Lords Sitting of 17 April 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE: U.N. VOTE
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 what was the decision on the Netherlands and Austrian Motion at the United Nations Human Rights Commission that conscientious objection to military service should be recognised; and how did the national representatives vote.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, the Commission deferred consideration of this item for one year at the instance of the Soviet Union. As this procedural vote was taken by a show of hands, an exact list of individual votes is not available, but there were 15 votes for deferment, 9 against, including the United Kingdom, and 4 abstentions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that most of the opposition came from Communist countries and from developing countries?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords; that is so. The Soviet Union objected, together with the other countries associated with her, because she said that it was the right of the Soviet Union and the constitutional duty of her citizens to defend their homeland. The developing countries said that the developed countries, with sophisticated weapons, could afford to accommodate conscientious objectors whereas this obligation could not be imposed on other nations.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one further question? While we may not have much influence with Communist countries, could we not exert some persuasion on the developing countries? Could not the issue of personal liberties be placed on the agenda of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in August?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, during this particular session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, we did what we could to influence the developing countries but, so far as putting the issue on the agenda of the Commonwealth Conference is concerned, the noble Lord will realise that the same numbers do not attend as at the Human Rights Commission, and therefore we should not advance very far.

NORTH SEA OILFIELDS: TRAINING OF DIVERS
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of divers, qualified to dive deeper than 60 metres, operating in the North Sea oil and gas fields, are British Navy trained; what facilities, under re-training schemes, or Government sponsored schemes, exist in the United Kingdom for training divers to operate at these depths and how much the Government are spending on research and development in this field.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, there are no formal qualifications required by divers employed on this work but I am advised that most of them have served in the Royal Navy. Following the IMEG report on offshore petroleum developments, interdepartmental discussions have already begun to identify the training and educational needs arising from offshore operations, including diving, and to consider how they can be met. There are at present no courses sponsored by the Government for deep sea diving, and the

1029
training of divers in commercial schools under the Training Opportunities Schemes has so far been confined to the use of shallow waters. The Ministry of Defence are spending £300,000 a year on diving research, and an additional sum of £150,000 is available this year for the developing of diving equipment. The Department of Trade and Industry are placing contracts for research projects worth £75,000. Further contracts are being considered.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, it may be that I did not hear him aright but I thought he said that no qualifications were laid down for divers to qualify to dive deeper than 60 metres.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, that is so. I said that there are at present no formal qualifications, but regulations are going to be issued on safety, health and welfare which will spell out requirements for divers—for example, as to their age, experience and so on.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he is aware that there is a great shortage of divers, and is it not rather a matter of regret that interdepartmental discussions on this subject are still going on, eight months after the IMEG report referring to this and other matters was received by the Government?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not aware that there is a great shortage. I am told that there are some 300 divers operating. I would say to my noble friend that this is a new field of activity and we have to be careful to get the proposed regulations right. In addition, the Act requires us to consult with all concerned.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the Italian firm, Sub-Sea Oilfield Services Ltd., and the French firm, COMEC, have to a large extent beaten the British firms in this field to the draw because they have more divers available who are fully experienced?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot agree with that because I am not aware of it, but I will look into it and I am obliged to my noble friend.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he is aware of the commercial regulations for deep sea diving which have been in existence for a very long time and whether it is not perhaps rather dilatory of Her Majesty's Government not to have looked into this subject?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I would not agree that it was dilatory on our part. I have explained why. There is good evidence to show that the contractors are careful in their supervision over divers and are acting with responsibility in this matter.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that it would appear that this is not an attractive occupation; hence the reason for the dearth of applications for such duties as that of deep sea diving? Would the Minister not agree that these people, like the miners, are faced with the elements of nature and therefore this must be taken into consideration?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not certain that I agree with the noble Lord, with all respect to his experience. The challenge itself in a case like this is the incentive to take up this kind of work and, after all, it is not badly remunerated.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister in the course of his reply trying to impose upon the House the view that this is an attractive occupation and that the disadvantages in no way have any bearing on the applications from people to enter such a service?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have no evidence on that at all.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since the deep sea divers in this country are mainly recruited from the Roy al Navy and the Royal Marines, does that not rather suggest that the excitement of the job is the incentive?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am inclined to agree.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said that he thought there were probably ample divers available. The numbers are not necessarily very great but they are vital to

1031
the development of the oil industry in this country, not only in the development stages. Does the noble Lord realise that when the oil wells have been established, divers are required on a permanent basis to maintain those wells?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I fully understand that and I can assure my noble friend that the whole subject is being studied very fully in the light of the Report of the Society of Underwater Technology that was made to the Department of Employment.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the Minister say whether that Report will be made public?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that Report was made some time ago. I will look into the matter and let my noble friend know.

SELF-EMPLOYED DIVERS AND TAX LIABILITY
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that a number of Navy-trained divers offer their services on a "lump" basis (self-employed) to British, European and foreign companies, and can thereby avoid British tax liabilities especially in the cases where they are not employed by United Kingdom companies; and whether they are aware that this places British contractors in an unfavourable competitive position when tendering for underwater contracts in the North Sea.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government are aware that self-employed divers are engaged in oil and gas operations in the North Sea; but they have no reason to believe that such divers are generally avoiding tax, or adversely affecting the competitive position of British contractors. If the noble Viscount has any information about particular cases, I should be happy to pass it on to
1032
the Inland Revenue or to the Department of Trade and Industry.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. May I ask him to receive the information which I shall pass on to him?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I shall be very pleased to do so for my noble friend.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl bear in mind, and is he aware, that one reason why British divers in particular work for the French firm COMEC is that that firm is thought by many divers to have a wider back-up of research than their British competitors? The same reason applies to the Italian firm, Sub-Sea Oilfield Services.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, again I am grateful to my noble friend for that information and I shall see that it gets to the right quarters.

IMPORTS OF BIRDS OF PREY AND OWLS
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state how many licences to take or import birds of prey and owls of each species were issued on the advice of the relevant Advisory Committee in 1970, or any convenient recent period; and how many birds of each species were actually so taken or imported.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, in 1971, 132 licences, authorising a total of 136 birds of prey to be taken from the wild in Great Britain, were issued and 89 birds were actually taken. In the same year, a total of 370 licences were granted to import birds of prey and owls. Of the 583 birds covered by these licences, 327 were imported. As the analysis by species involves a considerable number of figures I shall, with permission, arrange for the details to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following are the details referred to:
Control over the importation of birds of prey and owls came into effect on 1st July 1970 (Wild Birds (Importation) Order 1970). The figures below are for the calendar year 1971, which was the first full year of operation of importation controls.

LICENCES TO TAKE BIRDS OF PREY AND OWLS FROM THE WILD IN GREAT BRITAIN IN 1971

Total number of licences issued

132

Total number of birds covered by the licences

136

Total number of birds taken

89

Species

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds taken

Kestrel

85

57

Buzzard

16

11

Sparrowhawk

29

18

Merlin

6

3

Owls

Nil

Nil

136

89

LICENCES TO IMPORT BIRDS OF PREY AND OWLS IN 1971

Type of licence

Numberof licences

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds imported

(a) Permanent importation

344

531

289

(b) Temporary importation by visitors

20

41

37

(c)Re-importation of birds after visits abroad

6

11

1

Totals

370

583

327

Details of species covered by the licences at (a) are set out below:—

Species

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds imported

Kestrel

14

14

Lugger or Lagger Falcon

89

42

Lanner Falcon

49

29

Saker Falcon

24

13

Red-thighed Falconet

5

5

Merlin

1

1

Red-headed Merlin

8

6

Peregrine Falcon

23

9

Red Shaheen

1

Nil

Barbary Falcon

1

Nil

Goshawk

164

72

Sparrowhawk

7

5

Shikra

18

8

Cooper's Hawk

2

Nil

Snowy Owl

7

7

Eagle Owl

9

5

Malay Fish Owl

1

Nil

Dwarf Scops Owlets

10

10

Little Owl

2

Nil

Spectacled Owl

2

2

Red Kite

2

Nil

Species

Number of birds licensed

Number of birds imported

Black-shouldered Kite

3

3

Caracara

3

3

Red-tailed Hawk

12

10

Buzzard

1

Nil

Red-tailed Buzzard

7

2

Asiatic Honey Buzzard

2

2

Harris's Hawk

1

1

Savannah Hawk

3

3

Mountain Hawk-eagle

5

3

Changeable or Crested Hawk-eagle

12

9

Blyth's Hawk-eagle

2

1

Asiatic Hawk-eagle

2

1

Bonelli's Eagle

2

Nil

Serpent Eagle

2

2

White Sea Eagle

2

2

Tawny Eagle

6

4

Wedge-tailed Eagle

2

2

Great Condor

1

1

Griffin Vulture

6

4

King Vulture

4

3

Common Vulture

1

1

Black Vulture

2

Nil

Egyptian Vulture

4

4

Secretary Bird

7

Nil

Totals

531

289

Details of species covered by licences at (b) and (c) are not readily available.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for that information, may I ask him if he has considered whether the gap between the number of licences issued and the number taken advantage of does not indicate either that there are not enough birds available to satisfy the number of licences issued or that the number of licences issued is in any case excessive?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I cannot tell offhand and I do not have the information to explain the discrepancy, but I shall gladly consider what the noble Lord has said. But the situation is fairly involved. We have, for instance, permanent importation; and there is also the temporary importation by visitors. I know that there is also the reimportation of birds after visits abroad, for which 11 birds were licensed but only one came back; and there is probably a number of different reasons for that sort of discrepancy.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since the noble Lord's Question covered all birds of prey, can the noble Viscount give an indication of what proportion of those would be owls, of which I think all bird lovers would particularly like to see an increase in this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the number of owls that actually came in—if I may leave aside the numbers that were licensed—was 7 Snowy Owls; 5 Eagle Owls; no Malay Fish Owls; 10 Dwarf Scops Owlets no Little Owls; and 2 Spectacled Owls.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, has the number of birds of prey imported into this country increased since the present Government took office?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think so, and there is no connection between that and Spectacled Owls.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Viscount say for how long these licences are operative once they are issued?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, for the period specified in the licence, which is not necessarily uniform.

RHODESIA: AIRCRAFT SUPPLIES AND SANCTIONS
2.50 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information about the major breach of sanctions by the suppliers of Boeing aircraft to Rhodesia, and whether the matter has been referred to the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have not yet received any further information on the sale of Boeing aircraft to Rhodesia that has not already been made public. This information is available to the United Nations Sanctions Committee. If we obtain any facts which will assist the United Nations we will inform the Sanctions Committee.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, might one ask her whether she does not feel it to be a trifle negative, especially in combination with the unfortunate impression
1036
given by the spokesman of her Department yesterday that Britain does not have a special responsibility in this regard? May we ask the noble Baroness whether she accepts the special responsibility of this country for Rhodesia and for initiating the Sanctions Committee? Would it not be better in this case for this country to take the initiative rather than to leave it to other members of the Sanctions Committee?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have never in the past passed on information which is already available to the United Nations Sanctions Committee. I think the noble Baroness, on reflection, will think that my reply was not by any means negative, because she will understand that in this kind of sanctions-breaking operation the Rhodesian authorities have been at great pains to conceal the origin of these aircraft, and it takes time to find this out. We certainly accept responsibility for Rhodesia, but, as I think the House knows, we have very little real authority on the ground and much less in the air.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, we totally understand how little authority we have there, but could the noble Baroness not make representations at the United Nations for its members to deny landing rights for these planes when they go outside Rhodesia, to deny them navigational facilities and to deny spare parts, so as to frustrate this sanction-breaking activity?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we are at the moment engaged in trying to find out the facts of the sale. I should think it most unlikely that any countries would grant over-flying rights, beyond the countries to which the present aircraft of Rhodesia go. These do not, of course, accept the sanctions ruling of the United Nations.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, according to some reports in the newspapers, these aircraft originated in Switzerland and flew through Portugal? In view of the fact that we are about to celebrate the anniversary of the Portuguese Alliance, which is the oldest alliance into which the United Kingdom has entered, would

1037
she not make representations to the Portuguese authorities that they should not allow aircraft which are being purchased by the Rhodesian authorities, in contravention of the sanctions, to land and to be granted facilities at Portuguese airports? Would she further ask them whether they are intending to grant landing rights for these Boeing 707s or 720s when the Rhodesian airline puts them into operation, so that representations can be made against that as well?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I think I said in answer to the previous question, Portugal does not accept the imposition of sanctions, and therefore I do not think that in that respect it would be of much use.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the question of supply of aircraft is one thing but the maintenance of those aircraft flying is another, and to fulfil the second role there must be access to spare parts? While Her Majesty's Government can absolve themselves of responsibility as regards the Boeings, is it not a fact that the Rhodesian Government have had Vickers Viscounts for many years, and they have been kept flying only because some means must have been found to supply them with spare parts? Would the Minister look into that question?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, so far as the Vickers Viscounts are concerned, understand that their maintenance was due to the method known as cannibalisation, whereby you take one aircraft to pieces and use the pieces as spare parts to mend the others. As far as spare parts for the Boeings are concerned, the Boeing Aircraft Corporation have said publicly that they will refuse to provide spares.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government take similar action as regards British aircraft? Cannibalisation is always a possibility, but unless you eat yourself there must be a limit to that. Some of the aircraft the Rhodesian Government have they have had for ten years, so that the cannibalisation policy must have long since worked its way through. If Her Majesty's Government would show vigour in taking every step
1038
possible to prevent the supply of spare parts might not that be a degree of the kind of pressure they wish to exert on Mr. Smith, always assuming that they do?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was suggesting that this Govenment supply spare parts for the Viscounts, because if so, that is certainly not true.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Baroness whether she has been in touch with the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, with which I should have thought we would have a duty to discuss the matter?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords; not until we have managed to get at these very elusive and important facts.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since at the moment the noble Baroness seems to be without those facts, might it not even be possible that they could help to get at the facts?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think it is really up to us, as the responsible authority, to do our best to get the facts ourselves.

KING'S LYNN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RYDE CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to revise the Statute law of Northern Ireland by repealing obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments and by correcting a mistake in the repeals effected by Section 15(2) of the Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Act 1971. I beg to

1039
move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl when it is intended to take this Bill? Do we yet know the date when we shall take this Bill through all its stages?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is not intended to take this Bill until Thursday, May 3, and I hope there will appear on the Order Paper to-night a Motion to suspend the relevant Standing Order so that all stages of the Bill can be taken in one day on that date.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. We should wish to facilitate the passage of the Bill, but since we are breaking-up soon it is perhaps as well that people should know when it is to be taken.

LONDON CAB BILL
3.2 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. For some years past there has been great anxiety in the cab trade and, indeed, among users of taxicabs in Greater London, such as the London Tourist Board, about the effect of unfair competition against taxis from so-called mini-cabs. In London, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, the licensed taxis, of which there are about 10,000, carrying, I am informed, something like 210 million passengers a year, are subject to the most stringent regulations and, in some ways, rather irksome controls by the Public Carriage Office, which is an arm of the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, but in return they have the sole right to ply for hire throughout the whole of London. On the other hand, the private hire cars are bound only to observe the general law and are otherwise subject to no restrictions whatsoever, with the sole exception that they must not ply for hire; and if they do so they are committing an offence under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.
It is within the experience of most people who have spent any time at all in Greater London that the so-called minicabs pick up passengers without prior arrangement, and that in doing so they are breaking the law regularly and with impunity. The people who do this are undermining the legitimate business of taxi drivers although it has proved extremely difficult to secure convictions in the courts of law. With this background in mind, it was decided under the last Administration in 1968 to tackle the problem by prohibiting certain kinds of display on private hire-cars which might lead members of the public to believe, incorrectly, that they were available for hire on the spot. Unfortunately, this legislation has proved to be ineffective, because the "pirates", as we call them and as they are termed by the Home Office, the people who illegally ply for hire, have simply varied the wording of the signs which they display on their vehicles in order to conform with the 1968 Act, while continuing to give the

1041
impression that the drivers of those vehicles can accept immediate bookings.
I do not often quote myself, but I said on the Report stage of the London Cab Bill in 1968 in another place that if the display of a neon sign could be taken as an invitation to hire a vehicle on which it was displayed, then the only safe course of action would be to prohibit neon signs altogether. It was not possible, I pointed out. to single out the use of certain words which were to be displayed on these private hire-cars, such as "Taxi" or "Cab", and prohibit those, because sharp operators would ingeniously think up similar terms implying just as strongly that these private hire-cars could be enlisted on the spot to take a passenger to his destination. So we have these loopholes which would never have existed if the Government had listened to us five years ago, but which are now being stopped up, thanks to the initiative of the honourable Member for Hampstead, who introduced the present Bill in another place with the full co-operation and backing of the Home Office. I must also pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has sympathetically listened to the representatives of the taxi trade in the last few months, and who has at the same time entered into full consultation with representatives of the private hire-car trade who are, I must emphasise, in full support of this Bill which is now being considered.
What we are trying to do in this Bill is not only to stop up the loopholes to which I have referred but to take the opportunity of increasing the maximum fines which the courts may impose for contravention of Section 4 of the 1968 Act, as it will be amended by this Bill, so as to take account of changes in the value of money which have occurred since 1968 and allow the courts greater discretion to deal with the very blatant cases which have come to the knowledge of the police in the last few years. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with these increased fines and, I hope, will be self-explanatory to your Lordships. Clause 2 is the heart of the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State wide powers to make orders prohibiting the display,
"… on or from private hire-cars … of any sign, notice, mark illumination or other feature of a description specified in the order."
1042
In another place, it was asked why the prohibitions which are to be contained in the order, or orders, could not have been spelled out in the Bill itself. I suggest that that is the very trap into which we fell in 1968 and, however comprehensive the wording might appear to your Lordships at first sight, the House could not be certain that "fly" operators would not find a way round it. I believe, therefore, that this approach is to be preferred, since if there were any loopholes in the drafting of the first order, they could be stopped up without the need for additional legislation. The only point on which some representatives of the trade may have had reservations was the length of time which, in theory, could elapse between the Royal Assent to this Bill and the order made by the Secretary of State. I think that sufficient guarantees have been given by Ministers in another place, and repeated in correspondence with the interests concerned, to satisfy entirely the representatives of the taxi trade. Undertakings have also been given that consultations, which are provided for in subsection (4) of Clause 2, can begin straight away. Perhaps the noble Viscount can say something about these consultations during the course of his remarks this afternoon.
There are only two further points which I should like to ask your Lordships to consider. The penalties for illegal display of signs, which are provided for in this Bill, will be grossly out of line with those that are laid down for illegal plying for hire under Section 92 and Schedule 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Those earlier penalties are £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second and subsequent offence; the same as the penalties that were provided in the 1968 Act, but very small in relation to the ones that are being written into this Bill. This might not matter if the London Cab Act 1968, as it is now proposed to amend it, were regarded as a universal substitute for the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, which originally created the offence of plying for hire. But with all its defects and difficulties, the police still use the latter Act. I am told that in 1971 they issued 17 summonses under it, compared with 12 under the 1968 Act. I therefore suggest to the Government that they should take an early opportunity to bring

1043
these penalties into line. Of course, they cannot do so on this occasion because of the limitations of the Long Title.
Secondly, if we agree to exclude virtually all signs, of any nature, which could lead members of the public to think that a vehicle is available for hire on the spot, there is a danger that the "fly" operators, as I have called them, will seek other methods—and in another place the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight mentioned one of them; that is, the employment of touts, which is now unfortunately becoming very prevalent in the West End. I hope the Home Office will give urgent attention to that matter. As your Lordships will be aware, these and other problems have been recognised by the Maxwell Stamp Committee, which reported as long ago as October, 1970. Unfortunately we move very slowly in this field, as can be seen by the number of nineteenth century Acts which we still have on the Statute Book. The taxi drivers and the proprietors are very glad to see that Parliament is taking a small step forward in this Bill, but they have left me with the strong impression, which I should like to convey to your Lordships, that they will not tolerate any delay of several years before more fundamental reforms are introduced. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Avebury.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure the House will want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the manner in which he has introduced his Bill to this House. He has done so with his usual thoroughness, and has left us with very little to say unless we happen to be opponents of the Bill—and I do not happen to be one of those. I understand that there is some urgency about the Bill, and that it is wanted on the Statute Book as soon as possible. For our part, we shall do nothing to prevent that happening. There is no doubt at all that when we passed the London Cab Act 1968 we thought it was reasonably fool and crook proof. Subsequent events have shown that that was not the case, and that has caused this Bill to be presented to us to-day
1044
through the Private Member Bill procedure, although I gather that it is very much a Government Bill. In the circumstances, I do not think it is any the worse for that. What we sought to do in 1968 was to give the London taxi trade a fair deal, without at the same time injuring the legitimate private hire operators—and this we certainly did not wish to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has told us, the 1968 Act failed particularly in respect of the display of signs, as the so-called "pirate" soon discovered and exploited to the full.
I certainly welcome the change in the penalty clause and support the figure of the fine, which has been changed to a maximum of £200. This goes far beyond the change in the value of money, although under this Government, of course, it has dropped enormously. But apart from that this alteration will be doing something more than take account of that change, and I hope will be a deterrent to those who seek to drive a coach and horses through even this new Act which we are now placing on the Statute Book, and indeed the Statutory Instruments that will flow from it.
My Lords, I must admit that I tend to dislike leaving important prohibitions to Ministerial Orders, but I am bound to say that in the light of events I support Clause 2 of the Bill which is now before us. It is an enabling clause which will ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to deal with any further abuses which come to light without having to come to Parliament either for a new Act or to pass a Statutory Instrument under the Affirmative Resolution Procedure. I think in the circumstances this is worth while. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, certainly justified this part of the Bill, and for our part, as I said at the outset, we shall do nothing to prevent this Bill having a quick and, I hope, a happy passage through this House.
3.15 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, was good enough to refer to the London Tourist Board and to its connection with the taxi trade. As I have been president for ten years, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in support of this Bill, which

1045
though a small measure seeks to remedy a long-standing grievance. I am shortly retiring from office and I have been, so to speak, clearing out my desk. I noticed with interest how very few complaints there have been against the London taxi—remarkably few. Such as there have been can be divided into two classes. The first are those complaints which really when analysed are not complaints against the taxi at all but complaints against the pirate—the pirate to whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, refers and the existence of whom justifies him in bringing this measure forward. The other source of complaint has of course been the scandal at London Airport, which has been put right largely by the initiative of the London taxi drivers themselves who did not wish to see their good name and their good will ruined by a few ruffians.
As both noble Lords have said, this is a complex situation. Why the London taxi should be so involved in such complex law is a matter of history, but there it is. Here, for instance, we have a Bill concerning taxis in which the word "taxi" does not appear once. We are lucky, I suppose, that the Bill does not go back and refer to "hackney carriages", which it would be perfectly well entitled to do because the Hackney Carriage Act of 1831 is still on the Statute Book. The term itself goes back to 1605 and is still used by the police in the administration of the stringent regulations to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. The result, however, of those regulations has been that our 10,000 taxicabs in London and our 14,000 drivers together make up the most efficient taxi service in the world. That is what our visiting tourists say and I am sure they are right. Whether we ourselves say it quite so enthusiastically on a rainy winter's night, waiting outside the House of Lords after a long debate on a Committee stage, is a different matter, but that is certainly what the tourists say.
I hope further efforts will be made to simplify and codify the laws applying to London's taxis, which we have debated many times in this House. There is much improvement still to be made from the point of view of the user and for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has given in the clear explanation of his Bill. There are also one or two taxi drivers who occasionally
1046
cash in on our ignorance of the law to do things which they know perfectly well they should not do. Your Lordships get out of a train and carry a heavy suitcase to the first taxi available. You will be told to go to the head of the queue. The taxi driver knows perfectly well he has no right to tell you to do that. You can perfectly well by law get into his cab. If he protests you yourself can then insist that he drives you to your destination at under five miles an hour. The taxi meter will then work down to a lower rate and you will pay half the fare. I would not recommend that you do it too often because taxi drivers have a good intelligence service and they will remember you. But, on the whole, they provide an excellent, courteous and efficient service, and I think we should support this Bill in an attempt to help them provide an even better service.
There is of course another side to the coin. A few days ago we received at the London Tourist Board a letter from an elderly American visitor who had taken a taxi off the boat train at Waterloo and had asked to be driven to an address in Edgware Road. She then asked the taxi driver whether he would mind carrying two heavy suitcases up a fairly long staircase. He agreed willingly and did it. She then paid him with a £5 note but he had not sufficient change. He gave her such change as he could spare and said he would be back the next morning with the rest. She doubted this, but the next morning the bell rang and the taxi driver was there at the bottom of the stairs, not with the change but with a large bunch of roses. He said, "Madam, here is your change". Whether he had included the tip in the value of the roses is not certain, but we must give him the benefit of the doubt, I think we must also give the London taxi driver, who provides on the whole an admirable service, the benefit of this Bill.
3.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has paid a well deserved tribute to the London taxi drivers because from what I know of them, having had day-to-day acquaintance with this matter now for nearly a year, I readily agree with everything he said which is complimentary to them. They have a just

1047
complaint on this and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is in the happy position of being able to say—although he did not do it—"I told you so", and we now have an opportunity to put this right.
The background has been very fully spelled out by all those who have spoken before me and all I need to do is to make a few comments on what has been said. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, agreed that in this case it is right to work by way of Order. We considered this carefully at the Home Office and tried in the consultations to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already referred to find a number of different ways of doing it, but I think there is no doubt that the only way of achieving the necessary flexibility in order to plug up the various holes that are made in the law by the unscrupulous is to have this completely flexible procedure. As to the timing of the Orders that will follow the first Order in this Bill, I want it to be very quick, and the trade has in fact been told that we are ready to enter into consultation soon after Easter. This is only a continuation of the consultations we have already had with the taxi side and the private hire side, both of whom I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we must have behind us in all our dealings in this matter. Incidentally, I much prefer to do this sort of thing by way of consultation and with the agreement of all concerned, and am glad that he has agreed that this has been the case.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft said that the law needs simplifying and codifying in general. He is quite right in that and I am fully aware of the fact that this is so, not only in London but in the Provinces as well. It is a long and peculiarly difficult job but it is one we are in the course of undertaking, and in the meantime Bills like this I am afraid are necessary in order to deal with urgent matters. My noble friend mentioned London Airport. Certainly the taxi trade did a great deal to assist here but the Home Office were also prepared with the British Airport Authority to bring in the necessary Order and by-law to enable them to do what they themselves wanted to do. This is something else we have been successful in doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about plying for hire. Probably the main
1048
defence in practice of the law as it stands at the moment ought to be Section 4 of the 1968 Act, as now amended. It may very well be that the police have had to fall back on the mid-Victorian legislation, but it is notoriously difficult because of the definition of, "plying for hire". It is true that the penalties were raised in 1967, as the noble Lord said, but the penalties we now have under Section 4 are substantially bigger and we trust that, although the particular offence under this Bill will be narrower to some extent than the technicalities of plying for hire, this will really be the way to get at the powers. I hope we shall succeed in doing it even if it is in a slightly devious manner.
The noble Lord also asked about touting. This can be dealt with in a number of different ways. It is true it was raised in another place by my honourable friend the Member for the Isle of Wight. On railway property and airports the by-laws deal with the situation and in London it is an offence under the Metropolitan Public Carriages Act 1869. In the Provinces it can be an offence under the Town and Police Causes Act 1847, but in the Provinces the application of this Act, of local legislation and by-laws and so on is extremely patchy and it is very difficult to give any general picture. We are not wholly without defences against this touting, certainly not in London. I think this Bill deserves your Lordships' approbation, which it has had; it is urgently needed and we shall get on the moment it is on the Statute Book. We might even do a little intelligent anticipation as I suggested, and I commend it to the House. I thank the noble Lord very much for introducing it and bringing it forward here, and my honourable friend the Member for Hampstead for dealing with it in another place. The sooner it is on the Statute Book the happier the Home Office will be and I believe also those concerned with all forms of the legitimate taxi trade and private hire in London.
3.26 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, as an honourable Member said in another place, all is sweetness and light. It is an unusual experience for us to find a Bill so universally agreed to by Members in all parts of the House, this time just as in another place. I am particularly grateful to the

1049
noble Lord, Lord Champion, for what he said about the careful thought he gave to the Order-making power and his preference for this solution rather than trying to write anything specific into the Bill. I think, in the light of our experience in the 1968 Act, that this is the right thing to do. Also the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has convinced those who are acting on behalf of the taxi trade that he is going to bring this Order forward as a matter of urgency, and if he finds it does not work in the light of experience he will be equally prepared to amend it afterwards. What he has said this afternoon will go an enormous way to reassure those who had their doubts on this that he is prepared to enter into consultation even before the Bill has reached the Statute Book—without commitment, of course. Nevertheless he is prepared to start looking at a draft order with the representatives of the taxi trade and the private car hire interests so that very soon after this Bill is given the Royal Assent an Order can be put through both Houses of Parliament.
I am also very grateful to the noble Viscount for the remarks he made about the future legislation which may be contemplated by the Government. One realises that this is a matter of some difficulty and in particular one has to think about the effect of any legislation on the Provinces as well as Greater London. This is the reason why faster progress has not been made on the recommendations of the Maxwell Stamp Committee. Nevertheless, it is reassuring for us to hear that it is very much in the mind of the Home Office and that they are pursuing it with a view to introducing comprehensive legislation as soon as they possibly can.
May I also thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his remarks which were extremely telling, coming as they did from someone who has such long experience of the tourist industry and particularly in his capacity as President of the London Tourist Board. I was struck, as your Lordships also must have been, by his assertion that we have the most efficient taxi service in the world. This is not simply his view but that of the tourists who write in large numbers, I suppose, explaining to the London Tourist Board their experience
1050
with our taxis and how the service compares with that in other places such as Paris or any other big capital in Europe or the developed world. I do not have enormous experience of taxis abroad but such as I have had has not been an unmixed pleasure; but when one travels in a taxi in London one is absolutely confident that the driver knows where he is going because of his knowledge, that he is going to be honest, that he is going to do everything he possibly can to help you, and that he is going to be friendly and an agreeable companion for the length of the journey. I like London taxi drivers; I think they are splendid people. They do a magnificent job and I believe that your Lordships will earn their gratitude by passing this Bill this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2aand committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My ords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Polwarth I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(he Marquess of Lothian.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Further provisions supplementary to sections 1, 2 and 3]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved the following Amendment:
Page 4, line 41, leave out from ("3") to end of line 42 and insert ("not to be, and not at any time to have been, ex facie invalid by reason of any such informality of execution.")
The noble Marquess said: This lone Amendment which I am moving on behalf of my noble friend, who unfortunately cannot be here, is a drafting Amendment designed to express more clearly the

1051
purpose and effect of the subsection. In terms of Section 39 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874, certain informalities of execution in a deed may be cured by declarator given in appropriate judicial procedure. However, the court's declarator does not in terms declare that the deed concerned is valid but repairs the omission or error in execution. The sole purpose of this subsection is to provide that where such declarator is made, the informality thus cured shall be disregarded in any dispute about or consideration of the deed's validity. It is not intended that defects other than informality of execution which may also have a bearing on the validity of the deed should be affected by the subsection, and the Amendment is designed to make this intention clear. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: If there is an additional wonder in this world it is the ways of the draftsman. I certainly have no intention of opposing this Amendment, but it strikes me as being rather peculiar that it should be necessary to take out the words:
"the deed shall be deemed … always to have been … valid."
and to substitute the words:
"the deed shall not … at any time … have been … invalid … ".
I have no doubt that the draftsmen are satisfied that this is a better way of doing it. It puts more work in the way of the printers; and in these days of unemployment, why should I object to that?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

LAW REFORM (DILIGENCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.35 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In another place the Lord Advocate described diligence in these
1052
words. He said that diligence is the process by which a movable property, the personal property, of a debtor can be attached by the creditor in settlement, inter alia, of a judgment debt. Recently, in Scotland there has been a great deal of public discussion about the practice and principle of warrant sales and considerable disquiet has been shown. Many societies and social welfare workers have pointed out that in many cases goods that are essential items of household furniture were poinded and disposed of for sums so low that they bring further distress and humiliation to the families concerned. I ought to say that the Law Commission is at present considering the law on diligence in Scotland and we look forward to receiving their report. In the meantime, this modest but important little Bill will go some way towards relieving the distress and hardship of some families.
May I describe the Bill as briefly as possible. Clause 1 defines the test to be applied to the exemption of articles from poinding. Subsection (2) defines the categories of articles, such as crockery, cutlery, cooking utensils, electric fires, beds, chairs and other items of household furniture. Subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to make alterations in this list by order. Subsection (4) provides the right of appeal to the Sheriff by the debtor against poinding of any particular article. Subsection (5) describes the appeal provisions contained in the earlier subsection. Subsection (6) modifies very slightly Section 20 of the Small Debt (Scotland) Act 1837. Subsection (7) saves the existing exemptions such as workmen's tools. Subsection (8) makes provision for the inclusion of caravan dwellers by the application of Section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
My Lords, this is a small but important Bill. It was supported by the Government and all sides in another place. We are grateful to Mr. Gregor Mackenzie, the Member of Parliament for Rutherglen, for introducing and piloting the Bill through another place so quickly and so efficiently. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of placing it before your Lordships. I can only trust that this House will emulate another place in very quickly making it an Act of Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hoy.)
3.39 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, not only for introducing this Bill but for the very clear way in which he has explained it to us. Although it is small in compass, the Bill, as he rightly pointed out, is humane both in purpose and effect. The reform he proposes is important, affecting as it will several hundreds of families each year. I am glad to be able to state that the Government wholeheartedly support the Bill.
It has long been a matter of concern in Scotland that a debtor who may be blameless in the matter may find his home denuded of those household items without which family life becomes insupportable and intolerable, and frequently without an appreciable reduction of the amount of indebtedness since the almost inevitably low values placed upon the used furniture and effects may be taken up by the expense of what I understand is pronounced the "pinding"—but I do not know which of us is right on that matter. This Bill, by extending the present very limited range of exempted articles (which at present comprise, I believe, only the tools of trade and wearing apparel) to cover basic items falling within the categories listed in Clause 1, will do much to mitigate the distress caused to the debtor and his family. At the same time, by restricting the list to essentials, the Bill recognises the right of the creditor who may be a tradesman in business in a small way and himself not in a position to forego the payment of sums due to him. In this respect we think that the Bill achieves a fair balance between the parties concerned.
Provision is also made for amendment, by order, of the list of exemptions. This seems right since, as social attitudes change, and indeed economic factors as well, to-day's luxury becomes to-morrow's necessity and it is a function of the law to reflect in some respects and to give expression to such social changes. This provision therefore gives every desirable degree of flexibility for the future. The right of appeal provided in Clause 1(5) affords a more ready protection for agreed debtors than is available at present and will facilitate the resolution by the court
1054
of doubts and difficulties which may arise in individual cases where, for instance, it is unclear whether a particular article falls within one of the exempted categories or satisfies the test of undue hardship laid down by Clause 1(1)(b).
Finally, I am glad to see that caravan dwellers are not forgotten. There are considerable numbers of individuals and families living in residential caravans, sometimes by choice, sometimes by reason of the transient nature of their occupations; and it is realistic that the protection afforded by the Bill is extended by Clause 1(8) to cover this section of the population.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the whole subject of diligence, of which poinding and warrant sale is only one aspect, is under examination by the Scottish Law Commission. But the Commission's advice may not be available for some time to come, and therefore families will continue to suffer distress following a warrant sale of their household effects. The practical relief now afforded by this Bill will certainly do much to ease the problem, and we hope it will become the law of the land as soon as possible.
3.43 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel certain that your Lordships would not like this Bill to be passed without some expression of fervent support from the Back Benches. The present situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and the noble Marquess have described it, is inhuman and one could expatiate on the whole thing at great length, but I do not propose to do so. The matter has been well ventilated in another place. One point which has not been made here is that the situation is so inhuman that the actual return in terms of money going towards repaying the debts is very small, largely because people, neighbours, dealers and the like, are unwilling to aapear to bid at such sales. I for one hope your Lordships will without delay give this Bill a Second Reading.
3.44 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I express my real pleasure at what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said. One could harrow the House with what has happened in connection with this kind of

1055
business, but one desists because I think the case has made itself. I do express my pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has taken part and also thank the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, for giving the Bill such a blessing from the Government side of the House. I am grateful for this support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL
3.44 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, begins, may I say that I am somewhat concerned. I hope I am in order—
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I do not think we are.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly in order to raise a matter of business at any time, and that is what he is doing.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I want to protest that this afternoon, at the Report stage of this Bill, we are being called upon to consider over fifty Amendments tabled by the Government. The first I knew about these was yesterday morning through the post. It has been agreed throughout the consideration of this Bill that it is a highly complex measure and few would disagree that it is the kind of Bill that creates a lawyers' paradise. I have done my best to cooperate with the Government in securing the passage of this Bill through Committee, despite the fact that the Government tabled about 100 Amendments for consideration at the Committee stage;I very much appreciated that, after it was requested, we were supplied with notes as to what the Bill was intended to achieve. The vast number of Amendments submitted at the Committee stage made it extremely difficult, despite the fact that after we had started Committee stage we had received those notes, to understand what it was all about and how it all fitted in. I am not the busiest of men but I do have other commitments, and to receive notice
1056
yesterday morning that some fifty-odd Amendments were to be tabled to-day, most, so far as I can understand, applying to Scotland, put me in a position of very considerable difficulty.
I have no wish to hold up the work of the House but I feel that unless some protest is made this kind of practice may grow. It is not that I as an individual have a right to expect that I shall be acquainted with the Amendments to be considered at the Report stage. Every Member of this House is entitled to similar consideration. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (I understand there has been some discussion through the usual channels: I have only just come into the House), what consideration is going to be given to the difficulty in which the House is placed as a consequence, apparently, of the lack of understanding on the part of those responsible for this Bill as to how the rest of us live and how we begin to approach doing our job in the House. I am extremely sorry, because I think we have been having very amicable relations so far as this Bill has gone, but I must confess that yesterday morning I really felt that no consideration had been given to us.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was proposing to say a word or two about this, following some discussions which had been held earlier this afternoon before the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was in the House, when I moved, That the Report be now received, but I am glad to follow the noble Lord now. As my noble friend Lord Polwarth has already explained in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, most of these Amendments—and certainly there is a large number of them, 58—are adaptations of the existing provisions of the Bill to the law of Scotland. I think I mentioned at the Committee stage that we would be making these. Scottish Law, especially in the area of agricultural land tenure, is somewhat different from the law of England and Wales. Scotland has certain unique kinds of tenants—crofters, land holders, statutory small tenants and cottars—who have no direct counterparts South of the Border, and clearly the same principle should be applied to those special groups as to the other kinds of tenants. The purpose of the bulk of the Amenrments is just to achieve that.

1057
The Government have recognised that with Scottish applications scattered throughout the Bill in separate clauses, subsections and Schedules the Bill would be cumbersome for Scottish practitioners to use, and I should therefore like to repeat at the outset of this stage the assurance given by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when the Bill was given its Second Reading in another place, that as soon as the Bill became law it would be re-enacted for Scotland in purely Scottish terms by consolidation. The reason why there are several non-Scottish Amendments on the Marshalled List is that the Bill is not only (as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate know) complex but is one which has so far moved quickly through Parliament in the course of which it has been amended considerably following debates in both Houses. This has meant that it still required Amendments of a technical nature even at this stage. But I am glad to say that, apart from the formal adaptations for Scotland, the number of Amendments the Government propose to-day is relatively small. But, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, and subject to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes may say, if there are any Amendinents of Scottish adaptations about which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and I cannot give a satisfactory explanation at this stage, we shall be entirely happy to withdraw them, and to re-table them on Third Reading so that more consideration may be given to them. And, of course, I shall quite understand if the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, or any other noble Lord opposite, wishes to put Amendments down on Third Reading in order to clarify points in this area of Scottish adaptation. I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not expect to table any further Amendments introducing fresh material into the Bill on Third Reading, but the time between now and then will be used to look carefully at this complicated Bill and to make sure that all the details are in order.
3.50 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I had not expected to be speaking this early in the proceedings, but rather after an explanation had been given of the first Amendment. Perhaps it would be as well if we
1058
were to finalise the matter now. I received a very courteous letter from the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, dated April 12, which, for reasons best known to the Scottish Office and the Post Office between them, did not in fact reach me until Saturday. Yesterday was a holiday in Edinburgh. It has proved impossible to get any further information, and while Lord Polwarth's letter, which ran to one and a half foolscap pages, was very courteous, it was not very informative in the way of a general description of the purpose of these Amendments. When I say that there are Scottish Amendments to Clauses 2, 40, 47, 52, 54, 57, 58 and 82; that there are four new clauses which come under Clauses 47, 57, 58, and 62 and that there is a new Schedule; and when one considers that the Bill came to this House on February 23, nearly eight weeks ago, it is really a bit thick, when the Government knew that they were going to put these Amendments, that they do not appear until this very late stage. No, it was February 23 when the Bill was introduced, and I agree that some of the Amendments, at any rate, are consequential on alterations made at a late stage in another place.
My Lords, my suspicion, and it is no more than a suspicion, is that after having had an opportunity to examine these Scottish Amendments thoroughly, and after having had consultations about them in Scotland, I shall probably find that they are perfectly acceptable; that they are merely a translation into Scottish legal conditions of what is being done in England and acceptable to people in Scotland. But all of us who have had to deal with crafting legislation, or legislation affecting crofters and similar people, have learned by bitter experience that it is not enough to be satisfied oneself that one is doing something for the benefit of crofters; because so often we have found that the crofters object to what seem to be the most reasonable things. I have no reason to believe that they are other than satisfied on this occasion. It may be that I can be told to-day that the Crofters Commission has been consulted and is in agreement with these changes, but in itself that is not an answer. The times when crofters have disagreed with the Commission, which is there to look after their interests, are too numerous to mention.

1059
A number of devices were suggested as ways of dealing with this matter, but I think the best one is that none of these Amendments should be moved to-day by the Government but that they should all he re-tabled for Third Reading, and I hope that on Third Reading I shall be in a position to indicate that there is no reason to object to them. If that is not done, it would be a ridiculous waste of the time of your Lordships if I formally objected to every one of these Amendments just because I did not know that they were acceptable. I hope, therefore, that what will happen will be that to-day the Government will proceed only with those Amendments which are of a non-Scottish character and re-table the others for Third Reading: and I hope that at that time I shall be able to support the Government in these Amendments, unless I find that there are reasons to the contrary. If there are, then the onus is on me to put down further Amendments to back tip the advice which I have been given.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, when I intervened to say that my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy was in order to do this on Business, I had not expected that the exchange would be quite so long. It might have been better to have discussed this on the Motion that the Report be now received. If I showed lack of confidence in the noble Lord, it is because no later than yesterday two Members of the Government tried on one occasion to move three Orders simultaneously and later to move two Orders simultaneously, and I rather lost confidence in the Government's knowledge of procedure. But as I understand it—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the Leader of the House will consider what was said by my noble friend—the agreement between the two sides was as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, suggested. It might well be that my noble friend would feel that one or two Amendments could go, but it might produce rather an untidy situation and the Government might like to consider what my noble friend Lord Hughes has said. I hope that noble Lords do not think that this is the Opposition just making a demonstration for fun. I think we have been extremely co-operative with
1060
the Government and there is very good co-operation generally, but every now and again Governments—and in particular Departments who do not always understand the procedure—tend to think of your Lordships' House as though it were the House of Commons, and it is exceedingly difficult when complex Amendments are put down. As my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy said, we hope that the Government will be able at least to consult the Opposition on the timing and give them indications. On the whole, we work together very well, as my noble friend said, but it is awkward when this sort of thing happens, and it is not good for the House.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as I said, there were discussions before we began this debate and the proposal that I made was the result. I am certainly not anxious to conduct business which the Opposition do not feel prepared to discuss, and if, in the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would rather that we totally and completely omitted all the Scottish adaptation Amendments at this stage I am very happy to agree with him, though I am sorry that he has not given us the opportunity at least to try our hand. But if that is his wish that is what we will do.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is, of course, possible to recommit on the day of the Third Reading in respect of them, and the Government will find that we will cooperate to get the Bill through on the timetable. But I would stress that there are other noble Lords and, it may be. Scottish Lords, who might be interested but who have had no time to know that what is, so to speak. Scottish business was to be conducted. Perhaps even the Scottish Minister did not have time.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I fully accept what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, that this Bill can be recommitted if that should prove necessary. After there have been further consultations we can see whether it is necessary or not. But I must take issue with the noble Lord on one point, when he said that the Government moved three Orders together. This is quite untrue and I must ask him to withdraw that. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that he would speak to two Orders, which he did, but he certainly did not move three Orders together.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl has consulted Hansard—
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I have.
LORD SHACKLETON: —but not only were three Orders moved, also they were put from the Chair. Despite the argument, we had some difficulty in explaining that each Order must be put separately. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for whom we have the greatest affection, in fact tried to do the same thing again, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was there trying to teach him the "facts of life".
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Right to compensation]:
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("after completion").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, certainly this is not a Scottish Amendment. All it does is to make certain that the date from which the period of claim runs starts when the public work is open for the public, not while it is open for some sort of use, for instance, by construction traffic. It is therefore beneficial to claimants. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interests qualifying for compensation]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("and 11") and insert (",11 and (Tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, and at the same time to speak to, but not to move, Amendments Nos. 5 and 12. These Amendments taken together—and the substance of them is the new clause after Clause 11, which constitutes Amendment No. 12—fulfil the undertaking given in another place, and repeated by
1062
me at the Committee stage in response to an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, to do with leasehold enfranchisement.
Clauses 2 and 3(2) require that in order to qualify under Part I a claimant must have a qualifying interest before the start of use of the works and still be in possession of that interest when a claim is made. Two cases need to be covered: first, a tenant having three years or more of a tenancy to run may have served a notice under the Leasehold Reform Act and, if he acquires the freehold or an extended lease after the start of use and before a claim can be made, he will have acquired his interest after the relevant date and it will be disqualified by Clause 2(1); and secondly, a tenant having less than three years of his lease remaining when the claim was made would be ineligible even though he may be entitled to, and have served a notice of his desire to, have the freehold or an extended lease under the Leasehold Reform Act.
The new clause embodied in Amendment No. 12 therefore provides that, where a person is entitled under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of a house by virtue of a tenancy and has given notice, before the start of use of the works, of his desire to have the freehold or an extended lease, but has not yet acquired it, he shall be entitled to make a claim under Part I irrespective of the length of the term of lease remaining unexpired on the date of the claim. Thus a tenancy with less than three years to run would qualify.
I think the separate subsections of the new clause that constitutes Amendment No. 12 speak for themselves. All I would add is that the assessment of the landlord's injurious affection will be related to the depreciation in the sum he could have expected to receive on enfranchisement from the holder of the tenancy. The tenant would receive depreciation in the value of his original tenancy before enfranchisement under the claim to be submitted under subsection (3) of this clause. This value would reflect the benefit of the notice served under the Leasehold Reform Act to purchase the freehold interest or extended lease. If a notice under the Leasehold Reform Act had been served

1063
after the start of use of the works and the extended lease or freehold had not been acquired when the claim was made, the assessment of compensation would nevertheless already take account of that notice and the award would reflect this. This does not therefore need to be covered.
That is the extent to which we can meet the undertaking that we have given. It does not go the whole way that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull indicated, but in my response to him I warned him that that might be the case. It is as far as we can go, and I believe that it fulfils the undertaking so far as it is practicable to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 42, after ("of") insert ("(a)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the first Scottish Amendment, although it does not look like it, and is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 4. I beg to move formally in order to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether the idea of actually including the crofter and the similar specialised forms of tenant in Scotland in Part I so as to make them eligible, so that we may consider the details of it later, would be acceptable to him at this stage. I leave it entirely to the noble Lord. That is all the Amendment does. It simply brings them within the ambit of the Bill so that we may deal with them in the Agricultural Department later on. If the noble Lord would rather leave this Amendment along with the rest of them, I shall be happy to do so. Meantime, I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, on the face of it, it would seem to be eminently reasonable that Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 should be agreed to. Nevertheless, I should prefer that they be left over, for this reason only. The Scottish Office, in the Bill as it stands, have a definition of the application at this stage to Scotland. They are now bringing in as a second part of that definition crofters and others. I want to be absolutely certain that no one can suggest that by a definition of this kind we are in any way altering the
1064
status of a crofter in Scotland They are intensely jealous of the peculiar nature of their holding, which I believe has no parallel anywhere else in the world. We therefore ought not, without being absolutely certain, to do anything which might be construed as having an adverse effect in any way.
My Lords, I have been going through the Amendments, and I think the Scottish Amendments are Nos. 3, 4, 31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57 and 58. I hope that I have not missed any, but certainly all these bear on the same point, the application to agricultural conditions in Scotland of what is being done in England. I should be grateful if it were accepted at this stage that none of these Amendments be moved to-day, but should be re-tabled at Third Reading. I will certainly undertake immediately to investigate the matter so that I can acquaint both the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Polwarth, of any possibility of amendment which I may wish to make to any of these so that the matter can be investigated. I do not want to put down Amendments which prove to be needless.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord on this. I have been through the list, and I think he is right. There is a small Scottish adaptation in Amendment No. 15, to which we will come. It has nothing to do with agriculture; it is simply the definition of "highways", which I feel sure is right. As for the rest of the Amendments, I think the noble Lord has the list right, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Claims]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I explained Amendment No. 5 when I was speaking to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("section 13") and insert ("sections (Tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967) and 13").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Assessment of compensation: general provisions]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert ("and account may also be taken of depreciation due to physical factors caused by the carrying out of any works preparatory to and undertaken for the purpose of any such alteration, extension or change as is referred to in subsection (1) of section 9 of this Act.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for reverting on Report to an Amendment in precisely the same terms as one that I moved on Committee. I feel the more apologetic in that the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, not only gave a very careful and full answer to the arguments I then advanced, but he has since written to me fully on the matter and, indeed, has been so kind as to furnish notes on clauses to explain the general position. If I venture now to trouble your Lordships again with the same point, I do so only because I think it has some importance; and with very great deference to the noble Lord, I wonder whether he has really met the point I was trying to make.
Clause 4 deals with the principles on which compensation is to be assessed. The situation envisaged by the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy is as follows. Take, for example, a residential property adjoining a highway. Work begins on the highway with a view to its being widened, its conversion to some different use or something of that sort. The work involves substantial reconstruction. Bulldozers are used: there is a great deal of noise and a number of those visible factors which are described in Clause 1(2) as being the relevant physical factors immediately emerge. As soon as that work begins, if I may quote the words of that subsection, there is
"noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting",
and so on. And those physical factors are present in a very substantial degree and cause a great deal of nuisance to those who live in that residence. For one reason or another, no action of nuisance lies, and therefore the disturbance which is occasioned by the presence of those physical factors does qualify, or
1066
I submit at any rate should qualify, for the purpose of the assessment of compensation payable under Clause 4.
When that residence is first exposed to those physical factors and the grave inconvenience they cause, I would have submitted to the House (and as I said before, I do so in the absence of expert valuation advice) that the property in question is there and then depreciated. Its value is assessed in accordance with the rules set out in Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which are the rules applicable in such a case, as is provided for in Clause 4(3)—and those rules, I should have thought, certainly envisage that that sort of thing ought to be taken into account.
I would further submit that the language chosen by the Minister would leave that depreciation out of account. In that assumed case, the house suffers depreciation in the sense that within the meaning of the rules of the 1961 Act a willing purchaser would be prepared to pay much less for that house than he would have been prepared to pay if that preparatory work had not been undertaken. Once that work is undertaken, it is perfectly obvious to any prospective purchaser, first, that that work itself is likely to continue for several months and that the physical factors associated with it are likely to continue either fully, or perhaps subject to some abatement, for the whole of that period. Then, the preliminary work having been done, the road or the highway, or whatever it may be, is thrown open to public use. Then under the provisions of the Bill a year has to elapse from the period when the road is thrown open for public use before what is described in Clause 3(2) as the "claim period" begins.
It is only when the claim period begins that a claim can be put forward. One is told, when one looks back to Clause 4, that one has to assess the nature of the interest and the damage done to it by reference to its condition when the claim period begins. By that time, the depreciation will have already set in. If, before anybody goes near that road and begins to carry out these works, the value of the house, in the view of a willing purchaser, is, say, few in the open market, once the work begins and perhaps has proceeded for a few days so that its general extent and magnitude is obviously

1067
visible, £x may have been reduced to half £x. That house will not be worth more than half £x ever after. It will be worth half £x while the preparatory work goes on; it will be worth half £x after the road is thrown open and the half by which £x has been diminished will, under the terms of Clause 4, never enter into the compensation as an element by reference to which it should be calculated.
I cannot help thinking that the Government cannot have intended that. If that is really their intention, I would submit that they are being very unfair to the owner of that house. His house is depreciated because the preparatory works are undertaken and because those preparatory works result in the physical factors which are said to be relevant in assessing the compensation. Its value, there and then, goes down and stays down. I have looked very carefully at Clause 4 again and also at Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 in order to try to discover in the language of the clause or in the 1961 Act anything which would require that half Ex to be taken into account in assessing the compensation. It may be it has escaped me, but if the language is there I must confess that I have not found it. So far as I can understand the effect of this clause, what those who are concerned to assess the compensation have to look at there is the condition of the house on the first day of the claim period. By that time £x has sunk to half £x, and half the damage has been done.
I am sorry if I have repeated the arguments that I used on the Committee stage. My only excuse for doing so is that I think this is a matter of importance for the owners of a house of the kind I have described, and I cannot help wondering whether the Government have really successfully brought into the scope of the compensation that half £x. I think they have not. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. If I may say so with the very greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that he used arguments which were satisfactory to demonstrate to me that I was wrong. I apologise at once if I am wrong, and all the more so to the House for having again taken up time on precisely the same point. But I think this is a matter of importance and I would
1068
be most grateful if the noble Lord would give it further consideration.
4.19 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, when I saw that in spite of having written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, he had tabled a further Amendment on this matter, I realised I should have to try to improve on my case and my argument. And now, with the expenditure of some time, I will try to do so. I think that perhaps it would be easier to discuss this if we were to distinguish at the outset as clearly as we can between the effects of temporary depreciation in value which is caused by the construction of works; the permanent depreciation, which is caused by the use of public works; and depreciation caused by visual intrusion, which is not compensatable under Part I of the Bill. All three are things which are in the mind of the noble and learned Lord and if we realise that all three are separate elements it will be easier to understand this matter. Once the noise and dust caused by construction works stop, the temporary nuisance stops and the temporary depreciation arising from that cause ceases as well. So what is left at the end of the completed construction works may be visually intrusive and may cause depreciation. But the visual intrusion arising from the works themselves is ruled out of Part I. However, further noise and more dust, and other physical factors enumerated in the Bill, may arise again when the road comes into use. That would cause permanent depreciation. This is just what Part I compensation is designed for.
The Bill provides that compensation shall be assessed by reference to what the property is worth for its existing use on the valuation date. The noble and learned Lord is clear in his mind about that. That is one year after the start of the works, taking Clauses 4(1) and 3(2). Compensation will then be paid in respect of any depreciation which it has been found has occurred as a result of physical factors caused by the use of the public works, as provided for by Clause 1(1). The implication is thus a comparison between the market value of the claimant's interest with and with out the effect of the physical factors arising from the use of the works—noise, vibration, fumes, et cetera. To refer

1069
back to what the property was worth before the works started would result in false comparisons in view of changes of market conditions and circumstances other than the physical factors caused by the use of the road.
The valuation provisions are intended to be sufficiently flexible to enable the actual assessment of depreciation clue to the physical factors caused by the use of the road to be approached in the most appropriate way in the circumstances of individual cases—there could be objection to having a particular method of valuation too precisely prescribed.
Perhaps I could reinforce that by way of example. Suppose a house is worth £10,000 before the road construction works begin. After they begin, because of the dust, disturbance and unsightliness, the owners, who want to sell, find no buyer willing to pay more than £8,000. That is while construction works are going on, and the whole thing is subject to all the nuisance arising from them. After the works have been completed and have been in use for 12 months the construction nuisance has disappeared. But let us suppose that buyers will not then pay more than £9,000 for the house. The owner then claims compensation for injurious affection under Part I of the Bill. The valuer then compares such valuation at the valuation date within the then current values of similar neighbouring property not affected by the use of the road. He finds that prices of £10,000 are being obtained for similar properties. He then has to judge whether all or only part of the difference of £1,000 is due to the physical factors caused by the use of the road, or whether part of it is due to any visual intrusion, the latter not being compensatable under Part 1. Supposing that the whole of the depreciation is attributable to the physical factors caused by the use of the road and none to the visual intrusion, then compensation at £1,000 would be payable. I hope that that explanation, which is necessarily rather long and involved, coupled with the example, serves to show the noble and learned Lord that the system we have adopted is capable of meeting the point about which he is anxious.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, regarding depreciation and the subsequent increase in value after roadworks have
1070
been finished, what consideration is going to be given to the following situation: A house is worth £10,000; but if the roadworks had not occurred, if the house had in no way been affected by this kind of work, experience in the surrounding neighbourhood indicates that at the end of two years the house might be worth £18,000. What justification is there for compensating on the basis of only £9,000?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that introduces a red herring into the discussion I am having with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, which is on a different and rather narrow point. It would be easier for the House if we dealt with the issue the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised. The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is raising is a matter of inflation—an entirely different point.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if the House will allow me, we are dealing with this Amendment now. Although I may have raised something different from the point mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, the words the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, used in saying that this reflects the influence of an inflationary situation—if he did not use those words that was what they amounted to—are pertinent to this period of time through which we are living.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the obvious trouble he has taken. I am stubborn and obstinate by nature and I am much too old to change. While I followed with great interest the arguments he used, I am no: entirely satisfied. But, having regard to the fact that we can all say to ourselves that the point has been fully discussed and fully considered, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In assessing the extent of the depreciation there shall be taken into account the benefit of any relevant works—

(a) which have been carried out, or in respect of which a Brant has been paid,

1071
under section 19 below, section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965 or any corresponding local enactment;

(b) which have been carried out under section 22 or 26 below;

and it shall be assumed that any relevant works which could be or could have been carried out, or in respect of which a grant could be or could have been paid, under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) above have been carried out but, in a case where the authority having functions under that provision have a discretion whether or not to carry out the works or pay the grant, only if they have undertaken to do so.")
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. It makes sure that we take the right account of the benefit of sound insulation. The example which most easily shows how this would work if the Amendment is agreed to is to take another house worth £10,000, which has appreciated by £250 by the inclusion of sound insulation; but then, after the public works have taken place, it depreciates so that it is worth only £9,500. One wants to make sure that the compensation will be the difference between £9,500 and the £10,000, which is the depreciation caused by the work, and not between £9,500 and £10,250—£250 of which would have been paid as an extra grant. Therefore there would be a double payment. This Amendment is for the reorganisation of the clause to make perfectly certain that the person claiming gets the two halves of the claim correctly in their proper place: the depreciation for the depreciation, and the claim for sound insulation where that should properly lie. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("subsections (4) and (5)") and insert ("subsection (5)").— (Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (4)—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Reduction of compensation where other land is benefited]:
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 40, leave out ("an increase in the value of an interest in land") and insert ("in respect of any interest in land, an increase in the value of an interest in other land").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 11 go together. It is a technical point again relating to set-off and betterment of a different sort. The intention in Clause 6(3) and 6(4) is to make certain that where a Part I claim has been reduced—that is under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 61—through taking into account the increase in value of other land belonging to the claimant, such an increase in value as is set off shall be taken into account if that other land is subsequently acquired. The clause as drafted does not quite get this right, but with the Amendments it does. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("in relation to which section 8(6) below has effect") and insert ("of the land in respect of which the claim is made").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we discussed Amendment No. 12 when I moved Amendment No. 2. I beg to move Amendment No. 12 formally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11 insert the following new clause:
Tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967
" —(1) This section has effect where a person is entitled under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of a house by virtue of any tenancy ("the qualifying tenancy") and—

(a) has on or before the relevant date given notice under that Act to the landlord of his desire to have the freehold or an extended lease; and

(b) has not acquired the freehold or an extended lease before that date.

1073
(2) The qualifying tenancy shall be treated as an owner's interest as defined in section 2(4) above whether or not the unexpired term on the date of service of the notice of claim is of the length there specified.
(3) If no claim is made in respect of the qualifying tenancy before the claimant has ceased to be entitled to it by reason of his acquisition of the freehold or an extended lease he may make a claim in respect of the qualifying tenancy as if he were still entitled to it.
(4) No claim shall be made by virtue of subsection (3) above after the claimant has ceased to be entitled to the freehold or extended lease but such a claim may be made before the beginning of the claim period if it is made before the claimant has disposed of the freehold or extended lease and after he has made a contract for disposing of it.
(5) Compensation shall not be payable before the beginning of the claim period on any claim made by virtue of subsection (4) above.
(6) Any notice of a claim made by virtue of this section shall contain, in addition to the matters mentioned in section 3 above, a statement that it is made in respect of a qualifying tenancy as defined in this section and, if made by virtue of subsection (3) or (4) above, sufficient particulars to show that it falls within that subsection.
(7) In relation to a claim made by virtue of subsection (3) above section 4(3)(a) above shall have effect as if the reference to the date of service of notice of the claim were a reference to the relevant date."—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Information for ascertaining relevant date]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 22, after ("used") insert ("after completion").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interpretation of Part I]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 35, leave out ("sections 3(2) and 13(1) above") and insert ("section 3(2) above but subject to section 13(1) above and subsection (3) below").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this and Amendment No. 15 go together. The House may remember that we dealt with private streets on the Committee stage of the Bill and Clause 18(3) now provides that where an existing highway
1074
is taken over and becomes maintainable at public expense the "relevant date"—which starts the period for the Part I claim—shall be the date at which the highway was first opened to public traffic, even though at that stage it may still have been a private street. So as it stands the three years can start from that first date, but it may be that the time when the highway is taken over comes very much towards the end of the three-year period and unless somebody is pretty smart they would not be able to submit their claim in time. Therefore, what we are doing is to lengthen the claim period to a period of a year from the date when the highway becomes maintainable at public expense. Again this is beneficial to claimants and I hope it will meet with the agreement of the House.
The second Amendment is a drafting Amendment to secure the Scottish equivalent for the purely highway provisions of Clause 18. I think it is in absolutely standard form; it has nothing at all to do with agriculture and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will feel that at least this Amendment can go through. I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have no intention of suggesting that Amendment No. 14 should not be taken to-day, nor Amendment No. 15, but I should like to say in regard to Amendment No. 15 that the wording adding to the references to the highway authority at the end of the clause really refers back to the first part of the clause, where the appropriate highway authority is defined. The Ministers will remember that at the last stage I queried the need for this definition of "highway authority" in relation to Scotland which still remains in the Bill, when "appropriate highway authority" is defined in such a way as to be applicable to both sides of the Border. It still seems to me that we have two definitions of a highway authority in the Bill and I really cannot see any need for this definition in lines 4 and 5. It may be that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, can say some, thing about this as otherwise I shall table an Amendment at Third Reading to delete lines 4 and 5 on page 17, as I do not see that they answer any useful purpose.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I remember the noble Lord making this point at the last stage. So far as "highway authority" is concerned

1075
it is not the point of Amendment No. 15 and, if I may, I will ask the Scottish advisers to my noble friend Lord Polwarth to look at this point again. But Amendment No 15 is necessary because when we are speaking about "private streets" in Scotland there is the situation under the Roads (Scotland) Act where a "highway" is a road maintained by the public authority and what we in England call a "private highway" is a road in Scotland. Whether it is publicly maintained or privately maintained if it is open to the public in England it is a highway and is so known technically, but in Scotland a private highway is a road. Therefore we must have that definition in the Bill. But in regard to the other point I will consider that again.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot speak again at this stage but before the noble Viscount sits down may I say that I merely used this as an opportunity to try to get an answer to the point which I raised at the last stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 23, at end insert ("and no claim shall he made if the highway does not become a highway so maintainable within three years of the relevant date as determined in accordance with paragraph (a) above but, if it does, the claim period shall be treated as continuing until the end of one year from the date on which it becomes a highway so maintainable if, apart from this provision, that period would end earlier.
(4) In the application of subsection (3) above to Scotland—

(a) for the words from "highway which" to "defined above" and for the words "highway does" there shall be substituted respectively the words "road which has not always been a highway" and "road does";

(b) the words "so maintainable wherever they occur shall be omitted."—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Right to home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling]:
4.40 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 26, line 38, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment follows consideration at the Committee stage of what a "reasonable period" should be that might be defined in the Bill, setting out entitlement to home loss payment where a person is displaced from a dwelling. To qualify at all he must have been in occupation of the dwelling, or a substantial part of it, as his only or main residence, as already mentioned. He must have been in occupation by virtue of an interest or right. That is the position as set out in Clause 28, (2)(a) and (2)(b). In Committee we discussed leaving out the subsection altogether and thus removing any question of a qualifying period at all. That discussion ranged over the different periods that may be reasonable: the five years laid down in the Bill; the two years as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and his noble friend Lord Middleton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Henley; or indeed, as in the Amendment I moved on that occasion, a nil period. This Amendment represents a compromise, or at least on my part an attempt to achieve a compromise. It follows an Amendment I moved and, on an undertaking from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that further consideration would be given to the matter, I then withdrew.
I should say that the Government themselves had moved from their original thinking and had reduced the qualifying period from seven years to five years in the light of the discussion which took place in the other place, where very strong feeling was expressed, and where a nil qualifying period was also advocated. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has been good enough to write to me at some length but I do not think he will disagree when I say that he has not moved an inch from the position which he took up in Committee. I have read most carefully what he set out in that letter and I am not persuaded that the Government appreciate the position of the aggrieved people who are to lose their homes, as lose them they will. If the object of the scheme is to provide a solatium in respect of the situations which were not to be foreseen, then how is the period of five years determined? What figures can be fixed? What information can be given us to show that five years is a proper, fair, minimum period and one that is known adequately to meet the

1077
position? Does it take five years to become attached to a home? Is it to be argued that the numbers of people who deliberately move into a house knowing that it is going to be compulsorily acquired is a very large and very significant number? I should have thought that the limitations on the amounts that could be claimed, as set out in Clause 29, met that situation if it is a serious one, because Clause 29 lays down a minimum of £150 and a maximum of £1,500. I do not think that there are any fortunes here for anybody. The Government could be a little more generous than they have so far indicated a willingness to be.
It seems to me that the Department has drafted this Bill without a full understanding of, and sympathy for, the public interest, in the sense of the public interest of that section of the community which is to be deprived of its homes. For the public interest would seem to me to demand recognition of the right to compensation for disturbance except where clearly there was an intention on the part of the speculators to exploit the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, expressed concern about the cost of claims if the qualifying period is reduced below five years. In Committee he drew attention to the Explanatory Memorandum which provides £70 million a year to meet the claims. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to inform the House how that £70 million was computed? On what basis was it assessed? On what turnover of properties was it calculated? I do not know how often properties turn over in cases like this, but I was interested to inquire what was the average turnover of properties in counties such as the one in which I live, in Surrey, and the average turnover, having regard to everything that goes on in the county, as I understand it, is that people move once in ten years. So it would be interesting to know how the Government have arrived at the figure of £70 million per annum and how it is that they are satisfied that that is the right and proper figure.
I should like the noble Lord when he replies to give us some detailed information. What would be the financial consequences of reducing the figure from seven years to five years? Perhaps the noble Lord will also tell us what the financial consequences would be if the figure was reduced from five years to
1078
three years. I think that the House needs these figures, and without that information we ought not to be inhibited from deciding to bring into the terms for compensation those who otherwise will be denied compensation for displacement. And, further, unless it can be shown that the increase would be quite unreasonable, may I submit to the House that the Amendment ought to be carried. I feel that justice is being somewhat avoided by arguments as to the effect that a reduction of the qualifying period could inhibit proposals to increase the minimum of £150—to which I have already referred and to which the noble Lord has referred in the letter he wrote to me. I do not think that the two things ought to be dealt with in such a way. It is surely inequitable to say that consideration of a just and fair claim for one group must be denied because of the interests of another group which is to be compensated. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. If not, I hope that the House will decide that the Bill would be the better for its inclusion. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has asked me to apologise for the fact that he is not able to be here this afternoon. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, reminded your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I put down an Amendment at Committee stage to reduce the qualifying period for home loss payment to two years. There was, indeed, a long and detailed debate on the whole question of the qualifying period. All those who took part in that debate, with, I regret, the exception of my noble friend the Minister, expressed the view that five years was too long and that it should be reduced either to three years, or to two years, or to no years at all. I do not think that I can possibly call this Amendment an all-Party Amendment, but it is a very reasonable compromise, representing a balance of the views expressed. I have read very carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reply made by my noble friend the Minister to that debate, and I must confess that I remain unconvinced by the arguments which were put forward. One of those arguments was the question of the extra cost that would be involved if the qualifying period were to be reduced and I hope that we shall hear

1079
more about that in reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on that particular matter.
But this is a Bill about compensation. This is a Bill which puts into effect a White Paper which, I would remind your Lordships, was entitled Development and Compensation: Putting People First. If we are really putting people first, I submit to your Lordships that all other considerations, including that of cost, should surely become secondary factors. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments which I thought were very skilfully deployed at Committee stage, except to say that this new concept of a home loss payment has been widely welcomed. All we are doing in this Amendment is saying that the underiying principle of fairness should be extended to include a group of people whose sense of loss, grief, distress, call it what you will, will, in our view, be no less than that suffered by those others who will be able to claim compensation for the same reasons and on similar grounds. It is, of course, almost impossible to quantify suffering in monetary terms. It is equally difficult to assess fairly a cut-off point at which the loss of one's home becomes a special hardship causing a sudden upsurge in one's feeling of distress, and this difficulty was very much appreciated in another place when the qualifying period was reduced from seven years to five years. I hope that your Lordships will take it a stage further along the path of equity by agreeing to this Amendment.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I am sorry to make any difficulties for my noble friend Lord Sandford about this, but I would say that I see a lot of common sense and good in this Amendment as proposed. My noble friend spoke a great deal at Committee stage, I recall, about people's emotional attachments and the length of time required for those attachments to build up. I must say all the time he was doing that I could not help taking a more practical view—that this was a matter, first, of such things as carpets and curtains and fittings and problems of that kind. I also felt somewhat aware that our stock of housing, as usual, was far from limitless, and that there was a distinct need to occupy houses even when one knew that one had less
1080
than three years to go. Quite often these houses that are to be demolished for other schemes are not by any means uninhabitable but nevertheless require maintenance during that period. Essential repair has to go on. It is often a costly and unsatisfactory thing that it has to when there is only a short-term view to be taken.
At any rate, my views, I am afraid, must be somewhat coloured by the feeling that, while we have always known that there has been a good deal wrong with compensation, there will, alas! still continue to be a good deal wrong after this Bill becomes law. I do not think we have gone far enough. It is for this reason that I feel that there must be pretty strong arguments for trying to get this little bit of the Bill improved. I would myself prefer three years to five. I find it very difficult not to agree with this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I did not mean to say anything on this Amendment, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, referred to it as an all-Party Amendment, or said that he did not know if it was, perhaps I may say this. I know very little about the subject, but I would say that as a Member of this Party at present sitting on this Bench I would, if it were put to the vote, be tempted to vote for the Amendment, on the grounds that three years seems to be a more reasonable period than five years. I will not go into any exotic reasons, but in a three-dimensional world rods, poles and perches are as far as I can go in measuring three dimensions, and certainly I will get on to the theological problem of three Persons; but the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, said this is about people, and as a person, even only a Back-Bencher, I feel that three years is quite long enough to get attached even to two Benches. That is all I have to say.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we indeed discussed this question at some length at Committee stage, and I am glad of the opportunity to discuss it again. We have to start by recognising that we are not here talking about the main compensation which is going to be paid to anybody who is displaced from his home, which will be reflected by the payment of compensation at the rate of full market value; and, of course, it is

1081
within that that the fittings and carpets and so on which my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton mentioned will be reflected. We are not talking about that. That is the underlying basis of compensation; it has been improved in a number of ways during the passage of this Bill; and that is where we reflect the full financial value of the home in question.
What we are talking about here is the wish of the Government to introduce a further additional payment, on top of full market value, to reflect the grief and distress of being uprooted against one's will from a place that has become one's home. The Government started from the position that they thought a period of seven years should be the qualifying period, and, in response to debates in another place, reflected on the question of whether that figure was the right one, and, in the light of the views expressed in another place, adjusted it from seven years to five. So the Government have already indicated their flexibility, their willingness to compromise, and have listened to all the arguments that could be made for a reduction in the period from seven years to five. We have heard the same arguments cogently put by many noble Lords in this place, but they are not different from the arguments put in another place which led to the Government's adjusting the period from seven years to five. I must plead that as one of the reasons for not making any further adjustment, and to rebut any thoughts that there might be in the minds of noble Lords that we are unwilling to be swayed by arguments to change our original position. We have indeed changed our original position from seven years to five. Throughout the proceedings on this Bill the Government are seeking to be generous and to be sympathetic to people's personal feelings, to put people first, and it is because of this that we have introduced this entirely additional new payment on top of full market value. I would submit that we are being generous.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, out of the overall figure of £70 million a year about £25 million a year is the figure that will be paid on all the various aspects of compensation. That is extracted from the Explanatory Memorandum in the front of the original Bill. The significance of that will come out in a moment. We are trying to be generous.
1082
I believe we are being generous. We are certainly being more generous than any Government has been in this field before. We want our compensation to go to those who most merit it, whose hardship and whose grief is most severe and the greatest, and I believe that that would be the wish of all noble Lords present who have taken part in this debate. We do not want the beneficial effects of this Bill Ito be spread thinly over a lot of people, some of whom really need it, some of whom do not merit it. We want any additional generosity to be concentrated on those whose need and grief and distress are greatest. That is one of the reasons why we have selected this particular period.
If the Amendment were accepted, the increase in cost would be of the order of £5 million a year. I am not basing my case on the argument that that amount could not be afforded, so much as on the fact that if that extra amount were made available there are many other people than those who have been in occupation of their homes for these shorter periods whom we should want to assist. I shall come back to that point in a moment. I do not think I need rehearse the argument which I used on the previous occasion, to the effect that one's attachment to a home grows as the period lengthens, and is certainly stronger after five years than it is after three years. But the choice of five years as the qualifying period was made to ensure that those occupiers who were most likely to suffer the greatest amount of distress through being displaced from their homes would benefit, while, at the same time, keeping the cost of the scheme within reasonable limits. When your Lordships compare the £5 million increase effected by the proposed change with the £25 million which is the overall cost of all forms of compensation under this Bill, you will see that there is a case for keeping a sense of proportion.
But I would return to another argument which I used previously, that many public works take quite a time to plan and prepare and, even with the cut-off point at five years, there will be some occupiers who were aware at the start of their occupation that they were likely to be displaced, if necessary by compulsory acquisition, in the foreseeable future, for whom the personal upset on displacement

1083
cannot be so great as if they had taken up occupation in the expectation and hope of remaining until they chose to move. To reduce the qualifying occupancy condition to three years will include many more people who knew that their period of occupation was likely to be of limited duration, and a flavour of cynicism over the whole idea of the home loss payment would creep in. Moreover, although there is nothing magical in the choice of five years, and a figure cannot be arrived at by any mathematical calculation since it is a matter of judgment, the emotional attachment to a home, and hence the degree of distress on displacement, will certainly be greater after a period of five years than after a period of only three years.
If the Amendment were accepted and the period were reduced to three years, a good many more people would become eligible. Although in itself that is perhaps no bad thing, it would cost more money—as I said, £5 million, compared with the £25 million which is the approximate cost of all compensation under this Bill. That is somewhat out of proportion. But it would also mean that if at any time consideration was given to raising the guaranteed minimum payment of £150, which the Secretary of State can do by order under Clause 29, more people would be eligible for such an increase. Therefore, either much more money would be involved in meeting the new minimum figure, or the minimum figure would be kept down so that the extra funds that might be allocated could be spread across an increased number of people caused by a reduction in the qualifying period.
I think that in the real world all these points must be considered, remembering that the public purse is not inexhaustible and that there are limits to the amount of money that can be made available by even the most generous Government that anybody could wish for. Any Government, of whatever complexion, would in future have to face the problem that the extra call upon funds to raise the minimum figure could work against the interests of those most eligible for it. In this connection, it is worth noting that most of those who will benefit from the minimum figure, at whatever level it is—and it could be raised—live in
1084
slum clearance areas, and it is within those areas that five out of six houses required for public works are situated.
Those are the reasons why a five-year period, though at first sight appearing to be less generous than a three-year period, will have the effect of directing our generosity—which, as I said, can be increased under the order-making power in Clause 29—towards the people who need it and concentrating it upon them, whereas the Amendment will spread it too thinly over a whole lot of people whose grief and hardship is not of the same order as those whom we are seeking to help. I hope that that rather more extensive explanation will help to satisfy the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in particular, that it is not because of a lack of generosity, but rather a wish that the generosity should be concentrated upon those who, in our view, deserve it most, that we should resist his Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for the effort he has made to defend what is, apparently, a determination to resist acceptance of this Amendment. I find it a little difficult to accept the force of his argument; indeed, I find it quite unconvincing. I do not think the House will be inclined to accept that the sum of £5 million a year is likely to bring catastrophe in its wake. The noble Lord said that if the Amendment were carried the amount of money available will have to be spread thinly over a larger number of people; but we are talking about only £5 million at the most. We all appreciated that we were not talking about compensation for the full market value of a property; and we discussed the issue of grief and distress in Committee. But how can anybody say that it takes five years for people to feel grief and distress as a result of compulsory displacement? The noble Lord does not appear to realise the feelings of people who move into a little cottage and proudly put up a name on the gate, "At last". For years they have sought a place; they have now secured it, and then at the end of three years it is taken from them. Their grief can be as great as, and sometimes greater than, that of people who have lived in a property for a very long time.

1085
The noble Lord said that quite frequently plans are known long years in advance of people buying properties, and that is true. But if no property changed hands because there was talk of some development taking place at some unspecified date, a great deal of property would not be bought and sold. Many of us have had to live with the fact that there were proposals to construct roads back in the 1930s, but they have never been built. Society outside does not work in this kind of way.
I should have thought that to insert a minimum period of three years is such a reasonable compromise that it would be gladly accepted. As I say, at Committee stage we were discussing whether there should be no period or a two-year period. Now the noble Lord says that the other House talked about it and, as a result, the Government not being inflexible, reduced it from seven years to five years. But the very reason why we
are discussing the Bill in this House is that we can think about the matter further. In Committee in the other House there was a good deal of discussion about reducing the period below five years. I think I ought not to repeat arguments which have been made on a number of occasions. I am extremely grateful for the support of those noble Lords who have spoken. This is clearly an issue that cuts across Party boundaries, and I shall ask the House to decide, since the Government themselves appear to be unwilling, for the sake of such a small sum of money, to meet reasonably generously those who will otherwise suffer as a result of decisions for which they are not responsible.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Energlyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Airedale, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ardwick, L.

Ferrier, L.

Shackleton, L.

Avebury, L.

Gainford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Barrington, V.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hawke, L.

Slater, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Summerskill, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hurcomb, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Killearn, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Davidson, V.

Milford, L.

Williamson, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Monck, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Diamond, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Northchurch, B.

Dundonald, E.

Ogmore, L.

Wynford, L.

Effingham, E.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Ironside, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Allerton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kindersley, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Loudoun, C.

Balerno, L.

Eccles, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Exeter, M.

Merrivale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bethell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Garner, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brecon, L.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

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

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hanworth, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Vernon, L.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Thurlow, L.

Vivian, L.

Sudeley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.20 p.m.
Clause 31 [Supplementary provisions about home loss payments]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 30, line 3, leave out from ("period") to ("then") in line 5 and insert ("resided in the dwelling, or a substantial part of it, as his only or main residence but without being in occupation as required by those paragraphs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 18, which together with No. 17 is the paving Amendment to Amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 21 is no more than a technical Amendment. As the clause is drafted, a claimant relying on Clause 31(3) mug have been in occupation of a dwelling as his only or main residence at a time when another person was in occupation of the dwelling as his only or main residence and by virtue of a specified interest or right. It could be argued that while that other person was in occupation the claimant could not be, and that he was merely residing in the dwelling. For the avoidance of doubt, the Amendment provides that the claimant relying on Clause 31(3) need only have been in residence in the dwelling and not necessarily in occupation of it for the appropriate period. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, purely as a matter of drafting, while I entirely accept and indeed welcome the purpose of this Amendment which is to clarify the situation, I would just ask the noble Lord whether the language is quite right. What he is providing is that the second person about whom one is talking need not have been in occupation as required by those paragraphs, namely, Clause 28(2)(a) and (b). I should have thought that the words were wide enough to include paragraph (b), but surely that cannot be intended. The noble Lord explained the purpose of the Amendment as being in order to prevent its being said that the claimant could not also be in occupation. That I quite understand, but I wonder whether inadvertently the
1088
language he has chosen to achieve his purpose does not go rather further than he intended in excluding the operation of subsection (2)(b) as well. I apprehend that that was not his intention, and I should be grateful if he would look at the wording as a matter of drafting.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I will certainly undertake to do this, and, if I find he is right, to amend it accordingly.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 30, line 6, leave out ("both").
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 30, line 7, leave out from ("period") to ("the") in line 9.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is designed for a humanitarian purpose, its object being to dispense with the rather gruesome requirement that the pre-existing occupation should involve the death of the occupant. It seems hard on him that that should be the case. I know the noble Lord to be a man of generous and compassionate nature and we all have a great affection for him because we know his gentle and kindly disposition. I cannot believe that he would have wished the death of so many innocent people before this clause could be operative. In another place right honourable and honourable gentlemen have just been busy expressing their dislike of the sentence of death. Is it right that we should partially and vicariously, by a side wind as it were, reintroduce the death sentence for some quite important purposes in the terms of this clause?
I believe the objective is to bring about that where there is, say, a father and a son who live in a house, the father first and then the son, the period of their joint residence could be aggregated together in order to fulfil the requirement of five years' residence of the house. I should have thought that the situation normally would be that the kindly father, in the fullness of time, feels that he can

1089
appropriately hand over the tenancy or other interest he may have in a house to his son, who perhaps is taking upon himself the family responsibilities of running the family business and so on. It is a very humanitarian provision, if I may respectfully say so, and I think noble Lords on all sides of the House would thoroughly approve it. But it has a cruel edge to it, in that the note of death must creep in. I should have thought we could keep death out, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept the exclusion of the words which import the presence of death. The noble Lord has been so kind as to give me some reason to hope that he may be melted by my entreaty, and I hope that I am not pitching my expectations and anticipations higher than he intended.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the case which he has put for his Amendment, but before commenting on it I should say that it is not out of any sense of relief that we have had such a narrow victory over Amendment No. 16, not because of the gracious remarks which he addressed to me personally, but because of the merits of his argument that we are disposed to accept it.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 30, line 11, at end insert—
("(3A) Where a person ("the deceased") dies before the expiration of the period for making a claim to a home loss payment and would have been entitled to such a payment if he had made a claim within that period, a claim to that payment may be made, before the expiration of that period, by any person, not being a minor, who—

(a) throughout a period of not less than five years ending with the date of displacement of the deceased, has resided in the dwelling, or a substantial part of it, as his only or main residence; and

(b) is entitled to benefit by virtue of testamentary dispositions taking effect on, or the law of intestate succession or the right of survivorship between joint tenants as applied to, the death of the deceased;

and where there are two or more persons entitled to make a claim by virtue of this subsection the payment to be made on each claim shall be equal to the whole amount of the home loss payment divided by the number of such persons.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 22. The purpose of the first Amend-
1090
ment is to provide for the case of a claimant who is entitled to a home-loss payment but who dies before the expiration of the six months' claim period after displacement and without making a claim. The new subsection provides that in these circumstances a claim may be made before the end of the claim period by any person (other than a minor) who resided in the dwelling as his only or main residence for not less than five years ending with the date of displacement of the deceased, and who is beneficiary in title to share in the estate of the deceased, whether by virtue of testamentary dispositions, or the law of intestate succession or the right of survivorship between joint tenants. This follows the form of words used in Clause 11(2). Where there is more than one such person, the subsection provides that the home-loss payment should be divided equally between them (again excluding minors). The second Amendment to which I am speaking, No. 22, is consequential upon Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21. We considered this matter when I spoke to Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 12, leave out ("been successively in occupation of") and insert ("successively been in occupation of or resided in"). —(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. I spoke to it when discussing Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 15, leave out ("and subsection (3)") and insert ("above and subsections (3) and (3A)").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 30, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In the application of subsection (3A) above to Scotland—

(a) for the word "minor" there shall be substituted the words "person under the age of eighteen";

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words from "testamentary" to "tenants" there shall be substituted the words "a testamentary disposition or any other deed with testamentary effect taking effect on, or the law of intestate succession".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23 and in doing so I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will agree that, whilst this is a Scottish adaptation, it is a non-agricultural one and therefore he will be willing to accept it. It provides the Scottish adaptation for the new subsection (3)(a). Paragraph (a) deals with the point that "minor" in Scotland is a technical legal term covering girls between 12 and 18 and boys between 14 and 18. Paragraph (b) adapts the provisions on succession. I beg to move.
Clause 32 [Home loss payments for certain caravan dwellers]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30, line 38, leave out ("Section 28(2) above") and insert ("Subsection (1) of section 28 above shall have effect as if for the words preceding paragraph (a) there were substituted the words "Where a person residing in a caravan on a caravan site is displaced from that site in consequence of" and subsection (2) of that section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24 which is little more than a drafting Amendment to apply the reference in Clause 28(1) to displacement from a dwelling to the situation where a person residing in a caravan on a common site is displaced from that site.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 31, line 12, leave out from ("has") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("successively been in occupation of or resided in a caravan on different caravan sites on that land, section 28(2) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. It provides for the avoidance of doubt that a claimant need only have resided in and not necessarily been in occupation of a caravan on different caravan sites on land comprising two or more caravan sites in order to benefit from the provisions of Clause 32 The same point was discussed on Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 21, but in respect of caravans. I beg to move.
Clause 34 [Amount of farm loss payment]:
5.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No 26:
Page 33, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Where the date of displacement is determined in accordance with section 33(3)(c) above and the person concerned has on that date been in occupation for more than three years, he may elect that the average annual profit shall, instead of being computed by reference to the profits for the years mentioned in subsection (1) above, be computed by reference to the profits for—

(a) any three consecutive periods of twelve months for which accounts in respect of his profits have been made up, being periods for which he has been in occupation and the last of which ends on or after the date of conpletion of the acquisition; or

(b) if there are no such periods as aforesaid, any three consecutive years for which he has been in occupation and the last of which ends on or after the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above.")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my incursions into the field of agriculture have been rather curtailed to-day and this is the only one I can talk about It can be genuinely presented as being something for the farmers who, as we discovered at Committee stage, still thought they were having a raw deal from this Bill.
This Amendment is concerned with the situation where an agricultural owner-occupier who has had his land compulsorily acquired is permitted by the acquiring authority to remain in occupation for a period before being required to give up possession. As the clause is now drafted, any farm loss payment to which he may subsequently be entitled has to be computed by reference to profits for the three years ending with the date of displacement. This could be bad for him since profits may be affected after acquisition by changes in the pattern of farming and the level of investment in the land as a consequence of the switch to tenant farming and the limited life of the farm.
The Amendment therefore provides that in this situation any farm loss payment to which the farmer becomes entitled may, if he so elects, be computed by reference to profits for any three consecutive periods of twelve months for which accounts have been made up and

1093
for which he was in occupation, subject to the last of the twelve months' period in any group of three consecutive periods ending on or after the date of completion of the acquisititon. If there are no three consecutive periods of twelve months for which accounts have been made up, it will be computed by reference to any three consecutive years for which the farmer has been in occupation, subject to the last of the twelve months' period in any group of three consecutive periods ending on or after the date of completion of the acquisition.
The clause as amended will enable an owner-occupier farmer who is not displaced immediately on the acquisition of his land to benefit, for the purpose of calculating a farm loss payment, from whichever of the consecutive three-year periods mentioned above produces the highest amount. Thus, for example, if an owner-occupier farmer has been in occupation for the three years before the date of acquisition and stays on as a tenant for two further years up to the date of taking possession, he can choose any three consecutive years (in terms of accounting years) for the purposes of the computation. The provision could make quite a difference to the amount of the farm loss payment if the three years on which it must be calculated under the Bill as it stands turned out to be bad ones while the other two in the example were good. I beg to move.
Clause 37 [Amount of disturbance payment]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 38, line 26, after ("1948") insert ("or having duties under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is no more than a drafting Amendment. It is a Scottish adaptation but again not an agricultural one. It makes reference to the Social Work (Scotland) Act. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will agree that this does not present any difficulties. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should make it clear that there are a number of purely Scottish Amendments to this Bill
1094
of the value of which there can be no doubt. This is one of them. It would be churlish of me to give it other than an enthusiastic welcome.
Clause 40 [Power of relevant authority to make advances repayable on maturity to displaced residential owner-occupiers]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 42, line 39, leave out from ("person") to end of line 42 and insert ("who occupies it on the date of displacement and either—

(a) occupies it on that date in right of a freehold interest therein or a tenancy thereof granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than three years remain unexpired; or

(b) if the displacement is in consequence of the matters mentioned in paragraph (c) of section 38(1) above, occupied it in right of such an interest or tenancy on the date on which the land was acquired or appropriated as mentioned in that paragraph.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 30. These are matters of slightly more substance and relate to the advances to displaced owner-occupiers which an authority may make for the purchase of another dwelling, repayable on maturity—that is, with periodic payments only in respect of interest on the capital sum. The circumstances of displacement to which the clause applies are, first, acquisition by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers; second, the making, passing or acceptance of a housing order et cetera; and third, redevelopment following acquisition or appropriation by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. In the last case, the person residing in the dwelling may have been the owner-occupier at the time of the original acquisition or appropriation, but he could have ceased to have an owner's interest when displacement occurs. The first Amendment safeguards the position of the former owner-occupier who remains in possession until redevelopment displaces him by retaining the benefit of the clause to him notwithstanding that he has lost his owner-occupier status by the time of displacement. Amendment No. 30 is consequential on Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 43, line 5, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29 which is a technical one. The effect of subsection (11) as drafted is to exclude from the benefit of Clause 40 any person who did not take up residence in the dwelling in question until after a particular stage in the proceedings—specified in subsection (6) of Clause 38—had been reached. Clause 38 places a duty on authorities to rehouse residential occupiers in certain circumstances. A restriction of this nature is, however, not necessary in Clause 40 since that clause provides only a discretionary power for local authorities to make advances repayable on maturity, and the Amendment is designed to remove the restriction in this case.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30. We discussed this when dealing with Amendment No. 28.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 20, after ("(9)") insert—
("(i) in paragraph (a).").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. All three are drafting Amendments and do nothing more than remove a small defect. Together they have the effect of causing the age of the shareholder referred to in the subsection to be measured in exactly the same way as that of the occupier in Clause 1. It is clearly equitable that this should be so and clearly necessary that it should be measured in some way rather than left in the air as it is at the moment. I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 36, after ("sixty") insert ("on the date there mentioned").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 38, after ("age") insert ("on that date").—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 39, after ("age") insert ("on that date").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 47 [Compensation in respect of agricultural holdings]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 48, line 42, leave out from ("landlord") to ("and") in line 3 on page 49 and insert (" which would not be or would not have been effective if—

(i) in section 24(2)(b) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (land required for nonagricultural use for which planning permission has been granted etc.) The reference to the land being required did not include a reference to its being required by an acquiring authority; and

(ii) in section 25(1)(e) of that Act (proposed termination of tenancy for purpose of land's being used for non-agricultural use not falling within section 24(2)(b) the reference to the land's being used did not include a reference to its being used by an acquiring authority;").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 36 go together. It is rather an obscure subject, but it was Clause 43 when we had it in the Committee stage and it was subject to some discussion then. The arrangement is that where an acquiring authority is buying land we shall provide that the tenant shall not have his compensation assessed, nor shall the landlord have his compensation assessed, on the basis that just because the acquiring authority is taking the land by compulsory powers the landlord is thought to be able to have got vacant possession of it. So you disregard the acquisition by the acquiring authorities by compulsory powers and assume that the tenant retains his security of tenure under the Agricultural Holdings Act and the landlord is not given compensation on the basis of vacant possession. But there is one qualification. That is all very well when you have residents, but if the acquiring authority is buying for housing purposes and planning permission has been obtained, the landlord may have got planning permission as well. In those circumstances the landlord would,

1097
quite apart from the action of the acquiring authority in buying the land for housing, also have been able to get possession of it from the tenant for his own housing development. In those circumstances we think it right that the tenant should not be given the protection of virtually permanent security, and we therefore make a small exception for that particular type of case. It derogates from the generality of what we are doing in this clause, but it tightens up this one small anomaly which would occur.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 13, leave out from ("landlord") to end of line 16 and insert ("which would not be or would not have been effective if the said section 24(2)(b) and 25(1)(e) were construed in accordance with subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) above.").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Clause 48 [Compensation where occupier is rehoused]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 40, at end insert ("compulsory").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Clause 62 [Amendment of section 35 of Roads (Scotland) Act 1970]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 46 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 38, leave out ("grant") and insert ("creation").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 67 [Land affected by orders relating to new towns]:
5.49 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 71, line 25, leave out from ("any") to ("section") and insert ("land under that section where the period of seven years specified therein has expired").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (6) of Clause 67 repeals Section 11 of the New Towns Act, 1965, and that repeal will deprive owners of properties in some new towns of valuable rights which have accrued over the years. The question of where the owners of some properties stand has given rise to very considerable concern and has covered issues such as clubs and churches. I understand that the Churches' Main Committee, through the advice of the Bishop of Winchester, have been in contact with the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Graham Page, and if in the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is able to say anything about how their position is secured that will be very interesting, because here again he wrote me. I am very grateful to him for writing at length, particularly in regard to this clause; and I am a little surprised (and perhaps it is unfortunate) that it fell to his lot to deal with the point. Churches do not always benefit where a development takes place. Sometimes their congregation is removed from them and they find themselves unable to attract enough people to keep going the church that exists. That raises quite a problem. I hope something may be said that will clarify it, because in Committee I raised the issue, and I raised it in connection with Redditch particularly, where there is a fine church right in the centre of the town and, as the noble Lord reminded me and as I think I stated in Committee, they do not pay rates; they do not have a rateable value. Their position would appear to me to need clarification.
My Lords, these valuable rights of which I have spoken in regard to owners of properties are rights which require development corporations to acquire properties in New Towns after seven years have elapsed from the date of the designation. As I have already stated, there are a number of New Towns where these rights have accrued. And I am sure I have it right. Under this Bill as it stands those people will be deprived of those accrued rights. It will be our duty that owners in all designated New Towns will be assimilated into the proposed National Blight Code which is a singularly unattractive thing to owners and particularly to those to whom I have referred. In future only owner-occupiers of residential property, owners of small businesses and

1099
agricultural land will be able to serve blight notices, and I understand that these will be subject to a limitation based on a rateable value, at present, of £750.
During the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, what constituted a small business. I am sure that he will not mind my quoting what he told me:
"You ask how a small business was defined. The position is that the national blight code applies to owner-occupied property in certain classes. These are houses, farms and other property with a rateable value not exceeding £2,250. Churches are not caught as they are of course not rated and neither would be the clubs you mention as they are over the limit of rateable value".
So in future it will be a limited section, so far as owner-occupiers are concerned, below the present rateable value of £750—we may well be told that that figure will be raised as a result of revaluation—and owners of small businesses not exceeding a rateable value of £2,250. It will be this limited section who will be able to serve blight notices and be subject to the possibility of a counter notice. Because it is not possible to serve a blight notice in respect of a church as it has no rateable value, it will no longer as I understand it be possible to require a development corporation to acquire this type of property. If I am wrong I shall be happy, and I am sure that the House will be pleased to have an authoritative statement covering the point.
My Lords, the Amendment I propose is very different from the one I moved in Committee. That would have reserved all the rights that Section 11 of the 1965 Act confers. This Amendment is limited to the preservation of rights which have already been approved and would cause the subsection to read as follows:
"Section 11 of the said Act of 1965 (right to required development corporation to acquire land within area designated as the site of a new town) shall cease to have effect except in relation to any land under that section where the period of seven years specified therein has expired before the coming into force of this section."
I hope it will be appreciated that I have endeavoured to be as reasonable as possible and to confine myself to defending the rights of people where those rights have accrued over a period of years. The noble Lord was good enough to reply to a number of questions which I asked
1100
in Committee and I have no wish to take up your Lordships' time by repeating them. I am satisfied with the replies which the noble Lord gave to me. But in order that it shall be clear in the Record I should like to ask this. Will a draft designation order in itself constitute automatic blight and consequently compel the development corporation to acquire a property without resort to counter notice?
I have before me a copy of what Mr. Graham Page has said and I think it is largely borne out by what the noble Lord wrote to me. Perhaps it would be a good thing to get it on the Record so that everyone will know where he stands:
"As applied by the Land Compensation Bill to new towns the National Blight Code would allow service of blight notices at any time after the publication of the draft designation order. The right to object to a blight notice will apply, but until the development corporation have worked out their plans for the development of the new town it would not seem possible for the corporation to substantiate the assertion that they do not require the property".
There has been conjecture by many people about precisely what is meant in the light of the discussions in another place and in Committee in this House. I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, if he would confirm what I have read out, and particularly the last part of it, that it would not seem possible for the corporation to substantiate an assertion that they do not require the property. It is very difficult to see what they will need as the years roll on. Will the noble Lord confirm that it means that draft designation is equivalent to blight and that owners would not have to wait for specific proposals? If the noble Lord can answer that question in clear terms it would be helpful to a great many people. My Amendment would certainly reserve rights which have accrued over the years and would clarify the position. I hope the Committee will feel that the Bill would be improved by the acceptance of the Amendment.
I do not know whether it is any use appealing to the Government at this stage. It may well be that the Government have made up their mind and the Minister has no freedom of movement. But if he has any at all, I ask that consideration be given to the acceptance of my Amendment, which would seem to me to make very little difference to the Bill so far as

1101
the vast majority of cases are concerned. But it would secure the position of those who otherwise will be deprived of rights that have accrued. This would happen in towns of some standing—Redditch, for example. There are a considerable number of people in such towns who feel that they will be adversely affected unless something on the lines of my Amendment is included in the Bill. I do not speak for myself on the basis of my own interpretation of the position. I am grateful to have had advice from the Urban District Councils Association, and others. I mention that not only to support the view that I have advanced but also as an indication of the extent of the concern that exists over this matter.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with one or two particular questions which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me arising out of his general interest and concern in this subject, before I deal more closely with the terms of his Amendment. First, he asked about the effect of draft designation. I confirm that it is equivalent of blight and the owners would not have to wait, as is the case outside New Towns for six towns for a precise, particular proposal. But as I mentioned in my letter to him, in a paragraph which I do not think he quoted:
"Under the National Blight Code a qualified owner-occupier may serve a blight notice in the event of a public authority's proposals of a kind specified in the Act affecting his property. It is open to an authority"—
and it would be open to a New Town authority—
"to object to a blight notice on a number of grounds, one of which is that they do not propose to acquire any part of the property."
My letter to the noble Lord went on to say:
"The decision in cases of dispute is a matter for the Lands Tribunal."
The noble Lord also asked about the position of churches and referred to correspondence which the Bishop of Winchester, on behalf of the Churches' Main Committee, is having with my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development. This was taken up with the plight of churches caught in planning areas, for example near a clearance area. If the area is clear around or near a church, then most of the congregation goes, as opposed to the
1102
situation in a New Town where fresh recruits for the congregation arrive. But in the clearance case, eventually the church is acquired and demolished and then it is dealt with on the basis of equivalent reinstatement, since there is no particular market in churches and the market value criterion which applies to other properties cannot apply to churches.
My Lords, to turn to the points raised by the noble Lord's Amendment, as he says, it raises a whole series of quite different issues from those raised by his Amendment in Committee. On that occasion, the noble Lord argued for the retention of Section 11 of the New Towns Act in its entirety. Now he is seeking the retention of the section in those towns where it has become operative, because seven years have elapsed since designation; but he is accepting that it should not apply in New Towns or in extensions designated less than seven years ago and to any future New Towns or extensions of existing ones. The effect of that would be that Section 11 would remain operative in 17 of the 23 New Towns in England and Wales, but would not become effective in the remaining six; namely, the Central Lancashire New Towns, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Newtown, Warrington and Peterborough. It would not apply in parts of towns where extensions were designated less than seven years ago; that is, in Corby, Peterlee, Skelmersdale, Telford and Washington. In regard to Telford, the effect of his Amendment would be that Section 11 would apply in one half of the town, but not in the other half. There are, as noble Lords will know, likely to be substantial extensions in Bracknell, Harlow and Stevenage.
The nub of the case for this partial retention of Section 11 is that property owners in those towns where the seven-year period has elapsed have acquired the right to serve a Section 11 notice, and it would be wrong to deprive them of that right. The noble Lord's case, although it has been persuasively argued and is obviously motivated by a desire to remove what he regards as an injustice, would certainly be creating another, and I think worse one. There would be a distinction created between towns; that is, in the 17 New Towns where Section 11 notices could be served, while in the other six they would not apply. There

1103
would be distinctions between parts of New Towns because some extension took place less than seven years ago.
Again, if one considers the timetable, one finds that Milton Keynes fails to qualify by eight months and Peterborough by 15 months, but at Aycliffe a substantial portion of the town qualified five days ago as an extension order was made on April 13, 1966. The Amendment would also be anomalous in that in the 17 towns it would leave Section 11 and the national blight code existing side by side—although I would not wish to over-emphasise the implications of that. The Government believe that the overall effect of the changes made by Clause 67 will result in more equitable arrangements and—this is the most important point from the point of view of property owners—more expeditious arrangements in relation to land that is blighted in New Towns. We are reinforced in this belief by the fact that there have been no representations against the clause by any associations of property owners since the repeal was announced in the White Paper last August. I hope that that explanation, which covers a different range of considerations from that which I gave to the noble Lord in Committee, coupled with my letter to him and my explanation on the points that he raised in Committee, will satisfy the noble Lord that we are doing the right thing and he will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. He has been very patient. My Amendment was moved in order to protect the rights of some people who are going to lose accrued rights. I thought it reasonable on the Report stage, having been unsuccessful in persuading the Government in Committee, to ask for something less. I have learned that if one asks for a whole loaf and does not get it, it is sometimes worth while asking for a quarter of the loaf, and one gets reward. In this case, that is what I was attempting to do—to salvage something from the operation, if I may put it that way.
One wonders at what point Governments are inclined to give way when those who are not satisfied with what is being done try to compromise and show willingness to reduce their requests. The
1104
noble Lord repeated the point he made in Committee, that no representations had been made since the White Paper was issued. I should like to ask him whether any representations have been made since the discussion in another place. I should be very surprised if the Department have received no representations since then. The noble Lord will appreciate that the Urban District Councils Association sought an opportunity of consultations with the Department on this matter, and although the Deparment consulted with the New Town Development Corporation Association, they did not see fit to meet the Urban District Councils Association. I hope that that may be seen by the noble Lord as something of a reply to the reassertion that no representations were received following the White Paper. Why did that come about? It was not until a public health inspector in Redditch spotted this that anybody was alive to it. But I am certain that the Department would have received more representations than I had about the matter.
I realise that the Amendment, if carried, would leave distinctions; but it would protect accrued rights, and that is what the Amendment seeks to do. I think there would be little advantage in my pressing the matter to a Division this afternoon. I would much prefer the opportunity to be afforded for further thinking on the part of the Government and ourselves, so that we may possibly return to this on Third Reading. I shall certainly study carefully, and take advice on, what the noble Lord has said in reply to the arguments that I have endeavoured to adduce. I am quite satisfied that this is a point of some concern, for it is always a matter of concern when people are being deprived of some right that they have acquired over a period of years. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 [Land affected by new street orders]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 74, line 1, leave out ("authority who made the order mentioned in that subsection")

1105
and insert ("highway authority for the highway in relation to which the order mentioned in that subsection was made").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 corrects a defect in the definition, in subsection (3), of the term "appropriate authority"; that is, the authority on whom a blight notice may be served requiring them to buy land affected by a new street order. As the clause stands, this would be the authority who made the order, but in the case of an order made under Section 30 of the Public Health Act 1925 that authority may no longer exist. Also, bearing in mind that the blight arises from the prospect that the new street may be widened by the highway authority at some future time to include the claimant's land, it is appropriate to specify the highway authority as the authority to take service of the blight notice. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the greatest caution, in view of the discussions we have been having to-day and yesterday, but believing myself to be in Order, I propose not to move Amendments Nos. 50 to 53.
Clause 82 [General Interpretation]:
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54, which is a drafting Amendment consequent upon changes made in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 34, after ("24") insert ("and, so far as it relates to highways, 27").—(Lord Sandford.)

COLLEGE OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
Examiners certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with: referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
DERBY FRIAR GATE CHAPEL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
HUMBER BRIDGE BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.