiry system involving the Planning Appeals Commission.
My Lords, I have outlined in this brief introduction the main differences between this Order and the legislation which has applied for some years in the rest of the United Kingdom. As I have explained. it follows the recommendations of the Macrory Report in making planning a regional service over Northern Ireland as a whole while at the same time bringing planning law in the Province into line with modern requirements. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on August 9, be approved.—[Lord Windlesham.]
3.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the remarks I made in relation to the previous Order and on our ability to deal with this matter apply equally, perhaps even more so, to this Order which is an extremely interesting one. I am sure that any noble Lords interested in planning and planning procedures will find it rewarding to read the Order which I find strangely intelligible—if I may draw attention to that point—after all the unintelligible legislation we have been having in this House. The Explanatory Memorandum is also of interest.
If I may deal briefly with one or two points, first of all, I think the noble Lord has helpfully explained to us the main difference between the proposals here put forward and the prevailing United Kingdom legislation. I was a little surprised at his saying that Northern Ireland, which normally has sought to keep closely in line with United Kingdom legislation, had not moved more fully into line in the past. But what we are now discussing is a different animal. There is in this case a one-tier authority with a vengeance; namely, the Ministry of Development. If I remember rightly, there is another Department concerned with industry in Northern Ireland. Are there any differences between this Ministry and the Department of the Environment? If I am correct, for the purposes of this particular Order it is comparable with the D.O.E. My reason for raising this point is my concern as to how far there may be conflicts between the functions within the Department.
This brings to the very unusual procedure by which the Planning Appeals Commission in certain matters (though not, if I understand the Minister correctly, in regard to general development plans), is going to be an independent statutory body whose decisions will be final, whereas in this country ultimately the Minister is responsible. This raises an important Parliamentary principle. It is a further development in what I might call the tribunal field, and almost a further move to an extension of administrative law outside Parliamentary control. One entirely sees the reasons for this, and providing the Department and the Ministry continue to control general development policy, then I am hopeful

2159
that there will be no conflict. It would be intolerable if, however, admirable and independent the Planning Appeals Commission were, their views on development were significantly different from those of the Government and of the Department. It may well be that in the light of experience it will be necessary to reconsider this matter.
This brings me to a further point with regard to this Northern Ireland legislation, which we have to pass virtually unconsidered. Reports on developments of this sort should be made available to Parliament. I would again stress to noble Lords that Parliament is carrying a heavy responsibility and is failing to discharge it. We rely on the integrity of Ministers and officials, and we are happy to do so; but this is not the British Parliamentary way of proceeding. There will need to be further consideration of how this sort of matter is to be handled, and I should like the noble Lord to tell us whether there are arrangements for the provision of the equivalent of annual reports such as emanate from some Departments in the United Kingdom. It will be of the greatest importance to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the most open form of government—the sort of open government which all Governments, including this Government, talk about but never in fact do anything about. I accept of course that we introduced the Green Paper system. I think this is an area in which it will be extremely important that information on how these procedures work is provided. Officials will need to be especially sensitive in relation to the general public.
There are a number of other interesting minor provisions, but I am not sufficiently expert to see how far they differ. For instance, there is control over listed buildings. Can the noble Lord say whether this is exactly on all fours with the United Kingdom system? If he cannot answer that question, I will not press him; but perhaps he could let us know, bearing in mind that we have had one or two examples where the action with regard to listed buildings has not been found to be as comprehensive as we should like. I do not wish to seem frivolous on this subject, but there is, regrettably, scope for demolition in Northern Ireland which does not apply in this
2160
country. As the noble Lord began his speech so I would end, by saying that we are well aware that there are desperate affairs going on in Northern Ireland. The Government are entirely right, in my opinion, to proceed with the development of the right machinery of Government regardless of the discouragement which we may be experiencing in the political field at the moment.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, listening to the comprehensive explanation that we have just had from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I am impelled to ask a question which some of your Lordships may regard as premature, but which I am sure is bound to occupy the minds of many of your Lordships. What estimate has yet been reached as to the cost of repairing the damage already done in Northern Ireland? Obviously, we cannot envisage what further damage will be inflicted, but surely the subject of how the cost involved is to be met—whether it is to be met by the ratepayers in Northern Ireland or, in particular, in the Belfast area, or through the medium of a special housing loan—has been considered. These are matters that are bound to occupy the attention of the Government. Is it possible to have some information on the subject?
3.27 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, particularly for his remarks about the intelligibility of the draft Order. There is a separate Parliamentary draftsman at Stormont. It is seldom that draftsmen are complimented in this way, and I will pass on the noble Lord's remarks to him. The Ministry of Development in Northern Ireland is to be distinguished from the Ministry of Commerce; they are two separate Departments. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is quite right in drawing the analogy between the Ministry of Development and the Department of the Environment rather than the Department of Trade and Industry. The Ministry of Commerce is concerned with trade and commerce, but its powers in some respects are a good deal less than those of the D.T.I. in Whitehall.
I note the thoughtful remarks of the noble Lord about the Planning Appeals Commission. This is a new device. There had to be some way to provide for appeals against planning decisions. Since

2161
the Macrory review body recommended that planning should be a regional service, covering 1½ million people as a whole—the right sort of size for a planning authority—it meant that unless other provisions were made the Ministry of Development would be judge and jury in its own cause. Therefore, by setting up an independent Planning Appeals Commission to hear appeals it was hoped that some element of independence could be introduced. I believe that that will happen. The noble Lord asked whether there was the possibility of conflict if the Commission turned out to be very independent-minded and started to take a line that was against the way in which the Ministry saw things, and he asked what the result would be. One cannot speculate at this stage. The important aspect is that there should be an independent body and that it should be seen to operate. There is some need for genuinely independent institutions in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that this one will be a useful addition.
In the debates we shall be having shortly, and in the public discussions that will be taking place on the basis of the Government's Green Paper, the question of reporting to Parliament is something that may well come up. As to the way Government Departments are held accountable, it may be a regional assembly on the lines which some people have advocated. There would be a series of functional committees which would be serviced by officials. These also would be need to report to whatever regional body or Parliamentary institution is set up in Northern Ireland, and also the Parliament at Westminster might be concerned. These are issues which will call for a lot of thought, and will, I am sure, receive a great deal of debate.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked whether control over listed buildings, which is taken for the first time under the powers contained in this Order, will be the same as that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Articles 31 to 36 refer to this, and I understand that these provisions closely follow the equivalent British law. The Ministry has already carried out, on a non-statutory basis, a programme of listing buildings in various parts of Northern Ireland, so the process has begun. It is close to that which applies in Britain.
2162
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked about the cost of repairing bomb damage. There are a whole number of different schemes for compensation and financial aid. Statements have been made from time to time in Parliament about the costs under various headings, and a White Paper on financial arrangements was published some months ago. It is the Government's intention shortly to present a Bill dealing with financial provisions for Northern Ireland, and so early in the next Session there may be an opportunity for us to debate this question further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS: PEERS AND NEW LEGISLATION
3.32 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to move, That this House urges Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the experience of several years past, to ensure that, in its programme for the forthcoming Session, an appropriate number of Bills is introduced into this House, and calls upon the representatives of both major Parties so to arrange matters that the House of Lords is not compelled to assume responsibility for duties proper to the House of Commons by attempting to deal, by methods and in an atmosphere uncongenial to it, with undigested masses of legislation and that this House is of opinion that its proper constitutional role cannot be carried out unless the Government and the Parties are successful in their efforts to accomplish these tasks.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, to draw attention to the relevance to this Motion of the two Motions which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has just moved, because, frankly, I was not alert enough to see it.
Your Lordships will remember that it was the custom of the late Lord Silkin, usually at the end of July, to protest against the failure of successive Governments, of both Parties, to order the business of Parliament in such a manner as to prevent your Lordships' House from

2163
having to face an avalanche of legislation during the last weeks of each Parliamentary Session. I do not pretend to be able to support my case with the wealth of experience or the distinguished record of service to this House which gave to the late Lord Silkin's views a very special authority. Nevertheless, I think I should be right in saying that if he were with us this afternoon he would be happy to use his eloquence in support of this Motion.
I must make it clear at the start that this Motion is in no way critical of my noble friend the Leader of the House or, for that matter, of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It is intended to put on record and to emphasise the fact that if your Lordships are to carry out responsibly and constructively your constitutional duties in the legislative field, certain conditions are essential. In the original Motion that I put down on the Order Paper some time ago (which I have since withdrawn) I referred to the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. That has been its traditional and, many would think, its proper role. However, I do not think it is as true to-day as it has been on occasions over periods in the past because, owing to the political confrontation which occurred in the House of Commons Curing the last Session and in the Session which is now ending, your Lordships' House has been prevented, in the case of one major Bill, from being a revising Chamber, and in the case of another major Bill has been cast in the role of the principal legislative Chamber of Parliament.
The Local Government Bill is fresh in your Lordships' minds. It was a long Bill. When it 'went back to another place it went, I believe, with 600 Amendments. During the Committee stage, the Report stage and Third Reading, there were almost a thousand Amendments on the Marshalled Lists: to be precise, if my counting is correct, 987. Of these, at the Report stage alone there were 467 Amendments, of which 380 were Government Amendments. I submit, my Lords, that this is not your Lordships' House acting as a revising Chamber: this is the House of Lords operating as the major legislative Chamber of Parliament. It is my submission that the Local Government
2164
Bill should have started in this House, and not in another place—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD ALPORT:—because it is here that the vast experience of local government in Britain which your Lordships possess could have been used to put the Bill into proper shape for detailed use in another place at a later stage. I would go further and say this: that because of the particular position of your Lordships' House the Government could have accepted Amendments here and could have made concessions to local views without losing political face, as might have been the case in the other place.
The same applies to the Criminal Justice Bill. I think it would be fair to claim that this House has far greater resource of legal experience and authority than another place. If the Criminal Justice Bill had been introduced into this House a great deal of time and energy in another place would have been saved. I think it probable that a much better Bill would have reached the Statute Book. After all, this House has the advantage of the membership of the most experienced and distinguished legal personalities of the day—not only those who are at present members of the Judiciary, such as the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, but also the most able lawyers of an older generation, such as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Gardiner and Lord Stow Hill, and of the younger generation. such as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I submit that it would have been in the interests of Parliament, of the country and also of another place that the House of Lords should have had the first opportunity of considering the Criminal Justice Bill.
During this Session there have been two other Bills of major importance: the European Communities Bill and the Housing Finance Bill. In the case of the former Bill, I submit that the other place prevented your Lordships' House from acting as a revising Chamber. I must emphasise that I know—I must use those words, "I know"—that had the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, been in charge of Government business in the circumstances in which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe

2165
found himself, he too would have resisted any attempt of this House to amend this Bill. I must say that, in my view, in the light of the situation in another place, my noble friend was entirely justified in the decision that was taken to resist Amendments. But if the European Communities Bill had been introduced into this House it could have been amended in certain respects without political repercussions, either in Parliament or in the country at large. It would have gone to the other place with the advantage of having been improved by second thoughts on behalf of the Government and also as a result of the advice of many Peers on the Cross-Benches and on both sides of this House, all of whom are well qualified to give such advice. Of course I realise that, in practice, in no circumstances could this Bill have been introduced here because of the political overtones with which it was surrounded.
The same applies to the Housing Finance Bill. Both that and the European Communities Bill were essentially political Bills, and it was right that they should be introduced into the political Chamber of Parliament and that the political struggle—I might almost say the physical struggle—should be carried out there. I recollect, and I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will also recollect, that in 1951 the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, made reference in public to the importance of harrying the Labour Government out of power. It took a great deal of effort by the noble Lord and by leading members of the Opposition to explain away that statement at the time. Nevertheless, it is legitimate that in the House of Commons the Opposition should seek by physical pressures, by trying to sap their morale, to drive the Government from power. Long debates, late nights, a sustained filibuster, a mountain of Amendments, procedural tricks—all these may be perfectly legitimate, and indeed are in the House of Commons; but they are not, I submit, appropriate to your Lordships' House.
Yet in some cases—I have no doubt that I am as guilty as anybody else—the habits of a lifetime, the sense of Party loyalty, the natural combativeness of individuals, the urge to do something effective in accordance with personal judgment, the fact that many of us are
2166
essentially political beings, have imported into the debates, both in this Session on the debates on the European Communities Bill and the Housing Finance Bill, and on other legislation in the past, factors which I submit are not appropriate to the character and responsibility of a Second Chamber. To some extent one feels that the Opposition Front Bench might perhaps have controlled the situation better; but I do not attribute blame very seriously because, thank God ! no Front Bench is entirely in control of the independent Members who normally support it; nor do I believe that it should be held responsible for circumscribing the eloquence and dedication of certain noble Lords during debates.
But I think it is right that, at the end of a long and contentious Session, we should emphasise to all concerned that if we, who frankly can enjoy our privileges without any compulsion to shoulder our responsibilities are to play our constitutional role with integrity and efficiency, certain constraints must exist in respect of the Government, the House of Commons and also our own membership with regard to the timing of Parliamentary legislation and the handling of various Bills which are debated in your Lordships' House.
I realise that the House of Commons has become and will presumably increasingly continue to be an arena in which the legislative processes are exploited for political interest of the Parties, or minorities within the Parties. It has been so in the past, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so in the future. Your Lordships will I am sure recollect that the Irish Party was the most successful in this in days gone by, and as a result of their activities during the latter part of the last century the guillotine was invented to prevent the legislative programme of the Government from being frustrated by a determined Opposition. The same problems are arising now. It means that the responsibility for ensuring that Bills reach the Statute Book clearly and accurately drafted, that small interests affected by them have their views aired (and that is most important, I submit, in a democratic community) that each Bill achieves what the public interest requires—all that responsibility will fall increasingly on the shoulders of this House.

2167
If your Lordships are to carry out these greatly augmented responsibilities properly, two things are necessary. First, we must have adequate time in which to do our work. Secondly, we must ensure that we do it by methods and in an atmosphere calculated to enable us to do it effectively. The first means that the Government must make certain that there is a proper balance between the amount of legislation introduced into the two Houses respectively, and that both Parties must ensure that major Bills introduced into the House of Commons reach us in time for us to give them proper consideration. The second means that we must resist in this House any tendency to exploit the procedures here in a manner similar to that which has happened and is happening in the House of Commons. We must not allow this House to be turned into just another and very secondary arena of the Party struggle for political power.
In the end it was the able leadership of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, and the strong sense of Parliamentary proprietry which carried this House successfully through a very considerable test. I have one point to add in relation to that: a very heavy burden of intellectual work and physical work of attendance at your Lordships' House falls on the two Front Benches. I am quite certain that neither had the relaxation from their duties over the past three months to which they were entitled, and which would have been in the interests of the procedures of this House that they should have had. I am sure that I am not alone in being able to envisage however—under perhaps different leaderships and in different circumstances—a time when the successful overcoming of a test such as we have been able to achieve during this Session will not happen. As a result we should have to face the possibility of having to resort to the selection of Amendments which would seriously curtail the rights, freedom and independence of Members of your Lordships' House. We might have to resort to taking Committee stages of important Bills upstairs and, in desperation, we might find it necessary to introduce some form of guillotine procedure. In those circumstances, it is my firm belief that, even for an alternative form of Second Chamber, if that were to happen the value of the
2168
Second Chamber to the British Parliamentary system would be greatly diminished. I would go so far as to say that the whole edifice of Parliamentary democracy in Britain would be seriously undermined.
I have in the past troubled your Lordships with Motions dealing with the form of procedure. Some of these matters which we have discussed on previous occasions have been accepted. On some I freely confess that I think I was wrong and I have now changed my mind. On the general question of reform, which was frustrated by a combination of circumstances which I can only describe as "sinister"—or in fairness I might add dexter as well—I am sure that your Lordships are as determined as we were a year or two years ago. But this is not our problem. Our problem is to ensure that with our present composition and powers we are able to carry out our constitutional duty efficiently and in the public interest, and to perform our role as the willing legislative workhorse of the British Parliamentary system. This means flexibility and conciliation on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers in this House. It means action by the Government to ensure a balanced legislative programme in each Parliamentary Session. It means restraint and the traditional procedural good sense of all Members of this House; it means the continuance, despite outside political pressures, of the strong sense of personal independence which your Lordships enjoy.
My Lords, this Motion is simply intended to emphasise all this to the Government, to the House of Commons and to the country at large, and in consequence I hope that it will receive your Lordships' support. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House urges Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the experience of several years past, to ensure that, in its programme for the forthcoming Session, an appropriate number of Bills is introduced into this House, and calls upon the representatives of both major Parties so to arrange matters that the House of Lords is not compelled to assume responsibility for duties proper to the House of Commons by attempting to deal, by methods and in an atmosphere uncongenial to it, with undigested masses of legislation; and that this House

2169
is of opinion that its proper constitutional role cannot be carried out unless the Government and the Parties are successful in their efforts to accomplish these tasks—(Lord Alport.)
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in rising to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alport, I must first of all make an explanation and also an apology. When the noble Lord put down his Motion on the Order Paper I was very interested in it. I was disappointed to find that my noble friends Lord Shackleton and Lord Beswick had decided that they would make speeches on this Motion. I think they suspected that my general conciliatory attitude to your Lordships' House, and the Government in particular, and my friendship and experience with the noble Earl, the Government Chief Whip, would have some inhibiting factor. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Beswick is away ill and not able to be in his place; therefore at very short notice I have been asked to speak. Unfortunately at 4.30 this afternoon I have an appointment with a most attractive nurse at St. Thomas's hospital. My only regret is that her attractiveness will not in any way compensate for the unpleasantness of the treatment. Therefore if I depart before the debate is completed, and do not return, I hope that I shall have not only the sympathy but also the understanding of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, drew attention to the fact that he has spoken on procedure on quite a number of occasions. If my memory is right, he rarely commands the wide support of the House, particularly of those noble Lords who sit on his side, but we all very much admire him because he gives great thought to the problems of this House; he seeks ways and means of improving it, and, although I would not entirely agree with some parts of his speech, I do not think there is any doubt at all that the House will be with him in support of the Motion he has moved and which is now before us. I hope that the House will accept it; and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the Chief Whip will regard this as a message not just to them but to the Prime Minister of the day and future Prime Ministers and the Lord President of the day and future Lord Presidents. Lord Alport himself referred
2170
to what used to be said by my noble friend Lord Silkin. This is a matter that comes up quite frequently, but I think we should all agree that the circumstances this year are infinitely worse than on any other previous occasion.
I was looking at the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in 1967, when I had fortunately just ceased from being Chief Whip, when a large number of Amendments was brought up from the House of Commons right at the end of the Session. On that occasion they had been notified to your Lordships' House on the Monday and were being taken on the Thursday. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, no doubt with the full growling support of noble Lords opposite, referred to this as the supreme contempt of Parliament. Let us take this occasion. We had the Criminal Justice Bill yesterday. We dealt with important Amendments that had been taken in the House of Commons on Friday. There was no notification of them whatsoever to any noble Lord, either through the Press or through any other medium. The Amendments were taken at 6 o'clock last evening. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said that if he had had an opportunity to vote he would have voted against them, but of course the House would not have provided such an opportunity because it would have created certain problems at this stage. Then there was the Local Government Bill. We were taking it up to Thursday of last week. The House of Commons was confronted with some 650 Amendments. Members of Parliament did not see them until last Monday and they were taking the Bill that day. This is, I suggest, the supreme contempt of Parliament. But it is, I concede, something which previous Governments and previous Parliaments have done and condoned.
I believe we have got away with it in the past because your Lordships' House will always accept it. I am certain the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has had the same experience as I had. When I raised the matter with the Lord President and the Legislative Committee of the Cabinet and said, "This is really impossible. You are asking too much", I was told, "Don't worry. You have always got it away in the past. You'll have no difficulty at all. Be nice to them. Smile."
LORD SHACKLETON: It works miracles.
LORD SHEPHERD: It works miracles, my Lords, as my noble friend says. But this means that, unless the House says, "Enough is enough", this situation will continue despite the passing of this Motion. So I hope that the noble Earl will take it from me that it is the spirit of your Lordships' House that we have now had enough and we do not intend to be treated in this matter in the same way again. We recognise that there may need to be exceptions when emergency legislation has to be dealt with—that is fully understandable—but we think that Governments now should so order their business that both Houses of Parliament have an adequate opportunity of considering the legislation before them.
The Motion falls into two parts. First it refers to the Leaders of the political Parties. Quite clearly, from what Lord Alport said, he had in mind the Leaders in the House of Commons. Of course, there is a good deal of consultation already. It would be wrong to think of the major political Parties as in continual political uproar. There is, as I say, a good deal of consultation, a good deal of "give and take", but sooner or later a political issue arises and in Opposition (I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, himself approves of this) there are tactics of delay which are perfectly justifiable. Therefore it is difficult to expect a Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons to give up the one sanction that is in his hands.
So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, perhaps there is even more consultation and agreement on business. In fact, unless there was I do not think your Lordships' House could work. But the noble Lord kept on referring to the Housing Finance Bill and he appeared to disapprove of what the Opposition did in dealing with it. There was a prolonged Committee stage and a fairly short Report stage. The noble Lord was saying that the Opposition should not retain the only sanction which the Labour Opposition has of putting pressure on the Government. I well remember sitting on the Benches opposite taking controversial legislation. I remember having responsibility for the Transport Bill. It was not liked by noble Lords opposite.
2172
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was leading for them. He never needed to have a long, protracted Committee stage to put pressure upon the Labour Government. He could submit each day three or four Amendments—not too many so as to create a difficulty between the two Houses, but three or four—which would give satisfaction to his own colleagues and the House, to another place and in the country. All he needed to do was to say to his noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn or the noble Lord, Lord Denham, "May I have 100 'boys and girls' in the House between half-past three in the afternoon and half-past eight in the evening. We can get the four Amendments passed. The Labour Party can do nothing about it." That is what happens to-day. Yet the noble Lord is asking the Labour Opposition to give up the one sanction it has; the one element of pressure which it can place upon the Conservative Government.
May I say to Lord Alport, with regard to the Housing Finance Bill, that the Committee stage could have been shorter if the Government had been a little more willing in the time they were prepared to give for Committee: there is no doubt at all about it. But I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that the number of substantial Amendments we got on Report were a consequence of what we did on Committee and the realisation by the Government that, unless they were prepared to make concessions where a strong case had been made, they could be faced with the same protracted debate both on Report and on Third Reading. I regard that as a legitimate use of one's debating power and skill in furthering the interests not just of one Party but of what one thinks are our national interests. So I believe that what has been suggested is wrong and is not the way to deal with the matter. Nor do I believe that this is the basic problem that confronts your Lordships' House. As to the time that was taken on the Housing Finance Bill, if we had taken less the Government would have been embarrassed because they had no business to put in its place: the other business was stuck in the House of Commons.
I suggest that one point the Government will have to bear in mind is this—and I hope they will overcome it in terms

2173
of getting legislation into this House. It is no good saying, "We will have five or ten Bills." What really counts is the quality of the Bills. I do not think there is any disagreement on that point. We have to overcome the Minister's natural desire to introduce his own legislation in the House of Commons, and I think this is going to be a real problem, one that will demand a very strong Prime Minister and Lord President of the Council to ensure that Bills that ought to be introduced in this House are taken here, irrespective of the wishes of the Minister of the Department concerned.
Secondly, I have no doubt at all that Lord Presidents of Council will need to be much more savage with Ministers in the drafting of legislation. One of the problems, I think, is that legislation enters either the House of Commons or the House of Lords far too late in the Session because, for various reasons, the legislation has not been properly drafted. But even if that problem is dealt with I do not think we shall be over the basic difficulty, and I suspect that the only way in which this can be overcome is if the Government one day will change the financial year so that the Finance Bill can be taken at a different period of the year. We all know that the House of Commons is geared to the Finance Bill, and one of the problems that I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, does not quite appreciate is that even if we have legislation introduced in this House we shall need to have it very early in the Session. We shall probably have to make great haste with it because it will be needed in the House of Commons before the proceedings on the Finance Bill are started. So the matter is not quite so simple that it is enough to say that the Government must get more legislation introduced in this House. It is not only a question of striking the right balance in the quality of the legislation. It is, too, for the House of Commons to look at some of its rules and regulations, particularly in the timing of the Finance Bill. But these are matters which are clearly for the House of Commons.
One thing must be said here. It is all right for a Conservative Government, with its large majority in this House, but if a Labour Government were to introduce major legislation here there would have to be a firm understanding that your
2174
Lordships' House would not throw out that Bill at Second Reading or at Third Reading. There would have to be an understanding that if a Government were to introduce major legislation first into your Lordships' House they could not deny the House of Commons the opportunity of considering it. Therefore, if I may say so, this would need a major change in outlook by noble Lords opposite.
My Lords, I have dealt with the problem as I see it and, frankly, there is only one suggestion that I can make. It seems to me that the basic problem arises from the fact that at present legislation must die at the end of each Session. I have no doubt at all that this is a wise provision, it would clearly not be right that legislation should be going through Parliament over many months, perhaps stretching into years. This would be all wrong. But, equally, I think it wrong that legislation—important legislation—can enter Parliament in May, and still be expected to be passed by the end of July or in October, when similar legislation could or should have been introduced in the previous November but was not.
I wonder therefore whether it would be possible for Parliament to adopt a system, which in some respects would be rather like a guillotine, under which there would be a certain period in which legislation should be passed by Parliament, so that irrespective of when it was introduced into Parliament it would have its passage and would not die with the commencement of a new Session. How long such a period should be I would not like to hazard a guess. One might have a degree of flexibility according to the number of clauses or the number of pages in the Bill; or it might be a question which could be agreed by the major political Parties in the House of Commons apportioning the proper time in both Houses. I myself do not see any other way, unless there are these changes in the House of Commons, of avoiding the present very unsatisfactory situation in which your Lordships' House is called upon to take major legislation at the end of the Session when it is quite unable to handle it, and also to send legislation back to the House of Commons, for consideration, under proper conditions, of what your Lordships' House may have

2175
decided to be right and proper in advising them through Amendments.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has rendered a notable service to your Lordships' House in moving this Motion, but I am firmly of the view that by itself it is likely to have no more effect than the 13-odd speeches that were made by the late Lord Silkin. In my view, there is only one solution, and that is for your Lordships' House to say, "Enough is enough; we will not do it." There was an occasion when your Lordships' House did such a thing. It was one of the most salutary occasions, and I am sorry that the present Government apparently do not remember it. Perhaps they should be reminded of the occasion when the late Lord Mills rose from the Benches opposite to introduce the Report stage of the Pipelines Bill and said to your Lordships' House, "I am very sorry, but during the last nine days between Committee and Report it has not been possible for the Government to draft the Amendments that they had agreed they would make at the Report stage." On that occasion the late Lord Silkin rose up in genuine wrath and made yet another of his speeches. On this occasion, however, he was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who said that what the Government were doing was utterly contemptible. The matter was taken to a Division. The only people who voted for the Government on that occasion were the Front Bench themselves; the rest of us went into the other Division Lobby. We all went home; and we took the Report stage 10 days later, with the Amendments that Lord Mills had agreed to produce. That was a salutary lesson which I think has now been forgotten, and I hope the Government will take this as a genuine warning that your Lordships' House wishes to perform a real function, both for Parliament and for the country. It requires the time and the conditions for doing that duty, and if the Government will not find it in the case of a particular piece of legislation, then your Lordships' House will say, "You will have to bring it back another day." My Lords, I support the Motion.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, withdraws from the Chamber I am sure it
2176
would be right that I should express the hope of every one of us here present that the treatment he is going to receive at half-past four will not only be efficacious but equally agreeable in the circumstances.
I should like to express my personal gratitude, as I am sure many of your Lordships will, to my noble friend Lord Alport for introducing this Motion and the debate this afternoon. Not only do I agree with almost everything that he has said but I think it is extremely timely, and I am a little more hopeful than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that perhaps as a result of this debate action in the counter-direction which is so much needed may come up over the horizon and may be taken before very long.
I am far from being an expert on constitutional or Parliamentary procedure. In fact, during the 15 years I was in another place I spent the whole time in a state of continuous confusion and perplexity. As only a 12 year old Member of this House, I am proud of the House to which I now have the honour to belong, of its composition, traditions and functions in general and the way in which it sets out to carry out those functions. A decade or more ago one heard that this Chamber was in danger of dying on its feet. To-day it flourishes, and in my view is not unpopular with the nation at large. Our level of attendance is generally satisfactory and we hold responsible, constructive and well-informed debates. I do not know whether in Iolanthe Gilbert would revise his description of our role—that we do nothing in particular. In my view that may require revision because we do our work very well. There are, however, a few improvements which could perhaps be made hare and there.
One reason why this House is working as well as it does at present is that noble Lords, most of them extremely busy people, feel that it is worth while giving their time to come here. I might in passing—I hope that does not sound in any way derogatory—pay tribute to the wisdom and patience with which our deliberations are guided by the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the usual channels. I have enormous respect for the usual channels. Conducted through them our business is borne forward with inevitability and quiet tranquility, like the tranquil murmur of a gentle stream. No noisy and tempestuous

2177
sounds are inaudible to us; on occasions the most we hear is a sort of gentle gurgle. Where these arguments take place I have never known. I hope that when I arrive in the next world I shall find a beneficent agency of the kind that has been established here.
We have been highly tried in the past two Sessions. We have had important, contentious, lengthy and complicated Bills thrust upon us, as noble Lords have said, too late in the Session to do justice to them. If, as I believe, revision and amendment is an important part of our work, then we have not been given a fair chance to carry out that task well. I hope that we shall make it clear to those who are responsible for the Parliamentary programme that unless we receive Bills in time to do them justice we cannot tackle them at all that Session. I am not saying that we should down tools without warning; I suppose that some sort of cooling-off period would be required before drastic action were taken. A question which arose when I was discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, was the idea that many of these difficulties would disappear if Public Bills could be carried over from one Parliamentary Session to another. I hasten to say that I have not thought that one out. There may be appalling objections to the idea and if the Whips were present I think I may have seen them turn pale at the mere suggestion of this possibility.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that if more Bills could be started in this House, that would unquestionably relieve the pressure in the second half of the Session. This obviously refers to those Bills which have no overriding issue of Party political importance, and there are many Bills of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to that pathetic notion Ministers have so often in the other place that the Bill which they intend to introduce will be popular. They often receive a shock later. They are sometimes under the delusion of wanting the honour of introducing a Bill, later wishing that someone else had had that particular role.
I would say with the greatest respect to both Front Benches that if they want this House to continue to feel a sense of responsibility, as I am sure they do, they
2178
must ensure that we have the opportunity to exercise those responsible functions well. I am certain that both Front Benches want that and will do everything they possibly can to see that we can proceed in that way. This House must never be regarded by anyone as a rubber-stamping agency. I am not shooting at Ministers of either Party in this House when I say that, because invariably we are treated with the greatest courtesy and patience. Senior Ministers in another place must get accustomed to the inconvenience of having their proposals amended here and they must not feel too hurt or surprised when that happens. I am not referring backwardly, as it were, to the European Communities Bill, because for reasons I gave on Third Reading I did not feel that the kind of Amendments which were moved would have been appropriate to the objects of that Bill: but I suppose that we are likely in future to be confronted with many long and complicated Bills like the Local Government Bill, with which we have just dealt. In that sort of case Ministers must be prepared for not only trivial or tiny improving Amendments but for quite substantial Amendments to be introduced into this House, passed in some cases and sent back to the other place, though I do not believe that we should go so far as passing Amendments which would wreck the object of the Bill itself.
I wish to comment on our discussions of Bills at various stages in this House. I feel sure that some procedure will have to be adopted for controlling our discussions during the various stages. "Regulating" may perhaps be a better word than "controlling" in this context. No one who participated in the passage of the Local Government Bill or the Industrial Relations Bill can have failed to recognise the complications that can arise as a result of the rather loose conventional procedure which in fact permits a great deal of repetition. Committee stage discussions are repeated on Report, and are even in danger of overflowing into the Third Reading debate. In my humble opinion it is too easy on Report to table Amendments which in some cases can be identical to those which have been debated and negatived in Committee. One illustration of this, to which reference has been made, was the Local Government Bill. There are cases where the flexibility of our arrangements has perhaps

2179
been a little exploited. That occurred when the Government tabled 11 pages of Amendments. They may have been issued on the Friday, but they did not reach us until the Monday and they had to be debated on the Tuesday. Those Amendments could not be described as essential to the Bill, though I accept that in the view of the Government they were desirable.
We certainly must agree to some tightening up of our procedure if we are to use the limited time at our disposal to the best advantage. Therefore, I have two suggestions only to make, and both fall into the same category. The first involves action outside our own control, and the other action within our own control. They are really to warn the powers-that-be that we must be more reasonably treated if we are to give of our best in the future—and by the "powers-that-be", again I am not referring to one Government or another, but to Governments generally in the future. The other suggestion is that our own procedure must be tightened up, even at the price of discarding some of our very agreeable conventional freedoms. I am convinced that this Chamber has an essential and invaluable part to play in our Parliamentary constitution. We must not make ourselves just a pale and far less powerful replica of the other place. We are a different Chamber, different in composition and quite different in role, and the desire of all of us is perfectly single-minded; namely, that our arrangements should be such as to enable us to play that role as effectively as possible.
4.21 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to participate in a debate with or even just to listen to a speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. The wisdom and the advice which he brings to the House, sprinkled with that quiet wit, is always a great delight to us. There are parts of his speech with which I agree wholeheartedly and other parts with which I agree not quite so much. I have some doubts about the final part with regard to interference with the procedure of this House. I am not one of those who feel that we should get nearer and nearer to the House of Commons in procedure. The looseness of our procedure perhaps has some advantages.
2180
I am one of those who are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for once more bringing the question of the procedure of the House before us. He has shown, time and time again, his regard for these matters, and has demonstrated an interest in procedure in Parliament as a whole in a way which is rather higher than the average, if I may say so. It may well be that I am on my feet now, speaking on his Motion, which I appreciate, because we are both coloured with our experience in the House as Deputy Speakers of the House and Deputy Chairmen of Committees. It may well be that it comes home to those of us who have the privilege of occupying those positions that during the life of a Session there are periods when greater pressure is brought upon is. That probably came to light more than ever in these last two months, when the Lord Chairman of Committees in particular had to make special appeals to those who occupy these positions. It may well be that that feeling, that experience, both by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and by myself, colour what we have to say and the views that we want to express.
I begin by saying that I have a full realisation of the limited position that this House occupies in the whole of the mechanics of Parliament. Rightly, we have our limitations. In effect, we are representing nobody. Therefore we have no right whatever to the powers of Members in another place. They are representatives—not delegates, but representatives—of large numbers of people and they have the viewpoint of those people to express. Perhaps it is advantageous that we have nobody looking over our shoulders and from time to time we can speak very independently indeed, which of course we do. It is right, therefore, that there should be some limitation.
It has been suggested constantly that this is one of the greatest forums in the country. We might take pride and be immodest and agree with that suggestion. Lord Alport himself has remarked this afternoon on what a marvellous cross-section of people occupy these Benches, with their experience and their knowledge of every given subject. My Lords, I remember very well indeed when I sat opposite, very early in my life in this House, deciding to speak on a Criminal Justice Bill, or something of that sort, relying on

2181
my 30 years of experience as a magistrate and thinking that I knew all about it. I had got into full flood when my eyes dropped over there and I saw four or five Lords of Appeal and past Judges. I bit my nails and wondered what I was doing on my feet. But there it is; this is the cross-section, this is the knowledge, this is the experience of this House; therefore it has a right to claim that it is certainly one of the greatest forums in the world.
But again, it has been suggested that we are a revising, an amending, Chamber and I am not satisfied with those two functions. I want us to go further than that and I believe we could assist the total Parliamentary procedure very much more than we do at the present time. At the same time we could avoid what I regard as the almost indecent rush that we have had at the end of this Session, of legislation and matters that we could not discuss as fully as they deserved. In passing, may I say to the Government that one of the questions that has bothered me about the procedure of the House during these last few weeks is why on earth the Session could not have run on to the end of the year. The Queen could have opened Parliament early in January just as well as early in November, and instead of that indecent haste to get certain legislation on the Statute Book in the last few weeks we could have gone through it in a more leisurely fashion. It would have been to the benefit and to the credit of Parliament if we had considered those two great pieces of legislation, the E.E.C. Bill and the Local Government Bill, with more time and with greater care. I do not see anything sacrosanct in the Session's winding up in October and commencing again in November. I suppose that next Tuesday we shall learn what the Government's programme is for the next Session. Does the fact that we have to finish this Session now indicate that we have a very full programme indeed for the Session which is coming, so that we could not possibly have deferred some of the considerations?
But let us look a little more closely at what has been happening. I have done a bit of research and that is why I am more in favour of the opening words of Lord Alport's Motion than of the remainder. I would have had a full stop at the end of the first sentence, or
2182
thereabouts, on the question of having more Bills started in this House. In the 1969–70 Session, 12 Bills started in this House against 30 in the Commons. In 1970–71, 13 started in this House against 53 in the House of Commons. In 1971–72, the present Session, 14 Bills started in this House against 36 Bills in the other place. That does not sound too bad. It looks as if there is a reasonable number. However, without saying anything derogatory about the kind of Bill that has started here, may I remind your Lordships what those 13 or 14 were: Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions); Companies (Floating Charges) (Scotland); Administration of Justice (Scotland); Childrens Bill—a very tiny Bill indeed, an Amending Bill; Field Monuments; the Island of Rockall (a little more important perhaps); Museums and Galleries; Maintenance Orders Enforcement; National Health (Scotland); Sierra Leone Independence; Town and Country (Amendment)—this was not a very big Bill, indeed, it was quite small; Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles)—that aroused some interest in your Lordships' House; and then (because I can never remember the right name) the Ceylon Republic Bill. That is the type of Bill that was offered to this House, and I do not think it is very complimentary to us that it was just that list that the Government thought fit to put before us for the purpose of starting the legislation.
May I go a little more into the figures, but first say that if more important Bills had started in this House early this Session we should have saved a great deal of trouble in the back end. This Session we have had 218 hours in Committee on the Floor of the House; 187 of those hours have been between Whit-sun and this week—a very big proportion, and it shows that we could have done much more useful work earlier in the Session instead of being compelled to have it at the back end. This House has sat longer between August and October than in any year in living memory. It is safe to say that if we had had, say, ten more Bills starting in your Lordships' House, we could have had a number of them completed before Whitsun, and it would have been a great advantage to. Parliament as a whole. There has been some sort of tradition—Lord Alport referred to it—that Bills that have a legal aspect should start in this House.

2183
Therefore it was a great surprise to me, and almost a disappointment, to find that the Criminal Justice Bill started in the House of Commons and we got it back from them.
I do not want to speak for too long. We are discussing a very important matter. I think it is something we can reasonably ask the Government seriously to consider. So far as I am concerned—and I think I am with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in this, and in fact my noble friend Lord Amory—our plea in the main is that we should stagger the work of this House while assisting in the dual programme of the two Houses. Therefore, as I say, I am asking for close consideration on the part of the Government so far as this Motion is concerned, and it would appear that there is a great deal of sympathy in your Lordships' House for this point of view. I finish by saying that it is not generally realised outside Parliament that both hereditary Peers and Life Peers alike just want to serve the nation.
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I rise to support wholeheartedly the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I shall speak shortly but sharply; no smiles, to use Lord Shepherd's phrase, especially for Her Majesty's Government. It is of course the prime function of the House of Lords to act as a revising Chamber, though personally for me it has far more important duties. I think of its powers of initiation. But under the present Government your Lordships' House has been treated with the courtesies normally reserved for the wastepaper basket. We are not a wastepaper basket. We are—and Her Majesty's Government would do well to remember this—the Upper House of Parliament, a legislative body, not an assembly of senior civil servants who, after the Ministerial communiqué, are left to iron out the details, to sweep up the bits and pieces. To change the metaphor, we are not Hoovers to be switched on and off; and we are—or at any rate I am—tired of the Government's treating us as a place which, because of its inbuilt Tory majority, can safely be taken for granted. Who do they think we are?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, may I interrupt
2184
the noble Earl for a moment? I know the noble Earl very well, and when he asks, "Who do they think we are?", my reply is that I know who he is and who the House is. I feel that the tone of his remarks ill becomes the spirit of this debate, and I should have thought it would be very evident, if he had heard my statements on the workings of this House, that it is very far from my intention as Leader of the House that this House should be treated as a rubber stamp: And this is rather the burden of his remarks, as I detect it, from the tone in which he has started.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I accept the noble Earl's rebuke, and if he wishes to suggest to your Lordships that I be no longer heard I shall be glad to have your Lordships' ruling. May I continue?
Take the Industrial Relations Act, on which I propose to concentrate. I personally was sick and tired of coming to the Lords time and time again after a day's work only to find myself on Clause 31, paragraph 7, subsection (2) of the Industrial Relations Bill. During that Bill's passage through this House more time was devoted to it on the Floor of the House than on any other Bill since the war, and probably since the beginning of the century. It was in our House for 75 days, and its consideration occupied 236 Peer-hours. In the Commons, it ocupied 180 Commons hours. But they, of course, had more important things to get on with. In this place there were 138 Divisions of which—surprise, surprise—all 138 were won by the Government. At the Committee stage, 182 Amendments were accepted; 157 from the Government, 12 from the Opposition. On Report, 169 were accepted: 137 from the Government, 28 from the Opposition. Here I should like to take off my hat to Her Majesty's Opposition, especially the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, whose passing we all regret. They fought and argued point after point, as was their duty, and they successfully introduced 40 Amendments. They fought what was for them a good fight and I, for one, respect them for their endeavours, although on principle I must confess that I am in favour of the Act.

2185
My Lords, I am proud to be a Member of your Lordships' House. I am proud to have the power to be able to suggest to Parliament that some things need to be changed. I am not here to be a stooge, any Government's stooge. In this past Session—I say this with great respect to the noble Earl, who I know, will again rebuke me—the Government have used this House to force through legislation which, badly and loosely conceived, has brought the law into disrespect. With their bulldozing tactics the Government have also turned this House, if I may say so, into a cypher. My Lords, we are no cypher; we are no dump heap, no midden. Let the Government, if they so wish, destroy us altogether, or, if it is not convenient to destroy us, let them at least treat us with the courtesy to which we are entitled.
4.40 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am one of those who is grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Alport, for having put this Motion on the Order Paper. His speech contained, as some other noble Lords' speeches have contained, a catalogue of the measures which have caused us so much trouble, and I do not propose to add to that catalogue. But like my noble friend Lord Amory, I regard the Motion as timely, giving to the House as it does an opportunity to discuss this very important problem at the tag-end of a Session during which the pressure of business has been quite unreasonably onerous. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was correct when he said that there has never been a Session like it before.
Some blame has been laid upon the Government and their planning has been criticised. But "the best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley". For there is another side to the medal, which was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Alport, when one recalls that the Opposition have not only opposed but, in many respects, have endeavoured to frustrate the passage of a number of measures. That the ferocity of this obstruction—"the tactics of delay", as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, described it—should have been underestimated may indeed have been a miscalculation and contributed to the lateness of the presentation of business to this House. However,
2186
the fact is that we have been involved in a quiet political revolution, and one can comprehend the dismay among those who have seen the established form of some of their treasured beliefs torn assunder. But other factors, such as the measures arising out of the troubles of Northern Ireland, have contributed to the logjam in a way that could not have been foreseen. Be that as it may, I go all the way with my noble friend Lord Alport in the second part of his Motion. This underlines the declaration of intent made from the Despatch Box some time ago by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
The problem calls for urgent and painstaking examination—I am sure that that is appreciated—because it has a bearing on the functions of this Chamber, as a number of noble Lords have explained. This House should not be compelled to face the sort of procedures such as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as having taken place over, I think it was, the Housing Finance Bill. I agree with the noble Lord in his suggestion as to one way in which this situation might be avoided—namely, that Government legislation should not die with the Session—and also with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, when he inquired why the Session could not have been extended. Of course I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will tell us that careful consideration is being given to all these matters, and I am confident that the Opposition here will be more than willing to co-operate, especially because of the average age of noble Lords opposite arising from the inevitable high percentage to Life Peers among their numbers.
In calling, as the Motion does, upon the representatives of both major Parties so to arrange matters that this House,
"is not compelled to assume responsibility for duties proper to the House of Commons …".
I am inevitably led to some thoughts on the composition of the House, but of course we are not discussing that. However, it is aposite to appreciate that the effects of the Life Peerage Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963 have now established the pattern with which we are concerned.

2187
In thinking over the various aspects of the noble Lord's Motion, it has occurred to me that the following sample might have a bearing on the general consideration of the subject. It is 14 years, almost to the day, since I took my seat with the first group of Life Peers: ten Barons and four Baronesses. Five have died; one is abroad doing a stint in Newfoundland; two take little part in the business of the House for one good reason or another. Of the remaining six, three sat in the House of Commons, and these, together with my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, can be said to have been conditioned by their previous experience of the rigours of the other place. But even they must have felt the strain of what we have been through—despite our devotion to Parliament. So much for my sample.
We all want to make this House work, and work well, but when my noble friend Lord Alport said that many of us are essentially political animals—I think those were his words—it is fair to say that many of us are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, implied. It also worries me that the pressures—the long debates and late nights—of the last year or so may have driven some more recent Life Peers, particularly those still bearing heavy responsibilities in industrial, academic or other onerous affairs, to eschew taking much part in our proceedings (a part which might have been very valuable), except as "Lobby fodder". Further, if these pressures were to continue, they may well impair the willingness of suitable candidates—unless they be from the House of Commons—to undertake the unenforcible obligation presented by an invitation to accept a Life Peerage. For all these reasons, it is imperative that something be done to ease these pressures.
I have already said that we are not discussing the composition of the House, though I confess that yesterday I re-read some of the speeches made in 1957 and 1958 in the debates in this Chamber on the Life Peerages Act. Incidentally, I noticed that the noble Earl the Leader of the House took the Oath on the first day of the debate on Second Reading. There were several references in these speeches to the need to see how, with the passage of time, the Act would work. Of course
2188
the Peerage Act 1963, as I have already said, was a natural corollary, although it increased the number of hereditary peerages—in my view not a bad thing!
Finally, I am not prepared to go all the way with the first part of my noble friend's Motion that,
"an appropriate number of Bills is introduced into this House …".
Now that the revolution which we have been going through has taken shape, I believe that we should express the hope that the Government will strive to reduce the overall volume of legislation which they present to Parliament. We shall know next Tuesday from the gracious Speech what we may expect next Session. Whatever is proposed, let the limit of the Bills originating in this House be set not by number but by confining such to Bills, if any, which are appropriate. In conclusion, I doubt a little the wisdom of some of my noble friend's suggestions as to the type of Bills that should originate in this House. Technical Bills, yes. But these, if they are to be introduced in this House, could well be taken upstairs. With these remarks, my Lords, in general terms I support my noble friend's Motion.
4.50 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, a number of times, and it is a pleasure this afternoon to be able to agree with most of what he said. I do not want to be in any way Party political; I think that the atmosphere which we have created is worth while. But I want to make an apology to the House. If noble Lords see me disappear as soon as I have made my speech, it will not be meant as any discourtesy to the House. The reason is that I had the privilege of leading a delegation, with the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, to the South Pacific and I am due at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association where the Prime Minister of Tonga and Samoa is present. Being a Matai in Samoa myself, I thought I ought to pay him the courtesy of trying to get there. But I promise that I shall be back for the winding-up speeches. I regret very much having to leave, but I am between two fires. I will also try to be brief.

2189
I listened with interest to the wise and instructive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. It is not my desire to summarise it, because that would be pompous and unnecessary, since other noble Lords are able to make a précis as well as I can, if not better. But I want to draw attention to the outstanding fact that by putting down his Motion at this period in the Parliamentary year the noble Lord has once again given great service to the Houses of Parliament. I will leave it at that, instead of going into an analysis in depth of that speech. But I want to make a few points of my own.
I am young blood in this House but, probably like most Life Peers, I have spent over 45 years in practical politics, and I make no apology for that. I have also seen businessmen and tycoons of industry who often like to make malevolent remarks about statesmen and politicians. But I assure your Lordships, having sat at boardroom tables and watched tycoons discussing their business after a few double whiskies and good luncheons, that the average Minister (and I myself had the privilege of being a Minister) and politician looking after his constituency normally does more work in two hours than a business tycoon does in a whole day. It is time we got rid of this canard that politicians and statesmen, of whatever Party, are there just for the fun of the game and not for service. The Press gets a malevolent pleasure out of drawing cartoons about the apparent laziness of people in various parts of the House None of this helps to build up the Constitution of this country, which has grown out of a thousand years of trial and error, and the Fourth Estate, by actions like this, is not helping to build up the democratic system which we have developed so pragmatically but so efficiently. The gulf between Parliament and people (this is my impression, speaking as somebody who gets around) is widening, and the gulf will get wider because of the way this House has been treated.
Being a Celt, I sometimes incline to feel in depth and the House may think that I say what I have to say with a little ferocious ruddiness. But that does not mean that I do not respect the institution in which I have the privilege to speak. But through this trial of television, and through these instantaneous potted reports, the public no longer seem able
2190
to stand the reports of the old-fashioned Parliamentary reporter. Because of these potted reports, the wrong impression of Parliament is often given. I shall not abuse the privilege of this House by mentioning some of the so-called intellectual journalists, because that would be unfair. But I could mention some who get great pleasure from making caricatures in writing of certain politicians, of all Parties. Those of us who have been in politics for a long time meet these people who ooze intellectuality but have no wisdom whatsoever so far as the country is concerned. The Times, in particular, has a bunch of boys who have that particular mis-talent in journalism.
The tendency is for intellectuals to say that things are above politics. It has been said (it has occasionally been said in this House, by speakers on both sides when somebody has been feeling rather pompous): "Let us take education out of politics"; or "Let us take agriculture out of politics"—perhaps I ought not to say of whom I am speaking; or, "Let us take defence out of politics", or "Let us take nationalised industries out of politics". If that happens, there will be nothing at all left in politics. As has been said, if we are not careful we in this House shall be treated as a wastepaper basket and left with inconsequential matters; we shall be pushed and cast aside. After my short period in this House, I deprecate that the majesty (I use the word deliberately, and mean it) and ability of this House is not given an opportunity to serve the country in the way it could, because of the hotchpotch of rapid legislation that is grinding through this House. We are not using the talent that exists in this House and that has sometimes kept me rooted to my seat in a debate about a subject of which I know nothing, because what has been said has been simple and explanatory, worth while and worth listening to. Speed is not efficiency, and there is no need for this rush. The effort to keep to timetables is getting out of control, and it is damaging the British Parliamentary system.
I will not repeat the remarks that have been made about the Industrial Relations Bill or about the Local Government Bill—and I have heard all of the speeches so

2191
far, except when I had to pop out for a moment to telephone. But what is happening is unhealthy. What is also very unhealthy, and I will mention it only en passant, is the unhealthy growth of legislation by reference. I was on the Statutory Instruments Committee for about 13 years and I used to enjoy the and business of tracing references to other legislation. One of the tricks of speedy legislation is to have delegated legislation, but it is unhealthy and is something which this House should point out, should try to simplify and should deprecate.
What has been happening all tends to create a sense of frustration, a cold remoteness and a strangeness in the minds of men and women who feel lost in the speed and materialism of our modern ultra-acquisitive society. They feel that they are in a miasma of legislation and in a political network which it is impossible to break through—and the Ombudsman has done nothing to help. One of the places where philosophical and other speeches can be made, without the bitter political edge which we sometimes introduce, is this House; but it is not getting the opportunity to have them because we are being used wrongly.
Never in living memory has the Parliamentary machine been pushed so near to breaking point. May I say that it is not only what it does to the country that I am concerned with; it is what it does to the servants of the House. That is why, paying a tribute to the Leader of the House, I was delighted that when we finished the other day, after the past terrific Session, the Government and the Leader of the House took the initiative in giving the party downstairs to the servants of the House. It may have been a new precedent, but it was done because on both sides of the House, over and above Party politics, we realised that the machine had been pressed almost to breaking point. I hope that never again shall we see that happen. If this House because of the demand for speediness, loses the value of its experience in debate, then it will increase the subservience of Parliament to the Executive. I sincerely believe that to be true.
I will not repeat the remarks of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, but we
2192
should not have Bills thrust upon us at the end of May, and at periods like that, because we thereby lose the will to exert the power of Parliament over the Executive, since time is not on our side. I had a period of working right in the centre of the corridors of power, at No. 10, and for a short while as a junior Minister in the Ministry of Pensions, and I regret that the scope and depth of Ministers' powers are increasing. I am not concerned about whether they are increasing because of the personal dynamism of the Minister, or because the Minister may be weak—it varies—and has behind him very powerful, well-informed and (let us make no fun of civil servants) able men and women in the Civil Service. But their power is increasing, and Parliament is losing control—and here the Fourth Estate is not helping us.
Secondly, there is the complexity of much of the legislation of to-day. It has become so technical that more time is needed to consider it. To-day, we have the untrodden paths of the relationship between Parliament and the European Economic Community. I will not go into the various arguments, pro or contra, as to the relationship between the European Economic Community and the House of Lords, but there is going to be a mass of work on that to protect, constructively, many of the old freedoms we have built up—we can do it, I believe. I propose to cut out the next part of my speech because of the time factor. Finally, I would say that, because Parliamentary power has been and is being eroded, I think that we in this Chamber, without claiming to be geniuses, should take note of the noble Lord's Motion to-day, and that all of us, as servants of the people, whether we are hereditary Peers or Life Peers, or whether we are ex-Members of the House of Commons or what-not, should at least support the general feeling behind it.
It is a long cry to Palmerston's days and the Balfourian Parliament, but I thought I should look up how this old place used to work—and this is my final quote. I have spoken now for about 12 minutes, and I am sorry. The Balfourian Parliament—1900–1905 says:
"There is a vulgar notion, for which Mr. Chamberlain is not altogether irresponsible, that

2193
the House of Lords is a hive of political drones who toil not neither do they spin".
That cannot be said of us these last few months, my Lords.
"It is assumed that noble Lords appear in twos and threes at four o'clock in the afternoon to watch with insatiable admiration the spectacle of the Lord Chancellor, accompanied by his Purse Bearer, escorted by Black Rod, pace the floor on his stately march to the Woolsack. As soon as he is seated their Lordships (always following the mistaken authority cited) begin to think of going home."
This is the Fourth Estate writing about them.
"If any two or more of their number are so ill bred as to raise debate on public questions—just as if they were mere commoners—noble Lords fix their eyes on that part of the Chamber where the clock ought to be and insist upon the affair closing in convenient time for dinner."
I wish we could do that these days, my Lords. Nobody knows what it is to get the eye of a noble Lord fixed upon him. I know how some noble Lords opposite can do that trick beautifully.
My quotation goes on:
"Let those who have permitted themselves to be ensnared by this malevolent fable consider what happened to-day. Thrice in the space of five hours the Lord High Chancellor took his seat on the Woolsack and the House of Lords was in session. Nor was it a barren session. At eleven o'clock in the morning, the Bishop of Peterborough having said prayers. Earl Waldegrave and Lord Lawrence, representing in their persons the Hereditary Chamber, passed the Appropriation Bill, a measure involving expenditure of many millions. This was not done in the niggardly fashion peculiar to the House of Commons,"—
oh, no!—
"where intervals, sometimes of many days, intervene between the various stages of this important measure. Lord Lawrence and Lord Waldegrave, having taken the matter in hand, saw it right through. They read the Bill a first time; they read the Bill a second time; they skipped Committee and, with slightly flushed faces, but with unfaltering voice, they read the Bill a third time. Then the Lord High Chancellor declared it passed ', and the sitting, like Mr. John Dillon, was suspended".
This took place at eleven o'clock, and the day's work was done. And we work more rapidly than that!
All I am saying, my Lords—and I have finished with that jocular account—is that those of us who are new here are very proud to be here, and are glad that this Motion has been moved to-day. I hope that those with greater experience than myself in this House will see that the privileges, rights and duties of this
2194
House are maintained for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of our people.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I make one thing clear? I hope I am right in saying that he did not imply in his opening remarks that, in my reference to "political animals", I was in any way scornful of such. Far from that being the case, I am indeed jealous of them, and marvel at their toughness and their adaptability. The point I was trying to make was that I believe that in this House there is a place for the nonpolitical animal (I believe my noble friend used the phrase "political beings", so I will say for the non-political being"), and that the fact that one is a non-political being does not mean in any way that one does not respect the functions of Parliament or that one wavers in one's devotion to the place in it of your Lordships' House.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Of course.
5.7 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I am supposed at this moment to be in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's room, but, having had the pleasure last Friday of meeting the Prime Ministers of Tonga and Western Samoa. I felt it my duty to come here to-day and speak on this vital Motion which my noble friend Lord Alport has moved. It is, of course, a Motion which may well have practical difficulties of implementation, root and branch, because I join with those who regret the fact that the Bill to enact at least some kind of reform of this Chamber was sunk without trace in the other place before it was even discussed in your Lordships' House. This does not mean to say that I agreed chapter and verse with every provision in the Bill—far from it—but I equally believe that in that Bill there were at least certain provisions which, had they been able to be in force to-day, might conceivably have relieved us of some of the problems which we face at the present time.
My Lords, whatever the merits or otherwise of this Motion, I think it is the quality of Parliament that is uppermost in our minds at the present time. I think, too, that the increasing interest which

2195
the country as a whole has in your Lordships' House is an important matter. For my own part, I get more and more requests from rotary clubs (and I have many rotarian friends, as many of your Lordships probably have) and from schools to visit this Chamber to listen to what takes place here, and for me to go to talk to schools about the work done by your Lordships' House. This is in no way meant to denigrate the other place which I think does a job second to none in the world parliaments, whatever shortcomings there may be in that Chamber or any other Chamber.
Much has been said in this House and elsewhere about more legislation beginning here. I think it is necessary for more substantive legislation to commence here. Over the years I think that both major political Parties have made advances on this front. It is no use "crying over split milk" and dwelling too much on what legislation should have started here in this Session or in previous Sessions. This Session is now in its twilight; the last Session has passed into history. It is of the future we must think. What is particularly important is legislation dealing with matters of criminal justice and the social services which your Lordships are uniquely able to initiate here. We have tremendous expertise, particularly in the field of social services. I mention this because I happen to have a particular interest in this field myself. Certain legislation on the social services has started in this House, but by no means enough; and I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House when he comes to reply will take special note of this subject, for it has been mooted that very important legislation dealing with the social services is imminent and I would hope that this House will be the place where it can start.
A good deal, too, has been said about this House being a revising Chamber. I believe that it has an important function as a revising Chamber; but one might say that it is no use calling itself a revising Chamber if it has nothing to revise. In other words, one might argue that legislation should start in another place so that it can come here for revision. It is no part of the function of this House to put unreasonable pressure on the House of Commons.
2196
I should like to pay my own tribute to the Leaders of both major political Parties of this House for the way in which they have conducted this Session. Dissatisfaction can be expressed at the long hours that we, and, of course, the staff, have had to spend here; but I do not think the fault in the last analysis remains with the Party managers in this House. I believe that the vital factor is the amount of legislation which goes through Parliament during each Session. Certainly in the past two or three Sessions we have had an abnormal surfeit of legislation. Legislation to take Britain into the European Economic Community, two major housing subsidy Bills, and a very important Criminal Justice Bill is an enormous amount to digest in one Session. Against that, there is the argument that we live in a democratic society and there is always a great deal of legislation, sought after by local authorities and many other bodies, all of which must go through Parliament. And if it goes through Parliament it must have adequate discussion. So I believe that the Government of the day have already a major difficulty in trying, on the one hand, to reconcile themselves to trying to cut down the amount of legislation per Session and, on the other hand, in trying to satisfy the many interested bodies who wish to promote legislation in Parliament. Far be it from me as one who has not been a Member of another place to say how this can be done; but I think it is a matter of great importance.
We have in this House this unique body—and I make no apology for repeating this—of Life Peers and hereditary Peers who are representative of all walks of life and all professions; but because of the long hours that this House has had to function, those of us who are also in a profession have our own unique difficulties. I think this is one of the problems that this House has to face. Of course, there is no compulsion for any noble Lord to attend debates here; but if one is a Member of this House one does have certain moral obligations to take part, at least from time to time, in the proceedings. I think any future thought given as a result of the noble Lord's Motion must be along these lines. I think there has been dissatisfaction throughout the nation that the legislation dealing with the Common Market did not reach this House until the middle of July. But I

2197
do not think that this reflects on this House, and one can argue that it does not necessarily reflect on the other place because this is legislation of a uniquely important kind. It is legislation which cannot, as I understand it (and I am not a lawyer) be repealed. What I do view with concern is a repetition of a Session like the present one, in which three or four Bills of a major nature have not, in the eyes of the nation, received as much consideration as they should have done. But I do not think this is necessarily the fault of Parliament.
I turn to the matter of Private Members' Bills. Private Members' Bills constitute a subject on their own. A great deal of Private Member legislation may be well meaning but is impracticable from an enactment point of view. But I would hope that in future Sessions more time can be found for Private Members' legislation. I believe that in this Session there have been Private Members' Bills which should have been taken over by the Government; but that is another matter. But there are a number of Private Members' Bills of much importance which have been gravely threatened through lack of Government time. I think this is one very important aspect of this Motion which should be considered. My noble friend has done the House a service at the twilight of this Session by bringing forward this Motion. Having served for 12 reasonably active years in this House, I am very glad to have been able to take part in the debate. I hope that many of the valuable points that have been raised are put into action, so as to keep this House as important in the public eye as it is now.
5.20 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I must apologise for not having put down my name on the list of speakers. When I saw the list of those who were to speak I thought it highly unlikely that anything would remain for me to say, but there are one or two points which I wish to make. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having raised this question to-day, because I do not think that there can be many of us who have lived through the Session which is ending tomorrow without realising that something
2198
needs to be done. I only hope that such a Session will not occur again, not only for our own sakes but also for the sake of the staff, who are always so faithful and helpful to us, whatever the stress of the circumstances may be.
I entirely agreed with the noble Lord when he said that more Bills should start in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised the difficulty about Ministers probably wanting to promote their own Bills in their own House. It seems to me that that difficulty could be got over if we were to have a reasonable share of senior Ministers in your Lordships' House. There is, after all, a precedent for that. At the moment we have the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is the Secretary of State for Defence; and not so many years ago we had a noble Earl who was referred to by the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough (and he was not given, I may say, to making complimentary remarks about members of the Conservative Party) as "the finest Foreign Secretary we have ever had". That was the noble Earl, Lord Home, as he was then. So we have precedents and I cannot see why it should not continue.
There is one other small point that I should like to raise. When I sat on the Benches opposite I used to resent remarks made from time to time about what was called the "built-in" Conservative majority, but, looking at it now from perhaps a more balanced viewpoint, I can see that it is a fact. During the long Committee and Report stages in the last few months many Amendments were carried by pure weight of numbers, chiefly because of the votes of noble Lords who flooded in from the Library, and who had not heard one word of the arguments. I wonder whether that situation could be controlled by some system of limiting voting to those who are regular attenders, or, shall we say, who put in not less than one-third of the possible attendances. I think that would be a practical proposition. It would not prevent anyone from speaking but it would limit the voting, which is the factor that carries the day. That is a controversial point; and not being, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, a political animal, I would not begin to claim that it is practicable, but I think it worthy of consideration. I sincerely

2199
hope that something will come out of to-night's debate.
5.25 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle. Owing to the fact that I was having a grandson christened I was not able to be present during the whole of the debate and there were some notable speeches which I did not hear. I gather that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, incurred the displeasure of the House. I am not sure from which Bench he was speaking—oh, I see that he was speak-in from the Liberal Benches—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, If I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, may I say that I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Arran, incurred the displeasure of the House; he incurred my severe displeasure.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, he meant to.
LORD SHACICLETON: I am sure, my Lords, that it was representative of the noble Earl's sterling individuality, with which we are all familiar. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who I know had a very important engagement which I heartily support, was unable to contribute, because to some extent we were going over ground which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I went over in those long forgotten days when we discussed the reform of the House of Lords. I should like to make a few references to that at the end of my speech.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, not only on raising this matter but also on the moderate and constructive way in which he did it. So much of the ground regarding the problems that confront us has been covered that I need not talk very much about the past Session. I think we are all agreed that this last Session was a real shambles. When I was Leader of the House and a member of the Government I used to think that no Government could mismanage their time-table as successfully as we did; but I underrated the capacity of the noble Earl's friends. I have never known a Session like this, and it says a great deal for the good manners and restraint of noble Lords that we have survived
2200
and, in certain areas, have done a good job. In other areas we have done a very bad job. There is no doubt that the Local Government Bill was a complete lottery. Lymington was won because it came on at six o'clock; Somerset was lost because it came on at ten o'clock. I think this reflects no credit on Parliament. There is no criticism of any individual in what I am saying; the situation is inherent in a system which is demonstrably creaking. Let me admit that it has creaked in the past. It has creaked in lots of respects and in a number of ways. But on occasions Parliament has sought to improve its procedures and to do rather better. The statistics of the last Session are there to be seen—the noble Earl has them—and the extent to which main legislation reached us at a very late time in the year is remarkable. The result was that we did not do the job that we should have done.
I should like to take up again one point which was made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd about the very courteous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, regarding how far, in circumstances of this sort, the Opposition "over-does it". The noble Lord, Lord Alport, properly made clear that if legislation reaches us when for various reasons it has not been properly debated, or when sections of it have not been properly debated, the Opposition has, in a sense, to replace the Commons. That has always been true to some extent in the past—for example, there was the Gas Bill. Noble Lords who were Members of another place in the 1945–50 Parliament will remember the proceedings in Committee on the Gas Bill and the number of Amendments which were not properly discussed. But, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd made clear, one pressure the Opposition can put on a Government (and I was interested in the remarks of Lord Somers) is to press very hard and make the House work very hard. It may well be that sometimes we overdid it.
I want to make clear that we were deliberately not intending to filibuster. It was striking the extent to which noble Lords on the Government Front Bench acknowledged this and co-operated, and recognised that we did a good job. This is a process more familiar in the Commons than it is here; but it is the only weapon. It was quite striking that

2201
on the Bills on which we did this—and the noble Earl will agree that we never broke a tacit understanding as to when we were going to finish with legislation; we co-operated because the only way this House can work is by co-operation—we did get results, in a way that we did not get them on the E.E.C. Bill, for reasons which we all understand, where we did not move anything like the number of Amendments. There is a real dilemma here. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and others pointing to the danger of turning us into a second House of Commons: and I absolutely agree. If we become a second House of Commons, we shall become a very secondary House of Commons. On the other hand, what we did produced some results.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and to noble Lords opposite. If I were writing this as an end of term report I would say that their performance has not been as good as at other times, and even patchy. But by and large they have done their utmost for us and for the House of Lords. I would particularly say to the noble Earl that I think he has done a very good job as Leader of the House. The reason why I am saying this is not only that I believe it to be true, but because I want to strengthen his hand when it comes to arguing with his colleagues. My noble friend Lord Shepherd spelt out the problem that we all have in Government. You go to the Lord President—and Lord Presidents change: the Government have had several—and he starts off very willing and appreciative: everybody is willing to be complimentary about the House of Lords, but they are not willing to do anything to help us when it comes to the point. When we look at the evidence that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I gave to the Select Committee on Procedure, we were quizzed on the Bills that we ought to have. It is very difficult to answer that question. Somehow or other Ministers, or somebody, manage to grab them to fit the Commons' timetable.
The purpose of Lord Alport's Motion is to see that we do better in the future. I hope that he succeeds, but I am not too optimistic. However, if he succeeds, then this is really rather a breakthrough for your Lordships, because the figures
2202
for last Session (I will not take up the time of the House by quoting them; they are there, and maybe we should publish them in Hansard) are quite striking. It was quite ridiculous. We did two-thirds of our work in the last three months, and the rest of the time we did not have enough. This is really the fault of the Government—and when I say "the Government", I mean any Government.
People are apt to say that there are not enough Parliamentary draftsmen. One of the factors is the timetable in developing legislation. I do not think I am giving any Cabinet secrets away when I draw attention to the fact that there are certain Parliamentary legislation committees which roughly decide on legislative programmes, and there is great competition between Departments—the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will recall this—as to what Bills they can get in: some are essential, some are desirable and some go to the bottom of the list every Session. Then the resources of Parliamentary draftsmen, if they have not already been mobilised, are put to work. At that point Departments have to issue instructions, and Ministers have to make up their minds. Ministers do not always make up their minds in time, and the result is that Bill after Bill arrives late in either House. I should like to make one concrete suggestion to the noble Earl, who has the special responsibility in the field of machinery of Government; namely, that there should be some overhaul of the timetable in relation to the legislation for the new Session, and what should go into the Queen's speech, so that Bills arrive in time. I hope that we are going to have some splendid Bills starting here in the new Session, but I am prepared to bet that some of them are later than noble Lords want. This is one of the difficulties that we get into.
I should like to deal with another point. The Second Report of the Commons Procedure Committee in the last Session, which heard evidence, suggested that Members and officials of both Houses should review the form, drafting and amendment of legislation, and the practice in the preparation of legislation for presentation to Parliament. I believe that this could be of great value, as was shown by the Select Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on delegated legislation. I wonder what

2203
has happened to that Report. I confess that I had forgotten all about it. Perhaps the noble Earl has not forgotten it, in which case I congratulate him. Or perhaps we have both been reminded of it from the same worthwhile source. This is something that should be done, and this links to the work that will have to be done with regard to European legislation, the E.E.C. and so on. I should like to urge specifically that that recommendation should be examined, and if nothing has happened, it should be brought forward.
My Lords, we have had some interesting speeches. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I entered this House, as he said, at the same time. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek made a characteristically brilliant and attractive speech. I know no one who has retained his individuality more, while at the same time assimilating it to what is acceptable to the House of Lords. He made a number of effective remarks. I should like to suggest, therefore, that the noble Earl should go through the various points that have been brought up in this debate. Points of significance were made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, the noble Lord, Lord Royle, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and others: and I believe the noble Viscount made some kind remarks, for which I am grateful. These points should not be just brushed aside. We so often have debates in which good points are made and then they are forgotten. I should like to suggest that we should seek to progress some of the matters that have been raised in this debate.
Another point made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd to which I think we should pay careful attention is that if important Bills are to start in this House, not necessarily of the main controversial kind (we had one such horrid controversial little Bill, the Museum Charges Bill, and it was a miracle that it was not thrown out by this House), then the House must accept some sort of self-denying ordinance: they must be prepared to accept—and this is not derogating from our role—that they must not, any more than generally speaking we do on Bills introduced in another place, reject on Second Reading or Third Reading. Whereas we retain absolutely our rights
2204
to make Amendments and get the Commons to look at them, we must remember that the Parliament Act—inadequate in many ways, and futile as it has now become, it is none the less an important kind of atom bomb in the background—does not bite on legislation introduced in this House. If we are to have main legislation, and knowing how the Conservative Peers at certain moments get the bit between their teeth and just vote the Government down several times in a day, we also have to accept that ultimately the will of the Commons must prevail.
I could make heavy criticism of the procedures in another place and I would like, before concluding, to set this debate in the context of the problems that confront modern Parliaments and Governments, because I seriously believe that we have, as yet, failed to take the measure of the responsibilities that Parliament is going to have to fulfil and for which it has yet to create institutions or amend procedures. We have taken on, for a start, the responsibility—we do not know for how Iona—for Northern Ireland legislation. We had virtually two large Acts of Parliament which we passed in half an hour to-day because we were not competent to deal with them. There is little doubt that we cannot go on doing this sort of thing. This is a travesty. This is Government by decree—almost exactly the sort of thing that we object to in other countries which we regard as less democratic than ourselves, even when they have the forms of democracy. Here again we are waiting on another place to make up their minds how they are going to deal with these things.
Then we shall undoubtedly have to face the fact—I do not want to reopen the arguments on this topic—that we are going into the Community. There will be important proposals. I am not one of those who happen to think that Parliament is going to find the totality of its legislation significantly reduced by our entry. I hardly think that the number of Bills that we have passed in this last Session would have been affected, whether or not we were in the Community. There will be important developments and it will be vital, if the Government are to honour their obligations, that Parliament sets up proper machinery for scrutinising proposals. We

2205
debated this subject and I do not want to go into it all again; but these are problems that Parliament will have to face and we have not yet thought out the machinery for doing so.
Furthermore, the complexity of Government is growing so greatly that I do not believe that those noble Lords who think the flow of legislation ought to be reduced are going to have their hopes realised. This Government have legislated to a degree that was entirely contrary to everything they ever said when we were in office. We have had an absolute flood, a great deal of it based on doctrine. I hope some of it will be reversed in the future, but I do not think there will be a great reduction of legislation in future. We may have an easier Session to come but, in total, Parliament is not going to succeed in its job of controlling and scrutinising the Executive unless we are able to give a great deal more thought to how we should operate.
This brings me back to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble Lord, Lord Byers and I, and many other Members of the House, when, we were involved in considering the reform of this Chamber. That subject is not now before us, but it is a fact that your Lordships' House could have played, and perhaps in the future may play, that essential role which we foresaw in the White Paper. Any noble Lords who wish to look at that will see set out quite clearly what I believe the role of the House of Lords ought to be—the provision of a forum for the full debate of issues of public concern, the sort of issues of public concern that in another place they very rarely have time for. Ira addition, there is the revision and indeed the initiation of some public legislation, and in particular the consideration of subordinate legislation. Here we are failing in this regard. We are beginning to tackle subordinate legislation. The Brooke Committee is a first, and very valuable, step in this direction. It may well be that the Commission on the Constitution will come up with proposals—and I hope they do—which will succeed in devolving some of the work done within Government, because this springs not just from Parliament but from the way our system of government has developed. I am not sure whether the Liberal Party have committed themselves
2206
to regional Parliaments, but I whether or not we are in favour of regional Parliaments, some form of regional devolution is going to be a necessity, if only to enable Parliament to carry out the functions that I believe it is not doing properly.
My Lords, we do admire Parliamentary institutions, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Davies that there is a lot of snide criticism which in fact is damaging to democratic institutions, and that some of it is very unjustified. But certainly during the last Session we have "got by" by the skin of our teeth and by a degree of sensible good manners and co-operation in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, it was a Session in regard to which we should feel some shame—I do not mean necessarily in the sense of a feeling of great guilt—that we have not done the sort of thing that we ought to have done. I blame the Government in these matters—an inexperienced Government, full of enthusiasm. We have had the wisdom of the noble Earl, bloodied after two years of handling the Opposition, who, on the whole, I believe have behaved pretty well in all this period. But I do not think that we should ever confront another Session such as the one we have had. If the noble Earl is able to get that across to his colleagues, and if, above all, he can get his colleagues and the machine to fulfil the somewhat pious undertakings that successive Governments and Leaders in another place have given to the unfortunate Leader of the House of Lords, then I think this debate will be worth while and we shall erect a memorial to the noble Earl who, for the first time, actually persuaded a Government to think sensibly about their Parliamentary timetable.
5.48 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Alport for giving us the chance of debating this subject to-day. I should like straight away to congratulate him on two things: first, on the fact that he has on this occasion devised one of the shortest Motions which I have ever seen standing in his name on the Order Paper; and, secondly, I should like—and I say this without my tongue in my cheek—to congratulate him on the very great sympathy and support which his Motion

2207
has attracted from all quarters of your Lordships' House.
I do not wish to run over all the points which have been made in this debate, but I can assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I will be paying more than "ear service to what has been said. It will be my intention and that of my colleagues to go through the suggestions which have been made, and to go through them very carefully indeed. If only for that reason, I think this debate has in fact been well worth while. Other noble Lords have said this, but I do not mind repeating it: I think it is fitting that we should be taking a last lingering look at how we run our affairs at the end of what has been, by any standard, an exceptionally trying and taxing Session. I am only too conscious of the pressure to which, certainly in recent months, this House has been subjected. We have sat on more days this Session than we have ever done before in a previous Session of normal length.
I will not bore your Lordships with statistics, but by the time we arrive to-morrow at the end of our Session I think we shall have had 141 Sittings in this House, compared with an average in a Session of normal length of something like 110, which has been about par for the course in the past decade or so. Not only have we sat for a good many more days than is customary, we have also had an unprecedented session—and I hope it will remain unprecedented—during September. It is a very favourable reflection on the House and on your Lordships' assiduity that the average attendance in your Lordships' House during that exceptional September session was over 240. That compares with 250 for the rest of this Parliamentary Session; it is a remarkable statistic.
That said, I feel it important that we should not over-gild the lily on our labours here. I know that they have been Herculean; I know that only Hercules himself could have sustained them. But we should keep a sense of proportion here. The Parliament Office tells me that we have had, on average, a Sitting of 54 hours this Session. That is far too much, but it is not a great deal above par for the course, and is considerably less than par for the course in the last Session which was the unprecedentedly high average
2208
of 6½ hours per Sitting. Although we have had nearly 30 late Sittings this Session—all of which I rue—this compares with 38 in the last Session, and 31 in the Session of 1967–68 under a different dispensation.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I did not give these statistics because I knew how easy it was to angle them. The reason the length of Sittings dropped was that, due to the timetabling, we had no business in the first half of the year. This is the reality, and in fairness the noble Earl should have pointed this out. We are talking in terms of what is meant to be a normal Session.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I accept that. All I was suggesting was that we had had an appallingly hard time: but we are all very much alive and kicking—not least the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who demonstrated very well how much kick there is on the Liberal Benches. My irate noble friend Lord Arran!
I was going to say, when the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition interrupted me, that when all is said and done most of us would agree that the pressure under which we have been working these past two years in this House, part-time and unpaid but not totally amateur legislators, has been altogether too heavy. I am prepared to take my fair share of the blame, but wherever the fault for this lies I should like to take this opportunity—and this is no mere formal expression of appreciation—to express my thanks for the way in which your Lordships on all Benches have helped me during the past two heavy Sessions in what at times has been a not altogether easy task for a fledgling in your Lordships' House. I am very grateful indeed for the manners and moderation which noble Lords in all quarters of the House have demonstrated. I should like once again to say how grateful we all are to the staff of the House for all that they have done to underpin our efforts. I am glad to say that we found a tangible way of expressing a little mite of our appreciation last week. Having got that off my chest, I should like to say straight away that I in general find nothing to disagree with in the terms of my noble friend's Motion. Even if I am prepared to quibble with a little of this or that, he disarmed me

2209
completely, as he almost invariably does, by both the matter of his speech and the manner in which he moved it.
The Government are only too well aware of the difficulties with which this House has been faced. I can assure your Lordships that I and my colleagues will do our best to ensure that we are not in future faced with the really appalling congestion of business with which we have had to deal this Session. I use the word "appalling" advisedly. In saying this, I am well aware that I am putting myself as a hostage to fortune and that the proof of the pudding will be, and must be, in the eating. I trust that when July 1973 rolls along I shall not find the particular words which I have just uttered too indigestible!
I agree with my noble friend that in recent years too few major Bills have been introduced into this House. There are often more than sufficient reasons why Bills must start in the Commons. I fully admit that in the past some Bills which might have started in this House have been introduced in the Commons. I am not going in for names and pack drill on this occasion; but this is a common feeling in your Lordships' House, and I happen to share it. I put this view forward, as did the noble Lords, Lord Byers. Lord Shackleton and the Chairman of Committees, when we gave evidence to the Commons Procedure Committee last year. It is natural and is accepted that Bills with a very high Party political content should be introduced in the Commons. I think we all agree with that. There are also the human factors involved: the factor which noble Lords have already adduced, the psychological factor that some senior Ministers may have a certain desire to see their own Bills introduced in the House in which they sit. This is generally another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, pointed out.
As I put it to the Commons Procedure Committee, it is perhaps natural for the Minister to want to see his own "baby" learn to walk. There is a certain pride of parentage, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who has just been christening his grandson, will be the first to understand. But sometimes, as my noble friend pointed out, that particular pride tends to be a little misplaced. This is a factor which we should
2210
take into account and is one which we should not allow our colleagues—and here I am speaking as a Minister—to exaggerate unduly. There are also the financial considerations. Here there are prospects of some real but modest improvements from the point of view of this House. Until last August, when the Commons amended their Standing Orders on financial privilege, a number of Bills which were perfectly suitable for introduction in this House, save for very technical considerations of financial privilege, had, perforce, to be introduced in the Commons. In a written memorandum which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I submitted to the Commons Select Committee on Procedure, we instanced three or four Bills which, but for Commons financial privilege, could very well have been introduced in this House. I am happy to say that the Commons Procedure Committee fully accepted our evidence in this area. They recommended to another place that their financial privilege should be much reduced and the Commons agreed to this on August 8.
I am not without hope that we shall now see more Bills—even Bills with some financial implications which under the old dispensation could not start with us—start in this House. Over a period of time this. in a modest way, will help to redress the balance. I fully admit that this is only a little bit of the battle which has to be fought on behalf of this House, since many of the Bills which have delayed us over the past few months were Bills which would in any event have had to start in the Commons, save possibly (and I give my noble friend this) the Criminal Justice Bill.
As so many Leaders of your Lordships' House before me have said, it is my intention that we should have a fair share of the legislative cake at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session. I can again tell your Lordships that I will continue to emphasise the need for this fairer balance in the legislative programme with all my colleagues. I have been reinforced—and I gladly acknowledge this—in this respect by what has been said across the Floor of the House in this particular discussion. It is desirable because it has become apparent to all of us in recent weeks and months that it is bad, not only for this House but for Parliament, that legislation should be

2211
passed (to use my noble friend's expression) in an uncongenial atmosphere in your Lordships' House. What the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said about the load which has come on us in Committee since Whitsun is demonstrated by the figures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
It would be wrong for me, having said that (and I do not intend to speak for long), to conclude without commenting briefly on some of the specific suggestions incorporated in my noble friend's Motion. As I have said, I certainly hope that an appropriate number of Bills will be introduced into this House next Session. But that begs the question, "What is an appropriate number?" One could conceive of a situation in which the House would receive a considerable number of fairly large Bills early in a Session and this would compel us to sit both on four days a week and rather late in the evening in order to cope with them. But I well remember that in the past many of your Lordships have said they would prefer not to sit four days a week before Christmas. Also, my noble friend the Chief Whip has been known to be criticised for asking the House to sit beyond eight o'clock on. a Committee stage of a Bill early in the year. All I would suggest here is that we cannot have it both ways. If we get legislation we must deal with it in a reasonably expeditious fashion, otherwise my colleagues in the Commons will have reason to believe that a Bill sent to the Lords in June or July will proceed faster than if it is sent up to us in November or December and we deal with it in an unduly leisurely way. It is of course a question of preserving a balance here; but these are considerations that we must bear in mind. If we are going to will the end, we must will the means.
There are further difficulties, and some of them have already been referred to in this discussion. There is the difficulty that Governments, of all political complexions. try as they may, find that the preparation of legislation is often jerky and liable to interruptions. However perfect the management of business (both Lord Shepherd and Lord Shackleton referred to this; and since I have mentioned Lord Shepherd I should like to
2212
wish him well in his visit to his pretty nurse which I understand is now under way), there is the difficulty that, for one reason or another, Bills which should be ready to be laid before Parliament when Ministers go rejoicing on their holidays in July, August or September, as the case may be, assuming they are going to be in apple-pie order, sometimes, in an extraordinary way, comes October or November, somehow have not reached the starting post. This situation is familiar to any noble Lord, on these Benches or those opposite, who has been a Minister.
There are two matters we have to tackle here. There is of course the perennial problem of the shortage of those rarest of rare birds, the Parliamentary draftsmen. This is an area we should all be looking at. Then there is the question of Ministers and Governments of the day giving the necessary instructions in due time, and this again—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I just finish this point? I will then of course give way to the noble Lord. This is an area which the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, invited me, with certain responsibilities which I have inherited from him in the area of the structure of Government, to look at; and I can assure him that this happens to be engaging my attention at this particular moment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl has now really answered me. I was going to say that it is not a question of all of us looking at this; it is a question of the noble Earl personally looking at it.
EARL JELLICOE: Well, my Lords, it is a question of quite a few people looking at it. But I assure Lord Shackleton that the Leader of the House is personally looking at this particular problem at the present time. However, my Lords, these are the difficulties. We all know them. No Government, from my knowledge, since the war has tackled them satisfactorily. It is self-evident that up to now we have not; and I will not mislead your Lordships in saying that we shall tackle them satisfactorily in the future. All I can say is that we are having a very hard look at this particular area because it is one which, from the point of view of effective Parliamentary

2213
management as a whole, and in order to enable Parliament effectively to operate, must be put a great deal righter than it is at the present time.
One point in my noble friend's Motion about which I am not entirely clear is that the House of Lords should not be compelled
"to assume responsibility for duties proper to the House of Commons".
This House has a good reputation as a revising Chamber. So far as the Local Government Bill and, I think, the Criminal Justice Bill (I am glad my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is here), two of the major Bills before us this Session, and so far as the Industrial Relations Bill last Session, are concerned, this House has executed its revising function, I believe, in a very thorough way indeed. We have examined these Bills in depth and made a number of important Amendments to all of them. On the Local Government Bill, which was before us only recently, we passed, to my certain recollection—and indeed to celebrate the return of my noble friend the Chief Whip to duty—against the Government's advice, three important Amendments. Whatever the noble Earl, Lord Arran, may say, I would merely point out to your Lordships that, far from this House being a wastepaper basket, in fact the Government have advised another place to accept all three of those Amendments made by your Lordships' House. I do not really believe therefore that this House has tried to assume, or has been asked to assume, responsibilities proper to another place.
Although I would not wish to go back on anything I said earlier about the need for more Bills to be introduced into your Lordships' House, it is surely a fact that if Bills of a political or over-controversial nature were introduced first in this House, we should then be assuming precisely that role which my noble friend is asking us to avoid. There is a problem here, and it is that, although this is not the invariable rule, it very often happens that with a Bill introduced in another place we are bound to be faced here with a large number of Amendments. It may be that more Amendments may be made in the First Chamber; but it is often the fact, in the very nature of things, that more Amendments are made here. But,
2214
of course, again we must calculate for that in preparing our legislative programme.
My Lords, I said at the outset that I thought that all noble Lords, or almost all, would find my noble friend's Motion in general acceptable. I certainly do; and not least, as I have said, because of the way in which he moved it. I feel this above all because I believe that it represents a common desire in your Lordships' House for this House to retain, in changing circumstances, its essential characteristics. I yield to no one in my respect for Parliament as a whole and for another place in particular, although, unlike many Members of your Lordships' House, I have not had the honour of sitting in another place. I also recognise, even in the short decade and a half or so in which I have been an active Member of your Lordships' House, the great changes that have come about in our Chamber, in its composition, and indeed in many of its workings; and we shall doubtless continue to see further changes. Whether or not we shall see fundamental reform, and if so, when, I would not hazard a guess. But one thing I do know is that it would be fatal to the House as we know it, or as I think all of us would wish to see it, if at any time it were to become just a mirror image of another place or, in the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Amory, a "pale replica" of another place. I am quite certain that if we were to allow this to happen it would become a very bad mirror of another place. I am quite certain that if this were to happen this House would lose almost all of its essential character. I shall not seek to define that character at this moment. I think we all know the characteristic: a certain informality; a certain courtesy in manner and in debate, however deep our political differences may be a certain latitude in our procedures giving us, above all, the greatest possible freedom in debate and in discussion.
Those, my Lords, are some of the characteristics of this House which we must all seek to preserve in whatever way we can. Perhaps we can do a good deal—more perhaps than successive Governments have done in the past—by a better ordering of Government legislative business, striking a better balance between the

2215
legislative programmes in the two Houses. We have dwelt on this a good deal this evening and I, for one, am pledged to do whatever I can do in that respect. Perhaps we can do something by keeping a careful watch on our procedures. I hope that I have shown a willingness to do so, not least by asking four noble Lords some Hale time ago—the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, my noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Earl. Lord Perth—to suggest ways and means in which we might improve the ordering of our business. I think we have already made certain improvements, but perhaps there are further improvements that we should make. I noted carefully what my noble friend Lord Amory said about the tightening of our procedures. At the same time, I feel that we should be a little on our guard against becoming too introspective about these procedural matters. Unless we are a little careful, I believe that we may lose sight of the wood if we try to shin up too many procedural trees.
Above all, it is my belief that in the future, as in the past, the ability of this House to retain the character and the quality which has marked it hitherto depends in the last analysis upon the tolerance that we show towards each other and the self-restraint that we exercise in our discussions. Perhaps both that tolerance and that self-restraint have been unduly taxed during these last two Sessions, but I have noted, I hone carefully, what noble Lords have said.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that I think that, by and large, we all agree that this is a pleasant place in which to work. It is certainly a very pleasant place, on almost all occasions, to have the honour of leading. But I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that we are not here just for the fun of the thing: we are here to serve; and my duty, as I conceive it, is to do what I can to help to create, or, where necessary, help to preserve, the conditions under which we can the more effectively discharge that obligation to serve. I am sure that this debate has been of help to us all, and certainly of help to me in that respect, and I am grateful to my noble friend for having introduced it.
6.15 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, the procedure of your Lordships' House allows me to speak a second time, not to sum up the debate or to reply to it but primarily to be able to thank those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. I hope that those who have listened to it will feel, as I have done, that it has been a valuable debate, if only because it has given an opportunity to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe to make a contribution of great importance to this House on the way in which we can conduct our business in the future.
I have found the speeches not only engaging and interesting but, in some cases, eccentric. I hoped for one moment that there was to be an unexpected result of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Amory; namely, to restore the political allegiance of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, to this Party when he came over to join me on these Benches. I was in the process of composing a short message of welcome on the return of the prodigal to this fold when, alas! he disappeared again and went back to where he has been sitting in recent years.
I should like to make just two points, one of them being a comment on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I entirely agree with him that to some extent the pressure which an Opposition—and particularly an Opposition which is usually in the minority—can exercise on a Government is an important weapon in its armoury; but my own feeling is that that could be much less necessary in a House of this sort, where the Government are able to undertake alterations to the Bill as presented to Parliament, to accept Amendments, sometimes of a political nature, without losing any political face, and in fact probably to the advantage of the Bill when it reaches the Statute Book.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I sometimes sit in the chair normally occupied by the Lord Chairman of Committees for the Committee stage, and I expect that he and others, such as the noble Lord. Lord Ferrier, send up prayers every now and then to Ministers to accept Amendments which do not in fact make much difference to the Bill, some of which make considerable improvements to the Bill and

2217
which in fact will give great satisfaction to noble Lords on this side of the House and particularly to the Opposition, whose object is to try to make some contribution to the legislation which is going through the House. I know what happens. Junior Ministers are sometimes instructed to resist Amendments; they do so and they create irritation on the part of the Opposition and, being human, the members of the Opposition sometimes react by continuing the debate longer than is necessary and time is wasted all the way round. While I recognise the importance to the Opposition of the weapon of the pressure which can be exercised in debate, to some extent I think this should be reciprocated on the Government's side by being more flexible and perhaps more conciliatory in dealing with some of the Opposition Amendments which, to any normal person, in some cases would involve no great difference to the Bill when it reaches the Statute Book, and in other cases would be a definite improvement.
The other point that I wished to refer to was one made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. What I meant by including the phrase "proper to the House of Commons" in this Motion was that I think it wrong that during this last Session, and indeed in so many Sessions, some of the most important legislation going through the House of Commons and affecting eventually the lives of people of every class and every part of this country, should be subject to the guillotine. It means that a large part of such legislation during the Parliamentary processes goes through only one amending stage, the Committee stage, or perhaps the Report stage as well, in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that as far as possible, no matter who is in power at any time, there should be an increasing attempt by both Parties in the House of Commons to avoid the guillotine procedure, and not to create a situation as a result of the exercise of political pressures within the House of Commons which makes the guillotine procedure necessary. That was the reason for that point, and I believe it to be valid.
I will not keep your Lordships any longer at this hour. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for accepting the Motion and for the support it has received in all parts of the House. I
2218
hope that noble Lords will feel that this has been an appropriate moment to consider this matter, in the hope that when my noble friend goes to the Legislative Committee, the Cabinet or wherever else these matters are discussed, he will go armed with the support of your Lordships to ensure that this House has the best possible conditions in which to carry out its duties as a Chamber of Parliament during the next Session.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
6.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. In moving this Motion may I first of all declare an interest, which is the same interest I declared when the Bill was earlier before your Lordships? I hold 200 shares in Shell Transport and Trading. Having spontaneously taken an interest in this Bill from the start, I should like at the outset to say that I personally welcome the opportunity to see whether any further explanation or help can be given to Parliament in general and to noble Lords in particular—at any rate, any help that lies in my power to give.
There are more than 100 Amendments in question and these have become available to your Lordships only this morning, and then only as the result of a lot of midnight oil being burned by the staff of the Private Bill Office, so that very few of your Lordships will have had time to look at them in any detail. Without therefore in the slightest degree wishing, or being thought to wish, to curtail the debate in any sense, might it be for the assistance of your Lordships' procedures and convenience if any noble Lords who wish to address themselves to a particular Amendment would signify now which Amendment or Amendments they are interested in so that we might spare your Lordships' time and patience by taking the other Amendments which are not controvesial in groups of whatever

2219
size may be convenient? With that simple suggestion by way of procedure, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 59. I do not know how many noble Lords have the manuscript Amendment and I do not think I need explain this matter closely because it is self-evident. Your Lordships will see—
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I was suggesting that at this stage noble Lords who wish to address themselves to particular Amendments should simply name those Amendments, after which we shall have an opportunity to debate the substance of them. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was good enough to signify to me earlier his interest in Amendment No. 59. Perhaps at the moment the most useful procedure would be for noble Lords simply to indicate the numbers of the Amendments in which they are interested; and, as I say, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for courteously signifying to me earlier his interest in Amendment No. 59.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is suggesting a sensible procedure. He is saying, in effect, "Hands up those who wish to speak to any particular Amendments" I gather that it is his intention that the other Amendments should be taken en bloc. I wish only to add that I am not putting my hand up.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I wish to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Henley on the Amendment to which he referred.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, may I assume that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, will move in each case that the Commons Amendments be agreed to?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Yes, my Lords, that is how I would seek to proceed. If it is acceptable to your Lordships, I propose to move that the Commons
2220
Amendments be agreed to in respect of Amendments Nos. 1 to 58 inclusive. Having disposed of that group en bloc, we can then come to Amendment No. 59.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [Nos. 1–58]
  [References are to Bill as printed for the Commons.]
  Clause 1, page 3, line 9, leave out ("1971") and insert ("1972")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out ("1971") and insert ("1972")
  Clause 3, page 4, line 5, at end insert:
  ("and any works or conveniences constructed or provided by the Company as part of or in connection with or for the purposes of those works or any of them;")
  Clause 3, page 4, line 25, at end insert ("and includes the terminal authority's works")
  Clause 3, page 4, line 41 at end insert:
  ("'the pilotage authority ' means the pilotage authority for the Liverpool Pilotage District, and includes its licensed pilots;")
  Clause 3, page 5, line 3, at end insert:
  ("' ship passenger and goods dues' has the same meaning as in section 57 of the Act of 1964;")
  Clause 3, page 5, line 10, leave out ("10") and insert ("4")
  Clause 3, page 5, line 16 at end insert:
  ("and any works or conveniences constructed or provided by the terminal authority as part of or in connection with or for the purposes of those works or any of them")
  Clause 3, page 5, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("(and in sections 53 to 56 of this Act includes so much of the works comprised in the transferred undertaking)")
  Clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 10 to 14.
  Clause 3, page 6, line 15, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").
  Clause 3, page 6, line 17, leave out ("the said sections 40 and 41") and insert ("section 40 (Power to Company to construct works) and section 41 (Power to terminal authority to construct works) of this Act").
  Clause 3, page 6, line 18, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)").
  Clause 3, page 6, line 20, leave out ("subsequent").
  Clause 13, page 11, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("and the Company's works").
  Clause 13, page 11, line 11 at end insert—("(3) (a) Any act or omission which

  (i) takes place on, under or above so much of the Company's works as is not within the county, the urban district and the parish of Amlwch; and

  (ii) would, if taking place within the county, the urban district and the said

  2221
  parish, constitute an offence under the law

  shall be treated for the purposes of that law as taking place within the county, the urban district and the said parish and within the second petty sessional division of Anglesey.
  (b) Any jurisdiction conferred on any court under this subsection shall be without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable apart from this section by that or any other court.")
  Clause 13, page 11, line 12, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
  Clause 14, page 11, line 17, after ("maintenance") insert ("and") and leave out ("and").
  Clause 14, page 11, line 18, leave out ("improvement").
  Clause 14, page 11, line 22, leave out ("alter, improve") and insert ("renew"), leave out the third ("and") and after ("extend") insert ("alter and reconstruct").
  Clause 14, page 11, line 37, leave out ("telegraph communication") and insert ("telecommunication").
  Clause 14, page 11, line 38, at end insert ("or with any apparatus of the Central Electricity Generating Board or the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board").
  Clause 14, page 11, line 39, after ("(3)") insert ("(a)").
  Clause 14, page 11, line 41, at end insert—
  ("Provided that the terminal authority shall not alter any telegraphic line belonging to or used by the Post Office except in accordance with and subject to the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (8) of section 7 of the Telegraph Act 1878.
  (b) in this subsection, the expression "alter" has the same meaning as in the Telegraph Act 1878.")
  Clause 15, page 12, line 14, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 18, page 13, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(5) Except in a case which is, in the opinion of the terminal authority, a case of emergency, the terminal authority shall, before raising, removing or destroying under the powers conferred upon them by the said section 530 any vessel sunk, stranded or abandoned in the terminal or in or near any approach thereto and within a distance of two hundred yards of any subaqueous cable belonging to or used by the Post Office give to the Post Office in writing as long notice as is practicable of their intention to do so.")
  Clause 18, page 13, line 39, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
  Clause 19, page 14, line 10, after ("State") insert ("for Defence").
  Clause 19, page 14, line 20, after ("State") insert ("for Defence").
  Clause 19, page 14, line 23, after ("State") insert ("for Defence and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 19, page 14, line 29, after ("State") insert ("for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 19, page 14, line 34, after ("State") insert ("for Defence or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 19, page 15, line 18, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 20, page 16, line 5, after the second ("to") insert ("land, buildings or works of the terminal authority connected with").
  Clause 20, page 17, line 32, leave out ("to") and insert ("of").
  Clause 20, page 17, line 33, at end insert:
  ("(5) If there is any conflict between any byelaw made under paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of this section and

  (a) any byelaw made by the Gwyneed River Authority under section 5 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951; or

  (b) any byelaw made by the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee under section 5 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966

  the relevant byelaw of the said River Authority or of the said Committee (as the case may be) shall prevail.")
  Clause 20, page 16, line 34, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
  Clause 20, page 16, line 35, at end insert ("for the Environment").
  Clause 21, page 18, line 3, leave out ("Nine") and insert ("Eight").
  Clause 21, page 18, line 5 at end insert ("One member to be nominated by the pilotage authority").
  Clause 21, page 18, line 6, leave out ("end") and at end insert ("and the pilotage authority").
  Clause 22, page 18, line 23, leave out ("do all such acts and").
  Clause 23, page 18, line 30, leave out ("powers") and insert ("power").
  Clause 23, page 18, line 35, leave out ("rating limits") and insert ("harbour").
  Clause 23, page 18, line 44, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
  Clause 23, page 18, lines 44 and 45, leave out ("as defined by the said section 57 of the Act of 1964").
  Clause 25, page 19, line 7, leave out ("rating limits") and insert ("terminal").
  Clause 31, page 20, line 7, leave out ("vessels") and insert ("(a) any vessel") and leave out from ("through") to the end of line 8 and insert ("the limits of the terminal").
  Clause 31, page 20, line 9, leave out ("do") and insert ("does").
  Clause 31, page 20, line 10, leave out ("fishing vessels") and insert ("(b) any vessel").
  Clause 31, page 20, line 12, leave out ("do") and insert ("does") leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert:
  ("(2) No ship, passenger and goods dues shall be chargeable by the terminal authority in respect of:

  (a) any vessel entering, using or leaving so much of the limits of the terminal as is outside the harbour if the vessel entered the limits of the terminal solely for the purpose of making use of the Company's works or any facility provided by the Company in connection with those works;

  (b) any vessel of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee within the limits of the terminal but outside the harbour while being used solely for carrying out the functions of that Committee.").

  After Clause 31 insert Clause 31A:
  Access for officers of Department of Trade and Industry, etc.
  The following persons shall have free access to the terminal:—

  (1) officers of the Department of Trade and Industry acting in the execution of their duty;

  (2) members of the crew of a lifeboat, officers of the coastguard and other persons employed in saving life or in exercising or using a lifeboat while engaged in going to or returning from a lifeboat or using any apparatus for saving life; and

  (3) persons brought ashore from a vessel in distress.

  Clause 37, page 22, line 29, after ("section") insert ("(a)").
  line 33, at end, insert—
  ("for Wales

  (b) with respect to any highway upon which a service of stage carriages or express carriages is operated unless not less than forty-eight hours' previous notice is given to the traffic commissioners and to the holders of the road service licence under which that service is authorised;

  (c) so as unreasonably to prevent access to any station or depot of any passenger road transport operators.

  (4)—

  (a) The terminal authority shall, whenever possible, provide a proper temporary substitute way before interruping the traffic on any highway referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section.

  (b) the terminal authority may execute and do all necessary works and things for keeping any such highway open to traffic.

  (5) Any person who suffers loss by reason of the exercise of the powers of this section in relation to any private right of way shall be entitled to be paid by the terminal authority compensation to be determined in case of dispute under, and in accordance with, the Land Compensation Act 1961.")
  Clause 40, page 24, line 5, after ("feet") insert ("or thereabouts").
  Clause 40, page 24, line 6, after ("yards") insert ("or thereabouts").
  Clause 40, page 24, line 8, after ("feet") insert ("or thereabouts").
  Clause 40, page 24, line 10, after ("feet") insert ("or thereabouts").
  Clause 40, page 24, line 11, after ("yards") insert ("or thereabouts").
  Clause 40, page 24, line 13, after ("feet") insert ("or thereabouts").
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 58.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [No. 59]
  Clause 40, page 24, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(2) So far as is practicable Works Nos. 3 and 4 shall be buried in the sea-bed.")
  6.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that Commons Amendment No. 59 be agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg to move, as an Amendment in lieu of the Commons Amendment, to leave out the words:
  "So far as is practicable".
  I am saying that the Commons Amendment should read:
  "Works Nos. 3 and 4 shall be buried in the sea-bed."
  I move this Amendment in lieu of the Commons Amendment for two reasons. The first is because the Commons Amendment was, I understand, passed by mistake. The honourable Member concerned meant to move an Amendment such as I am now proposing to your Lordships. He wanted the matter stated in its full rigour. It was suggested to him that perhaps this was impracticable, and he drafted another Amendment. In the confusion the second Amendment, the one he wished to move, was not moved and the Amendment about which he was in doubt was moved, with the result that the Commons Amendment which is before your Lordships reads:
  "So far as is practicable Works Nos. 3 and 4 shall be buried in the sea-bed."
  I am therefore proposing that the opening words should be deleted.

  2225
  The second reason why I move this Amendment in lieu is that the Commons Amendment was moved only because the question whether pipelines should be buried beneath the sea or merely laid on the sea-bed was not properly discussed in Committee, with the result that the Amendment was moved on Report stage. I think that the promoters of this Bill owe some sort of an explanation of why this Amendment, and the reasons why the oil pipelines should be buried beneath the sea-bed, was not fully discussed at the Committee stage.
  My Lords, at all stages up to the Commons Committee hearing, the promoters had expressed the firm intention of burying the pipelines. For that reason the petitioners say that the question of pipelines was not part of their case against the Bill. It became apparent to the petitioners against the Bill in the course of the Committee stage that the promoters were changing their minds, and that whereas they had firmly expressed the view that they would be burying the pipelines beneath the bed of the sea they now had some doubts about it. That put the petitioners against the Bill in a difficult position. They had said nothing in their Petition as to the question of where the pipelines should be; therefore it was difficult for them to bring it up at the Committee stage. They could do so only if they could get the promoters of the Bill to introduce evidence concerning oil pipelines, and this they several times attempted to do. The promoters did not accept the suggestion that they should produce expert evidence with regard to the laying of oil pipelines.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to interrupt. I have been looking through the reports of the public inquiry and also of the Select Committee and I have not been able to find at any point that a request was made to the company to produce evidence as to the pros and cons of burying a pipeline or leaving it on the surface of the sea-bed. I should be grateful if my noble friend would draw my attention to the passage in the report of either the public inquiry or the Select Committee where this request was made and declined.
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, at the local public inquiry before the meeting
  2226
  in, I think, 1971, the promoters in fact said in terms that pipelines should be buried beneath the sea-bed. Also I believe I am right in saying that at an earlier date in a committee dealing with oil pollution they said the same thing. So the position was that the petitioners up to the time of putting in their Petition were under the impression, in perfectly good faith, that the promoters intended to put the pipelines beneath the sea-bed. With regard to the second part of my noble friend's question, I am advised that the petitioners applied to the Chairman of the Select Committee for permission to debate this issue and that it was turned down. I am advised that they asked for it three times. I will try to find chapter and verse for my noble friend, but the fact remains that the petitioners were under the impression that this was an issue which was already decided and that therefore they need not deal with it in their Petition against the Bill. It is possible that the petitioners were wrong—I am not arguing that point; I am arguing that the petitioners were under the impression that they were right in this issue and therefore had nothing further to do. Having found, in fact, that the case was not so, they then attempted to put it right and failed. What this means is that at the Committee stage the petitioners were effectively blocked from scrutinising the promoters' intentions with regard to the pipelines.
  Now, my Lords, how binding are statements made by developers before an inquiry? Statements of this sort may induce a planning authority to accept a development or not to accept a development, and obviously they have a considerable bearing upon the conditions under which development is allowed. It seems to me that the promoters ought to say—and I hope that i shall have a satisfactory answer from the noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill—first of all why they expressed the firm intention in the first place, or at any rate, if I am wrong here, why they gave the impression of expressing the firm intention, that they would bury the pipelines, if they in fact knew that there were difficulties in doing this. Secondly I want to know, and I think I am entitled to an answer, why the promoters were unwilling to let the matter be examined at the Select Committee in the House of Commons,

  2227
  because it is quite clear to me that they were unwilling and that the petitioners were effectively blocked from demanding that scrutiny. It is not enough to say that they had no need to produce evidence about pipelines in the Committee on the grounds that the petitioners had not put it into their case against the Bill. As I have said, the petitioners—whether they were right or wrong—did not put it into their case against the Bill because they had accepted in good faith the promoters' expressed intentions. And, thirdly, I want to know from the noble Earl whether, having said all that, they would now be prepared to accept my Amendment, and if not, why not?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The original Question was that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59, since when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has moved an Amendment in lieu of the Commons Amendment as follows:
  Page 24, line 23, "(2) Works Nos. 3 and 4 shall be buried in the sea-bed."
  The Question is that the proposed Amendment in lieu be agreed to.
  BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I just say a word or two further in support of the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Your Lordships should be aware that what we are discussing is four pipelines from the single buoy mooring to the shore, each of which will be some two miles long and each of which, as I am advised, is likely at any one moment of time to contain roughly 2,000 tons of crude oil. In the evidence at the local public inquiry in October, 1971, it was stated that these pipelines would be laid below the level of the sea-bed, and later that they would be positioned in the seabed. This would be taken to mean that they would be either buried or trenched. But, after the matter was considered in another place, I am told that the company concerned, Shell, invited tenders on terms which did not in fact provide for either trenching or burial for the entire length of the distance between the buoy and the shore. I am told also that the reason why the petitioners are so much concerned about this matter is that they believe that there can be a genuine danger of pollution if the pipelines are
  2228
  not in some way protected—if they are simply laid upon the bed of the sea. The reasons which they give are that it is possible that owing to the force of the currents at that point in the neighbourhood of Amlwch—the currents which move across the pipelines—there may be erosion of the sea-bed in certain parts, and that this may lead to fracture or to some leakage or seepage from the pipe. They quote, in support of this, experience which another oil company, British Petroleum, has had in the North Sea, where they have decided to bury their pipes to a depth of at least six feet.
  We are perfectly aware, of course, that the geological conditions off the coast of Anglesey and in the North Sea are different, and that the developers of this installation might be put to considerably greater expense in the geological conditions off the coast of Anglesey than in the softer types of rock which prevail in the sea-bed of the North Sea. But that does not necessarily, it seems to me, reduce the risk. The other possible risk, so I understand, is that maintenance vessels or other shipping, in some emergency particularly, perhaps in a storm, might drop anchor, and that this might in some way interfere with the pipeline. I am not myself in any way technically knowledgeable in these matters. I cannot judge the seriousness of these objections. But I am very much concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was, that for various reasons these points were not adequately discussed either by the Committee which examined the Bill on our behalf in this House or by the other place.
  While I should make it clear that I do not wish to delay any further the passage of this Bill—it has taken a fairly long time as it is to pass through both Houses—in the light of the anxiety expressed by the petitioners and the fact that the matter was not adequately discussed in either House on previous occasions, I think we are entitled to receive from those who are sponsoring this Bill a full explanation of how Shell propose to deal with this pipeline matter. The only explanation we have had so far is that after the legislation has been enacted there will be some negotiation between the company and the Department of Trade and Industry, but this does not bring complete confidence to the minds either of

  2229
  the petitioners or, quite frankly, of some of us. Inquiries of the Department of Trade and Industry elicit the fact that the officials there concerned with these matters cannot recall any occasion on which they have asked for any alteration in the arrangements made for pipelines on or under the sea-bed, and it appears to us that it is extremely unlikely that if a powerful company like Shell says, "This is how we wish to arrange these matters", the Department of Trade and Industry will really stand up to them. After all, we are realistic in this House; we know how these things are done. Unless there are very strong reasons indeed against it, a company of the size of Shell is very apt to get its own way. That is why we are worried that there seems to have been no real compulsion on the company to carry out what was understood to be its undertaking, which was to bury or trench these pipelines; or, if they find, for example, for geological reasons as opposed to any financial consideration, that it is really extremely difficult to do what they originally intended to do, then at least, it seems to me, they are under a moral obligation to tell the public just why they are unable to carry out what we certainly believed to be their original undertaking. It is for these reasons that I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was entirely right to put down his Amendment, even at this very late stage, and I hope we shall have an adequate explanation.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, whether as a non-technical person, can give an adequate explanation I do not know.
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? I do not want a technical explanation. I said to your Lordships that I was not really discussing this technical aspect. What I am saying is that I object to the fact that the technical aspects were not discussed in Committee.
  BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I should like a technical explanation. It is precisely on that matter that I am worried. If I were entirely satisfied that there is no reason for them, then, although I would regret the failure to discuss this fully at an earlier stage, my
  2230
  anxieties, which are considerable at the moment, might be put at rest. I should very much like a convincing technical explanation on the Record.
  6.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, is at all times difficult to resist, even at this distance across the Floor of the Chamber. All I can do is do my best to provide the really full explanation that she has asked for. Whether it will be technical enough for her purpose or political enough for the purpose of the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, I cannot tell. All I can say is that I will do my best, having had a quick look at this matter since lunch time, when I first heard that this Amendment was going to be moved. I should like again to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his courtesy, not only in mentioning to me personally but writing afterwards to say that this Amendment was going to be moved and explaining briefly what it was about.
  I have not had time to examine at all the proceedings in another place, but the Amendment, as I understand it, as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would have the effect of deleting the phrase "so far as is practicable" which was in the Amendment incorporated in the Bill in another place on the Motion of Mr. Farr. I believe it is the fact, and I will accept it in any case from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there was some confusion procedurally on the Report stage in another place, in that I believe that Mr. Farr had two Amendments in his hand and he drew the wrong one out of the hat, and that Amendment having got through, the right honourable gentleman in the Chair could not accept a second Amendment on the same subject. I understand Mr. Farr then found himself saddled with an Amendment which was not really the one he would have preferred, but that I cannot really comment on in any detail.
  Dealing first with the matter of engineering, I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that tenders have gone out. Well, if they have, I must say it is news to me, because my own information—and I am no closer to Shell than the noble Baroness is, except that I have 200 shares—is that feasibility

  2231
  studies as to the best way of putting the pipe under the seabed are still in progress. The seabed varies, as I understand, between rock, which could probably be blasted or might even be tunnelled, and soft material of a roughly sandy or clayish variety which is often, if not commonly, at any rate in the North Sea, trenched by various means, including a high pressure underwater jet from something called a bury-barge. But the point is that feasibility studies are proceeding as to the best way of putting the pipe under the seabed at a safe distance from danger of corrosion, danger of erosion of the seabed—and therefore the pipe, as happened to B.P. in the North Sea, being left, as it were, between sandbanks—and against the danger of being caught by an anchor. Studies of how, and as to the best way, to put it deep enough to avoid those hazards are still, I understand, in progress.
  I confess frankly to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that as a matter of fact there seems to have been some genuine misunderstanding about this, in which I must say I shared, because when we discussed this Bill last February on Third Reading, I must say my own impression was that the intention was to tunnel, but I had not then gone into the question in any detail. I think at that point feasibility studies were at such a preliminary stage that nobody could know what was going to be the best way of achieving this object. The point here, as so often happens in major sophisticated engineering projects, is that the best way of doing a particular job which everybody wants has not yet been technically determined. There are various alternatives. It might be that there is trenching at one point and blasting at another, or whatever, and the technical studies on exactly how to do it are still going on. However, I think I am in a position, albeit no part of the Shell organisation, but having accepted their invitation to try to help this Bill through, to say, first of all, that Shell intend absolutely that it shall be under the seabed. Indeed, the very hazards to which the noble Baroness drew attention, and which have been experienced by B.P. and others in the North Sea, dictate that, whatever the conservationists might require.
  2232
  That is the first thing. I understand absolutely that this is the intention, although the best way of accomplishing it has yet, in engineering terms, to be decided.
  The second point is that the noble Baroness referred to some negotiations with the Department of Trade and Industry, and it may be that I can help a little on this point. I understand, and I am advised, that it is invariably the case—not just commonly but invariably—that where marine works are proposed the D.T.I. (as the Department is now called) not only require absolutely to be consulted but must give their approval before such works are undertaken. That position is safeguarded in what is now numbered Clause 52. Such tidal works must have the approval of the D.T.I., who themselves must have in mind the same considerations as the rest of us: that the one thing one does not want is to have a spillage arising from corrosion, erosion or accident. One does not want waste; one does not want loss of power. There is every reason for preventing these.
  The D.T.I. have an interest, and their engineers have an interest, in being satisfied that whatever is finally proposed by Shell is in fact safe and sound.
  The noble Baroness referred to negotiations with the D.T.I., and she said, with an overtone that I am bound to say surprised me, though I do not propose to pursue this aspect, "Oh, we know what happens when great companies deal with Ministries in Whitehall", or words to that effect. As I say, I do not propose to pursue that aspect because I am quite sure that no disagreeable overtones were intended—indeed, if I may say so with respect, the noble Baroness is not capable of disagreeable overtones. As for the D.T.I.'s powers, the Minister, speaking in the other place for the D.T.I., Mr. Peter Emery, did say that he was wholly satisfied with the powers which the D.T.I. have under this Bill in Clause 52.
  The question then arises, if all that is so, if the assurances that I have endeavoured to give—and I give them to the best of my knowledge and ability, and sincerely, after making the inquiries that I have—are genuine, why on earth should the words, "so far as practicable" find their way in, because surely they are superfluous? Either the pipe-lines are

  2233
  put on the sea-bed, or they are not. All I can say about that is that those were the words that Mr. Farr himself chose; and not only were they acceptable to him, since he drafted them, but they were accepted by another place. I would only say that had they been my words, which I do not think they would ever have been, if I were called on later to justify them, which I am not attempting to do because I am not responsible for Mr. Farr's Amendment in any narrow sense, I should attempt to do so by saying that at the end of the line, at some point, it has to leave the sea-bed in order to reach the S.B.M. If words "so far as practicable" have any meaning at all, which I doubt, they must relate to the point at which the hose, or hoses, or pipe, will leave the sea-bed and come up to the S.H.M. But there again, not only are the design, the execution of the work, the certification at the end that it is satisfactory all under the control of a Government Department, but that Government Department is represented in both Houses of Parliament. It can be called to account in either House of Parliament. It can be questioned day after day, week after week, by noble Lords and noble Baronesses in this House, and by honourable gentlemen and ladies, and right honourable gentlemen and ladies, in the other place at any time they like. So the assurance of D.T.I. supervision would surely cover anything that is left out or not properly covered.
  I must apologise that I cannot give a fuller explanation that I have done, because I found that there were 105 Amendments which I must try to learn about. Being a slow reader I found this pretty heavy going, and I have had little opportunity to slake my thirst since lunchtime. May I just mention one or two other points that were made, first of all by the noble Lord, Lord Henley? He said that Mr. Farr's Amendment had been put down, or accepted, by mistake. Well that I do not know, and I do not really think that it is becoming to your Lordships' House, having handled this Bill earlier, to investigate in any critical sense (shall I say?) the way another House conducts its affairs. As to whether there was improper, or inadequate, discussion in Committee there, I think the same point applies. As to how binding is the developer's statement at the public inquiry
  2234
  (this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and in general terms is a very valid one: it arises over and over again in other cases), I believe that is adequately covered by the sanctions, if you will, control powers, that are vested in the D.T.I by Clause 52 of the Bill.
  I do not know whether there are any other points that have been made that require answering, but I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, whose interest I know is entirely altruistic, and who wants merely to make sure that the public interest is best safeguarded in this matter—and this is the object also of the noble Baroness opposite—may find it possible not to press his Amendment in lieu and to accept the Commons Amendment. It is only fair to point out that if an Amendment were carried in this House to an Amendment that is sent up from another place, the consequences in Parliamentary terms would not be little. The whole procedure of Private Bills in Parliament rests on an understanding between the two Houses that neither interferes with the Amendments of the other. Although I have said that I personally do not care either way for these words, I must say to the House that if the noble Lord sought to press his Amendment, and if by any chance his Amendment to the Commons Amendment were carried, the effect could only be to take the Bill back to another place, certainly to delay it, and possibly even destroy it. I know that that too would not be at all what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would wish to see, because I accept that they raise this matter purely in the public interest. I hope that what I have said may be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to perhaps withdraw his Amendment.
  6.59 p.m.
  LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I should like to make just one remark. I came here a little uneasy about the wording of the Amendment, but after listening to the noble Earl I should like to say that he has satisfied my doubts in the matter. The words "so far as is practicable" seem to me, as they obviously seem to him, to be quite unnecessary, because if a thing is impracticable then obviously it cannot be done.

  2235
  So the words just seemed quite redundant here. If, on the other hand, the words mean what he suggests—and I hope that he is right—and simply refer to that part of the line where necessarily the line must come away from the sea-bed, then clearly this is quite reasonable and I personally should feel satisfied with the matter. I am glad that the noble Earl was able to give us this careful explanation, and I would merely say that I now remain satisfied.
  7.0 p.m.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I say one word and, in doing so, first declare an interest as the holder of a small number of Shell shares? I think my noble friend Lord Henley would have found, if he had had time to examine the Report of the proceedings in another place, that the sequence of events was slightly different from what he described; that Mr. Farr first of all put down the Amendment which is before us which has come up front another place, and then at the very last minute decided to put down a more far-reaching Amendment which would have had much the same effect as that suggested to the House this evening. This arose at the very last minute, an Amendment having been tabled by Mr. Farr the night before. He spoke to both Amendments at the same time and allowed the first of them to go through. It was carried without a Division, when of course he was not allowed to put the second Amendment. My noble friend may like to know that they were the circumstances in which the matter came up at Report stage in another place.
  My noble friend also said that this was very late in the day and that the matter could have been discussed earlier had it not been for the firm impression created that the whole of the pipeline would be buried in the sea-bed. My noble friend slightly contradicted himself in telling the House that at several points during the proceedings in Select Committee in the Commons the Shell Company had been asked to produce evidence about laying a pipeline in the sea-bed and putting it on the surface of the bed but had declined to do so. In the short time that has been available to me since he did me the courtesy of letting me know that he would be moving this Amendment in lieu, have skimmed through all
  2236
  the evidence of the Select Committee in the House of Commons and I have not been able to discover at any point where the witnesses from Shell were asked to give information on this point and declined. I think my noble friend said at another point that the Chairman had declined to allow questions to be put. I am not quite sure what are the true facts, but certainly no public request was made to the company to provide the sort of evidence which he now says is lacking. There would have been a full opportunity of discussing the matter on Report stage, but in fact Mr. Farr made a very short speech and nobody else saw fit to take it up. I think that must have been because most people who have given the subject any study will realise that to put a restriction of this kind into the construction of these works might achieve the very opposite of what my noble friend and the rest of the House want.
  The case has been quoted of one of the B.P. lines in the North Sea where, because of the nature of the sea-bed, the sand underneath was washed away by the force of the tides. There is another case where part of the B.P. line from the West Sole gasfield had to lie on the surface because it runs through what is called boulder clay. That is a mixture of heavy clay and boulders, which vary in size from a football up to the size of a house, and it would clearly be an extremely difficult, if not an impossible, undertaking to construct a pipeline that was buried in that kind of sea-bed. Therefore the Department of Trade and Industry, quite properly, agreed that it should be on the surface; and, as the noble Earl opposite has emphasised, if any geological conditions were discovered in the case of the Anglesey Marine Terminal which justified laying part of the line on the surface, then under Clause 52 the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry would have to be obtained in the same way as it was with the West Sole field. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, thought that this might apply solely to the lines coming up from the sea-bed to the S.B.M., but I do not think that is what the noble Earl opposite was trying to say. We do not yet know enough of the configuration of the sea-bed off the coast of Anglesey to say definitely which method is preferable.

  2237
  If, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, there have been requests for tenders to construct a pipeline in the two alternative ways, this is surely quite proper. It would be necessary for the company to find out what the costs were going to be in case the Department of Trade and Industry came back to them and said, "In this particular stretch of the sea-bed, for perhaps a quarter of a mile, because of the geological or hydrological conditions we think it would be safer and better for the pipeline to lie on the surface of the sea bed". I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that if the Department said that and the company had no estimate of the cost, it would be liable to severe criticism for its lack of foresight in not anticipating that such a situation might arise. I personally am very satisfied with the explanation that the noble Earl has given, and I want to underline once again the important point he raised, that if we did not allow this Amendment from the Commons to go through as it stands we should be putting the Bill itself in jeopardy.
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I do not know who has made a better explanation of the actions of the promoters—my noble friend or the noble Earl—but I am satisfied. I think the assurances given are good ones, and if Shell really intend to put this pipeline under the sea-bed then I am very glad. I am not in the least surprised that the best way of accomplishing the object has not yet been determined. But the whole point of what I said was that I am sorry this was not said in Committee. That is the whole point I am making: that it should have been said at the Committee stage. In spite of what my noble friend Lord Avebury has said, I still think that there were attempts on the part of the petitioners to extract this information but either it was not given to them or the answer was given in an extremely equivocal way. When they were asked whether the pipeline would be under the sea, I think their counsel answered that it had not yet been decided. That is an equivocal answer if, in the earlier stages of the application, the company had been saying all the time that it would be put under the sea-bed. But I take the noble Earl's point that there are technical problems here, about which I
  2238
  do not want to bore your Lordships and which are not yet known.
  I have no intention whatever of pressing this Amendment in lieu to a Division. I entirely accept what the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said: that it is doubtful what exactly "so far as is practicable" means, and that if it means anything at all it is superfluous. As to the question of the mistake that was made in another place, I am not quite sure why the noble Earl twitted me with raising the question that there might have been a mistake over moving an Amendment in another place. I said that and he then followed up the same point. If there was a mistake, there was a mistake, there was a mistake. So be it.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lord is irresistible?
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I entirely take the point about the consequences of attempting to do anything that might delay this Bill here, and I have no intention whatever of doing so. But I fed that this has been a valuable debate, that we have elicited a very firm assurance from the noble Earl, and that we have aired the subject. This is the sort of matter that must be seen to be argued at all stages. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment in lieu.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will put the remaining Amendments en bloc, if they are so moved and if the House agrees.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [Nos. 60–103.]
  Clause 41, page 24, line 33, after ("the") insert ("entrance to the") and leave out ("entrance") and insert ("as it exists at the passing of this Act").
  Clause 41, page 24, line 36, after ("the") insert ("entrance to the") and leave out ("entrance") and insert ("as it exists at the passing of this Act").
  Clause 44, page 25, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment but").
  Clause 44, page 26, line 27, after ("that") insert ("(a)").
  Clause 44, page 26, line 28 leave out from ("passengers") to the end of line 29 and insert—
  ("(b)The provisions of section 31 of the Land Drainage Act 1961 shall apply to the execution of arty works under this subsection in, over or under any part of Afon Goch.")
  Clause 44, page 27, line 18, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("subsection").
  Clause 44, page 27, line 33, leave out ("telegraphic communication") and insert ("telecommunication").
  Clause 44, page 27, line 39, leave out ("telecommunications") and insert ("telecommunication").
  Clause 46, page 28, line 17, at end insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  After Clause 46, insert Clause 46A:
  ("Compulsory pilotage.
  46A.—(1) For the purposes of the Pilotage Act 1913 and of any byelaw made there-under Works Nos. 1 and 2 shall be deemed to be a port in a pilotage district in which pilotage is compulsory and for which the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is the pilotage authority.
  (2) Pilotage for a vessel bound for the Company's works shall be compulsory as soon as the vessel comes within the limits of the pilotage district and shall continue to apply for a movement of the vessel from or to the Company's works until the vessel has finally passed seaward out of the pilotage district.
  (3) In this section "the pilotage district" has the same meaning as in the Liverpool Pilotage Order 1920.")
  After Clause 46 insert Clause 46B:
  ("Restriction on use of company's works.
  46B. Except with the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and of the Secretary of State for Wales the Company shall not use or permit to be used the Company's works for the loading into vessels of crude oil.")
  Clause 47, page 29, line 7, after ("State") insert ("for Wales")
  Clause 47, page 29, line 11, after the second ("the") insert ("said").
  Clause 48, page 29, line 38, leave out Clause 49 and insert Clause 49A—
  "Amendment of accounts regulations
  49A.—(1) The Statutory Harbour Undertakings (Form of Accounts etc.) (Local Authorities) Regulations 1969 are hereby amended by the addition in Schedule 1 to those regulations of words "Anglesey County Council" before the words "Bideford Corporation".
  (2) The amendment made by subsection (1) of this section shall not prejudice in any way the power of the Secretary of State for the Environment to rescind, revoke, amend or vary the said regulations by further regulations made under section 42 of the Act of 1964.").
  Clause 50, page 30, line 30, after ("undertaking") insert ("including the interest received by the terminal authority in that year on any reserve fund which the terminal authority may from time to time be authorised to set up when the said fund amounts to the prescribed maximum")
  Clause 50, page 30, line 33, leave out from ("undertaking") to the second ("the") in line 35 and insert ("property chargeable to revenue").
  Clause 52, page 32, line 14, leave out ("altered") and insert ("erected, renewed,")
  Clause 52, page 32, line 15, leave out ("or") and after ("extended") insert ("altered or reconstructed").
  Clause 52, page 32, line 16, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 52, page 32, line 18, leave out ("altered") and insert ("erected, renewed,") leave out ("or") and at end insert ("altered or reconstructed").
  Clause 52, page 32, line 21, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 52, page 32, line 27, after the third ("the") insert ("said"). line 30, after ("the") insert ("said").
  Clause 52, page 32, line 33, after ("the") insert ("said").
  Clause 53, page 33, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("shall be guilty of an offence and").
  Clause 54, page 33, line 8, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 54, page 33, line 12, after ("the") insert ("said").
  Clause 54, page 33, line 20, at end insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 54, page 33, line 26, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 55, page 33, line 30, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  Clause 55, page 33, line 33, after ("the") insert ("said").
  Clause 56, page 33, lines 42 and 43, leave out ("shall be guilty of an offence and").
  Clause 57, page 34, line 2, after ("construction") insert ("erection").
  Clause 57, page 34, line 6, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
  After Clause 58 insert Clause 58A.
  ("For protection of Post Office
  58A.—(1) Nothing in section 15 (Power to dredge) or section 46 (Power to company to dredge) of this Act shall authorise any interference with any subaqueous cable belonging to or used by the Post Office.
  (2) As early as possible, and in any event not less than twenty-eight days, before any exercise of their powers under subsection (1) of the said section 15 or subsection (1) of the said section 46 within a distance of fifty yards or, in the case of blasting operations, one hundred and fifty yards of any subaqueous cable belonging to or used by the Post Office, the terminal authority or

  2241
  the Company (as the case may be) shall give notice in writing to the Post Office of such intended exercise.
  (3) No material taken up or collected in the course of any such operations as are referred to in the said subsection (1) of section 15 and no materials dredged in the exercise of the powers conferred by the said subsection (1) of section 46 shall be laid down or deposited in any place or manner so as to cover any subaqueous cable belonging to or used by the Post Office or to impede in any way the inspection, maintenance, removal or renewal of any such cable")
  After Clause 58 insert Clause 58B:
  ("For protection of pilotage authority and Liverpool Pilots' Association
  58B. For the protection of the pilotage authority and the Liverpool Pilots' Association the following provisions shall, except as may be otherwise agreed in writing between the pilotage authority and the said association and the terminal authority, apply and have effect:—
  (1) In the exercise of the powers of section 14 (Maintenance and improvement of terminal undertaking) and section 41 (Power to terminal authority to construct works) of this Act the terminal authority shall so far as is reasonably practicable avoid any interruption or obstruction of the customary use by pilots and their vessels of the harbour and its approaches for purposes of pilotage, including the landing or embarkation of pilots and the mooring of such vessels, and if at any time such interruption or obstruction occurs to an extent which renders it reasonably necessary that suitable alternative facilities be made available for use by such pilots and vessels the terminal authority shall at their expense make them available without charge, together with suitable access thereto.
  (2) Nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect or derogate from any customary practice or usage of the pilotage authority (other than the use of the harbour without the payment of ship dues or charges in respect of vessels of the pilotage authority) and the powers conferred on the terminal authority and on the harbour master by this Act or by any byelaws made under or by virtue of this Act shall subject to the harbour master's obligation to ensure the safety of shipping and the operation of the terminal within the limits of the terminal, be so exercised as not to prejudicially affect or derogate from the proper discharge of the statutory functions of the pilotage authority.
  (3) Any difference arising between the pilotage authority the said association and the terminal authority under this section (other than a difference as to the meaning thereof) shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by agreement between the parties, or, in default of agreement, to be appointed on the application of any party after giving
  2242
  notice in writing to the others, by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  After Clause 58 insert Clause 58C:
  ("Local inquiries
  58C.—(1) Any Minister of the Crown may cause such local inquiries to be held as he may consider necessary for the purpose of any of his functions under this Act.
  (2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 290 of the Local Government Act 1933 shall apply in relation to any such inquiry; and for that purpose the definition of "department" in subsection (8) of that section shall include any Minister of the Crown having functions under this Act.
  (3) In this section "Minister of the Crown" has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act 1946.")
  After Clause 59 insert Clause 59A:
  ("Continuance of terminal authority
  59A.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any public general Act passed during the present session of Parliament which makes provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in England and Wales if such Act establishes—

  (a) a local government area to be known as a district comprising the area of the county specified in subsection (2) of this section and establishes a council for that district; and

  (b) establishes areas to be known as communities and provides that the urban district shall become a community of the urban district and shall be known by the name of the urban district

  on and after 1st April, 1974—

  (i) the functions conferred by this Act on the Council shall be exercised by the Council of the district referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

  (ii) for references in this Act to the Council there shall be substituted references to the council of that district;

  (iii) for references in this Act to the county there shall be substituted references to that district;

  (iv) for references in this Act to the district council there shall be substituted references to any community council elected for that area.

  (2) The area of the county hereinbefore referred to comprises the following areas as they exist immediately before the passing of this Act—

  (a) the borough of Beaumaris;

  (b) the urban districts of Amlwch, Holyhead, Llangefni and Menai Bridge;

  (c) the rural districts of Aethwy, Twrcelyn and Valley.")

  Clause 62, page 34, line 34, leave out ("220") and insert ("289").
  Clause 62, page 34, line 35, leave out ("1962") and insert ("1971").
  Clause 62, page 34, line 37, leave out ("Acts 1962 to 1968") and insert ("Act 1971").
  Clause 62, page 35, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert—
  ("(2) In their application to development authorised by this Act, article 3 of, and Class XII in Schedule I to, the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1963 shall have effect as if the authority to develop given

  (a) by this Act in respect of Works No. 1 to 10 were limited to such development begun within five years after the passing of this Act; and

  (b) by section 43 (Power to Company to make subsidiary works) of this Act were limited to development carried out within twelve months of the completion of the Company's works; and

  (c) by section 44 (Power to terminal authority to make subsidiary works) of this Act were limited to development carried out within twelve months of the completion of the terminal authority's works.")

  Clause 62, page 34, line 12, leave out ("14") and insert ("24") and leave out ("1962") and insert ("1971").
  Clause 66, page 35, line 26, after ("passing") insert ("of").
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their remaining Amendments, Nos. 60 to 103.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL [H.L.]
Special Report from the Select Committee: made, and to be printed.