Sitting of 13 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (FOREIGN UNDERTAKINGS)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the fact that the Exchequer now contributes to industrial research both directly through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and indirectly through remissions of taxation, what steps are taken, or are contemplated, to ensure that the results of such research benefit British industry and not that of our competitors: and how many applications has the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research received for assistance from firms manufacturing in cooperation with British, German and Japanese firms.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): In addition to published information, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research helps British industry by making its unpublished scientific and technical information and experience freely available to genuine British inquirers. This supplementary assistance is not available in the same way to foreign undertakings. The Research Associations, which are partly supported by public funds through D.S.I.R., have a British membership, and the admission of foreign-controlled firms is strictly controlled. I regret that I have no information on the last part of the Question.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Chancellor think it right that he should pour out
  254
  millions of pounds on research and then firms should use the benefit of research at State expense to grant manufacturing rights to other countries? Is he aware that manufacturing rights in respect of materials like nylon, Terylene and other synthetic fibres have been granted to Japan, Germany and other countries? Will he ask one or two of his senior officials to investigate the problem and prepare a report for him?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I should like to examine the statement made by the hon. Member. Perhaps he will consult me so that I may have the full information in order to compare notes with my colleagues.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Estate Duties (Active Service)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to ensure that no National Serviceman killed on active service or otherwise, while wearing Her Majesty's uniform, will have his estate assessed to death duties.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave on 1st April, 1953, to a Question on this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe). I am sending him a copy of that reply.
    Mr. Nabarro: Could my right hon. Friend arrange to publish in suitable form a statement saying what dividing line is taken by the Inland Revenue between the theatres of operation which are regarded as active service and those which are not? Is he aware that there is considerable doubt about Kenya and operations against Mau Mau, about Malaya and operations against the Communists, and now the series of murders which have taken place in the Suez Canal Zone when no active theatre of operations is said to be involved?
    Mr. Butler: It has hitherto been thought that the answer given by the Financial Secretary covered the sort of situation which my hon. Friend has brought to my attention. I certainly think we should do everything we can to remove any doubts in anyone's mind. If

    255
    my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I hope he will also bring it to my attention in the examination which I shall give to his supplementary question.

    Mutual Security Aid
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made for the continuance of United States aid in the form of agricultural products under Section 550 of the Mutual Security Act after the current year.
    Mr. Dudley Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America regarding the products to be supplied under the Mutual Security Act next year.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Proposals for foreign aid in 1954–55 are still before the U.S. Congress. It is not known, therefore, whether any further offers of aid in the form of surplus agricultural commodities will be made to this country, and no discussions with the U.S. Government have taken place regarding the supply of such commodities next year.
    Mr. Macpherson: While I appreciate that in the short run this is an arrangement which helps both Governments, might I ask my right hon. Friend not to lose sight of the long-term distortion to trade which might result in part from the immediate disturbance of markets, which is out of all proportion to the relative smallness of the shipments?
    Mr. Butler: Whether I should pay attention to my hon. Friend's question or not is really beside the point, because the interests concerned have already brought these considerations to our notice and we are aware of all the difficulties which may or may not be involved.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the case that under the Mutual Security Act it is a condition of these arrangements that there should be no interference with normal trade and that, in fact, the purchase made under the Act should be aditional to those which would be made from other countries, particularly in the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make
    256
    a statement on the consultation he has had with Commonwealth Governments regarding the future extent and effects on Commonwealth trade of the policy of accepting United States defence aid in the form of surplus United States food products.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The action to be taken about future Mutual Security Act purchases could best be considered in relation to specific offers. The interests of Commonwealth and Colonial producers have been and will be the subject of constant attention by H.M.G.
    Mr. Macpherson: Does that reply mean that, on the general policy—the general political issues involved—there is no consultation with the Commonwealth, but only in regard to particular shipments?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. There have been general consultations in the recent proceedings of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and, of course, there have been, and no doubt will be, consultation about particular commodities as they affect particular countries.
    Mr. Gaitskell: But, if the conditions laid down in the Mutual Security Act are to be carried out, surely there should not be any adverse repercussions on trade with the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Butler: Unfortunately, we do not live in so perfect a world as may be envisaged by the provisions of any particular Act, whether of another legislature or of the domestic legislature. It is a difficulty of reconciling human nature and human interests with the provisions of a particular statute.
    Mr. Macpherson: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the Commonwealth have made arrangements for the progressive expansion of production in line with his own injunction to save dollars?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

    Personal Incomes (Value)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing power today of an income of £100,000 per annum, as compared with November, 1951, for a married man with two

    257
    children, taking into account the changes in taxation and allowances and in the cost-of-living index.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: A married man with two children with an income of £100,000 per annum now has a net income, after tax, of £8,488. This is equivalent in purchasing power to about £8,075 in November, 1951, when the net income corresponding to a similar gross income would have been £5,940. In these figures, it is assumed that the earned income included in the total is sufficient to qualify for the maximum earned income relief.
    Mr. Warbey: Does not the answer prove conclusively that the richer members of the community have benefited enormously from the total effect of the Government's financial policy, and that the richer they are the more they have benefited?
    Mr. Butler: I would not say that at all. It is a question of relativity.
    Mr. Gower: Would not the Chancellor agree that it is a reasonable slice for the Treasury, and could he also tell us if there are many of these people, apart from Labour hon. Members?
    Mr. Butler: I have not had any in my acquaintance, but if any hon. Members will introduce me to anybody in that category, I shall be very much obliged.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing power of an income of £500 per annum, as compared with November, 1951, for a married man with two children, taking into account the changes in taxation and allowances and in the cost-of-living index.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: A married man with two children, earning £500 per annum now has a net income, after tax, of £499. This is equivalent in purchasing power to about £475 in November, 1951, when the net income corresponding to a similar gross income would have been £487.
    Mr. Warbey: Does not this answer show that the lower income groups of the community, including Members of Parliament who are solely dependent on their Parliamentary salary and have to pay their expenses out of that income, are worse off under this Government?
    Mr. Butler: The simple facts relating to this question are that the tax on an income of £500 has been reduced from £13 under the benign administration which I have conducted to £12s. 2d., a fall of 91 per cent., whereas, in regard to the mythical family with £100,000 a year which was previously referred to, they have suffered a reduction of only 2·7 per cent.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not also the case, judging from the Chancellor's original answer, that the man with £500 a year who has two children, nevertheless now has a purchasing power which is £24 less than it was in 1951; or, if not £24 gross, then £24 net, which was £12 less than in 1951? [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not seem to be able to understand these confusing figures, they had better wait for it. Am I to understand that the Chancellor said that the net income of the man with £500 a year and two children was now worth £475, against £487, under the right hon. Gentleman's dispensation?
    Mr. Butler: I can only repeat the figures that I gave with singular clarity and honour in my original answer. The net income of a family with £500 a year would have been £487, and the other figure is £475, so that the perspicacity of the right hon. Gentleman remains as acute as ever.
    Mr. Shinwell: What is the Chancellor bragging about? Has he not taken it all back in the prices of food?
    Mr. Butler: In contrast to the Administration which we succeeded, for the last year or so the prices of food have barely risen at all.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is not such a family in the position of being £12 worse off than under the Labour Government?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. Are we to allow hon. Members to ask long supplementary questions, with people getting their figures wrong and going back and checking them, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds. South (Mr. Gaitskell)?
    Mr. Speaker: I have said before that I do not like long supplementary questions.

    Sir John Cockroft (Salary)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he agreed to pay Sir John Cockroft a salary of £8,500 a year.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member is mistaken. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works announced on 1st July, Sir John Cockroft's salary will be £5,000 a year as a member of the Atomic Energy Authority, with an additional payment of £1,000 in his capacity as an executive.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the figure of £6,000 still £2,000 more than the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Will not this mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland will want a rise, and so will the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the other Ministers getting £4,000 a year?
    Mr. Butler: They may want a rise, but I am not quite sure that they will get it.

    Convertibility
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes in the working of the European Payments Union as a prelude to convertibility.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6th July to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). The changes which we have made are designed to meet the needs of the moment. The effect on the Union in the event of convertibility being decided upon by one or more countries, is now being considered by a Committee established by the Council of O.E.E.C., of which I am chairman; we are about to start work.
    Mr. Grimond: Does not the Treasury Bulletin point to certain difficulties which may arise if some currencies are made convertible while others are not strong enough to become convertible, and have the Government any proposals for altering E.P.U. to deal with the situation, or do they intend, as has been suggested, to do it in another year's time?
    Mr. Butler: The latter part of the question would be a simplification. In regard to the former part, nothing could be more complicated than a situation in which some currencies would be convertible and
    260
    some would be non-convertible. That is precisely why we are setting about an examination of this problem in the event of a possible future convertibility operation. We are simply doing it against such a possibility, and not with any specific plan in mind.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which European countries have indicated to him that they are ready to make their currencies convertible.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Such decisions, which have not been imparted to me, must be left to the countries concerned.
    Mr. Grimond: Do I understand the Chancellor said in his reply that it is not intended to go forward with convertibility until practically all the countries concerned are ready to do so?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I could not say that, because this question of convertibility lies absolutely within the discretion of individual sovereign countries. I could give no undertaking, but I think it is more likely that there will be a collective approach to this subject than an individual one.

    Continental Day Trips (Duty-free Goods)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why day trippers returning from France are not permitted any allowance of duty-free goods.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The circumstances in which day trips are made are not comparable with those in which concessions are granted to foreign tourists and our own nationals returning from travel abroad.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not this a mean and paltry discrimination against people who cannot afford longer holidays? Does it also apply to air passengers who spend a few hours in Paris or Brussels and come back the same day? Will not the Chancellor have another look at this matter and take steps to see that all people are treated alike?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I am not prepared to go back on the present practice. The position would be that, if we had day trips for £3, which is a typical day trip passage, it would be possible to bring

    261
    in a small amount of concession cigarettes, half a bottle of spirits, perhaps half a pint of perfume and a bottle of sherry or other heavy wine, all at considerable concessions made by the Customs, which would mean that the trip would he very much worth while. Therefore, I think we had better stick to the present regulations, whereby travellers who do not go on day trips are given very considerable concessions by the Customs.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that answer mean that if we can afford to take an extended holiday abroad we obtain privileges, whereas if we cannot afford to do so we do not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is that what is meant by Tory policy, one law for the rich and another for the poor?
    Mr. Butler: This is not Tory policy. It is inherited policy, based on common sense.

    Anglo-Argentine Trade Talks
    Mr. Stewardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress of the current Anglo-Argentine commercial and financial discussions.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Discussions on trade and financial matters opened in Buenos Aires on 7th July. It is not possible to make any statement on the talks at this early stage.

    Private Water Companies (Taxation)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a water company gets more favourable treatment in regard to Income Tax than a public water board; and how far this concession to private enterprise companies extends to other public utility services.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not clear what treatment in regard to Income Tax the hon. Member has in mind. If he will write to me on the matter, I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Chancellor aware that a financial expert, giving evidence before a Select Committee of this House, said that a private water company was in a more favourable position in regard to Income Tax than a public water beard? Will he have an investigation made into
    262
    the matter in order to see that there is equitable treatment? I will gladly supply the right hon. Gentleman with the quotation.
    Mr. Butler: I very much look forward to receiving the information which the hon. Gentleman will send me, because this matter is news to me and to the Revenue.

    Foreign Travel Allowances
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the main classes of travellers who expended £5 million in the dollar area last year; and how much was expended by each class.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The main classes were businessmen, private persons travelling for health or family reasons, officials, students and delegates to conferences. About £3½ million was authorised last year in respect of businessmen. No comparable figures are available for the other classes.
    Mr. Grimond: If we can afford, as I am glad to hear that we can, £5 million under the benign administration of the Chancellor for certain people belonging to the privileged classes which are growing up in this country to visit America, cannot he spare something for ordinary travellers to see our most important ally?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the importance of this matter. We shall have to wait and see.
    Mr. Lewis: How much of this £5 million was expended by the dockers of this country?
    Hon. Members: Which ones?
    Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me such information as is in his possession.
    Mr. Lewis: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman for it.
    Mr. Haleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amounts of francs issued for the use of British visitors to France during the last 12 months to the most recent convenient date; how much of this was basic allowance; and amongst how many applicants the balance was shared.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Allocations for travel in France by U.K. residents in the year to 31st may, 1954, totalled about £14 million. Of this total, about £8 million represented basic allowance; about £2 million other allotments and about £4 million settlements by travel agents, etc., cover both basic and other allotments. The number of applications in respect of which the £2 million currency for travel other than basic allotments was issued is 45,000.
    Mr. Hale: Is the Chancellor aware of the knowledge possessed by everybody now that these regulations are substantially ignored—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—particularly by a large proportion of the people who spend holidays on the Riviera for very long periods of the year? Is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware that the most expensive hotels in Nice and Antibes are full of British visitors living there on £5 or £10 a night? Does he not think the time has come to relax the restrictions on the smaller man, who very often has to save for three or four years before he takes a holiday abroad?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the anxiety about the travel allowance, and that it is widely held. I can give no further answer today except to remind the hon. Member that there is very close supervision in the matter and that the eyes of the authorities are probably more acute than some hon. Members may realise.
    Mr. Haleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present arrangement for the furnishing of foreign currency to yacht owners going abroad; whether it is now permissible for the currency for yacht owner, captain and crew to be issued collectively; and what additional allowances are provided in respect of cost of fuel in the case of steam yachts.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: There is no special arrangement. Yacht owner, captain and crew must apply individually for their basic travel allowance, but there is no objection to the pooling of these allowances provided the foreign currency collected from each person is utilised for his direct benefit. The allowance of £25 given to travellers taking their cars abroad is also given to yacht owners in respect of the cost of fuel.
    Mr. Hale: Are the eyes of benign authority kept on the number of yachts on the Mediterranean, sailing under British flags at the present time?
    Mr. Butler: As recent evidence has shown a very close watch is kept, and will be kept.
    Mr. Haleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent British citizens possessing British passports who are not liable to the payment of British taxes because of the period of their residence abroad are eligible for the issue of foreign currency.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Although residence abroad for the purpose of taxation does not necessarily involve residence abroad for the purpose of exchange control, British citizens living abroad and exempt from taxes are rarely eligible for the issue of foreign currency.
    Mr. Hale: In what circumstances are they eligible?
    Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will put that question down I will attempt to give him a longer answer.
    Mr. F. Harris: Had the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) any of these difficulties when he lately went to the South of France?
    Mr. Hale: Is the Chancellor aware that my wife and I went without lunch day by day, stayed in village hotels, had a very good time and hope to do the same next year?
    Mr. Butler: I have no doubt that he had a better time than if he had stayed at some of the posh hotels.

    Germany (Occupation Costs)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the last payment received from the Federal German Government in respect of occupation costs; and when it was paid.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Occupation costs are disbursed by the Federal German Government day by day, in accordance with payment authorisations issued by the Occupying Powers.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Bearing in mind the heavy load of taxation already borne by our taxpayers, can the right hon.

    265
    Gentleman give an assurance that so long as the Occupation Statute is in force he will see that occupation costs to which this country is entitled are fully paid up, and that there will be no arrears when the statute comes to an end?
    Mr. Butler: I will discuss that question with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Government Stocks (Tax Refunds)
    Mr. L. Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of !he interest due on 1st May, 1953, on the Government stocks, a list of which has been sent to him, and which was paid less tax at 9s. 6d. in the £ instead of at 9s. in the £ has not yet been claimed by the stockholders, registered at the appropriate date; and whether he will now issue instructions to the Bank of England to issue supplementary dividend warrants; and why a credit adjusting such incorrect deduction was not allowed on the next half year's dividend warrant.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available centrally and could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of work. The answer to the second and third parts of the Question is that applications for refund of tax over-deducted in these circumstances are dealt with by the Inland Revenue. Stockholders concerned were so advised in a notice circulated by the Bank of England.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS)
  Mr. Vaneasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which Departments have reduced the size and cost of their regional organisation during the last year; and what is the total saving.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The Departments which reduced the size and cost of their regional organisation during the year ended 31st March, 1954, are Admiralty, Central Land Board and War Damage Commission, Central Office of Information, National Assistance Board, Board of Trade and the Ministries of Food, Fuel and Power, Housing and Local Government, Labour and National Service, Supply and Works. The saving
  266
  amounts to 2,022 in staff and about £977,000 a year in money.
  Mr. Vane: Can we repeat the same good work in the coming year?
  Mr. Sparks: Are not some of these regional organisations to be closed down entirely? What effect is that likely to have on the efficient administration of Government Departments?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Question relates to Departments which reduced their size in the past year. If the hon. Gentleman wants information about future proposals, perhaps he would be good enough to put a Question on the Paper.

  HOUSING

    Rothwell
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he is refusing to allow Rothwell Urban District Council to build traditional houses when local brickyards have an abundance of bricks, to the extent of having no stocking place, which could be used for such building at a lower cost than that of the non-traditional type of house.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The demand for craftsmen for traditional house-building in this area exceeds the supply, and the two local brick-yards, according to their returns to the Ministry of Works, have no stocks in hand. My right hon. Friend hopes, therefore, that the council will be willing to build some of their houses by new-tradition methods.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not this new tradition reflect itself in increased rents?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think so. The prices of new-tradition houses varies throughout the country, but generally speaking it is in step with those for traditional houses.

    Furnished Houses (Rent Receipts)
    Mr. A. Evansasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a Regulation under Section 8 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, requiring the lessor to give the lessee receipts for rent paid.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is advised that no such regulation could be made under the powers of the Section.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend the Minister to look at Section 8 of the Act? Is the Minister aware that, in the absence of rent receipts, several of the provisions of this Act are being made largely inoperative throughout the country today?
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has already taken legal advice on Section 8 and is advised that under it receipts for rent cannot be asked for. However, I will ask him to look at the matter again, and, in the meantime, if the hon. Gentleman will send me details of any cases of abuse, I will look into them.

    Requisitioned Houses
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many properties are still held under requisition by his Department; if he will order a new investigation into the circumstances of each case; and if he will direct that prior consideration be given to the original owner, or owners, whenever a sale is contemplated.
    Mr. Marples: On 31st December, 1953, my Department still held for housing purposes approximately 69,400 premises, accommodating about 100,000 families, which had either been requisitioned or taken by agreement with the owners. The present rate of release is about 10,000 properties a year. My Department holds no other properties on requisition. My right hon. Friend has no power to sell requisitioned properties. On derequisition they are returned to their owners.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he does not agree that this is a large figure for nearly 10 years after the war? Will my hon. Friend bear that in mind?
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is trying to carry out the recommendations of the working party on requisitioned properties, and I think that the House agrees with those recommendations.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the attitude taken up by his Ministry over the question of de-requisitioning houses has caused a great
    268
    grievance in the large cities where thousands of people are still on the housing registers? In Birmingham today there are heaps of houses which have been derequisitioned and empty for six months, awaiting not occupation by the owners, but sale to the highest bidder, and this while 60,000 people are on the housing list. Why not requisition such properties?
    Mr. Marples: I cannot agree that hardship has been caused. Every case has been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend or myself and adequate notice has been given that derequisitioning ought to take place. Local authorities have the power to acquire or to take over such properties on lease, and, therefore, the question of removing a tenant does not really arise.
    Mrs. Elizabeth Braddockasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) on what date he instructed the Southport Town Council. Lancashire to serve notices on tenants in requisitioned property; and what instructions he gave regarding rehousing the displaced tenants;
    (2) if he is aware that his instruction to Southport Town Council, Lancashire, to serve notices to quit on 23 families living in requisitioned houses will mean that these tenants will be made homeless, as no instruction to rehouse has been made; and if he will notify the town council not to evict those families until suitable alternative accommodation has been offered them.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has not instructed the council to serve notices to quit. The council were advised in October, 1952, that all requisitioned properties should be released by 10th December, 1953. As the council had failed to comply, my right hon. Friend issued a direction to the town clerk on 20th May, 1954, that the properties still held on requisition should be released not later than 31st August next.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on two occasions last year I put supplementary questions to him, the first on 30th June and the second on 21st July, in reply to which I and other people considered that he gave a definite promise that there would be

    269
    no request made by the Ministry to de-requisition properties unless the local authority could give an assurance that the people in them would be rehoused before the properties were derequisitioned? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the town clerk of Southport sent out a letter on 18th June last in which he stated:
    "…request you to take immediate steps to find alternative accommodation, and if you fail to vacate the premises"—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mrs. Braddock: That is just like hon. Members opposite. The letter goes on:
    "I shall reluctantly be compelled"—
    Lieut. -Colonel Bromley - Davenport: On a point of order.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: There are a number of points of order.
    Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport: On a point of behaviour.
    Mr. Speaker: It is unfair to other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper to waste time.
    Lieut. -Colonel Bromley -Davenport: Is it not infra dig, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member of this House to ask a Question relating to another hon. Member's constituency? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Lady is asking a Question relating to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fleetwood-Hesketh).
    Mr. Speaker: I am not a judge of what is infra dig. I am only concerned with the rules of order, and the Question was in order. The hon. Lady has been a long time asking her Question, and I hope that she will now be quick.
    Mrs. Braddock: I have not finished my supplementary yet.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady took a long time. I hope that she will now be quick.
    Mrs. Braddock: I would have been much shorter had they not howled from the other side. I was reading a quotation from the letter. Mr. Speaker, would you ask these people to keep as quiet as we do when others are speaking?
    Mr. Speaker: I hope the House will keep quiet and will let the hon. Lady ask her question.
    Mrs. Braddock: I am waiting to do so, and intend to do so whatever happens. [Interruption.] I am not in the least worried whether I am thrown out or not, but I am asking this question—so let us have it straight to begin with. The letter says:
    "…If you fail to vacate the premises I shall reluctantly be compelled to take appropriate steps to have you evicted from the premises."
    Will the Minister say if this is within the terms of the letter which he sent to Southport? Will he please hold this matter up in view of the fact that a number of families—one with eight children—are to be put on the streets next Monday unless he does something about it?
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Can I say this with reference [Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: This is a point of order. I must hear it.
    Mrs. Braddock: I was challenged about asking a question concerning another hon. Member's constituency. I hold in my hand a letter from the representative of that constituency saying that he can do nothing whatever about it.
    Mr. Marples: It was a rather long and somewhat interrupted supplementary, of which the hon. Lady did not give me notice. I therefore do not think I can reply in detail, but I would say this. There are two questions at issue. The first is that of the family in the premises to be vacated. The hon. Lady in her original Question asked why the Ministry said that the tenant had to quit. 'The answer is that the Ministry did not say that but that the council would have to derequisition the premises and gave 12 months' notice of the derequisition. If the council wished to acquire the premises either by compulsory purchase or by taking a voluntary lease, it was up to it so to do. That was its responsibility as the housing authority. As my right hon. Friend is in touch with the local authority, which has to the end of August, I think that there is plenty of time for the matter to be settled.
    Mr. Fleetwood-Hesketh: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that as the Member for this constituency I have been in constant touch with the Minister for nearly three weeks on this matter—and he has done his best to help me? Is my hon. Friend also aware that in consequence of the Minister's last letter to me I have again been in touch with the council which is doing all in its power actively to pursue certain alternative courses which the Minister suggested in order to reach a happy solution to this difficult problem.
    Mr. Stewardasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will issue a further circular to local authorities urging them to restore requisitioned properties to their previous owners; and whether he can give an estimate of the number of properties held on requisition by local authorities at the present time.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend sent local authorities a circular on this subject generally at the end of last year. Properties are now being released at the rate of about 10,000 a year. The process obviously takes time, and he does not think it necessary to send a further circular at the moment. The answer to the last part of the Question is about 69,000.

    Subsidies
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what he estimates will be the effect of his reduction in housing subsidies on the rent of houses built after 1st April, 1955, of the same standard as those built prior to that date.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply he gave to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) on 6th July.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it not evident that there will be increases of rent, and is this not an example of Tory policy equalising-misery by first forcing up the rents of private houses and now of council houses?
    Mr. Marples: The attitude which the hon. Gentleman takes on this matter is really very curious. When the interest rates went up, he demanded an increase in the subsidy at once, and he got it.
    272
    When the interest rates came down, my right hon. Friend decided to adjust the subsidy, but only after a period of time in order to give the local authorities notice. Nothing could be more generous, and nothing could be more unfair than the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reduction in local authority subsidy contributions will be of real assistance to local rates and should be borne in mind when considering this matter?
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what change has taken place in the cost of house building since February, 1952; and how far he took this into account before deciding to reduce the housing subsidy paid to local authorities.
    Mr. Marples: The estimated cost of building a standard three-bedroom house has increased by £58 since subsidy was last calculated. This increase, together with other offsetting factors set out in the Report which my right hon. Friend has already presented to the House, was taken into account in calculating the new rates of subsidy.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities estimate that the average cost of building a three-bedroom house is now well over £1,700 as against £1,522, the figure taken by the Minister two years ago on which to calculate his subsidy? In view of that, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that costs have risen very much more than any benefit which local authorities may obtain from reduced rates of interest?
    Mr. Marples: I think not. The £58 was calculated most carefully and is only one of the factors which has to be taken into account. It is easy to distort the question of subsidy by taking only one factor and ignoring the others. There will be an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter when the Order is before it, because it requires an affirmative Resolution.

    Ex-Regular Soldiers
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced

    273
    by Regular Service men in obtaining accommodation on discharge; and what proposals he now has for its solution.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 18th May to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall).
    Mr. Remnant: As I have not that answer by me, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he appreciates to the full the difficulties being experienced by these long-Service men on discharge in re-establishing themselves in civilian life largely owing to their difficulty in finding accommodation?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, the difficulties are realised. The housing management subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee is now considering the question of residential qualification with particular reference to Service men. It is calling for evidence from all appropriate bodies such as the British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors and Air Force Families' Association and so on.

    Housing Programmes
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have been informed that their completion rate has been so exceptional that their future housing programme must be reduced.
    Mr. Marples: None, Sir. But there must be some limit to expansion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his answer is completely inaccurate? In a letter sent to me in May the Minister made it quite clear that because of the exceptional progress the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth had made its housing programme was to be cut. If that is so, why does the Parliamentary Secretary now say, something completely contradictory?
    Mr. Marples: It is a very curious use of language to call the Lambeth housing allocation a cut. In 1952, 78 houses were built; in 1953, 211, and in 1954 an estimated figure of 600 houses. At the end of May the borough had 758 houses under construction with another 507 approved but not started, giving 1,265 in hand.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to understand that the policy of the Government is to build all the houses they can—the more the merrier? Why is it that this Labour majority on the Lambeth Borough Council is going to be punished for its energy in building more and more houses? Why are the Government stopping it from building more and more houses?
    Mr. Marples: I should think that the Lambeth Borough Council will be gratified to know that in 1954 they have in hand six times the number of 1951 completions when the right hon. Gentleman and his party were in power.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman not now doing what the Government are persistently doing, namely, trying to claim credit to this Government for the activities of a Labour majority. [Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Gentleman needs the assistance of the Financial Secretary, though he is a "smart alec."
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in such an opprobious term as a "smart alec"?
    Mr. Speaker: The term is new to me. I do not think it is English, but until I have had it defined to me, I would not know whether it is in order or not.
    Mr. Morrison: Is it not the case that the Government are claiming the credit for the achievements of the local authority which happens to have a Labour majority? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am not withdrawing. Because a Labour local authority has made an eminent success of its housing programme, why should the Government step in and stop it?
    Mr. Marples: I was merely trying to answer a Question and not claim any credit. It is curious, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman at some time will explain to the House why this Labour Council did not do so well under a Labour Government?

    Housing Medal (Improvement Schemes)
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will offer a housing medal for outstanding examples of improvement or conversion.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. The housing medal competition for 1955 will be in two parts. The first is to feature schemes of conversion or improvement carried out by public and private owners; the second, schemes of new housebuilding by private enterprise.
    Colonel Clarke: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him how many people have seen the current exhibition in Oxford Street of improvements and conversions?
    Mr. Marples: Up till yesterday evening, approximately 75,000 in 21 days, including many local authorities and organisations.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Tourist and Holiday Board
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement as to the action he has taken to enable rural district councils to contribute to a tourist and holiday board.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend made an order on 4th June, which gives rural district councils the power to do this.

    Town and Country Planning
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will set up a National Advisory Council on town and country planning.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend does not see any need for such a body.
    Mr. Sparks: Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether the Minister has decided to abolish the regional planning organisations? If he has so decided, is it not more than ever necessary, in view of the fact that there is already a Central Housing Advisory Committee which is rendering a useful service to his Department that he ought to have an advisory body for dealing with planning? Will the Minister reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Marples: Planning is not the same as housing—it is less standardised—and my right hon. Friend has made no decision as yet regarding the regions. He thinks that there is no point in appointing a committee unless there is a useful purpose for it to serve.

    Southend Waterworks Company
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now apply the water code of the Water Act, 1945, to the Southend Waterworks Company.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to add to his reply of 6th July.
    Mr. Braine: Does my hon. Friend think it fair and proper that this statutory company should base assessments in the Borough of Southend upon rateable value and in the surrounding rural districts on rental value? Will my hon. Friend make investigations to see whether the company has acted properly in revising its assessments before ascertaining the true rental value of each property?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think it would be proper for my right hon. Friend to comment at the moment because, first, he is in touch with the water company, and, secondly, he may have to act in a quasi judicial capacity, but I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

    London Development Plan
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to announce his decisions upon the London Development Plan.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend cannot yet say, although consideration of the Plan is going forward as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is some 18 months since the public inquiry took place, and that this long delay is causing great inconvenience to Londoners, particularly among people who want to buy or sell property?
    Mr. Marples: The public inquiry took nine months and only ended in June, 1953. There were 7,000 objections to the Plan. It is of fundamental importance to London that any decision come to should be fair and adequate rather than hasty.

    Slaughterhouse, Penzance
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why planning approval was given to the Old

    277
    Workhouse at Madron, Penzance, being used as a slaughterhouse.
    Mr. Marples: The responsibility for granting planning permission rests with the Cornwall County Council as local planning authority.
    Mr. Hayman: As this is a matter of more than local importance and is an example of the major policy of the Government in regard to slaughterhouses, will the Minister give guidance to planning authorities so that when the ultimate policy of moderate concentration of slaughterhouses is put into effect these abominable places will not again be licensed?
    Mr. Marples: I am bound to say that the actual question of the planning decision did not come to my right hon. Friend. It is eminently a matter for local decision, and it was made by the local county council after it had taken everyone into consultation.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the recent debate on slaughterhouses the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) referred to muddle between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? In view of my hon. Friend's answer, is it not really the case that this muddle exists in the mind of the hon. Member and that his interference—or perhaps I should say intervention—should be addressed to the county council?
    Mr. Bottomley: As the Ministry of Food is encouraging the opening of these slaughterhouses which are hopelessly out of date, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government says that it is the responsibility of the authority, should not that Ministry instruct the local authorities that these slaughterhouses when hopelessly out of date ought not to be reopened?
    Mr. Marples: The local planning authorities, as distinct from the local authorities, have had sufficient guidance on the principles which they should observe in planning.
    Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Minister to take into account the fact that the villagers concerned protested almost unanimously against this licensing?
    Mr. Marples: There again I am bound to say that the West Penwith Rural District Council by majority decided to support the issue of a licence.

    City of London (Rebuilding Projects)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government regarding what post-war projects in the city of London he has overruled objections by the Royal Fine Art Commission; and on what grounds.
    Mr. Marples: None, Sir.

  ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION
  Mr. Partridgeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the recently published report of Dr. Richard Scorer of the Imperial College of Science and Technology, on the subject of atmospheric pollution, a copy of which is in the possession of his Department, he is prepared to make a statement on the action being taken in this matter.
  Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend understands that the publication is being studied by the Committee on Air Pollution.
  Mr. Partridge: Will my hon. Friend urge my right hon. Friend to ask this Committee to hurry its deliberations? In view of the fact that the findings of this Report show that the citizens of London are being slowly poisoned it would be an advantage if we could have the findings of the Committee published soon.
  Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend realises that it is an important subject, especially to Londoners, but I think that the speed of the Committee's deliberations really must rest with the Committee.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS (PRESERVATION)
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works what recommendations, since the recent destruction of the Normanton Barrows, he has received from the Council for British Archaeology, with a view to preventing further damage to ancient monuments; and what action he proposes to take.
  The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): The Council have made a number of recommendations for making owners of property and the public more fully aware of scheduled monuments and for obtaining reports on their condition. I have also received the advice of the Ancient Monuments Board, and I am considering what action I should take.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is it correct that the Council has offered the assistance of local archaeological societies throughout the country to help in the preservation of these ancient monuments?
  Sir D. Eccles: They have suggested that the organisation of county correspondents should be strengthened, and that is a good idea which I intend to follow up.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement upon the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the recommendations of the Select Committee upon Nationalised Industries, the final report of the committee having been published nearly 12 months ago.
  Mr. Robson Brownasked the Prime Minister what action is now contemplated arising from the recommendation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which finally reported in July, 1953.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply.
  The House will recall my statement on 8th February that the Government accepted in principle the idea of a standing committee on nationalised industries, as recommended by the Select Committee, subject to any necessary detailed modifications and to consideration of the views expressed in debate, and on the understanding that the way was left open for a Joint Select Committee for this purpose, if that should eventually be decided upon.
  The Government have carefully considered the views expressed on this matter from both sides of the House and are satisfied that there is a substantial body of support for the establishment of a Select Committee. They are further satisfied that there is no desire in another
  280
  place that this committee should be a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses.
  In these circumstances, the Government intend to table next Session a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee of this House on the general basis recommended in the Select Committee's Report. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note commenting, in detail on certain points.
  Mr. Nabarro: May I thank my right hon. Friend for a very satisfactory answer?
  Following is the note:
  The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended in their Second Report (House of Commons Paper No. 235) that a committee should be set up under a Standing Order in the following terms:
  "There shall be a select Committee, to be designated the Committee on Nationalised Industries, for examining the Reports and Accounts of, and for obtaining further information as to the general policy and practices of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are wholly appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer. The Committee shall consist of not more than 21 members, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every Session and of whom seven shall be a quorum. The Committee shall have power to appoint subcommittees from its own members. The Committee and any such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report from time to time."
  The Government think it premature to create a Committee under Standing Order but propose in the first place to move next Session for a Committee under an ad hoc Motion. Subject to this, the Government propose to adopt this recommendation subject to the following modifications and qualifications:
  Terms of Reference
  The Select Committee's terms of reference should be as in the suggested Standing Order, subject to the substitution of the word "current" for "general" in the phrase "general policy and practice of the nationalised industries."
  The Government consider that it would be inappropriate that the proposed committee should investigate matters which have been decided by the Minister concerned or clearly engage his responsibility and for which he should, therefore, be answerable on the Floor of the House, or all matters (including questions of wages and conditions of employment) which are normally decided by collective bargaining arrangements. They also consider that the proposed committee should not concern themselves with matters which fall to be considered through formal

  281
  machinery established by the relevant Statutes or with matters of day-to-day administration.
  Composition
  The Committee should consist of not more than 14 members of whom five should be a quorum.
  Sub-Committees
  The Committee should not have power to appoint sub-committees.
  Power to send for persons, papers and records
  The Committee should normally take evidence about the affairs of a nationalised industry from the Chairman of the Board of the industry concerned or a representative nominated by him. The witness might he accompanied by other representatives of the Board where appropriate. Ministers should not normally be invited to appear before the Committee.
  Power to report
  The Committee should report from time to time and publish its evidence except where such publication might be held to be contrary to the public interest.
  Staff of the Committee
  The staff of the Committee should not include an officer of the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It should have the assistance of liaison officers from the Treasury and from each of the Departments whose Ministers are responsible for the affairs of nationalised industries.

  PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO UNITED STATES)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the membership of the party which accompanied him on his recent trip to the United States of America; and what was the total cost of this visit, giving separately the costs in respect of Ministers, other honourable Members and civil servants.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have been asked to reply.
  The party consisted of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lords, Lord Cherwell and Lord Moran, the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames), Sir Edwin Plowden, Sir Harold Caccia, Mr. Allen, Mr. Colville, Sir Anthony Rumbold, four secretaries, two detectives, two cypher officers, two security officers and two personal servants.
  282
  The cost of the aircraft chartered for the party was £4,255. The other costs, including travel and subsistence, amounted to: Ministers, £1,409; the hon. and gallant Member, £259; civil servants and others, £4,100. The total cost, therefore, amounted to £10,023.
  Mr. Lewis: Whilst not in any way wishing to comment adversely on the amount spent, may I be assured that none of the Ministers, civil servants, or any who went on that trip to the U.S.A. had to meet any part of the cost out of their respective personal salaries whilst performing their public duties, as Members of Parliament have to do here?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no information on that point.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FINANCIAL INTERESTS)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the rule concerning the relinquishment of all outside financial interests by members of Her Majesty's Government on appointment to their respective offices; and whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to make this procedure universally applicable to all Members of Parliament on taking the Oath of Allegiance.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): In answer to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday, 25th February, 1952, a copy of which I am sending to him. The answer to the second part of the Question is: "No, Sir."
  Mr. Lewis: Whilst agreeing that it would be wrong to try to prevent the representatives of the big vested interests who are sitting on the benches opposite with all their company directorships, from being Members of this House, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not agree that it is wrong for the 1922 Committee to try to prevent working men and those who work with their hands as well as with their brains from becoming Members of this House?

  EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (GERMANY)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite Herr Adenauer to London to discuss with him the problems arising from the fact that the European Defence Community Treaty has not yet been ratified by France.
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the House will allow me reasonable discretion about invitations of this character. Such matters are always in my mind, and my respect and regard for Dr. Adenauer are well known.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that he usually gives me this sort of answer and then has a meeting later on with the persons to whom the Question refers? Would be bear in mind that Herr Adenauer said that while he thinks the E.D.C. Treaty ought to go ahead, in his view it can be modified? Would it not be a good thing for the right hon. Gentleman and Dr. Adenauer to meet and discuss how this Treaty could be modified, instead of trying to bludgeon the French who, after all, are only bearing in mind what he himself once advocated—a European army with Britain it it?
  The Prime Minister: If ever I should have the good fortune to meet Dr. Adenauer, the hon. Member will have the pleasure of feeling that he has once again pointed the way to Government policy.

  BACTERIOLOGICAL WARFARE
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will consider transferring the duties of the Minister of Supply relating to experiments in bacteriological warfare from the Minister of Supply to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is a defence matter for which the Ministry of Supply is the appropriate Department.
  Mr. Hughes: Is it not the duty of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to protect the civil population against bacteria and against the spread of disease? Is there not a certain amount of overlapping in this case? Could not some economy be
  284
  effected if the matter were transferred to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland?

  WASHINGTON DECLARATION (IRELAND)
  Mr. Healyasked the Prime Minister whether the case of Ireland was under discussion between himself and President Eisenhower before signing the recent statement on the principle of unification of countries whose people desire it.
  The Prime Minister: The case of Ireland was not discussed between the President and myself. I thought all that was settled happily a long time ago.
  Mr. Healy: Does not the Prime Minister consider that Clause 3, namely, the case of nations divided against their will, fits the case of Ireland like a glove? Would it not be a strange omission not to consider the views of two million Irish voters, whose swing-over contributed to the Republican victory last year, and who resent the partition both of Ireland and Korea? Are the principles of democracy to be applied only to nations abroad?
  The Prime Minister: The principles of democracy, subject to their usual qualifications, are of general application.

HIGHER TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
Mr. R. A. Butler: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement upon higher technological education.
In July, 1953, I invited the University Grants Committee, in consultation with the universities and colleges concerned, to work out plans for the development of higher technological education outside London, informing them that the special effort which the Government had in mind would have to be contemplated in a small number of places, though normal developments elsewhere were not ruled out. The universities and colleges, recognising the national need for more applied scientists, responded willingly to the invitation to submit proposals.
The University Grants Committee has examined these proposals with the

285
assistance of their Technology Sub-Committee and have reported on them to me. After considering their recommendations, I have approved plans for developments outside London in which the main centres will be Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham, but in which provision is also made for development elsewhere. These developments will take place at institutions already in receipt of recurrent grants on the recommendation of the Committee. To increase the number of university institutions concerned with higher technological education would involve a dispersal of effort which the Committee does not advise. It has therefore been unable to recommend a change in the status of the Bradford Technical College.
The implementation of these plans, and those for the Imperial College of Science and Technology, will necessitate some increases in the resources available to the University Grants Committee, both for recurrent and non-recurrent purposes, in the last three years of the quinquennium 1952–57. I am now considering the timing of these developments, some of which, I hope, will start in the next academic year, and I will in due course make a further statement.
Mr. Follick: Will the Chancellor give some consideration to the right of the granting of a doctor of engineering degree by the Loughborough Technological College?
Mr. Butler: I do not doubt that the University Grants Committee and others principally concerned will observe the hon. Member's Question.
Mr. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement of the improvement of technological education in Glasgow will cause very great satisfaction in that city? Will he give some indication of the amount of money which will be voted for this purpose?
Mr. Butler: Not at this stage. That is the answer to the last part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question. In due course I shall be making a further statement.
Mr. G. Thomas: Will the Chancellor say why he makes no reference at all to technological education in the Principality? Is nothing to be done in that direction?
Mr. Butler: I am sorry for the English wording, but my statement said that
"provision is also made for developments elsewhere."
Mr. McLeavy: Is the Chancellor aware that his announcement will be received with very sincere regret in Bradford? Surely the claims of the Bradford Technical College are outstanding? Bradford is at least the centre of the wool textile industry, which is vitally important to our export trade. We feel very strongly that the strong representations which have been made, especially to the University Grants Committee, should have received more favourable consideration than the statement of the Chancellor indicates. Will he please go further into the question of the very special claims of the City of Bradford, having regard to its industrial importance to the welfare of this nation?
Mr. Butler: Yes, I am aware, personally—and I am sure that the University Grants Committee was also aware—of the special position of, and the excellent work done by, Bradford Technical College. The difficulty was to establish an organic relationship with an existing university, a problem which I have put personally to the City Council of Bradford by letter. Further, I think that the hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has taken special steps to see that the resources provided for Bradford are adequate for that city to continue to carry out the fine work which it has already done.
Mr. W. J. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that representations for the upgrading of Bradford Technical College have been going on for many years, and that his present announcement will cause profound dissatisfaction in that city? Can he say how long it will be before he will be able to review this matter, with a view to giving some kind of priority to these institutions over a period of years?
Mr. Butler: The position of Bradford will remain before us. I feel that under the arrangements made by the Minister of Education Bradford will be able to continue its good work. I can certainly guarantee that the position of Bradford will not be overlooked.
Mr. George Craddock: Whilst welcoming the general statement made by the Chancellor, I must associate myself with the remarks made by other Bradford Members and say that I also regret very much that the Chancellor has not seen his way clear to do something definite for the Bradford Technical College.
Mr. Butler: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), but I cannot but act on the best advice given to me.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the Chancellor say whether the financial grants to Glasgow—which we all welcome—will involve the question of university status for the Royal Technical College, Glasgow?
Mr. Butler: That matter has been under discussion between the University of Glasgow and the Royal Technical College. I understand that an amicable arrangement has been reached which will be satisfactory to both parties.
Miss Bacon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the special pleas which have been made for Bradford will not in any way make him change his mind in respect of Leeds? Is he aware that his statement will give great satisfaction in Leeds?
Miss Herbison: When deciding the priorities of development in these various places, will the Chancellor consider very carefully putting the development of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, near the top, since we in Scotland realise the great importance of this institution to the many industries of Scotland?
Mr. Butler: Yes. Special mention was made of this development in my statement, and I think the hon. Lady may be satisfied that we have the matter well in hand.
Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the complete absence of any reference to Wales, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Short: In view of the absence of reference to the north-east of England, I beg to give notice that I shall also raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps that will be enough to go on with.

EAST-WEST TRADE (ANGLO- AMERICAN TALKS)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneyeroft): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a short statement on the talks which I had in Washington last week with Mr. Harold Stassen, the Director of the Foreign Operations Administration. The subject of these talks was the strategic controls on trade with the Soviet bloc in Europe. Our objectives in this matter have been stated on a number of occasions and, in particular, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th February last.
Briefly, what we want is to prevent the supply to the Soviet bloc of goods which would significantly strengthen their power of aggression, but subject to this limitation we want to develop commercial contacts with the bloc and to expand trade in non-strategic goods. With this end in view, we, together with the United States and other friendly Governments, have been examining the existing Control Lists, item by item, with a view to drawing up a revised list. It has been my conviction throughout that a shorter list combined with tighter enforcement is likely to prove more effective.
These discussions with the 14 countries concerned have been proceeding for some time now in Paris. Progress has been slower than we would have wished, and this has been due in part to certain differences of view between us and the United States Government. It was in these circumstances that Mr. Stassen invited me to visit Washington and discuss some of these problems with him.
I am happy to inform the House that we reached a large measure of agreement and in particular that Mr. Stassen and I were able to agree on the lists which both of us would be ready for our part to support in discussion with the other countries concerned. There remain the problems of enforcement and timing. On the question of enforcement, Mr. Stassen and I are agreed on certain additional measures which we consider desirable and which we are prepared to recommend for general adoption. As regards timing, we in the United Kingdom consider that the sooner the agreed changes are implemented the better. A decision on this point has been deferred,

289
but it will be discussed further in the near future with all the countries concerned.
Talks with these countries on all these points will now proceed, and I am sure that the House will share with me the hope that full agreement will be quickly reached.
Mr. H. Wilson: I think it is right to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the frankness of the statement he has just volunteered to the House, but since it is now nearly five months since the Prime Minister made his statement on the Government's objective on East-West trade, and since the President shortly afterwards said he hoped to be able to announce an agreement, will he say whether this disagreement on timing means we cannot now expect an early announcement of what the changes are to be? Is it likely that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make an announcement before the House adjourns for the Recess?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I should certainly hope to say where we are getting to before the House rises for the Recess. I think that probably the right hon. Gentleman will put a Question down to that effect. On the question of the disagreement on timing, I cannot anticipate the discussions that are to go on now.
Mr. Wilson: There is some confusion here. The right hon. Gentleman said there was disagreement over the timing of the implementation of an agreed revised list, but does he not realise that there are some very important orders, running into tens of millions of pounds, which are being held up for an announcement as to whether in due course those goods can be shipped? Can he say, in particular, as a test of what this agreement means, whether there will be any improvement in the matter of the orders relating to machine tools?
Mr. Thorneycroft: On the matter of timing, I think my statement was quite clear. We have not reached agreement about the timing, and we are going to have discussions with the United States and other countries during the next week or 10 days. Until those discussions are concluded, it will obviously be impossible for me to give a firm answer as to when the alterations in the list can finally be approved. It must await the discussions.
Mr. Drayson: Did the discussions with Mr. Stassen take in the question of the resumption of trade between Japan and the Chinese mainland? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that if that trade takes place the Japanese will not enjoy any advantage that will not be available to British business concerns?
Mr. Thorneycroft: The discussions I was having with Mr. Stassen, and indeed the discussions going on now, are limited to trade between the West and the Soviet bloc in Europe, which does not include China.
Mr. S. Silverman: Are similar discussions with regard to China contemplated? If not, do we propose to improve our own trade relations with China? When the shorter list of strategic goods is agreed, will it be published so that knowledge of what is in it and of what is not in it will be available to those who wish to know?
Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of trade with China is quite separate from that which I have been discussing here, and I should not like the two things to become confused. The question I have been discussing is trade between the West and the Soviet bloc. As to the question of publication, that is a matter for discussion, and it is probable that some publication of the list in some form or another would be bound up with the question of more effective enforcement.
Mr. J. Harrison: On the question of enforcement, and the possible dangers in such a practice, did the right hon. Gentleman devise some new method of enforcement of the list?
Mr. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, we in the United Kingdom, for example, have had enforcement through trans-shipment control since 1951, but a number of other countries have not got trans-shipment control. I think the House would agree that it is in everybody's interest that the controls should be universally enforced. Parallel with the question of trans-shipment control by other countries is the question whether we should have some form of transaction control here. Of course, I cannot go into the details of that now, but our aim is a more effective enforcement of a shorter list, which will be satisfactory to all concerned.
Mr. Harold Davies: Will "Co-com.," the Co-ordinating Committee in Paris, still have the powers it has had hitherto, or are those powers now to be modified, because British manufacturers apparently were submitting specifications, which our competitors in Germany and elsewhere did not, and our orders have been turned down, and our competitors have got them?
Mr. Thorneycroft: On the question of powers, the countries that meet in Europe are a consultative group without executive powers. Allegations are often made that other countries are more lax than we are in the enforcement of the control. While I am quite willing to look at any evidence of that, I have no evidence of that in front of me at present.
Mr. Bing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his Department at the moment are nearly £27 million worth of orders for machine tools for Russia alone that are awaiting licence, and that this figure exceeds that of our total export of machine tools to the whole world in any one year; that Switzerland and Sweden are able to manufacture those machine tools; that Switzerland and Sweden are not parties to any such arrangement; and that it is an open secret that these things are being exported from Western Germany? In all these circumstances, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these discussions should be hurried on? Otherwise, those orders will disappear.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Without accepting any of the implications of the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, I would say that I thoroughly agree that these discussions should be hurried on, and I think it is an important step towards that end that I should have had these discussions with Mr. Stassen, and that we should have agreement between ourselves and the United States as to the scope of this Control List.

EAST-WEST TRADE (ANGLO- AMERICAN TALKS)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (FISHERIES) (No. 2)
Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries with special responsibility for fishery; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill, of course, is permissive, and implementation is wholly at the discretion of the Government. You will, Sir, recognise this Bill as a very near relation of a Measure which was read a Second time by this House on 25th June. It is not an identical twin, but it bears a numerical label to distinguish it from the other. This is its reincarnation, for we want to revivify it so that it can pursue the normal course of a Bill in this House.
The object of the Bill is clearly defined in its Title, and this aim has been approved by the House with no dissentient. We had a debate on the previous Bill on 25th June, and although the Bill had support from both sides of the House and although there was only one dissentient voice, it is no longer available to us. The object of my Motion is to see that the House resumes control of the Bill and has its say in its ultimate destination.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the prototype of the Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), supported by 12 of his hon. Friends, of whom only five were in the Chamber when we discussed the Second Reading. To our minds, that is a very sad commentary on the attitude of the House to this very important producing industry. It is deplorable that this industry, which is one of those on which we depend in the strategic field, and for food and employment, attracted so little interest that so many of the sponsors of the Bill did not see fit to attend.
We on this side of the House were canvassed for support, which was readily given. The arguments in favour of the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary with special responsibility for fishery were deployed with much force on both sides of the House. Although somewhat tepid at first, I myself have since acquired some zeal in promoting the Measure. As far

293
as I can recollect, only one hon. Member spoke entirely against it—the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams); and as he is against everything, no one took much notice of him. He failed to appear when you, Mr. Speaker, collected the voices.
In spite of the powerful arguments adduced by the promoters, which I will summarise in a moment, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries told us that he was satisfied with the present arrangements. He told us how the present arrangements worked and how he had appointed one of his Parliamentary Secretaries to take a special interest in fisheries. We have known this for years; it is exactly the same procedure as that which has been followed ever since I have been in the House.
Incidentally, the hon. Member for Bodmin and I made our maiden speeches on the same day and we have frequently followed each other in debates on the fishing industry. We knew all that the Minister told us, and yet the Bill was promoted. In view of this blinding flash of revelation from the Minister, the promoters of the Bill asked leave to withdraw it, but that leave was very properly withheld. You proceeded to collect the voices, Mr. Speaker. There were no dissentients, and the Bill was given its Second Reading and was properly committed to a Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Bodmin, acting fully within his rights, according to your Ruling, subsequently withdrew the Bill without any consultation with hon. Members on this side of the House, although I understand that he consulted his absent sponsors. After having raised the constitutional issue with you, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I now ask the House to give us leave to reintroduce the Bill.
May I give a resumé of the pleadings of those hon. Members on both sides of the House who supported the Bill in the previous debate? In the first place, there was the hon. Member for Bodmin, who said that the fishing industry was suffering from the fact that there was no Minister responsible for it. He continued:
"Were such a Parliamentary Secretary appointed, they would know and he would know that he would sink or swim according to whether or not he did his job by the fishing industry, and that question would be
294
judged quite apart from what Ministers did about agriculture, with which he himself would not be concerned."
He proceeded to quote from some fishing organs, including "Fish Industry." It said that this proposal:
"…has often been advanced during the past 30 years from the back benches but it has always been opposed by the Government of the day.'
It also said:
'Certainly it would be reassuring to know that the Government consider the problems of the fishing industry of sufficient importance to warrant such an appointment.'
Then in February of this year that magazine said:
`The appointment of a Minister of our own would not take away our troubles overnight, but would give new heart to all to try to overcome them '."
We had the opinion of probably the best-informed Member on the fishing industry, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) who said:
"I should like to see the responsibilities for the industry co-ordinated under one new Parliamentary Secretary whom, if necessary, we could pillory in the House."
It seems to me a rather thankless task for a man to be appointed just for the sake of being pilloried, but that was the argument.
Then we had the hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) who said:
"The Minister of Agriculture is concerned with so many matters that the industry feels that it would be of enormous advantage to have someone who would concern himself especially with fisheries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1954; Vol. 529, c. 772–84.]
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) broke into verse on the subject. He wanted not only a Parliamentary Secretary but even a Minister. I could quote all the hon. Members who spoke on that day. There was a strong feeling on the subject, and these hon. Members represented the fishing industry. The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) also spoke warmly of this project, and the whole tenor of the argument was that the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary was absolutely necessary to the prosperity and development of the fishing industry.
The Minister then told us precisely what was being done—no more and no

295
less than has been done for the last 20 years. The sponsors of the Bill asked leave to withdraw it, which was refused. When the Question was put, there was no dissentient voice, so that the Bill had a practically unanimous Second Reading. I therefore now ask the House to give me leave to reintroduce it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Evans, Mr. Ede, Mr. Bing, Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Hector Hughes.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (FISHERIES) (No. 2)
  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (FISHERIES) (No. 2) BILL
  "to provide for the establishment of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries with special responsibility for fishery; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 6, page 8. lines 14 and 18, and page 9, line 15; Clause 8, page 11, line 44; Clause 10, page 13, line 25; Clause 18, page 22, line 33; Clause 23, page 27, line 5; and the new Clause (Associated companies) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Harold Macmillan.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

    Clause 6.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED OR SOLD AT A PRICE WHOLLY OR PARTLY EXCLUDING DEVELOPMENT VALUE (CASE B).)
    3.59 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, to leave out from "the," to the second "and," in line 15, and to insert "said sixth day of August."
    The purpose of this and the following Amendment is to permit payment to be claimed under Clause 6 by persons who contracted to sell land privately at artificially low prices before the 1947 Act came into force but in anticipation of the financial provisions of that Act. As the Bill is drawn, no payment can be claimed unless the contract was made between 1st July, 1948, and 18th November, 1952. The Amendment is designed to deal with cases where the parties knew when making the contract that the right to claim on the £300 million fund would remain with the vendor because completion would not take place before the Act came into force, and arranged the terms accordingly. This is to cover that point which is in conformity with the general intention of the Clause as drawn.
    Mr. G. Lindgren: We accept the general outline as given by the Minister, but really what this Amendment does is to bring the private landowner into general line with the local

    297
    authority under compulsory purchase, in the words as set out in lines 9 and 10 of paragraph (a). The date in the Bill originally was given as the sixth day of August, 1947, in paragraph (a), for local authorities. When we came to the exclusion of purchase by local authorities, a different date was deliberately given, and the Minister has not explained why there has been this change between the introduction of the Bill and this stage. This was a point considered in Committee on the Bill.
    Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Those of us who were not present in the Committee but who want to take part in this debate are very surprised at the apparent neglect by the Minister to conform to Parliamentary procedure. These things which we are debating are the remnants of things which should have been dealt with in Committee. Already the Parliamentary time-table is very crowded, and important matters have to be debated late at night, which is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think that it would be wrong to allow any one of these Amendments to go by without demanding from the Minister some explanation. He ought to defend himself at least as a Parliamentarian, if he cannot defend himself in any other way, and explain why these things were not dealt with in Committee. Why has the House to be burdened with a series of Committee points? Will the Minister answer that, please?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "said first day of July," and to insert "first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight."
    This Amendment is consequential.
    Mr. Bing: It may be consequential, but it gives the Minister an opportunity to reply to me, which he has not yet had the courtesy to do. Will he not reply this time and explain why this consequential Amendment, as well as the other, had to be made at this stage?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 9, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    (7) Where two or more persons are jointly entitled to a claim holding, then, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not those persons are entitled to a payment in respect
    298
    of the holding by virtue of this section, any act or event by virtue of which the interest of any one or more of those persons in any of the area of the claim holding passed to any other one or more of those persons shall be deemed not to have occurred.
    (8) The provisions of this and the next following section shall apply in relation to any interest in land vested in the British Transport Commission by subsection (2) of section forty-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the acquisition of road haulage undertakings by the Commission) as if that vesting were a compulsory acquisition of that interest and as if the notice of acquisition served under Part III of that Act by virtue of which the interest was so vested were a notice to treat.
    I should like to take this opportunity to say what I intended to say on the first Amendment, and that is how much I regret that it has not been possible to arrange the Parliamentary time-table to meet the convenience of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) who led for the Opposition during the Committee stage. He gave the greatest possible assistance, in the true Parliamentary sense of the word, in trying to help the Committee with his great knowledge. Many of these Amendments, as I think those who were on the Committee will agree, are the results of points which he raised or brought to our attention. I wish that it had been possible to postpone this stage until next week, when he could have been present himself.
    This Amendment deals with two points which arise on Clause 6. The proposed subsection (7) is an attempt to deal with a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in Committee. He instanced a case where two or more persons jointly owned a piece of land on the appointed day and, after duly establishing a Part VI claim, entered into a deed of partition as respects the land, leaving the claim in joint ownership. He pointed out that if subsequently the land was compulsorily acquired or sold privately at a low price, no payment could be claimed under Part I of the Bill because the vendor was not at the time of the sale the holder of the claim holding. The same disqualification would exist in the case of payments under other Clauses.
    That seemed a point with which we ought to deal. If the Amendment is accepted, then for the purpose of entitlement to a payment the deed of physical partition will be ignored. Thus, in the

    299
    sort of case already described, the joint tenants as holders of the claim holding would be entitled to claim as if they jointly had sold the land, and not the individual who became the owner under the deed of partition. I think that this is a point that should be met, although I do not think that it is one which will affect many cases.
    The other subsection is concerned with cases where the property of a road haulage undertaking vested in the British Transport Commission by reason of a notice of acquisition under Part III of the Transport Act, 1947. Under Section 47 (2) of that Act, compensation was payable on the basis of market value at the date of transfer. Where the property included land which was not fully developed, the price obtained may have been depressed because of liability to pay development charge. In such a case, the previous owners, if they had retained the claim on the £300 million fund, should be entitled to any payment under Clause 6 which they could have claimed if the land had been compulsorily acquired at the same figure in pursuance of a notice to treat. This puts right a number of cases brought to our notice.
    Mr. Lindgren: May I take the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the reference he made to my hon. and learned Friend? I feel that my regret at his absence is even greater than that of the Minister. I would ask the Minister, in view of his words of appreciation of my hon. and learned Friend's work during the Committee stage, to be a little lenient with me during the Report stage of the Bill, because my legal knowledge may not be even as great as that of the Minister, who has the learned Attorney-General at his side to jog his memory.
    Mr. James MacColl: I should like also, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to express our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathy to us in our fortunately rather temporary bereavement. It would not be proper to say that we are playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, but we are playing without the grave digger. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will avoid interment in the muddle and obscurity of his own Bill through the absence of my hon. and learned Friend.
    300
    There is one point which is indicative of the many which we raised during the Committee stage, and the justification for which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain. It is one of those excursions into metaphysics of which the right hon. Gentleman is so fond and of which we have had so much. The Amendment states:
    "…any Act or event by virtue of which the interest of any one or more of those person's…passed to any other one or more of those persons shall be deemed not to have occurred."
    That is a bad beginning to an afternoon's work. I know that Parliament is sovereign, and that if it wishes to amend the Bill it can do so; but it seems a bad beginning to say that an act or event which has in fact occurred should be deemed not to have occurred. A statement like that shakes the average person's confidence in the sanity of Parliament and the clarity of our law. Therefore, is it really necessary that we should have such an obviously untrue statement made in this form? Is there no other way of getting round it?
    The other question I wish to ask is whether this may in some way alter the charge on public funds. I am not conversant with the rules of order, and why we suddenly go into Committee on these matters; but if the effect of the Amendment is a change in the charge on public funds, why should that be so? It is not clear from the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman. If this means that more money is to be paid out, I think it important that that should be considered.
    Mr. Graham Page: I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for solving the problem which I raised in Committee. In the wording of the Bill, as drafted, there was undoubtedly great difficulty in the case of the dissolution of a partnership or of partition. This Amendment vindicates the Minister against the charge made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who, I notice, has now left the Chamber. In Committee I put forward an Amendment, but after discussion it was found that my form of words was not entirely satisfactory. Now, after consideration, the Minister has found a completely satisfactory solution.
    Mr, A. J. Irvine: Before the Minister replies to the questions which have been put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I wish to raise an additional point which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal with at the same time. The reference to the British Transport Commission will have a somewhat isolated appearance, because there is no reference anywhere else in the Clause to any other public corporation or body; although there must be many in whom land has been vested since the appointed day in a fashion similar to that contemplated in this Amendment.
    May we have an assurance that that aspect of the matter has been investigated, and if so, may we be told why, of the many public bodies and corporations which one would expect to be affected by this matter, the British Transport Commission is the only one deserving of mention in the Bill?
    Mr. H. Macmillan: With regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), I asked that question of my advisers, because it struck me in exactly the same way as it has struck the hon. Member. I am informed that, so far as is known, no similar provision is called for in connection with any other nationalisation Acts. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who feels that we have done our best to meet the point which he raised.
    Two main points were raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). He asked, first, why it is necessary to recommit the Bill in order to discuss this Amendment. After a long period in this House I am bound to say that I sometimes find it difficult to understand exactly why it is necessary to re-commit a Bill in regard to particular Amendments. The line is often a very fine one; very delicate and refined calculations have to be made. But I think it is clear in this case, because under the existing Bill a man might be kept out of a right to claim merely because of the chance of the breaking up of a partnership, and that obviously would be unfair. By this Amendment he will be brought into the field of claim and, pro tanto, it must increase the charge if such a case should occur.
    302
    I do not think that the hon. Member for Widnes was quite right in his reference to the language. He stands very high as a metaphysician and a scholar—much higher than I do and nearer to his studies in point of time. But I do not think that he was right in saying that an untruth is stated. What is said is that something that has happened should be deemed not to have happened; in other words, that the effect which would normally flow from something shall not flow in this particular case. That is all there is to it. I have seen words of that kind included in Acts of Parliament over many years. Although I admit that it is rather legalistic, it would seem to me a not unreasonable way of stating exactly what is intended.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND DIS- POSED OF BY GIFT (CASE C).)
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 44. to leave out from "he," to the end of line 45, and to insert:
    "made a disposition otherwise than for valuable consideration, being a disposition by virtue of which he parted absolutely with the whole of his beneficial interest in that land."
    This is a drafting Amendment, designed to define the scope of the Clause more closely than does the present wording.
    Mr. Lindgren: I agree that this defines the scope of the Clause more clearly, and I would advise my hon. Friends to accept what is, after all, a better form of words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10.—(PAYMENT UNDER CASE A, B OR C TO PERSON DERIVING TITLE FROM ORIGINAL CLAIM-HOLDER.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, to leave out from the second "he," to the end of line 38, and to insert:

    (a) derives title to the claim holding from a person who would have been entitled to such a payment as aforesaid if that person had continued to be the holder of the claim holding; and

    (b) became entitled to the claim holding—

    (i) otherwise than for valuable consideration; or

    303

    (ii)as mortgagee; or

    (iii) as assignee under an assignment made on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, which has been approved by the Central Land Board under subsection (2) of section two of the Act of 1953; and

    (c) has not at any time been entitled in the same capacity both to the claim holding and to the interest in land to which the holding related; and

    (d) is not entitled to a payment in respect of the holding under Case D.

    The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the drafting of Clause 10, which was criticised in Committee, and at the same time to confine payments under the Clause to persons who have not at any time been entitled both to the claim holding and to the land. The new wording brings the Clause into line with Clause 9. Paragraph (d) removes the possibility of overlapping, which was the point raised on Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 18.—(UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 22, to leave out lines 33 to 43, and to insert:
    "and
    (b) such fraction of the value of any claim holding whose area includes that land as attaches to that land; and the unexpended balance of established development value of that land immediately after the commencement of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to in relation to that land 'as its 'original unexpended balance of established development value') shall be taken to have been an amount equal to eight-sevenths of the amount or aggregate amount so attributed."
    This Amendment refers to the "supplement" which of itself automatically arouses objection from hon. Members opposite, and which we discussed in some detail in Committee.
    I would assure the Committee that all that is done by this Amendment is to put into more correct arithmetical form the proposition which, although it may be ideologically unwelcome to hon. Members opposite, ought—and I am sure they will agree—to be properly expressed. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) first drew my attention to the absurdity which might result in making
    304
    a deduction if we left the formula as it was. It is necessary to redraft the subsection so as to start with the whole eight-sevenths and then to make a deduction, rather than to wait until the end, and then add one-seventh. That would lead to a ridiculous mathematical result, and I am grateful that my attention was drawn to the point. I do not wish to raise the broad issues, but I think it right that this should be calculated in proper language and on a proper system.
    Mr. Lindgren: We accept the expression of gratitude voiced by the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). This Amendment eliminates also the situation which might have arisen regarding those two words "appropriate fraction." I thought that the Minister was a little naive because, if I understood correctly, this means that the one-seventh supplement has gone and is now added to the capital value of the land. My hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members called attention in Committee to the fact that this supplement was an addition to the capital value of the land. It is, as I rather graphically described it, a gift to the landlords. Inspite of the fact that it is an added capital value, I agree that it is far better we should say so, rather than call it an interest payment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 23.—(COMPENSATION EXCLUDED IN CERTAIN CASES.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 27, line 5, to leave out from "operations," to the end of line 7.
    This is really the first of a series of Amendments, to which we shall come in due course, put forward in order to meet points raised in Committee on Clauses 23, 24, 29 and 30. We shall come to a more detailed discussion of the matters under consideration on some of the later Amendments, some put forward by the Government and others in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    What this Amendment does is to remove the automatic exclusion from compensation in the Bill where permission is refused
    "for the formation or laying-out of any means of access to a highway."

    305
    This extension was criticised in Committee because it appeared to be a provision which could be used unreasonably, and a genuine fear was expressed that a planning authority, or even the Minister, might wish to prevent some building development, and could contrive to do so without liability to compensation, taking the strict letter of the law, merely by refusing permission for any access.
    Whatever may be one's view on compensation, that is an abuse of the provision, which was directed only to cases where the development for which permission was sought was the formation of a means of access. Everybody felt that that was wrong. We have made some inquiries, and we have found that such cases are very infrequent. We have not found it possible to devise a form of words which would make the intended limitations of this provision clear, and since it is difficult to deny that the provision is capable of abuse as it stands, and since the danger which we originally sought to meet is very little, it seems that the simplest thing is to delete it altogether.
    The Amendment has the additional advantage that it will remove doubt about the precise meaning of "highway" and "service road," and I therefore think the Committee would be well advised to leave this small problem to common sense.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am already beginning to feel the lack of the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), because the Minister has made for this Amendment a case which is different from that which I made in our earlier discussions. First of all, as I see it, and subject to legal correction, if we withdraw paragraph (b) from subsection (1) of this Clause, dealing with the formation or laying out of any means of access to a highway, it will mean that the Bill, as it will then stand, will provide that if access is refused there will be compensation.
    In the majority of cases, access will be given, and that, to my mind, is the negation of planning, particularly on main roads, because if we give direct access to such roads a danger will arise to the main road traffic from other vehicles having unnecessary access to it. In addition, if this provision is withdrawn, it will encourage what many of us who have been associated with planning and with
    306
    local government have been trying to do away with for years, and what I thought the Government were attempting to stop—ribbon development. The withdrawal of this paragraph will give an emphasis and encouragement to all ribbon developers.
    Another point that worries me—and I have seen this sort of thing happen so often—is that a local authority spends a great deal of the nation's money and money from its own local rates in the cutting of a highway, or even on the making of a by-pass, which immediately creates a considerable addition to the value of the land on both sides of that by-pass, and, of course, the landlord picks up that value. What are we going to do now? Quite rightly, a large number of county councils, as the planning authorities—because these new highways are often intended for fast-moving traffic—refuse access to it. The removal of paragraph (b) will mean that, in all these cases in which the county council refuses access to a newly-constructed by-pass, the owner of the adjacent land, who has done nothing to create the extra value of the land through which the by-pass runs, will be entitled to compensation because the county council refuses access to it.
    Without some clearer definition of this Amendment, I am afraid that I could not advise my hon. Friends to accept it. If there is a clearer and more precise legal definition which might suggest that what I have said is completely wrong, we shall be ready to revise our opinion.
    Mr. Ian Horobin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) that perhaps, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), he has misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment. This was one of the points which I myself raised in Committee on the general issue and also on the allied complication of service roads, and I should like to thank the Minister for meeting the points which I then made.
    The fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite are not well founded. It is not the case that, by omitting this paragraph, everybody who is in fact refused access in any circumstances will automatically get compensation. All we are doing is to remove a situation in which

    307
    automatically they never could get compensation. If, as I hope will happen in the normal case, the refusal is held to be good planning, the owner will not get compensation, but under the Bill he could get compensation only if the refusal were unreasonable.
    I think that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman opposite need not fear that we are doing anything terrible. It is just avoiding a possibility, and no more than a possibility, of abuse. If the planning decision is that refusal of access is reasonable, and it is so held, that type of case is certainly left in the Bill as it is now proposed to be amended. There is no automatic compensation—
    Mr. MacColl: Could the hon. Gentleman indicate which are these provisions in the Bill?
    Mr. Horobin: There is no automatic compensation in this Bill at all for being refused means of access or anything else.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: What the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) has just said is not what the right hon. Gentleman said. I understood that the hon. Gentleman's case for this Amendment was on somewhat different grounds. If in fact there is refusal of permission to lay out an access road to a highway, and if the person concerned is now entitled to compensation for it, I suggest to the Minister that the person would be entitled to it in the normal case, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to delete this particular paragraph from the Clause.
    4.30 p.m.
    Normally the land involved in such an access way being provided to a highway would be land on which the owner did not intend to put any building. Therefore, although he may have been refused permission to construct an access way to the highway, nevertheless there could not be any depreciation in the value of that part of the land concerned, because he never intended to develop it. In fact, if it were a highway, probably at some time he might make it over to the local authority, which would take it, and it would then become public property. Unless the Minister can explain more clearly what his hon. Friend said in relation to this paragraph, I cannot see why in any circumstances compensation should be paid.
    308
    If permission were given it would mean that the strip of land concerned would not anyhow have been built upon; it would have provided a facility and a service, we know, but sooner or later the chances are that the local authority would take it over and therefore no compensation would be involved. If, however, refusal on grounds of better planning is given to such a proposal to construct an access way to the highway, it does not depreciate the value of that piece of land anyhow from the point of view of the intentions of the owner.
    In fact, he might well make better use of that piece of land: not now having permission to construct a by-way, he may decide to put a structure upon it or upon part of it. That would appreciate the value of the land concerned, and although it would have been appreciated as a result, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to pay him compensation in addition. We ought to be very clear about this and we ought to know in precisely which cases compensation would be paid before we accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Page: Surely the intention is right that compensation should be claimable for refusal of means of access if that refusal is for nothing else than in connection with means of access. Such refusal might completely nullify the entire use of the land. There is plenty of protection in the following subsection (2, e) over such matters, as for instance, road safety. If a condition is applied relating either to location or design of any means of access—and I stress the word "location"—that does not make compensation claimable. In fact, subsection (2) excludes such a condition from one which draws compensation claim, so there must be plenty of protection there.
    Mr. Irvine: The Minister is discussing this Amendment on the basis that the matter is not of substantial importance, but it is of very substantial importance. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr Horobin) expressed regret that my hon. Friend had not the advantage of the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and suggested that my hon. Friend's view of the matter was, therefore, wrong.
    This Amendment also alters in a very material way a Clause which, in the

    309
    opinion of many of us, was already insufficiently comprehensive. Until this Amendment appeared there were only two forms of development specifically stated in the Bill of the many which could have been stated, in respect of which, if permission was refused, no compensation would be payable, and this skating approach of the Minister proposes one of the two approaches.
    This matter goes to the very heart of planning because, if we release proper and adequate control of access to the highway, we lose the very kernel of planning policy. We release the risk of ribbon development, of uncontrolled development taking place, and the whole of it aggravated and made more dangerous because compensation may be paid if permission for the development is refused.
    Mr. Page: But do we release control when we have subsection (2, e), under which conditions can be applied?
    Mr. Irvine: Up to a point, because when we asked on what grounds can it be said that this point is already covered, there were replies from the other side of the Committee that it was sufficiently covered by the second subsection of the Clause. However, one finds there that the only relevant provision is that in subsection (2, e) where, admittedly, it is said that no compensation will be paid if permission is granted only on a condition relating to the location or design of any means of access to a highway.
    If, however, we refuse permission for the construction or provision of an access altogether, that is not properly described as the imposition of a condition upon the location of the access, nor would any court of law so hold in my view. I do not regard the provisions of subsection (2) as stopping any gap left by the proposed deletion of paragraph (b) from subsection (1) of the Clause. I suggest, therefore, that this is a matter not to be taken lightly, but rather one which diminishes seriously the value of the provisions in Clause 23 (1), and in an important field from the planning point of view of controlling access to highways and of preventing ribbon development and the other social disadvantages which ensue from it.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I hope we shall be able to reach a conclusion on this point, which I think, has been a little
    310
    exaggerated. It seemed wrong to us that something should be done by a subterfuge. What this Amendment does is to remove from the area of things automatically excluded from compensation this decision of an authority. What does that mean? Surely it means, to take the case of ribbon development, that if we want to stop a house being built, we ought to say honestly, "Stop the house." What I think is undesirable is, first, not to be willing to refuse planning permission for the house in case there might be compensation, and then to try to do it by the devious method of refusing access.
    Mr. MacColl: As I ventured to move an Amendment in Committee on this point, and we had a long argument on the effect of this subsection, I should like to make one or two comments. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that it was disreputable to allow a house to be built, and then stop the access to the highway the answer is that he would not do it, because he would not do something which was disreputable, and as the ultimate decision rests with the Ministry one can rest assured that it would be looked at in the proper manner.
    Some of my hon. Friends who are listening to the debate attentively may find a little difficulty in deciding the rights and wrongs of this issue, but there is the good rule that they can follow that if the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) asks for a thing, and the right hon. Gentleman grants it, it is wise to oppose it. They would not slip up with that rule very often. I recommend it to them if they find it difficult to follow some of the intricacies of this discussion.
    The principle which is trumpeted in the Bill and in the White Paper is that one does not give compensation in cases where to allow development would be a breach of good neighbourliness and the public interest. I attempted to have inserted in the Clause in Committee that there should be taken out of compensation any development that would be a nuisance or a substantial annoyance to persons living in the neighbourhood. That was rejected on the grounds that we already had in the subsection a quite wide enough definition to cover any problems that might arise.
    Therefore, having successfully rejected the suggestion that we should have a

    311
    general, broad category of good neighbourliness excluded, we have precisely the same argument produced by the hon. Member for Oldham, East that if it was bad planning it would be excluded from compensation under provisions in the rest of the Bill. It was difficult to discover what precise terms in the Bill were meant and the hon. Member was not able to allay the doubts raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).
    This is a retreat from the great principle which was laid down by the Minister, that there should be no compensation for refusal of planning permission for a development which would be a breach of good neighbourliness and the public interest, because a man had no inherent, fundamental right to compensation and was not allowed to use his land against the interests of his neighbour. I
    agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) that if one has a development which means the passing of a service road into a main highway, which would interfere with the flow of traffic and cause danger to life and limb and lead to unsightly ribbon development, then if it is the view of the planning authority and the Minister that such a development is a bad development the landlord has no case whatsoever for compensation.
    Therefore, this part of the Clause is to some extent a step in that direction. To remove it at this stage would be a deplorable retreat from the principle which was laid down early in the debate.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 268.

    Division No. 198.]

    AYES

    [4.45 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Deer, G.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Albu, A. H.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hughes, Clodwyn (Anglesey)

    Allen, Arthur (Botworth)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Irvine, A, J. (Edge Hill)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Edelman, M.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Ballour, A.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Janner, B.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Bence, C. R.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Benson, G.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Blackburn, F.

    Finch, H. J.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Follick, M.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Foot, M. M.

    Keenan, W.

    Boardman, H.

    Forman, J. C.

    Kenyon, C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Glanville, James

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Grey, C. F.

    Logan, D. G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    McGovern, J.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    McInnes, J.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hale, Leslie

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    McLeavy, F.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hannan, W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Clunie, J.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Collick, P. H.

    Hastings, S.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mason, Roy

    Cove, W. G.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Daines, P.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Monslow, W.

    Darling, George. (Hillsborough)

    Holman, P.

    Moody, A. S.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Holmes, Horace

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.W.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Morley, R.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Thornton, E.

    Mort, D. L.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Timmons, J.

    Moyle, A.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Tommy, F.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

    Ross, William

    Usborne, H. C.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Royle, C.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Orbach, M.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Watkins, T. E.

    Oswald, T.

    Short, E. W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Padley, W. E.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Paget, R. T.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    West, D. G.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Slater, Mrs. A. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Parker, J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wigg, George

    Paton, J.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

    Pearson, A.

    Snow, J. W.

    Willey, F. T.

    Peart, T. F.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Popplewell, E.

    Steele, T.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Porter, G.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Willis, E. G.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Stross, Dr. Barnell

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Rankin, John

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Reeves, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Yates, V. F.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Rhodes, H.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Heath, Edward

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    Hope, Lord John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Drayton, G. B.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Birch, Nigel

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Black, C. W.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Fell, A.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

    Finlay, Graeme

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fisher, Nigel

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Braine, B. R.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Fort, R.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Foster, John

    Kerr, H. W.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Glover, D.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Godber, J. B.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Carr, Robert

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Channon, H.

    Gower, H. R.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Grimond, J.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Cole, Norman

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mackeson, Brig Sir Harry

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    314

    315

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Summers, G. S.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Redmayne, M.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Maude, Angus

    Rees-Davies, W. R

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Maudling, R.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Tilney, John

    Mellor, Sir John

    Robertson, Sir David

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Turton, R. H.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Neave, Airey

    Russell, R. S.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Wade, D. W.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Nutting, Anthony

    Scott, R. Donald

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Scott-Milter, Cmdr. R.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Odey, G. W.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Wellwood, W.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Osborne, C.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Page, R. G.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Wills, G.

    Partridge, E.

    Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    and Mr. Kaberry.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Storey, S.

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(ASSOCIATED COMPANIES.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act, no person shall be entitled to a payment under section six, eight, nine, eleven or twelve of this Act by virtue of a disposition between companies which at the time of the disposition were associated companies.
    (2) Where a company is the holder of a claim holding, then, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not that company is entitled to a payment in respect of the holding under Part I or Part V of this Act, any act or event which occurred in relation to another company which at the time of that act or event was, or after that time but before the twenty-sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, became, associated with the company which holds the claim holding shall be treated as having occurred in relation to the company which holds the claim holding, and an interest in land held by any other company for the time being associated with the company which holds the claim holding shall be treated as being held by the company which holds the claim holding,
    (3) For the purposes of this section, a company shall be treated as associated with another company if, and only if, within the meaning of section one hundred and fifty-four of the Companies Act, 1948, one of those companies is a subsidiary of the other, or both those companies are subsidiaries of the same holding company.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The principle underlying this new Clause is that for the purposes of entitlement to a payment under Part I a group of associated companies should be treated as one person. There are two aspects of the Clause, one might call it the swings and the roundabouts, and they are dealt with in subsections (1) and (2) respectively.
    On the one hand, on the negative side, no payment shall be made by virtue of a transaction between two associated companies; since the property remains within the group there is no real loss. On the other hand, a right to a payment should not be lost merely because the claim holding is held by one member of a group of companies rather than another.
    This matter has been drawn to our attention by the acquisition of the Welwyn Garden City Estate from Welwyn Garden City, Limited, which will be recalled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). That estate was acquired from the Welwyn Garden City, Limited, on terms leaving the company with a very large claim on

    317
    the £300 million fund. Since the acquisition removed the main—indeed, the only—purpose of the Garden City company, it went into voluntary liquidation and the claim was assigned for substantially less than its face value to a wholly owned subsidiary. The operating company went into liquidation and transferred the claim to the other company, but at considerably less than face value.
    As the Bill stands, the result would have been that this purely artificial transaction—not "artificial" in the bad sense—would have had the result of limiting the payment made in respect of the claim to the consideration nominally given for it. That seems to us to be wrong. For the purpose of this Clause, whether it works in one direction or another, companies are to be treated as associated if one is a subsidiary of the other or both are subsidiaries of the same holding company. These terms have the same meaning as in Section 154 of the Companies Act, 1948.
    Mr. Lindgren: We feel this Clause is a distinct improvement to the Bill. I have to declare an interest—not a financial interest, as I have never had one in the Garden City company, but an interest in that development. I am glad that the Minister has paid attention to the point which was put to him.
    Mr. MacColl: I do not in the least quarrel with what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has said. I recognise his deep human interest in Welwyn Garden City. But I wish to ask about the limitations of this new Clause. The principle behind the Bill was that where there had been an assignment for less than the value of the claim the assignees were not to get the profit of their speculation if they speculated on getting more out of the claim than was originally paid. Broadly speaking, that seems an extremely wise and statesmanlike provision.
    As I understand, this new Clause seeks to meet the problem of the wholly owned subsidiary company. Is that the only exception to the broad, general principle in the Bill? What is the position, for example, of a family transaction? I seem to remember a discussion on this in Committee. Where a man assigns his claim to his son with the idea that the son will in future inherit the property he may con
    318
    sider that it would be so much better if he assigns at less than its true value. Morally, that case seems to be one to which we should be as sympathetic as the case of the subsidiary company. Would there be a feeling of injustice between the two cases?
    I am nervous about this new Clause. I know that the Minister accepts it, but if we lay down an extraordinarily simple and sensible provision that one may only get the value of what one pays for the claim—less than the full value of the claim—that is an essential justice which everybody accepts. Once we begin making exceptions to it people begin thinking about possible exceptions, and the line, instead of being clear, becomes somewhat obscure. Before we agree to the Clause, it would be helpful if the Minister gave us some advice as to whether there are comparable cases which have not been considered or any other comparable cases which have been considered.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: The point which has been raised about inter-family transactions is not covered by the Clause, which deals with associated companies and nothing else. There are parts of the Bill, and Amendments which come later, in which the question of the separation of land and claim is dealt with. I can say with perfect truth that this point was brought to our attention very much in connection with this particular case.
    It would have been a strange result if the pioneers of planning in Welwyn Garden City—I think everyone will agree that they have done a fine piece of work—had by what was purely a rearrangement among themselves—it was not a question of a man getting what he paid, the consideration was merely an inter-company arrangement—been wholly or largely deprived of the claim they had. The general principle remains that there must be a genuine purchase, not a speculative purchase, but this was a genuine arrangement for convenience between associated companies.
    The point about father and son does not arise on this Clause. It may be raised, and, I think, is raised by an Amendment at a later stage. I hope that the Committee will feel that the Clause does justice. I do not know of any other

    319
    case. The new Clause was made necessary by the facts of this case, which I am sure would appeal to any Minister, whatever his political complexion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on Recommittal), considered.

    New Clause.—(PROVISION OF INFORMA TION AS TO UNEXPENDED BALANCE, ETC.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Land Board shall, upon application therefor being made to them at any time by any person, and may at any time, if they think fit, without any application being made therefor, issue a certificate in the prescribed form with respect to any land stating whether or not any of that land has an original unexpended balance of established development value and, if it has such a balance—

    (a) giving a general statement of what was taken by the Board for the purposes of Part VI of the principal Act to be the state of that land on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight; and

    (b) specifying (subject to any outstanding claims under Part I or Part V of this Act) the amount of that original balance; and any such certificate may. if the Board think fit, contain additional information with respect to acts or events in consequence of which, by virtue of any provision of this Act, a deduction falls to be made from that original balance in determining the unexpended balance, if any, of established development value of any of that land at any time thereafter.

    (2) Where, after the commencement of this Act, a notice to treat has been served with a view to the compulsory acquisition of an interest in any land by any public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, being such a department, authority, person or body of persons as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section thirty-four of this Act, that authority may apply to the Central Land Board for, and shall be entitled to the issue of, a certificate showing the unexpended balance of established development value, if any, of any of that land immediately before the service of that notice.
    (3) Where the issue of a certificate under this section with respect to any land involves a new apportionment, then—

    (a) except in the case of a certificate under the last preceding subsection or of a certificate which the Board propose to issue without any application being made therefor, the certificate shall not be issued otherwise than on the application of a person for the time being entitled to an interest in the land;

    (b) before issuing the certificate, the Board shall give notice in writing to any person
    320
    entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment, giving particulars of the proposed apportionment and stating that objections or other representation with respect thereto may be made to the Board within thirty days from the date of the notice; and

    (c) the certificate shall not be issued before the date of expiration of the said thirty days, and, if at that date an objection to the proposed apportionment has been made by any person to whom notice has been given under the last preceding paragraph, or by any other person who establishes that he is entitled to an interest in land which is substantially affected by the apportionment, and that objection has not been withdrawn, the next following subsection shall have effect.

    (4) Where by virtue of paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection this subsection is to have effect, then—

    (a) if within a further period of thirty days the person by whom any such objection was made requires the dispute to be referred to the Lands Tribunal the dispute shall be so referred and the certificate shall not be issued until either the Tribunal has decided the matter or the reference to the Tribunal has been withdrawn;

    (b) the certificate may be issued before the expiration of the said further period if every such objection has been withdrawn; and

    (c) the certificate shall be issued at the date of expiration of the said further period, notwithstanding that every such objection has not been withdrawn, if no requirement has by that date been made under paragraph (a) of this subsection.

    (5) Where, on a reference to the Lands Tribunal under this section, it is shown that a new apportionment relates partly to the same matters as any previous apportionment and is consistent with that previous apportionment in so far as it relates to those matters, the Tribunal shall not vary the new apportionment in such a way as to be inconsistent with the previous apportionment in so far as it relates to those matters.
    (6) An application for a certificate under this section shall be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed, and shall be accompanied by sufficient particulars, including a map if necessary, to enable the land to be identified and, where a new apportionment will be involved, particulars of the nature of the applicant's interest and such information as to the nature of any other interest in the land and as to the name and address of the person entitled to that other interest as may be known to the applicant.
    (7) On any application under subsection (1) of this section the applicant shall pay in the prescribed manner a fee of five shillings and, if the application involves a new apportionment, the certificate shall not be issued until the applicant has paid in the prescribed manner a further fee of fifteen shillings.
    (8) In this section, the expression "new apportionment" means an apportionment which relates wholly or partly to any matters relating to which there has not been a previous apportionment.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Clause is introduced in pursuance of an undertaking which I gave in Committee during the long discussions which we had on Clause 19. I think it was the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. West) and Clapham (Mr. Gibson) who raised the question of how, by what machinery, the necessary information about unexpended balances can be made available. If I recollect the matter aright, the hon. Member for Pontypool was concerned that information should be available to private people who were interested in transactions in land; whereas the hon. Member for Clapham was speaking rather more from the point of view of public authorities as purchasers.
    The new Clause provides for public authorities in subsection (2), which requires the Central Land Board to supply, on request, a certificate showing the unexpended balance of any land in respect of which notice to treat has been served That information will be up-to-date, or as up-to-date as it is possible to make it. It will be complete, and it will deal with the authority's liability for compensation under the Bill; it will include the result of any necessary apportionment and take into account the value of development already carried out on the land or any other item which has to be "debited" against the balance. Therefore, when the notice to treat has been served, this special, highly detailed information will be supplied to the local authority. I think that was the chief anxiety of the hon. Member for Clapham.
    Now comes the problem raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool about the case of private people. I say rather regretfully that we cannot supply everyone with the up-to-date information which we shall do, under subsection (2), in the case of local authorities. The information is to be given to the local authorities only when notice to treat is served. That is an important distinction. It was at one time thought that a register of unexpended balances could be established, which would be open to search by those interested.
    322
    That would obviously be ideal, but we found, on closer examination, that an up-to-date register would involve a volume of work out of all proportion to the benefit to be derived. After all, a great deal of the land in respect of which a claim on the £300 million was established has already been developed, and there is, therefore, no purpose in all this detail; and a great deal more will be developed.
    The balance attaching to such land is largely a matter of academic interest, because there is no risk of compensation ever becoming payable. Yet if a register were set up the value of each development carried out would have to be carefully assessed and recorded. All to no purpose, because even if a question of compensation did arise the amount to be debited against the balance because of development already carried out might be a different amount from the amount assessed at the outset.
    Therefore, so far as private people are concerned, the new Clause provides for information of a rather more modest order to be provided on request. We believe that from this information anyone concerned with buying or selling land will be able to make a quite sound assessment of the price which he ought to ask or to offer, having regard to the compensation likely to be payable in the event of a planning restriction or a compulsory acquisition.
    People buying or selling land, with planning permission, for immediate development will not necessarily feel a very close interest in the precise state of the balance. There will be some cases where the information may be material, but, in general, that will not be so.
    So we are trying to meet the point, as I have indicated, by providing full information for local authorities where notice to treat has been served; and to provide for everybody, including the local authorities, if they choose to use it, rather less than full information over the whole field.
    Much of the Clause is concerned with the special machinery which is required in the event of apportionment. As so often throughout this Bill, that represents a good deal of the problem for which we have to provide. A very heavy volume of work will fall during the first

    323
    months after the Bill comes into operation, both on the Valuation Office and on the Central Land Board. I am very anxious, as the House knows, to try to secure that the Bill should become law before the end of this Parliamentary Session—I mean in the late autumn.
    There will be a very large volume of work. Nevertheless, we feel that that work can be done, if, as I hope, the House will be content with the giving, to the local authorities, of what they really need—up-to-date information when notice to treat is served—and the making available to the general body of the public of information which will give them sufficient knowledge to fix what should be the right price to offer or take in a deal. I hope that meets what hon. Members were anxious about, both in regard to the public authority and on private account.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham): I am grateful to the Minister for having gone as far as he has with the new Clause. It meets, by a slightly different method to that which was suggested in Committee, the claims made on behalf of local authorities to obtain sight of documents. The Amendment meets fairly reasonably the claim made by local authorities that when they have served a notice to treat they should be able to get the information that is available so that they know exactly the unexpended balance, and so on, in connection with the land with which they are concerned. I thank the Minister for having taken this action.
    I understand that the Amendments to the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and myself are not likely to be called. I should like, therefore, to refer to subsection (7) of the new Clause, which lays down the fees to be charged when information is requested and given. I am not sure whether the fee applies only to the private individual who requests the information, or to the local authority also.
    To a large authority, such as the London County Council, it could be an expensive business during the year to pay out 5s. whenever it asks for information which everybody agrees it should have in order to do its job efficiently and well. I am not clear from the Clause whether this fee of 5s., and the charge of 15s. when
    324
    a new apportionment is involved, applies only to individuals and not to local authorities, and I shall be glad to have an answer from the Government.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member asked about the Amendments to the new Clause. The position is that none of them has been selected by Mr. Speaker, but that if a Division is wanted he is agreeable that one should be taken on the last Amendment but one, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. UngoedThomas), after the first "apportionment," to insert:
    "decided upon by the Lands Tribunal."
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I, too, express my thanks for the new Clause, which goes some way to meeting the defect in Clause 35 which we pointed out to the Minister in Committee. As far as local authorities are concerned, however, the Clause does not go far enough. It certainly does not go as far as the Amendment which we moved in Committee and which the Attorney-General promised to consider.
    In Committee, we moved an Amendment to add:
    "In any case of compulsory acquisition of land to which this part of this Act applies an acquiring authority shall be entitled to inspect and take copies of any documents or other information which may be in the possession of the Central Land Board or other authority or person to whom such documents, etc., may have been transferred on the dissolution of that Board.…"
    The reason for our Amendment, which we made very clear, was that the local authority should know the basis on which it had had to pay compensation, and on what facts the Central Land Board determined the established claim.
    Unfortunately, subsection (2) of the new Clause limits considerably the information which a local authority may obtain. It may obtain a certificate, but the information is limited only to facts about the unexpended balance and would not include information as to what the Board considered to be the state of the land on 1st July, 1948, for the purpose of determining its Part VI claim. This seems to me and to many local authorities an important point. It is necessary for them to know the facts about all the elements taken for compensation and not merely the amount of the unexpended balance.

    325
    5.15 p.m.
    It may well be that an original claim submitted in 1948, was for residential use under the 1947 Act for loss of development value use, but that a more expensive claim has been put in later for loss of, for example, development value as a commercial user. That might be the case in which a shop and a residence had been combined on a site now cleared. The owner might have claimed originally on a basis of loss of residential use, but now claims for existing use value of a shop. It seems only right that if a local authority is required to pay compensation, it should know the conclusion reached by the Central Land Board at the time of the Board's determination. It is precisely this additional vital information that a local authority must have if it is to arrive at a just figure of compensation. One of our Amendments, which, unfortunately, is not being called, was designed to deal with this defect.
    It is surprising to find, from subsection (7) of the new Clause, that a charge of 5s. is to be made to local authorities and, I presume, to people who apply for a certificate. In the case of many large authorities a great number of cases will arise, and it seems peculiar and unfair that an acquiring authority must pay a fee to ascertain the proper compensation which it has to pay. That is not the kind of treatment that is meted out when the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) moves Amendments. I am quite sure that if Amendments of his were accepted, fees would not be attached in this way. I should have thought it was too trivial an item for the Minister to include in the Clause.
    Subsection (2) deals with the case in which a notice to treat has been served but not with the case where a notice has been deemed to be served. This was a point that we raised in Committee. There are a number of cases under Section 19 of the 1947 Act in which everything has taken place except the concluding stage. To all intents and purposes they are cases in a similar category to that which I have described, but no information will be available. Subsection (2) does not cover the case of a local authority which, although possessing compulsory powers, is able to come to satisfactory terms with an owner and purchases his land by agreement. It is strange that there should be the right to inspect documents in cases
    326
    of compulsory purchase, but not when agreement is reached.
    For these reasons, although the new Clause is an improvement on the original omission of Clause 35, it falls far short of what it should be. It would have been easy for the Minister to satisfy local authorities, to ease their task, and to provide a proper safeguard that they should not pay out money in excess of the proper compensation. If in a large number of cases they are denied the right to know on what basis the value of the land was originally determined by the Board, the local authorities and other acquiring authorities will be put in a very serious position. Unless there is a technical reason, which does not seem obvious to me, I cannot help regarding this weakness of the new Clause as being somewhat sinister.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I hope that I can disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) about any sinister purpose. Although the Amendments have not been called it might be convenient if I deal with the points which they concern. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) asked a question about subsection (2) and the case where notice to treat is deemed to have been served. As emerged from our earlier discussion when the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was here—I am sorry that he is not here now—the expression is one with which we are familiar.
    The purpose of putting the word in one place in an Act is to ensure that in other places we treat the situation as if that which is deemed to have taken place had taken place. I assure the hon. Member that, as I understand it, the case where the authority is deemed to have served notice to treat is included.
    Mr. Skeffington: In subsection (2)?
    The Attorney-General: Yes.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am obliged.
    The Attorney-General: There was also the question about the general purpose of subsection (2). It might be convenient to say something about that. The object of the subsection is to provide for the case where a local authority is about to acquire land. It is recognised that it ought to be put into a position to ascertain just what is the unexpended balance

    327
    which attaches to the land in question at the date of the service of notice to treat. That is the date which determines the amount of compensation payable.
    That information cannot be supplied in advance because the unexpended balance at any particular date is affected by the value of development which has been carried out up to that date, and any earlier assessment would be incomplete if not misleading. For that reason, the information which is to be given to private individuals is not to be up-to-date information. It can only be information about the balance as it stood at the commencement of the Act—that is what one might call the original balance—coupled with information about the state of the land at 1st July, 1948. With information on these two points, the private individual will probably be able to make a fairly good assessment of his own of the effect of development already carried out. He would also be able to know from the register of local land charges what compensation if any has already been paid in respect of planning restrictions.
    He will be, or should be, in a position to calculate for himself the likely amount of the unexpended balance at any date in the future. Where a public authority is merely considering whether it should acquire a piece of land, it will be in no different position from a private individual, and the Clause leaves it open to the local authority to proceed in precisely the same way, by making application under subsection (1).
    The hon. Members for Clapham and Hayes and Harlington raised the question of payment. Again, perhaps it might be convenient to state the principle. As I understand, the suggestion was that there should be no charge for the provision of information, certainly in the case of local authorities.
    As hon. Members will see, the proposed charges are not exorbitant. Indeed, it might be said that they are not really calculated with reference to the cost of the work, which will be considerable. Clearly, it would also be reasonable that frivolous or unnecessary applications should not be encouraged; but when we come to the suggestion that there should be no charge at all that is a different matter. It may be argued—and this may be what is behind some of the thought
    328
    on the subject—that the State should provide information of this kind, but the service is really in the equivalent of a form of search such as purchasers commonly undertake before committing themselves to land transactions, and the cost has to be paid by someone. There are normal charges. The Law Society have been consulted and they regarded this as being on all-fours with the existing charges which arise in the ordinary course of business.
    I ask the House to consider the matter from that point of view. In the end, we come down to the same point, whether the local authorities or somebody else have to pay. The information that the Clause provides for will not be of much significance to a great many purchasers, who know that they at once intend to consume the whole of any unexpended balance the land may have by developing it, by building on it. Therefore, this is not a matter of much concern to them. Many purchasers may very well see no advantage in having the information.
    The justification for the charge is to ensure that the prospective applicant and his advisers should not merely ask for information, but that they should have to consider whether it is of any value to them, just as they would in any other transaction in their own affairs. That is the basis on which the charge has been decided and I hope that the House will agree with it.
    Mr. Page: I cannot allow this discussion to close without expressing the gratitude of solicitors to the Minister for this new Clause, and especially for subsection (1). Most solicitors, when they first read the Bill, resigned themselves to an endless sort of cross-examination between prospective vendor and prospective purchaser with interminable time passing between the date those two were brought together by an agent and the time when they signed the vital contract.
    Now, under subsection (1), the purchaser, or his solicitor, has merely to inquire of the Central Land Board, and, gradually, a complete register of original Part VI claims will be built up. Further, the certificate which the Board is to issue will form a very useful document of title. It will undoubtedly cut down the time required for getting the parties together to sign a vital contract.

    329
    I am a little disappointed that it has not been possible to include in the certificate some information about assignments. Assignments had to be registered with the Board, and I should have thought that the Board would have had information about them. Perhaps the Board will stretch the wording of the latter part of subsection (1), which gives it power to include certain additional information in the certificate, and perhaps it may be able to include information on assignments of the Part VI claim.
    Mr. Hornbin: I do not ask for an answer now to this question, but it will be recalled that provision is made in the Bill for the ultimate winding up of the Central Land Board. The need under this Clause will continue for ever. I do not know whether any provision is necessary now, but the position should be considered so that we may ensure that when this is all that is left, at some other time, we do not have to have another amending Bill in order to give these powers to somebody else.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 19 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)
    (1) In section nineteen of the principal Act (which imposes on a local authority an obligation to purchase land in certain circumstances) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following new subsection, that is to say—
    "(2A) In considering, for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, whether or not the use of land in any particular state is or would be reasonably beneficial, the Minister shall not take account of the possibility of any development, whether of that or any other land, of any class not specified in the Third Schedule to this Act."
    (2) The preceding subsection shall be deemed to have come into operation on the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two:
    Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the validity of anything done in consequence of a purchase notice served before the commencement of this Act.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I move the Second Reading of the Clause with some emotion because I see
    330
    the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) in his place and in my Department this Clause has long been regarded as Acton's benefit. I was sorry that he has so far looked a gift horse in the mouth as to put down an Amendment and I hope that he will not think it necessary to press it.
    What we have tried to do, and what I am advised that we have succeeded in doing, is to put beyond doubt that the owner who serves a purchase notice must make his case on one ground and one ground only—the uselessness of the land in its existing state. He must be able to point to the land and, quite apart from any potential value for development, show that it has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state.
    I think this new Clause meets the fears of local authorities, expressed by the hon. Member for Acton and others, that the machinery of the Bill and our intentions under the Bill would be frustrated by an extended use of Section 19 of the existing Act. I hope that the House feels that this Clause preserves the position and makes it clear that there is no such danger.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: I had hoped that the Minister would say a little more about the new Clause. I welcome it as far as it goes, but it is by no means clear whether it overcomes the problems which we discussed at some length in Committee.
    It seems to me that two courses are open to any person in relation to compensation for planning refusal—either a course under the Bill or a course under the principal Act. There is this exception—that in the 1947 Act it must be a condition that planning refusal leaves the land incapable of reasonably beneficial use. It is possible in the Bill, of course, to refuse planning permission and to leave the land precisely in that condition.
    If the owner seeks planning permission, if that permission is refused and the land is left incapable of reasonably beneficial use, then the owner has two choices; he can either claim compensation under the Bill—although he is not forced to do so—or he can serve a purchase notice under Section 19 of the principal Act. If the planning refusal were on account of development of a low value, then the compensation which he would receive under the Bill would be very small and

    331
    the amount which he would receive if he proceeded under Section 19 would be much greater, for it would be the use value and the development value plus one-seventh.
    I had hoped that the Minister would explain to us precisely what are the uses defined in the Third Schedule of the principal Act. I have read it several times and I am not at all clear as to its meaning. It seems to me from some specific instances which I have obtained that the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to remove is not being removed.
    I have several examples, but this is a case where the individual could have two choices, choosing either to take compensation or to serve a purchase notice. It is where land with a substantial Part VI claim was the subject of planning application for use as a caravan site. The planning application was refused and the county district council has been served with a purchase notice. In this case the situation and nature of the land is such that apparently the requirements of Section 19 are met. If the owner had chosen merely to take his compensation, the Government would have paid, but because the owner served the purchase notice, the county district council will have to carry the burden of compensation.
    The case arises particularly in Middlesex but also in other counties concerned with London's green belt. There are green belts in other big towns and cities which will to some extent be similarly affected. I am informed that there is a high development value on practically all the green belt land, which, at the moment, is open land used for agricultural purposes. Its value for agricultural purposes—its existing use value—is low.
    Supposing the owners apply for planning permission to develop it and supposing that, rightly, in the interests of good planning and of the preservation of the green belt, planning permission is refused, the owners are entitled either to serve a purchase notice upon the county council to take over that land and to pay at the rate of the existing use value and the development value, plus one-seventh, or, alternatively, they are permitted to claim the compensation which the Minister pays.
    332
    Generally, the amount which he would pay in compensation would be much less than the owner would receive if he served a purchase notice under Section 19. A situation may well arise in which the owner wants to get rid of the land. This Bill does not provide that the land shall be purchased; it provides only that compensation shall be paid, leaving the ownership of the land in its present hands. But, planning permission having been refused, the land may be of no further use to the owner. He may be interested in no other form of development. It would naturally be to his advantage to say, "I will not take the compensation for planning refusal, but will serve a purchase notice." Therefore, in cases like that the county council will become burdened with the financial responsibility, whereas if the individual had elected to take compensation under this Bill then the Treasury would take the financial responsibility.
    That leads me to one further point. It seems rather inconsistent that where planning refusal is given compensation is not paid from one source and one source only. At some time the right hon. Gentleman ought to make an amendment in this respect that in all cases of planning refusal the amount to be paid shall be from Treasury sources. That does not apply at present, and we have this duality of approach. Theoretically, it would be possible for all those owners of green belt land to unload their land on to the county councils. I agree that that is an event which is not likely to take place, although just now we do not know to what extent it might take place. If it did happen it would have a serious effect on the finances of the county councils concerned.
    What we want and what the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with during his short speech, but which I hope he will do before we finish with this new Clause, or if not he then the Attorney-General—he looks more hopeful on this point—is to establish that where planning permission is refused under the terms of this Bill, the procedure of Section 19 of the principal Act shall not apply in such cases. If we can establish that principle this danger of local authorities having unloaded upon them land which they do not want and having to pay for it out of their own resources would to some extent be reduced to the absolute minimum.

    333
    That is all I want to say by way of principle, but the right hon. Gentleman was not at all clear about one point. He kept on saying that the refusal of planning permission must lead to land being incapable of reasonable use. That can operate under this Bill and that is my point. The refusal of planning permission can leave land incapable of proper use, and if that condition is serious the owner is entitled to take action under Section 19. That is what I want to avoid, so I will appeal once again to the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter. It is one of some difficulty. If he can restrict the procedure under Section 19 purely and absolutely to those conditions in the 1947 Act which invoke that procedure, he will go a long way to solve this problem. If he cannot isolate the danger in the way I have endeavoured to put before the House then it still exists and is a very real one which may well develop in the course of time.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Horobin: I must refer for a few moments to this matter because this is an important point which was raised in Committee, when I ventured to warn my right hon. Friend that in his desire to meet the point put by hon. Members opposite he was in danger of altering the long-established procedure under the principal Act much more than he intended to do. There was a considerable discussion on 27th May on this topic, but I do not propose to go into that now.
    There are two points here. First, there is the question of who should pay as between two alternative possibilities for the owner. On that I have very little to say. On the whole, I should have thought that the new Clause which we are now discussing does, in fact, guard against the difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). Let us take his case of the green belt owners. It will be quite impossible for an owner to argue a Clause 19 case based on the fact that it was a farm, had always been a farm, but was no longer capable of reasonable beneficial use. It has always been a farm and, therefore, I think we are excluding specifically the Third Schedule use, which is the existing use, and that meets the point of the hon. Member.
    334
    Unless I have misunderstood this Clause, it goes much further than that, because there are certain very important owners who have not that alternative choice. All Part VIII owners and a body for whom we have sympathy, the trustees of charitable lands, cannot make use of one of the alternatives, because they never were allowed to make a claim and have no unexpended balance. Therefore, if they cannot get relief under Clause 19 they can get it from nobody at all. It is vital to ensure that the Clause 19 procedure is not altered to their detriment.
    When I raised this I understood the Minister to say that he did not intend to alter the existing position. As I read the new Clause, it does alter the position and for this reason. Let us take the case of a Part VIII owner who has land in a development area, which, in fact, has never been developed at all. It grows thistles and is part of a frontage which has never been developed. In the ordinary way the owner would have a substantial Part VI claim and he would be able to insist in appropriate circumstances that he comes under the provisions of this Bill. But being a Part VIII owner he cannot because he has no Part VI claim, and, therefore, cannot have an unexpended balance.
    But suppose that upon that land an arterial road is laid, leaving portions of that frontage completely useless. Under the law as it has been since 1947 he could go through the procedure of Clause 19. All he has to show to the satisfaction of the Minister is that the piece of frontage left would be incapable of being reasonably beneficially developed and, in effect he would get his compensation because the local authority took it over. He cannot do anything else under this Bill because he has no unexpended balance not through any fault of his own but by the provisions of Section 85 of the principal Act.
    This particular piece of land has grown thistles and has never grown anything else but thistles. It has never been, for example, land used for houses which were blitzed, and which, under the Third Schedule, could be restored to its former use with houses erected on it. Its only use has been growing thistles, and if the owner is to be dealt with under Clause 19 on the basis that this is thistle land

    335
    and nothing else but thistle land, then under this new Clause the owner would lose all. Instead of getting compensation for frontage land at a frontage value which would be paid for quite properly by the acquiring authority, it seems to me, unless I have misunderstood the effect of these not very clear words, that Clause 19 will not apply. This land has simply got a thistle value and the owner cannot get anything from anybody else because he has no unexpended balance.
    I hope it will be explained to us in detail that this is not an alteration of the existing law and that it will not do what I suggest, but it seems to me that is what it will do. If it does so then I say it is something that nobody would wish to carry out, and I ask the Minister to be very careful in another place in making sure that in meeting the reasonable case put forward by hon. Members opposite to prevent the Minister, as it were, shovelling off his financial responsibilities on to the local authorities, he does not leave Part VIII owners in the position that they cannot get anything on the swings or on the roundabouts.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I have one very short comment to make on the very lucid exposition of the Part VIII owners' position, as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin). I do not think that the hypothetical owner he described would be quite so badly off as he suggested. When the local authority puts the arterial road across the land it would have to acquire a portion of the land for that purpose and the owner would get his compensation, including development value for the rest of the land. This would be a bit less, by reason of the severance of the other bit, but he would get it under Section 51.
    Mr. Horobin: There might be no technical severance.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have only taken the case that my hon. Friend gave although his actual instance was capable of a different solution.
    Let me come back to the point put by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). Section 19 of the principal Act was used to start with in the large majority of cases in regard to blitzed
    336
    sites in cities on which the rebuilding of war-damaged property was not permitted development because there was a direction that it should not be. In such cases, if planning permission was refused, a remedy was open to the owner under Section 19. There have been cases of late in Middlesex, as the hon. Member said, in which it has been sought to expand the doctrine to cover Green Belt land.
    This raises a simple but fundamental point under Section 19. We must have regard to land in its existing state. What would be argued in relation to the green belt, and what was, in fact, argued, is that although we look at the land in its existing state when we adjudge its reasonably beneficial use, if it is land ripe for development its reasonably beneficial use must be related to that development use. In other words, land in the green belt area could be in reasonably beneficial use as agricultural land, but not for the purposes of the Section, because it is also ripe for development, and, therefore, should be adjudged as potentially residential land.
    What the hon. Member for Acton wants is to cut out that argument. The proposed new Clause does precisely that. It will be very difficult to advance that argument if the Clause is added to the Bill. Whether, in all cases, it will be fair to the owner is a little doubtful. I can envisage cases where it may operate with hardship if a person is not able to have the development value taken into account in an area ripe for development. The law will be clearer to that extent, as the result of the proposed new Clause, although I should have thought occasion might have been taken to have something more definite, some practical definition of what one has to have regard to in assessing what is reasonably beneficial use. It is a very broad phrase. In each case it will be a question of fact, and it is difficult to evolve a code for the guidance of people in authority.
    Mr. Page: I find myself in a difficulty in discovering the meaning of the proposed new Clause. If an owner desires to build a factory and applies for permission, and if it is refused, an order under Section 19 is served. He may be told that the land can be reasonably beneficially used for dwelling-houses.

    337
    Is that specified in the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act? I think the relevant paragraph in that Schedule is paragraph 6, which says:
    "In the case of a building or other land which … was used for a purpose falling within any general class specified in an order made by the Minister for the purposes of this paragraph …"
    To discover whether it is within such a class, one passes from the Third Schedule to an order made under it. In that "Use Classes Order," dwelling-houses, in the example which I have taken, are not mentioned. One assumes that they must be disregarded in ascertaining whether the land can be reasonably beneficially used. Such things as shops are mentioned in that order but in respect of a different part of the land. Do they come within the phrase used in the proposed new Clause:
    "… any class not specified in the Third Schedule to this Act"?
    It is an extraordinarily difficult matter, because one has to go from an Act to an order and back again, to ascertain what is meant by "reasonably beneficial use," or "class not specified in the Third Schedule." I make a plea for simplification of the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I can only speak again with the leave of the House, in order to reply to some of the points which have been raised. I do not think that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is necessary. The proposed new Clause seeks to make what we already have in the Act doubly sure. Like many peacemakers, I am accused on one side of the House of not going far enough and on the other side of going too far. This only confirms me in my view that I am right in taking a middle course.
    Mr. Sparks: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one very clear solution to all his problems is to make the Treasury responsible?
    Mr. Macmillan: That is a very clear solution to all our problems, both public and private.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would indeed be aurea mediocritas?
    Mr. Macmillan: We are not on the Gold Standard yet.
    I will look again at the proposed new Clause with my advisers to see whether we can make a further attempt at clarity in another place. The Bill does not in any way alter the terms upon which a person may serve a purchase notice if the conditions are satisfied and he is not getting reasonably beneficial use from the land in its existing state. The Section 19 system will work in the future as it has done in the past. The proposed new Clause makes no change. Its purpose is to make doubly sure that the Bill shall make no change.
    6.0 p.m.
    As for the fear which he had that the need of the nation to secure the green belt might be satisfied at the expense of the local authority under Section 19, I think that was impossible without this new Clause, and doubly impossible with it. Clearly, there is no fear of that at all. I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Gentleman will see that his fears if they had any foundation, ought not now to exist because this Clause is specially designed to meet them.
    The problem of whether in some ways we have gone too far in another direction has been raised by two of my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I can only say that, as I am informed, the Part VIII owners are left precisely where they were under the 1947 Act. This Bill does not make it any more difficult for a charity than it was under Section 19. After all, the hon. Gentleman talks about thistle value, but the real value of the piece of land is its prevailing use value.
    Of course, a great deal of this land is of ultimate use to the local authority which purchases it, and it is a mistake to regard it as useless in that sense. It is useless in its existing state. I will certainly have the most careful consideration undertaken to see whether there is any legal flaw. I am sure that it does what the hon. Gentleman wants to do, and I want to make sure that it does not do something which we do not want it to do. I hope with that assurance that the House will feel it right to pass this Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS BY REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHED CLAIMS.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    (6) References in this Act to the amount of an established, claim are references to the amount determined, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, under Part VI of the principal Act as being the development value of the interest in land to which the claim related:
    Provided that the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of determining that amount; and where that amount was determined at a time before the commencement of this Act as an amount less or greater than it would have been apart from the provisions of the said First Schedule, that determination shall be deemed not to have been made.
    This is a minor Amendment of a drafting character, and I ask the House to accept it.
    Mr. Lindgren: Surely this is more than a minor drafting Amendment. It does away with Clause 2 as it now stands, and is in substitution of that Clause. I would say that it is to be preferred to the existing words, but whether it is correct to call it a drafting Amendment, I do not know.
    Mr. Macmillan: It is a drafting Amendment because subsection (6) which it proposes to add to the Clause replaces subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 2. Subsection (3) of Clause 2 is embodied in the lastsix lines of the proposed new subsection (4) of Clause 3. Perhaps it is rather difficult to explain, but it has to come here because if the Amendments to Clause 3 are passed by the House, then Clause 2 must disappear as some of it goes into Clause 1 and some into Clause 3. It is consequential on something at which we have not yet arrived. It is logically right to pass it here, because if we pass Clause 3 it is necessary to have this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(AMOUNTS OF ESTABLISHED CLAIMS, AND GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF APPORTIONMENT.)
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 15, leave out Clause 2.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 3.—(CLAIM HOLDINGS AND THEIR AREAS AND VALUES.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out "section, in this Act references," and to insert "Act, references therein."
    340
    This is a drafting Amendment. The value of claim holdings is affected by provisions other than those included in Clause 3; for example, by subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7. Therefore we have to make this change.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out subsection (2).
    I think that hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember that we had a considerable discussion on Clause 3, and this Amendment and a number of others which follow represent a genuine attempt to meet the points raised. Perhaps I should explain quite briefly what they try to do. Clause 3, as hon. Members know very well, deals with the conception of the claim holding and with its area and value. During the proceedings in Committee, it was pointed out that there was a great deal of complication in the matter, and also that provision was made for regulations and Schedules which brought in a great deal of arguable matter. There was a considerable amount of criticism of the drafting of the Bill on that ground.
    During the second sitting of the Committee, my right hon. Friend said:
    "The original intention was to put everything into the Schedules, but on consideration we were alarmed at the weight and length of the Schedules which would result, and which the Committee would be asked to examine in detail. We therefore thought that it would be better to take out some of the complications and to operate by regulation. It may be, as a result of the valuable discussions which have taken place in the Committee, that we shall be able to simplify the regulations which we have in mind. In that case, we should be willing to consider inserting on Report stage a simplified Schedule, which would include the points proposed to be dealt with by regulation, and it would be satisfactory if we could do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 13th April, 1954; c. 88–9.]
    I am glad to tell the House that we have succeeded in producing something which goes even further than that, and which, I hope, will commend itself to the House, because it involves the slaughter of a Schedule which was something that a number of hon. Members were anxious to see take place.
    If I may just summarise it, the purpose of this Amendment and of that to page 4, line 41, which may be confused with it, is to provide in the Bill for the creation

    341
    of separate claim holdings, each having its own area and value where there has been a disposition of part of the benefit of an established claim. Previously, that was left to be dealt with by regulations made under subsection (2), and that came under fire in Committee. I will describe what we are trying to do.
    First with regard to subsection (4). That subsection does not indicate precisely how the value and area of the various derivative claim holdings are to be arrived at. Instead, it leaves the value and area of each holding to be determined by the Central Land Board or the Minister as occasion arises, and lays down certain principles by which the Central Land Board or the Minister are to be guided. As those principles may conflict, it also lays down the priority between them. Any dispute arising can he referred to the Lands Tribunal as part of the Board's or the Minister's findings on the application for compensation.
    I do not want to occupy too much of the time of the House in explaining this, but, in view of the importance of the matter, I think I ought to say that there are really two main principles involved which are contained in paragraphs (c) and (d) respectively.
    The first is that in the case of a claim holding which is not associated with the ownership of the relevant interest in any part of the area of the claim, the value of the holding is to be that part of the amount of the established claim which was conveyed in the assignment. Where there was no associated transaction in land the assignment has to define, in one way or another, the part of the claim which is being conveyed. There is no difficulty about it. The area of the claim holding will normally be that part of the original claim area not allocated to any other claim holding.
    In those cases where the claim holding and the land have been associated the second principle then comes into operation. That principle proceeds on the assumption that the parties intended that the part of the claim which was assigned should be what was appropriate to the area of land in which the assignee held or was to hold an interest. In those cases the area of the holding is to be the area in which the interest was held and its value is to be the part of the claim appropriate to that area. In the majority of
    342
    cases there is no doubt that this will represent the intention of the parties, because the assignment was in some such terms as "so much of the benefit of the claim as was appropriate" to the land being sold or leased. That will probably also be found to be so in the great majority of cases where the amount assigned was specified.
    I do not think I need to go into further detail on that aspect of the matter, but I should point out that subsection (5) carries out the other part of this operation—the replacement of the Fourth Schedule which will, I think, be received with pleasure by those who had troubles with it. It follows an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend, reported in column 115 of the Committee Report. I think that there is no difference between what we now propose and what the Minister then offered.
    The subsection lays down how those concerned are to determine what fraction of the value of a claim holding attaches to any part of the area of that holding. Hon. Members will remember—and I am afraid rather painfully—the provisions of the Fourth Schedule, and will agree that what is now here is very much simpler. It will be operative, of course, not only in connection with payments under Part I, but also for the purpose of ascertaining the unexpended balance attaching to any piece of land, for whatever purpose required.
    What has to be done is essentially quite simple; sometimes there are two stages in the calculation, at other times only one. Lines 56 to 60 of the Amendment deal with the straightforward case where the value of the claim holding which has to be divided up is equal to the amount of the original claim, or that part of it which was properly attributable to the area of the holding. That is the case where one might say that the value of the claim holding is at par. That is quite simple, but there are other instances where the value of the claim holding may be above or below par, in which case it will be either greater or less than the value of the established claim which is attributable to the area of the holding. One has then to scale up or down in the same proportion.
    I think that this is a more attractive approach—at any rate to those who have had to deal with it in Committee—than

    343
    that with which we were then dealing and I hope that it may commend itself to the House. There are several consequential Amendments with which I can deal in due course. For the moment, I ask the blessing of the House on what is quite a genuine attempt made as a result of my right hon. Friend's promise when the matter was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren).
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lindgren: The learned Attorney-General has followed the easy ways of our Committee upstairs, and the discussion has gone, I think quite rightly, outside the general terms of the Amendment under discussion. He having done that, I should like to say that we on this side do appreciate not only the genuine attempt which has been made by the draftsmen, the Attorney-General and the Minister to clear up the obviously valid points to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) drew attention, but the effective way in which it has been done.
    I have only one point to raise. In the second line of the Amendment in page 4, line 41, it says:
    "… mortgage made otherwise than by way of assignment.…"
    I am just wondering why the words
    "… otherwise than by way of assignment …"
    have been brought in. Apart from that we not only accept this, but express our appreciation for the attempt made to meet the points which we raised.
    Mr. F. Blackburn: As one who called attention in Committee to the intricacies of the Fourth Schedule, I should like to take the opportunity of saying farewell to it, and of congratulating the Minister and the Attorney-General on the action which they have taken. This solution is much better than the suggestion made in Committee that an explanatory memorandum should be produced for the Fourth Schedule. Obviously, in Committee, I wrought much more successfully than I realised. I moved an Amendment that
    344
    subsection (4) in page 4 should be omitted, but I must, in all modesty, admit that that Amendment was merely exploratory to find out exactly what the Fourth Schedule meant.
    It does not matter particularly that a layman like myself should have difficulty in understanding this Bill, but I think it very important that the lawyers, at any rate, should have a little inkling as to what it means. I was afraid that, as it stood, lawyers not mathematically inclined might be in some difficulty with the Fourth Schedule. I am very pleased that the Minister and the Attorney-General have been able to meet the wishes of the Committee. In conclusion may I just express the hope that means may be found of preserving the Fourth Schedule in the archives of Parliament in order that future draftsmen of Parliamentary Bills may have before them a dread warning of exactly what can be done with the English language when one is really trying.
    Mr. MacColl: I, too, wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his Amendment. By general concensus, it is a wise way of tackling the problem and comparatively—I emphasise the word "comparatively"—simple to understand. I think that all that has been said about it is quite satisfactory to those who were members of the "club" upstairs, because they know what the Fourth Schedule is. They have lived with it. They have taken it to bed with them at night. They have walked the long hours and weekends in the mountains when we were there trying to understand the Fourth Schedule. As this is the Report stage, with which the whole House is concerned, it should be explained to the House that this proposed Amendment is a complete recasting of a vital and important part of the Bill.
    I think that it calls for this comment. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) made his eloquent and clear speech to the Committee on, I think, 13th April. We are now well into the middle of July. For those long months the practitioners who contemplated that they would have to administer this Bill and were already receiving requests from clients to explain their position under the Bill have been trying to wrestle with the Fourth Schedule. They now find that all their labours were in vain. They have to start again, though

    345
    admittedly along much pleasanter paths—if one can use the word "pleasant" about any part of the Bill, but I really think it should be emphasised that the Government should not have introduced such things into the Bill. It was clear on the Second Reading that, as it was then drafted, this Bill was quite incomprehensible and that no one could be expected to administer it. The only two persons who ventured to disagree with that point of view were the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith).
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: If I may intervene, what the hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading was that the whole of the Bill was incomprehensible, and that is what I ventured to disagree with. I do not say that every sentence was perfect as the Bill was then drafted.
    Mr. MacColl: I have always—I will not say exaggerated the abilities of the hon. Member for Hertford, but I have paid them full tribute. I thought he said that he had understood the Bill. I am glad to know that it is only the Attorney-General who understood the Bill. It is true that at a later stage revelation came to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) who had the honour of presiding over the Committee, but that was much later, and it was an uncovenanted mercy. I do not think that he would claim any great credit for it himself.
    Mr. George Thomas: I am very grateful to have the opportunity of saying that my understanding was confined to the proceedings upstairs.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The debate at the moment is hardly on the Amendment.
    Mr. MacColl: We have the lonely figure of the Attorney-General who is the only person who understood the Bill. One ought to pause to reflect that it is an odd thing that a Bill can get a Second Reading, can go upstairs, can be debated, and then when people really face it they have to admit that not one of them understands what it is about. I think that is a little irresponsible on the part of the Government, because when a Bill is published, people whose job it is to understand these things have got to try
    346
    to grasp them. The fact that three months later common sense comes to the Government and they produce a comparatively simple way of doing the job is not really playing fair with the public. Those of us sitting here may expect to be bewildered by the pyrotechnics and gyrations of the Government—that is one of the risks of our job—but the unfortunate public ought reasonably to expect a Government which produces a major Bill of this sort—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is now making a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. Horobin: Fourth Reading.
    Mr. MacColl: I welcome this Amendment. I do not pretend to understand all of it, but I think that with a little care and patience, I may begin to understand it. This Amendment is a great improvement, and I hope the House will accept it.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) is entitled to an answer to the serious question that he put. The point about the phrase
    "otherwise than by way of assignment"
    is purely a technical one. The wording is to make sure that a mortgage which takes the form of a charge does not give rise to the creation of new claim holding. Mortgages are looked after by regulations under Clause 68 simply for the purpose of ensuring that there is no complication created.
    As to the rest of the debate on this Amendment, which perhaps went rather beyond the Amendment at times, I ought to say a word or two. I personally regard the difficult point of the Fourth Schedule with some regret, because I burned some little midnight oil on it and I achieved a result for which I do not think the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) gave me credit. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) said that he had understood my explanation and I wrongly attributed that statement to the hon. Member for Widnes.
    Mr. Blackburn: I have never claimed to understand any particular part of the Bill.
    The Attorney-General: The matter was crowned by the clear statement of the

    347
    Chairman of the Standing Committee that to him, at any rate, the thing was crystal clear. Therefore, I hope that the House will now accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 28, leave out from "holding," to "was," in line 29.
    In line 41, leave out 'from the beginning, to the end of line 45, and insert:
    "value and an area.
    (4) Where by virtue of any disposition of part of the benefit of an established claim, not being a mortgage made otherwise than by way of assignment, different persons became entitled to different parts of that benefit, then, as from the date of that disposition (in this subsection referred to as "the relevant disposition"), each of those different parts shall be treated as having constituted a separate claim holding, and the area and value of each of those separate holdings at any material time after the relevant disposition shall be taken to have been such as may, on the occasion of an apportionment affecting that holding falling to be made for any of the purposes of this Act, be determined by the authority making the apportionment or, where that authority's findings are referred to the Lands Tribunal under any provision of this Act, by that Tribunal to be just and appropriate in all the circumstances; and in making their determination the authority or Tribunal shall in particular have regard to the following principles, that is to say—
    (a) that the aggregate of the values of all claims holdings representing parts of the benefit of the same established claim shall not exceed the amount of that established claim:
    (b) that, subject to the preceding paragraph, where a claim holding representing part only of the benefit of an established claim has been pledged to the Central Land Board within the meaning of the Second Schedule to this Act, otherwise than as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of that Schedule, and by virtue of that Schedule any deduction falls to be made from the value of that claim holding by reference to an amount due by way of development charge, the value of that holding at the time of the pledge shall not be taken to have been less than the lesser of the two following amounts, that is to say—

    (i) the value attributed to the holding for the purposes of the pledge; or

    (ii) the amount due as aforesaid;

    (c) that, in the case of the claim holding representing the part of the benefit of an established claim which was the subject of the relevant disposition, not being a claim holding to which paragraph (d) of this subsection applies—

    (i) the area of the claim holding should be taken to be the claim area of that established claim less the area of any
    348
    claim holding to which the said paragraph (d) applies which represents part of the benefit of the same established claim; and

    (ii) the value of the claim holding immediately after the relevant disposition should, subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, be taken to have been that part of the amount of the established claim to which he holder purported to become entitled under the terms of that disposition;

    (d) that where any person who has been entitled to a claim holding representing part only of the benefit of an established claim—

    (i) at any time while so entitled has also been entitled to the interest in land to which the established claim related in so far as that interest subsisted in part only of the claim area; and

    (ii) became entitled to both that holding and that interest in such circumstances that the authority aforesaid or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal are satisfied that the holding and the interest were intended to relate to one another, the area of that claim holding should be taken to be that part of the claim area, and the value of that holding immediately after the relevant disposition should, however that or any other disposition affecting the holding was expressed but subject to paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection, be taken to have been an amount equal to so much of the amount of the established claim as might reasonably be expected to have been attributed to that part of the claim area if the authority determining the amount of that established claim had been required to apportion it, in accordance with the same principles as applied to its determination, between that part and the residue of the claim area.

    (5) References in this Act to the fraction of the value of a claim holding which attaches to a part of the area of the holding are references to so much of the amount of the established claim of which that holding represents the benefit or part of the benefit (in this subsection referred to as "the relevant established claim") as was properly attributable to that part of the area of the holding:
    Provided that where, by virtue of any provision of this Act, the value of the claim holding at the time in question is to be treated as less or greater—

    (a) in a case where the area of the holding and the claim area of the relevant established claim are the same, than the amount of that established claim; or

    (b) in a case where the area of the holding consists of part only of the said claim area, than so much of the amount of the relevant established claim as was properly attributable to the area of the holding, the amount of the fraction aforesaid shall be treated as reduced or, as the case may be, increased proportionately.

    For the purposes of this subsection, the part of the amount of the relevant established claim

    349
    which was properly attributable to any land forming part of the claim area shall be deemed to be so much of the amount of that claim as might reasonably be expected to have been attributed to that land if the authority determining that amount had been required to apportion it, in accordance with the same principles as applied to its determination, between that land and the residue of the claim area."
    In page 5, line 18, leave out from "holding," to "means," in line 19.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "or, where the holding is subject to a mortgage made otherwise than by way of assignment, means the person who would be so entitled if the holding had not been mortgaged."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that, where a claim holding is subject to a charge, the person entitled to the benefit of that charge is not to be regarded as the holder of the claim holding. The position of mortgagees is dealt with and safeguarded by Clause 68, which provides for the diverting of payments to them. If the mortgagee has taken an assignment of the claim, he is not affected by this Amendment and is entitled to claim in his own right under Clause 10.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND COM PULSORILY ACQUIRED OR SOLD AT PRICE WHOLLY OR PARTLY EXCLUDING DEVELOPMENT VALUE (CASE B).)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, to leave out from the first "was" to "to," and to insert:
    "entitled in the same capacity both to the claim holding and."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments designed to prevent the confusion which would otherwise arise where one person was acting in more than one capacity. For instance, he might be an executor or a trustee. These Amendments make it clear that when the Bill speaks of the holder of the claim holding being entitled to the relevant interest in land, it means entitled in the same capacity, in the sense in which that term is defined in an Amendment which we hope to make to Clause 71 when we reach it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPULSORY ACQUISI TIONS AND TO SALES.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 11, to leave out from "section," to the first "the," in line 14.
    The words in brackets, and the similar words in subsection (4) of the Clause and subsection (5) of the next Clause, are superfluous in view of the changes in Clause 3 and the dropping of the Fourth Schedule.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 29, leave out from "section," to first "the," in line 31.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 8.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND DIS POSED OF BY GIFT (CASE C).)
    Amendments made: In page 11, line 43, leave out from first "was," to "to." and insert:
    "entitled in the same capacity both to the claim holding and."
    In page 12, line 19, leave out from first "section," to first "the," in line 21.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 9.—(PAYMENT WHERE CLAIM HOLDING PURCHASED (CASE D).)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, after "entitled," to insert "in the same capacity."
    This Amendment and the next one substitute for the present subsection (3) the form of words which we have already adopted for Clauses 6 and 8. The meaning of "in the same capacity" is to be defined in Clause 71.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 11.—(PAYMENTS IN CASES ANALOGOUS TO CASE B.)
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, to leave out from "B." to "if," in line 5.
    The words proposed to be left out are really unnecessary. It is clear from the wording of Clause 10 (1) that payments made by reason of that Clause are made under Cases A, B, or C.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 14.—(APPLICATIONS FOR PAYMENTS UNDER PART I.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 18, line 17, to leave out from "requiring," to "and," in line 20, and to insert:
    "the Board, in a case where the determination of such an application involves an apportionment, to give notice of the proposed apportionment to any person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment."
    This and the following Amendment, in line 35, go together. They are little more than drafting Amendments. The Bill as at present drafted refers to persons whose interests—in the plural—are affected. The Amendment substitutes a more precise definition of persons entitled to an interest in land which is affected. It is only the ownership of an interest in land which entitles a person to dispute an apportionment. "Interest in land" will be defined later on, in Clause 71.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 35, leave out "his interests are," and insert:
    "he is entitled to an interest in land which is."
    In page 19, line 3, leave out "to which this subsection applies."
    In line 9, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 16.—(EFFECT OF PAYMENTS ON CLAIM HOLDINGS.)
    Amendment made: In page 21, line 3, leave out from "treated," to "into," in line 4, and insert:
    "as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 17.—(SCOPE OF PART II.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 22, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "and for the purposes of this Act, new development shall be taken to be initiated—

    (a) if the development consists of the carrying out of operations, at the time when those operations are begun;

    (b) if the development consists of a change in use, at the time when the new use is instituted;

    (c) if the development consists both of the carrying out of operations and of a change in use, at the earlier of the times aforesaid."

    This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage to my hon. Friend the Member
    352
    for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friend had expressed doubts about the meaning of the phrase,
    "development of land is initiated" and the Amendment attempts to give effect to the undertaking given.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (a), after "time," to insert:
    "after the commencement of this Act."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I should point out that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment can be taken with the other Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (b), after "time," to insert:
    "after the commencement of this Act."
    Mr. Irvine: The Clause deals with planning decisions made after the commencement of the Act, and the occasions when new development—as defined by the Bill—comes up for consideration as a result of planning decisions made after the commencement of the Act can presumably only cover cases of the revocation of an earlier permission. I should have thought that the case of an earlier decision which has been affected by a planning decision taken after the commencement of the Act was sufficiently looked after by the provisions of Clause 41, and that a certain advantage might be derived if the term "new development," which is a term of art, were confined to development occurring, in point of time, after the commencement of the Act. I venture to recommend that view of the matter to the House unless there is any objection which can be pointed out.
    When this question was considered during the Committee stage the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) drew attention to the fact that the term "new development" had no time significance. If that is so there must be some objection to the use of the phrase. As the case of new development occurring before the commencement of the Act is confined to Clause 19 (3), I should have thought that it might be better to change the design of this part of the Bill and to leave development occurring before the commencement of the Act to be treated under Clause 41 and henceforward, as a result of this Amendment, to confine the term

    353
    "new development" to that development which is initiated after the commencement of the Act.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) is quite correct in saying that this point was raised by him during the Committee stage. We have considered the matter in view of what he then said, and we are very happy to consider it again with a view to making an Amendment, if necessary, in another place. But we feel that new development, in this sense and connotation, is development outside the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act. We think that this is made clear in Clause 17 (4).
    The term "new development" has no connotation as to time; it is simply a term used to describe the character of the development. It is clear from the wording of Clause 19 (3) that it embraces development carried out both before and after the coming into force of the Bill. I appreciate what the hon. Member has said, and if we feel we ought to find some new term, so that a difference may be expressed as between development in point of time and in point of substance, we shall introduce the necessary Amendment. But there would have to be considerable changes throughout the Bill, and there might be rather awkward results in that respect. I do not think that there is any great danger of confusion, but we shall certainly take account of what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. Horobin: I do hope my right hon. Friend will again be cautious. "New development," though, perhaps, it does not mean what people outside would think it means, is a term that is well known by long experience. If we were to start playing about with it I think we should make endless difficulties and cause more confusion than we should clear up.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    Mr. Irvine: In view of the undertaking given by the Minister that he will be good enough to look once more into this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    354
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 19.—(REDUCTION OR EXTINGUISH MENT OF BALANCE.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 45, to leave out from "an," to the end of line 18, on page 23, and to insert:
    "original unexpended balance of established development value, then, subject to the next following subsection, the land shall be taken to have that balance at any time after the commencement of this Act except in so far as that balance is by virtue of any provision of this Act to be treated as having been reduced or extinguished immediately before that time.
    (2) Where any land taken as a whole has an original unexpended balance of established development value, but at any time after the commencement of this Act an act is done or an event occurs in relation to any area consisting of, or including, part only of that land in consequence of which, by virtue of any provision of this Act, an amount would fall to be deducted from the original unexpended balance of that part of that land for the purpose of determining the unexpended balance thereof at any subsequent time, then, without prejudice to the operation of the preceding subsection with respect to any part of the land taken separately, the land taken as a whole shall be treated as not having any such balance at that subsequent time.
    (3) Where compensation under this Part of this Act becomes payable in respect of the depreciation of the value of an interest in land by a planning decision, then, for the purpose of determining whether that land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time, the amount of the compensation shall be deducted from the original unexpended balance of established development value of that land and the original balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been reduced or extinguished accordingly Immediately before that subsequent time."
    This is the first of the series of Amendments to Clause 19, and I should like to give as brief an explanation as I can of the general purposes of the series, for I am afraid that in explaining this Amendment I may trespass slightly on the others. I hope the House will agree that that will save time. This series of Amendments is another attempt to meet the wishes of the Standing Committee in the direction of reducing the complication of the Bill. Hon. Members will find that although there is a large number of words in the Amendments the result of making them will be materially to shorten the Bill and, I hope, to clarify it.

    355
    The general purpose is to make a change in the conditions in which land may be spoken of as having an unexpended balance of established development value—one of the artificial conceptions which is essential to the Bill, and which, I think, hon. Members in the Committee agreed was a convenient vehicle for carrying out the particular purposes required. Under the Bill as drafted any piece of land can be described as having an unexpended balance when the Bill comes into operation if it falls wholly within the area of any claim holding which affects it. That is provided by Clause 18. The balance is useful in setting the limit of the payments that may be made under Parts II and III of the Bill either for compensation or on compulsory acquisition. The land continues to have that balance except in so far as the balance is reduced under the provisions of the Bill as the result of some compensation payment or the carrying out of some development.
    As Clause 19 stands, any act or event which gives rise to a debit against the balance affects the unexpended balance of the land concerned and of any part of it, but not of any wider area. That is to say, if a field, for example, has an unexpended balance taken as a whole, and compensation is paid because permission to build on half of it was refused, the unexpended balance of that half of the field and of each of the plots in it will be suitably reduced, but the unexpended balance of the field taken as a whole will not be affected.
    6.45 p.m.
    It has been found that might have the effect of creating a danger of overpayment, and the first thing that has to be done is, obviously, to avoid that. So far as Part II of the Bill is concerned no difficulty arises. If the claim for compensation is made for such damage as is caused by a planning decision and different parts of the land have a different history so far as the unexpended balance is concerned, then Clause 22 requires the land to be broken down into areas each of which has a uniform history as regards the balance and the compensation is assessed piecemeal. So far as that part of the matter is concerned this point was of no importance, but there is no similar
    356
    provision in Clause 35, under which payments are to be made from the balance on compulsory acquisition, and as the Bill stood, there was a danger of overpayment.
    One way of dealing with the matter would be by the introduction into Clause 35 of something like the fractionalisation process we discussed on Clause 22. As a result of our experience of this fractionalisation that certainly would not be a course any Members would undertake likely. I am glad that is agreed. A better remedy, and the one that has been adopted, as hon. Members will see, in these Amendments, is to make this provision, that as soon as part of an area which has an unexpended balance is affected by any act or event which results in a debit against the balance which does not affect the whole of the area, then that area taken as a whole cannot be spoken of as having an unexpended balance. It goes out of the picture from that point of view altogether. In other words, to have an unexpended balance an area must have a uniform balance history. Or to put it yet another way, the process of Clause 22 is now introduced into Clause 19.
    That is the effect of the proposed new subsection (2). The remaining Amendments we shall ask the House to make to Clause 19 are for the most part consequential or drafting, following out this line of thought. The proposed new subsection (4) provides for the apportionment of amounts of compensation and other deductions from the unexpended balance as between the different parts of the land which is affected.
    By reorganising Clause 19 in this way it has been found possible to shorten Part II substantially, because it will be found that Clause 22 becomes entirely unnecessary, and Clause 27, which deals with cases where two or more interests in the same piece of land are depreciated by the same decision can be combined in Clause 21.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the explanation of this Amendment. It is in substance a rearrangement and largely a drafting Amendment which deals with matters which were in doubt. We regard it as an improvement upon the original Clause 19. Our main doubt about Clause 19, as amended, was on

    357
    subsection (3), to which I referred in connection with a matter I raised on a previous Amendment. We are greatly obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the explanation he has given.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 23, line 22, leave out from "forty-eight," to the end of line 26, and insert:
    "being land which has an original unexpended balance of established development value, then, for the purpose of determining whether that land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time."
    In line 34, leave out from "the," to the end of line 37, and insert:
    "original unexpended balance of established development value of that land and the original balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been reduced or extinguished accordingly immediately before that subsequent time."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 24, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to "unexpended," in line 19, and to insert:
    (4) Where an act or event has occurred in relation to any land in consequence of which any of the provisions of this Act requires an amount to be deducted from the original unexpended balance of established development value of that land or any part thereof, there shall be attributed to the various parts of that land so much of that amount as might reasonably be expected to have been attributed thereto if the authority determining the amount had been required to apportion it between those parts in accordance with the same principles as applied to its determination; and where two or more such acts or events have occurred in relation to the same land, those provisions shall apply cumulatively, and the requisite deduction from the original.
    This ie the substantive subsection (4) which is necessary for the purposes which I have already explained.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 20.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PLANNING DECISIONS.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 24, line 26, to leave out from the beginning, to second "that," in line 32, and to insert:
    "at the time of that decision he is entitled to an interest in any land to which the decision relates which has an unexpended balance of established development value, and the value of that interest or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that interest in so far as it subsists in."
    358
    This is rather more than a drafting Amendment. The need for it arises from the fact that no compensation is payable unless the land has an unexpended balance. It is desirable to make it clear under Clause 20 that the title to compensation is dependent on the existence of such a balance. That is ensured by these words. The insertion of the words "at the time of that decision" is considered desirable in order to prevent any possibility of a claim being made by a person who has acquired the land only since the decision was made.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 21.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 25, line 36 to leave out from "following," to the end of line 46, on page 26, and to insert:
    "subsection, where a person is entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act in respect of the depreciation by a planning decision of the value of an interest in land to which the planning decision relates which at the time of that decision has an unexpended balance of established development value (in this section referred to as 'qualified land') the amount of the compensation shall be whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

    (a) the amount by which the value of the interest, or in the case of an interest extending to other land, the amount by which the value of the interest in so far as it subsists in qualified land, is depreciated by the decision; or

    (b) the amount of the unexpended balance of established development value immediately before the decision of the qualified land in which the interest subsists:

    Provided that if compensation is payable under this Part of this Act in respect of two or more interests in the came qualified land by reason of the same planning decision and the aggregate amount of compensation payable apart from this proviso in respect of those interests exceeds the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the amount so mentioned shall be allocated between those interests in proportion to the depreciation of the value of each of them respectively, and the amount of the compensation payable in respect of any of those interests shall be the sum so allocated to that interest.
    (2) Where the land to which the planning decision relates, taken as a whole, does not satisfy the following conditions, that is to say—

    (a) that the land is qualified land; and

    (b) that every interest subsisting therein the value of which is depreciated by the decision subsists in the whole thereof,

    then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable under this Part of this Act

    359
    in respect of any interest subsisting in that land or any part thereof—

    (i) the depreciation of the value of the interest by the planning decision shall first be ascertained with reference to the whole of the land to which the planning decision relates in which that interest subsists;

    (ii) the land to which the planning decision relates in which that interest subsists shall then be treated as divided into as many parts as may be requisite to ensure that each such part consists of land which either satisfies the conditions aforesaid or is not qualified land; and

    (iii) the depreciation of the value of the interest ascertained as aforesaid shall then be apportioned between the said parts according to the nature of those parts and the effect of the planning decision in relation to each of them,

    and the amount of the compensation shall be the aggregate of the amounts which would he payable by virtue of the preceding subsection if the planning decision had been made separately with respect to each such part."
    I am afraid this is rather a complicated matter but I think it can be explained fairly briefly in view of what I have already said. This Amendment introduces a new Clause 21 which combines the functions of the present Clauses 21 and 27 and of subsection (4) of Clause 26. Clause 22 is abolished. In a reasonably small compass we are achieving a good deal and I hope we are making matters clearer than they were before.
    The first part of the Amendment embodies the substance of the present Clause 21 with some very slight drafting improvements. The reference to the supplement of one-seventh now disappears because it is embodied in the unexpended balance.
    The remainder of the Amendment deals with cases where two or more interests exist in the whole or part of the land which are depreciated by the planning decision. In that respect it replaces Clause 27. Lines 13 to 21 do the job previously done by subsection (2) of that Clause. They deal with the simple case where there are two or more interests in the same land. If the aggregate depreciation exceeds the unexpended balance, the balance is to be shared out proportionately.
    The remainder of the Amendment deals with the more complicated cases where the areas in which the competing interests exist do not coincide. These are at present dealt with in separate subsections of Clause 27—subsections (3) and
    360
    (4)—with the assistance of subsection (4) of Clause 26. These have all been combined here.
    There is no change in the process. The land is to be broken down into areas, each of which has an unexpended balance and a uniform interest structure. The depreciation which is suffered by each of those interests is first to be assessed as a whole and then to be apportioned among these areas of uniform structure. The compensation payable will then be the total of the sums which would have been payable if each area had been the subject of a separate planning decision attracting the apportioned amount of compensation.
    I hope that this will commend itself to the House as a simpler and more convenient arrangement, but I can assure hon. Members that there is no substantial change in the operation of the machinery.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 23.—(COMPENSATION EXCLUDED IN CERTAIN CASES.)
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 27, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    (c) for any development on land adjacent to or contiguous with land on which is situate any building listed under section thirty of the principal Act or any ancient monument or any building or land in the ownership or in the trust of the National Trust;
    (d) for any development in a National Park designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949;
    (e) for any development on land shown on a development plan as an area of natural beauty or scientific interest.
    We attach some importance to this Amendment. It raises the question of the application in the Bill of the principle of good neighbourliness, which the Government have insisted is an acceptable and good principle and is the basis of their policy in this respect. The White Paper stated that the Government
    "consider it reasonable to exclude compensation in respect of restrictions based on the principle of good neighbourliness,".
    We on this side of the House feel that applying the principle of good neighbourliness may sometimes mean that an application for permission to develop must be met by an unqualified refusal—not by any condition attached to a permission but by an unqualified refusal. The Amendment seeks to put that provision into the Bill, confined, as it will be

    361
    in the words of the Amendment, to very distinct and particular cases.
    Our objection to the Bill without the Amendment is that it does not provide for the instance where the correct course is to refuse to allow any development at all and, at the same time, to exclude compensation. The Minister will remember the discussion which we had in Committee arising out of this circumstance, when the Christchurch Meadows were taken as an example and were the object of a discussion which continued for a considerable time. When I then attempted to pursue the argument, I was met by the objection that I was trying to go further than was tenable.
    It was put to me that if the owner of an interest in land in the green belt were met with an unqualified refusal of permission to develop that land, as he would be met and should be met, then it was quite wrong that he should be entitled to no compensation at all. My hon. Friends made a concession in Committee. We thought it a right concession to make that in the case of an owner of green belt land the proposition which we had put forward was not tenable.
    7.0 p.m.
    In this Amendment we have been to great pains to eliminate the possible danger to which the Minister drew attention of going too far and affecting adversely and unfairly owners of land where it would be wrong to do so. We set down in the Amendment a series of instances which can be easily defined and which are clearly specified where we say that if any proposal for development of any kind is made, the answer must be in the national and public interest, immediately an unqualified negative. We say that if an unqualified negative is given in these cases—as it ought to be—it should be accompanied by the exclusion of any compensation payment.
    I put it strongly to the Minister that he should consider with care whether this proposal would not strengthen the provisions of the Bill. In the absence of a provision of this kind is there not real danger that we may have a site of great national beauty or historic importance—ancient monuments and the rest—coming into the hands, temporarily, of a speculative owner who wants the ownership of the land for no other purpose
    362
    than that of putting in an application for permission to develop and, when it is turned down, as it is bound to be turned down in respect of land of community value of the kind described in the Amendment, he would claim compensation, and would have a ground for claiming compensation, unless an Amendment such as we have put forward is accepted by the House?
    We believe that, not in all cases, but in particular cases and important cases of the kind that we have specified in the Amendment, it ought to be possible for refusal to be given to an application for permission to develop—an absolute blank refusal with no qualification attached—and if that is done, it should be possible, at the same time, expressly as a provision of the Bill, to exclude the payment of compensation.
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I think that the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in view arouses sympathy. I think that that was made clear in Committee and the same applies now, on Report. The purpose is, I think, not so much to refuse compensation to this or that man, but to make it easy to secure that the countryside is preserved from destruction and that places of great amenity value are not interfered with. I think that is the real purpose of the Amendment.
    I will not weary the House with the technical difficulties of the Amendment. I am well aware that it is the right of a private Member to put forward an Amendment in the terms he proposes, and it is the duty of the Government, if they accept it in principle, to offer an alternative in their own drafting. This is, however, rather more than drafting.
    I cannot imagine anything that would not come under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e). Almost anything is near an ancient monument or "land adjacent to or contiguous with." One cannot go to Salisbury Plain without bumping up against Stonehenge, or go to almost any part of England where there is not a piece of Roman wall or a piece of earlier Saxon drain, or something of that kind. I do not think that this would work under this definition. Apart from that, I think that the Amendment really misconceives what is our picture of a National Park. Our National Parks are not like the American

    363
    or Canadian parks, such as Jasper Park, which I know so well. They are places where life goes on and where industry goes on.
    Take, for instance, the High Peak where one of the greatest industrial areas is in the National Park—quarrying, lime-making and the rest. Therefore, I would say that what we ought to do is to enforce the planning law sufficiently and rigidly, but not to use the method proposed, which, I think, may have almost the opposite effect to that intended. What would be the result? I have tried to demonstrate it. We had the question of the Malvern Hills and the hon. Gentleman knows the kind of arguments which were put forward in detail.
    It may be that we ought to be more careful about refusing permission to develop in the circumstances which this Amendment has in mind, particularly in places of great beauty, whether inside or outside National Parks. I do not think that one should refuse compensation for the refusal. We ought to make a refusal perhaps in such an area where we would not make it in another area, because we say. "I must preserve its beauty," but that does not mean that we have to do it at the expense of the individual. It means that we have to do it at the expense of the public.
    For instance, the hon. Member will remember the stone quarrying problems at Buxton. I know that part of the country well, and we had some cases on which we had to decide. It may be that if this Amendment were accepted the owners of land which was bought three or four years ago for purposes of quarrying, bought perfectly legitimately and as part of the occupation of the village, would be told, "Not only shall we not allow you to use your quarry, but we shall not pay you any compensation." What would the Minister do in those circumstances? I am sure that he would stretch his authority and grant permission, rather than be guilty of taking away from people a part or the whole of their livelihood. I think that the Amendment, if accepted, would have almost the exact opposite of what is intended. I suggest that we should be content with the very rigid control which we have.
    Ministers can operate that control and be censored if they do not operate it to
    364
    the benefit of the preservation of beauty, amenities and great historic traditions. But I do not think that we ought to do that at the expense of particular people who happen to own property in the area, or acquire it for perfectly legitimate means under the existing law. I think that we ought to take the burden upon ourselves.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I would respectfully and entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said, but I would suggest that apart from the first of the three places which the hon. Gentleman suggests, in respect of which the Amendment is obviously far too widely drafted, that, so far as the second two are concerned, it is unlikely that any very considerable proportion of the land will, in fact, have any established claims at all. It is unlikely that development in such areas will have passed the comparatively rigid test of Part VI of the principal Act, and that if they have, a great many of them will have been excluded under the de minimis provisions.
    Mr. Horobin: There is no limit on the date on which these properties come into the ownership of the Trust. I cannot imagine anything more damaging to the prospect of owners giving property to the National Trust than if, by doing so, they cut themselves out of any possible compensation. Though I am in sympathy with the intention of this Amendment, I feel that what is proposed is quite unworkable.
    Mr. Lindgren: I do not wish to delay the House, because we are making good progress and we wish to make even better progress so that we can finish the Third Reading debate at a reasonable time. But I feel that this approach to the problem divides the House. The Minister sheds tears over someone who has bought a piece of land to start a stone quarry somewhere round the Peak district. He jumps with joy when a local authority puts a road through a piece of land and increases the value of the land on either side of it.
    We feel, particularly because of their introduction of this Bill, that the Government do not intend rigidly to enforce the planning laws. The 1947 Act was the only real planning Act which we have had because it was the first Act which tied up finance and planning, and, therefore, we are trying to do something to

    365
    improve it. This Bill takes away the financial provisions of the 1947 Act and I must advise my hon. Friends to support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 270.

    Division No. 199.]

    AYES

    [7.12 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Hargreaves, A.

    Paton, J.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Harrison, J, (Nottingham, E.)

    Pearson, A.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Hastings, S.

    Peart, T. F.

    Allies, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Awbery, S. S.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Popplewell, E.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Porter, G.

    Baird, J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Balfour, A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Holman, P.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bartley, P.

    Holmes, Horace

    Pryde, D. J.

    Bence, C. R.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Reeves, J.

    Benson, G.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Raid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Blyton, W. R

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Richards, R.

    Boardman, H.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Janner, B.

    Ross, William

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Royle, C.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Short, E. W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Callaghan, L, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Keenan, W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Champion, A. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Chelwynd, G. R.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Clunie, J.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Coldrick, W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collick, P. H.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Cove, W. G.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Steele, T.

    Crosland, C. A, R.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Daines, P.

    Logan, D. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McGovern, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Dodds, N. N.

    McInnes, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    McLeavy, F.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Edelman, M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Timmons. J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Watkins, T. E.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Weitzman, D

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    West, D. G.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Follick, M.

    Moody, A. S.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Foot, M. M.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Wigg, George

    Forman, J. C.

    Morley, R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Willey, F. T.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Glanville, James

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

    Willis, E. G.

    Grey, C. F.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Oswald, T.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Pauley, W. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hale, Leslie

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Yates, V. F.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Panned, Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hannan, W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Mr. Wallace and Mr. James Johnson,

    Hardy, E. A.

    Parker, J.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Mellor, Sir John

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Glover, D.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Godber, J. B.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Ansthruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Gower, H. R.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Neave, Airey

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Barber, Anthony

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Baxter, Sir Boverley

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Odey, G. W.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Birch, Nigel

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heath, Edward

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Black, C. W.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Osborne, C.

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Page, R. G.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Partridge, E.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Braine, B. R.

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Holt, A. F.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hope, Lord John

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Pitman, I. J.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Bollus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Carr, Robert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Cole, Norman

    Kaberry, D.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Kerr, H. W.

    Ropner, Cot. Sir Leonard

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Russell, R. S.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Shepherd, William

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Snadden, M. McN.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington. S.)

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Duncan, Capt. J. A L

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Eccles, Rt Hon. Sir D. M.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Storey, S.

    Fell, A.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Macleod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Summers, G. S.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fort, R.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Foster, John

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Teeling, W.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Marples, A. E.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Maude, Angus

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Maudling, R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    368

    369

    Tilney, John

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Turton, R. H.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Wills, G.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Wood, Hon. R.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Wellwood, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wade, D. W

    Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Mr. Redmayne and

    Mr. Richard Thompson.

    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 27, line 18, after "out," to insert
    "for the purposes of the development."
    This Amendment is designed to make the position quite clear to those hon. Members who fear that compensation might be excluded if conditions were imposed which required parking facilities to be provided on a scale quite unrelated to the purposes of the development. In other words, conditions cannot be made which are not suitable to that particular kind of development.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 27, line 33, to leave out "the stages indicated, in."
    Mr. Speaker: I think that with this Amendment we can take the next one to line 34, to leave out from "situated," to the end of line 35.
    Mr. Lindgren: These two Amendments go together, and deal with a point which was fully discussed in Committee. The Minister undertook to give some consideration to the points which were then made, and one can only assume that consideration has been given and that for some reason a solution has not been found. The inclusion of the words:
    "the stages indicated, in."
    will, we feel, lead to confusion and perhaps to some litigation because of a difference of opinion that might exist as to what the stages are.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: This point, as the hon. Member has reminded us, was discussed in Committee and it was made in particular by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). He pointed out that it would be difficult for anyone to know what are the stages indicated in a plan, since these do not cover with any precision much of the land in the authority's area. I resisted the Amendment on the grounds that the words complained of are taken from the 1947 Act, and like so much of that Act could hardly be improved upon.
    370
    I promised that I would consider whether the wording could be redrawn to avoid difficulty, and we have considered this; but we have not been able to think of a proper form of words. If somebody finds the proper form of words we will be glad to consider them, but I do not see how we can get better phraseology. On examination, it did not seem possible or right to frame a provision dealing with prematurity except by reference to those provisions in the development plan which deal with the timing of development. The things are connected and I do not see how we can disassociate them.
    Mr. Sparks: I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman might have been able to clear up this question of stages in a development plan. We all know that in the framing of a development plan, which has a life of five years, obviously it will be recognised that certain designations will not be ripe for development until 10, 15 or 20 years have passed. Many of us know that certain designations in existing plans cannot be carried out within a period of five years but only at some future time.
    Local authorities may have in their minds a period of years which is quite different from the period of the validity of the plan itself. While the development plan of five yearly periods is subject to review and reconsideration, I think it would be useful if it were possible for the Minister on future occasions to persuade local authorities to have the same sort of timing in various stages of development.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It is done now.
    Mr. Sparks: If the timing can be regarded as stages in the development of the plan that will to some extent clear the matter up, but otherwise, if the stages are not clearly tied up with timing, then it will be very difficult to determine what is the kind of stages. I do not think that such timing is regarded as stages at the moment, but perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us exactly what the position is it would greatly help.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It is quite clear. It is what is called the programme in the first five years, then the five to 20 years and then over that.
    Mr. Lindgren: In the light of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 24.—(No COMPENSATION IF OTHER COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 28, line 20, to leave out from "land," to the end of line 10, on page 29, and to insert:
    "if, notwithstanding that refusal, there is available with respect to that land planning permission for development to which this section applies:
    Provided that where such permission is available with respect to part only of the land, this section shall have effect only in so far as the interest subsists in that part.
    (2) Where a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act is made in respect of an interest in any land, planning permission for development to which this section applies, shall be taken for the purposes of this section to be available with respect to that land or a part thereof if, immediately before the Minister gives notice of his findings in respect of that claim, there is in force with respect to that land or part a grant of, or an undertaking by the Minister to grant, planning permission for some such development, subject to no conditions other than such as are mentioned in subsection (2) of the last preceding section.
    (3) This section applies to any development of a residential, commercial or industrial character, being development which consists wholly or mainly of the construction of houses, flats, shop or office premises, or industrial buildings (including warehouses), or any combination thereof."
    This Amendment is a redraft of Clause 24 in simpler form to meet the criticism which was originally made on both sides of the Standing Committee. In the first place it gets rid of the Sixth Schedule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought everybody would be in favour of that.
    Mr. Sparks: Not completely got rid of.
    Mr. Macmillan: We have cut it down. We have got rid of what was confusing and dangerous because it was liable to lead to an absurdity in other directions. The absurdity arose from the fact that a man could go through the Sixth Schedule, find something which was not in it, apply
    372
    for permission to do it, and then ask for compensation. That has been got rid of, and it will help the position in some later Amendments, because of the absurdity which could arise of a vexatious local authority and a vicious, wicked Minister combining to make the ridiculous position exemplified by granting permission to build a bungalow in one of the finest and most expensive housing sites in London.
    This gives a much simpler conception and is a better form. The principle remains, and that is what we are agreed about. I think the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and I were agreed on the principle, what we sought to discover were words which would meet the situation. He suggested some words which we have accepted.
    7.30 p.m.
    The principle remains that the system of exclusions is founded upon this basis. Compensation is not to be paid for preventing maximum exploitation, so long as development of a reasonably remunerative character is allowed. From this point of view the nature of the development for which permission was sought is not of prime importance. It is much more important to deal with the permission which is granted. Therefore we have turned it round and the proposal now is that, no matter what may have been refused, compensation is to be excluded if permission is given for development of certain specified kinds. We think that is the broad definition which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me at the end of the Committee stage, and we have made only a slight modification of it.
    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to move his Amendment to line 15, to leave out from "construction" to "buildings," in line 16.
    Mr. Lindgren indicated dissent.
    Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps it would be courteous of me to say that if we accepted that Amendment the meaning of this Clause, as well as of Clause 33 which depends on it, would become almost a matter of conjecture. And it would leave Clause 24 applying to any development of a residential, commercial, or industrial character which consisted wholly or mainly of the construction of buildings.
    Mr. Lindgren: We accept the suggested Amendment and are grateful for it, because it is a genuine attempt to meet the points put by my hon. and learned Friend during the Committee stage. Indeed, it is a compliment to him that some of his suggestions have been incorporated in this Amendment. We felt, however, that even under Clause 33 it would he better to make this apply to buildings, and if the Minister will look at it again, we will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Horobin: In this part of the House, too, we feel that on the whole this Amendment is an improvement, especially getting rid of the Sixth Schedule. There are certain observations on the result which will be better made on the Third Reading but, as a pure matter of machinery, this is a great improvement and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to meet us in this regard.
    Mr. Sparks: The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet some of the criticisms levelled against this Clause and the Sixth Schedule, but he has not caused the Sixth Schedule to disappear entirely. He has incorporated it in paragraph (3), leaving out certain designations which appeared previously, for reasons which have not been explained.
    The Minister includes houses, flats, shop or office premises but leaves out garages and petrol filling stations. He includes industrial buildings but leaves out cinemas, including television cinemas, and buildings designed for use wholly or mainly for the sale of intoxicating liquor, a description with which we are all familiar, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). The Minister did not give any explanation of why he left those out although, if they were included, confusion would be worse confounded than it is already. The main objection to the categories in the Sixth Schedule remain to some extent in the amended version. It will still be difficult to decide strictly what are houses, what are flats, what are shops and what are industrial buildings.
    Then again the Minister said he accepted the definitions moved from this side when in Committee, namely, "residential, commercial, or industrial" but immediately proceeded to circum
    374
    scribe them by tacking on a certain number of the uses which appeared originally in the Sixth Schedule. It would have been better if he had left the definition "residential, commercial and industrial character," without seeking to qualify it, because now it will be confusing to have to consider "residential, commercial or industrial" in relation to houses, shops, flats, office premises, industrial buildings and no others. So that although the Minister has moved somewhat in the right direction, and has endeavoured to simplify the problem of comparable development, I still think there is a substantial element of confusion in the wording which will lead to many of the difficulties we complained of in Committee.
    We are not moving our Amendment, but I presume that on the next stage of the Bill elsewhere the Minister could, if he thought fit, have that done on our behalf?
    Mr. Macmillan indicated assent.
    Mr. Sparks: And as at the Box the right hon. Gentleman made a speech copied largely from our criticism of the Bill in Standing Committee, it gives us some assurance that in another place the same thing will be done. There is some merit in deleting all these designations such as houses, flats, shops or office premises or industrial buildings, leaving the words:
    "residential, commercial or industrial character, being development which consists wholly or mainly of…buildings."
    That is much more easily dealt with by local authorities, planning authorities and others concerned with carrying out the administrative provisions of this part of the Bill. Therefore, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see if he can further improve this Clause in another place, I and my hon. Friends welcome the step he has taken as far as it goes.
    Mr. MacColl: I find myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) in a little band of die-hards who are not enthusiastic about this proposal. Any feeling I have about forcing my lukewarmness to the stage of active opposition has been destroyed by the benign and pacific ending of the speech of my hon. Friend, because he indicated that he would not follow me into the

    375
    Division Lobby against this Amendment, and I could not possibly go into such a place alone.
    The Minister has gone some distance to meet us, but my worry about this Amendment is that it is tautological, and that seems dangerous. When we put words into a Bill which have very little meaning, they usually cause a lot of trouble when the Bill comes up for judicial interpretation. Those who interpret the law of this country always assume—and it is an extraordinary assumption—that Parliament has some intention when it puts words in a Bill. Anyone who has taken part in the process of law-making knows that that is not always the case.
    These words add nothing at all to the meaning or, if they do, they will be open to an interpretation which will defeat the Minister's intention. If the words "commercial or industrial" are not narrow enough to get rid of buildings like churches, why not use the blessed word "remunerative"? That would limit the development to that which would bring something back to the developer. The Amendment speaks of
    "…any development of a residential, commercial or industrial character, being development which consists wholly or mainly of the construction of houses, flats, shop or office premises,…"
    and so on. What a residential development which did not consist mainly or wholly of houses would be, I do not know. If application was made for development based on igloos, I suppose that that would rank for compensation, because that would not be a development consisting mainly of houses. If not, why has the Minister not taken the courage of his conviction and accepted very simple, easily understood words?
    Why has it been necessary to tag on these half-hearted thoughts at the end of the subsection? They seem to me dangerous and therefore, like my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, I am reluctant and doubtful about the Amendment, but it is better than what we had previously. Perhaps one should be content with small mercies and expect, though perhaps not with much hope, that there will be some improvement in another place.
    Mr. Skeffington: I should like to have one difficulty cleared up in connection
    376
    with the proposed new subsection (2), which states:
    "Provided that where such permission is available with respect to part only of the land, this section shall have effect only in so far as the interest subsists in that part."
    How far does this fit in with Clause 23 (2), which says:
    "Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the imposition, on the granting of permission to develop land, of any condition relating to—
    (a) the number or disposition of buildings on any land;"
    I fail to see how these two provisions fit, and I should be grateful if the difficulty were cleared up.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION.)
    Amendment made: In page 30, line 28, leave out from beginning, to end of line 36, on page 31.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 29.—(REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS WHERE COMPENSATION CLAIMED.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 34, line 4, after "to," to insert:
    "the local circumstances affecting the proposed development, including the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and to."
    The Amendment is part of the general review of these Clauses and is intended to make it clear beyond doubt that local circumstances are a material consideration in deciding whether or not a direction should be given under Clause 29.
    It is always a problem, in framing a Bill of this kind, whether to leave the wording strictly at what one is advised it is necessary to say or whether, to make it clear beyond doubt, it is valuable to insert sign-posts for those concerned with the operation of the statute, particularly in a context such as this. The plan and local circumstances are considerations which plainly must enter into the issue in all cases and it is just as well to make it clear to those who have to operate a Bill of this kind that it should be operated in the way that the Amendment lays down.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Horobin: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Amendment deals with two points which I raised in Committee and which I think a great improvement in redressing the ill-balance, arising partly out of an Amendment which was accepted without a Division from the other side of the Committee, dealing with the development plan as one of the things to be taken into consideration. Here we have the things which are essentially to be taken into account and the proper weight is given to them as protection to the owner and to ensure that the circumstances of the time are borne in mind and not merely those which arise later.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 30.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVI SIONS AS TO REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 34, line 7, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 14, and to insert:
    "if so required by the local planning authority to whose decision the direction relates or by any person who made, and has not since withdrawn, a claim in respect of that decision, afford an opportunity for that authority or person to appear before, and be heard by, a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide that in all cases claimants for compensation shall receive notice of a proposed direction under Clause 29 and shall have the opportunity of requesting to be heard by a person appointed by the Minister before the direction is given. This is not a full inquiry but a hearing which should be valuable for the claimants and, in the long run, should help to avoid disputes.
    Mr. Horobin: The Minister has done something which will give great satisfaction not only to owners but to all right-minded authorities. It is clearly right that both sides should be heard before the Minister gives a direction. The Amendment makes good what some of us conceived to be a difficulty in the Bill, and I am grateful for it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 34, line 17, to leave out "to the applicant."
    378
    This is a small point, but a logical change. On reflection, it is thought to be a mistake to give the applicant for planning permission a standing under this Clause as such. If he owns an interest on the land affected by the planning decision, then he is almost certainly a claimant for compensation and entitled to be heard in that capacity. If he owns no interest, there seems no reason why he should play any part in the proceedings on a claim for compensation.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 31.—(DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.)
    Amendments made: In page 34, line 45, leave out from "and," to end of line 4, on page 35, and insert:
    "if his findings include an apportionment, to give particulars of the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Minister is."
    In page 35, line 11, leave out "the claimant or."
    In line 14, leave out "his interests are," and insert:
    "he is entitled to an interest in land which is."
    In line 32, to leave out, "to which this subsection applies."
    In line 37, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 33.—(RECOVERY OF COMPENSA TION ON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 37, line 26, to leave out from "development," to the first "in," in line 30, and to insert:

    (a) to which section twenty-four of this Act applies; or

    (b) which consists in the winning and working of minerals; or

    (c) to which, having regard to the probable value of the development, it is in the opinion of the Minister reasonable that this section should apply:

    Provided that—

    (i) this section shall not apply to any development by virtue of paragraph (c) of this subsection if, on an application made to him for the purpose, the Minister has certified that, having regard to the probable value of the development, it is not in his opinion reasonable that this section should apply thereto; and

    (ii).

    This Amendment is directed to three points. The first is that it is to substitute reference to development to which Clause 24 applies for reference to

    379
    development falling within the Sixth Schedule. This is a drafting change and is consequential on the Amendment made to Clause 24 and the disappearance of the Schedule. The second point is more substantial. It is to extend the range of cases in which the recovery of compensation is to take place by giving the Minister discretion to recover where the development to be carried out is valuable but is not, "residential, commercial or industrial" and is not mineral working. This meets a criticism made with some force in the Committee proceedings against the selective character of the items listed in the Schedule. We have now widened the range.
    The third point is to provide machinery in paragraph (i) of the proviso for enabling a prospective developer to find out in advance whether or not the Minister intends to exercise this discretion to recover.
    Mr. Sparks: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a stage further towards meeting the point we discussed in Standing Committee. I am sure it will be acceptable to both sides of the House if in fact the intention of the proposal now before us is to reduce the amount of compensation paid, or likely to be paid, for alternative development. What the right hon. Gentleman said is quite true. Under the previous working there was a wide range of uses for which a person could develop a piece of land and at the same time receive compensation for refusal of the original proposal.
    Now, as the right hon. Gentleman has to some extent increased the range of comparable uses, obviously it must follow that there must be a restriction in the cases where compensation is paid for refusal of permission but carrying with it an alternative form of development of a different nature in the way of development value. To that extent the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman goes a long way, but I still think that there will be some other forms of development which will be outside the general range, for the reason I stated on Clause 24. The categories of use there embodied will to some extent restrict the uses which may be regarded as comparable. Uses otherwise not defined in Clause 24 and therefore not regarded as comparable may still rank for compensation.
    380
    This is one more example of the extraordinary complexity of this Bill and the almost impossibility of dealing with all the anomalies likely to arise. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has made an effort to narrow the gap and I think we ought to accept the proposition.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 38, line 4, at the end, to insert:
    (4) Where, in the case of any land in respect of which a compensation notice has been registered, the Minister is satisfied that, having regard to the probable value of any proper development of that land, no such development is likely to be carried out unless he exercises his powers under this subsection, he may, in the case of any particular development, remit the whole or part of any amount otherwise recoverable under this section; and where part only of any such amount has been remitted, he shall cause the compensation notice to be amended by substituting therein for the statement of the amount of the compensation a statement of the amount which has been remitted under this subsection.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to carry further the process of making the recovery provisions of the Bill more flexible. The proposed new subsection will enable the Minister to guard against the risk that desirable development may be frustrated and land sterilised owing to the burden of recovery. The absence of any such provision was criticised in the Committee and it seems desirable that the criticisms should be met.
    It will only operate, it will be the duty of each succeeding Minister to operate it, and it ought only to be operated if the Minister is satisfied that no proper development—that is to say, no development for which permission would be granted—is likely to be carried out because it would not be sufficiently remunerative to carry the burden of repaying the compensation in full. There may not be many such cases, but it would be very desirable to deal with them if they occur.
    The kind of case we had in mind is where substantial compensation may be paid because of a refusal to allow some large and profitable development, say a factory, but owing to a change in plan or in circumstances over a period of years it becomes proper to allow, not the development originally proposed, but something much less valuable, say a number of houses to be built on the site. If nothing

    381
    was done to give the Minister power to waive recovery, either in whole or in part, the land on which houses might very properly be built would be left idle because no one would face the recovery charge. That would be bad planning because the houses, instead of being built on the land which everyone thought was the best, when pressure was very great, might be built on a site where from a planning point of view that was not so satisfactory. I hope that this provision will be valuable to succeeding Ministers as years go by.
    Mr. Horobin: Once again the Minister has shown his thoughtfulness and skill in dealing with points which have been raised. This matter was one which seemed to me to have grave possibilities of sterilising land. I am very grateful to the Minister for finding a way out of the difficulty which was inherent in the Bill as drafted.
    Mr. Sparks: The only criticism I can offer is that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to pay out compensation for refusal of planning permission, but if at some subsequent period permission is given—probably for the same development as was originally refused, or for some other form of development equally comparable—the individual will not have to repay compensation—
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Nor for the same development.
    Mr. Sparks: That is better if it is not for the same development, but one might put it this way. The individual may have a piece of land and apply for permission to put up a factory. The right hon. Gentleman refuses permission and the individual gets compensation. In five years' time there is a change in the development plan and that land may be designated for another purpose, or for some other reason the owner may make application for building houses, a cinema, offices, shops, or any other purpose. As far as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman says that there will he no need for the individual to repay the compensation which was previously given him.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Member is inaccurate, and I am sure he does not mean to be inaccurate. I did not say that the owner is not to repay, but that the Minister would have discretion. The
    382
    result would be that if the repayment were made, either in part or in whole, that land would remain perfectly sterile. It is for the Minister, not the owner, to decide.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Sparks: The Minister quite fairly puts that point of view. I understand now that it is a matter for his discretion; but the discretion may be either in favour of repayment of compensation, or not. I concede that there are cases of the kind put by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) in which there would be no development whatever if the whole or even part of the compensation had to be repaid. If the right hon. Gentleman exercises discretion it means that in some cases he will relieve people from repaying compensation and in other cases will insist on repayment in full or in part. All I hope is that the right hon. Gentleman and his successors will exercise the discretion wisely in the interests of the community.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 38, line 7, after "notice," insert:
    "then, except where, and to the extent that, payment of that amount has 0been remitted under the last preceding subsection."
    In line 41, after "time," insert:
    "except where, and to the extent that, payment of that amount has been remitted under subsection (4) of this section."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 35.—(COMPENSATION TO INCLUDE UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTAB LISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)
    Amendment made: In page 40, line 17, leave out from "interest," to end of line 20.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 37.—(PROTECTION FOR PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 42, line 21, to leave out from "applicant," to the second "whether," in line 22, and to insert:
    "within twenty-eight days of the receipt of the application, stating whether or not the Council propose to acquire within the next five years."
    This is the Clause which tries to get the scheme to work effectively by devising a procedure to find out whether a local authority is likely to serve a compulsory notice before a developer decides to purchase a piece of land. It was rather a weakness—I am sure it would not happen, but still there was the danger—that

    383
    a local authority would simply not answer the letter. Consequently, it was necessary to insert a time within which the reply must be made. The first thing, therefore, that the Amendment does is to impose upon local authorities the duty to answer applications within 28 days.
    The insertion of the words "within the next five years" deals with another point which we discussed in Committee. I was frank in saying that I thought there were arguments in favour both of five years and of three years. Obviously, if the period was made too long, the temptation on the local authority would be to say, "We are bound to want a compulsory purchase order on that bit of land some day," so the authority would tend to claw in more than was either in its interest or in the interest of the community generally.
    On the other hand, if the period was made too short, it was not of much value to the prospective purchaser and developer. What weighed with us finally in deciding on five years—although it is almost a matter of tossing a coin which period we choose—was that five years is the period we have taken in the plan system, and, therefore, it seemed reasonable that the same system should operate in Clause 37.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The two Amendments to the Minister's Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), are not being called, but can be discussed with this Amendment. If a Division is required, it can be taken on the second of the two Amendments.
    Mr. Skeffington: I should like to say a few words about the period that the Minister is now writing into the Bill as the time within which a local authority must notify whether it proposes to acquire land. I gather that my Amendment, which was designed to increase the period from 28 to 56 days, is not to be called.
    Twenty-eight days is rather a short time. It might not be an inconvenient period
    384
    for a large authority, with staff continuously on duty and frequent—say fortnightly—council and committee meetings; but some of the smaller planning authorities might have only one meeting of the appropriate committee each month, and if an important application is received the authority may be put to considerable difficulty in having to give a decision within 28 days. I hope that in another place it may still be possible, if 56 days is regarded as too long, to insert a period of, say, six weeks. This would help authorities to have applications dealt with by their planning committees normally without the necessity and expense of special meetings.
    The period of five years specified at the end of the Minister's Amendment is a more significant matter. The Clause protects a prospective purchaser of land by assuring that if the land is to be compulsorily acquired from him by a local authority within a certain period, the compensation that is payable will include the value of any planning permission which attaches to the land when the purchaser buys it. When the Bill was introduced the period specified was three years. It was only after an Amendment had been moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin)—who has been, quite properly, in my view, referred to as the Minister's conscience in many of these matters—that the Minister said that he could not be certain where the balance of justice lay. I notice, however, that he has now come down, as usual, in favour of his hon. Friend and for five years.
    I understand that in the memorandum from the Ministry to local authorities, dated 15th August, a period of five years was suggested. Subsequently, at a meeting last October with the Minister, local authorities urged upon him that three years would be a suitable period. The local authorities understood that that suggestion would be favourably considered by the Minister. Certainly, when the Bill was introduced the period was fixed at three years. Now, as a result of the comments by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East, the Minister has, if not exactly gone back upon his words, at any rate disregarded the representations made to him by the representative body of local authorities all over the country.

    385
    There are, perhaps, two reasons why five years is considered too long a period. Although many local authorities will consider periods of five years, it is, nevertheless, impossible to foresee all the developments that will take place during that time. There will be educational developments, provision for open spaces, and a hundred and one other things which come properly within the province of a local authority, but cannot be fully planned in all details—for so long a period as five years.
    What may be the result if the Clause remains as it is is that authorities will be so cautious that they will acquire more land than they need or they will give undertakings about a greater amount of land than they require. They will not want to be caught on the wrong foot if the longer period is put in. This is an age of rapid developments. I should have thought that three years was adequate, especially in connection with my second point. It is that in most cases a private developer will have time within three years to have carried out full development so that he can claim full compensation should the land be compulsorily acquired. There are not many schemes in which the period of three years is likely to impose special hardship on the private developer.
    I understand that there was a further meeting between representatives of the Ministry and the local authorities on 21st October. It was emphasised by the Ministry officers that the onus would be on all public authorities to notify their future plans to the appropriate authority and if they failed to do this they would suffer by having to pay a price based on the market value of the land if they wanted to acquire it for a limited period. It was eventually agreed by both sides that this scheme might work adequately if the period during which the higher price was to be payable was to be reduced to three years. That, of course, was the period which originally appeared in Clause 37.
    It is most unfortunate, having had these two discussions with the local authorities, first, when the period of three years was seriously considered and, second, when in the consideration of the detailed working out of the scheme it was agreed by both sides that three years would be a reasonable period, that the Minister should
    386
    come down against what I think is the public interest in this matter by inserting the longer period. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the matter will be reconsidered in another place. If not, I hope that we show our disagreement with the course he has taken.
    Mr. Horobin: I did not intend to intervene, but I have been referred to and it is important that this matter should be worked fairly between both sides. I assure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that there is nothing sinister in the use of the five-year period. The point is simply that we want to get development done. With a big development where the work would take more than three years the effect of a C.P.O. would be disastrous. It is most necessary to protect the intending purchaser who proposes to undertake big industrial development for the benefit of the workers of the country, and the Bill gives the protection of a longer period. We think that three years would not give sufficient protection.
    There is nothing sinister about this provision. People just will not undertake enormously expensive developments if there is a danger that before they get the benefit of the established new existing use there might be interference. There is nothing sinister about this. If the provision is acted upon fairly from both sides—if the local authorities do not pretend that they want a lot of land which they do not really want, and intending developers do not abuse the provision—it will work; but if the period is too short it will not work.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I hope that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) did not think me discourteous when, on the last occasion that he spoke, I did not ask the leave of the House to reply. I think that asking leave of the House can be overdone. I took note of the point he made, so I will note what he said in his last speech. I have already spoken on the Amendment, but I should like to answer him briefly. He probably does not feel very strongly on the matter of the 28 days or six weeks. It is just a matter of what seems reasonable.
    I should like to remind the House of what the authority has to do. It has not to hawk the inquiry around all sorts of

    387
    likely purchasers, but it has to examine the records to see whether it has received the requirements of some other body—a Service Department or something of that kind—which has notified it. That either has or has not been done. One can tell in five minutes. Then it has to have regard to its own requirements. We think that, if it can answer at all, it can answer as well in 28 days as it can in 56. I do not think that that is a great issue.
    On the other question, I can only repeat that I do not feel that I have been guilty of any sinister design or plot. During the debate I have made a number of concessions to the Opposition. Sometimes I have even been able to wring from the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) not a smile but friendly wink. Sometimes I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the views of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, if they struck me as right.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) said, what
    we want is that development should be done. The last people who want to prevent private development are the local authorities, for they depend greatly for their wealth and prosperity upon the work of private developers. We are not thinking now of houses; these are industrial and commercial developments, and sometimes a long period of preparation is necessary. Though I think it is a matter of opinion, I do not think that it is a matter of principle. Frankly, I would not go to the stake either for three or five years, but I hope that the House will agree with my proposal.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "five," and to insert "three."
    Mr. Blackburn: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question put, "That 'five' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 220.

    Division No. 200.]

    AYES

    [8.18 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Glover, D.

    Allen, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Godber, J. B.

    Alport, C. J. M

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Cole, Norman

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Amory, Rt. Hon Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Gower, H. R.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Arbuthnot. John

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Grimond, J.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Heath, Edward

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Birch, Nigel

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Higgs, J. M. C

    Bishop, F. P.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hinchingbrooks, Viscount

    Black, C. W.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Holt, A. F.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Hope, Lord John

    Brains, B. R.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon Henry

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Fell, A.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Hurd, A. R.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Buchan Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Fort, R.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Foster, John

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Campbell, Sir David

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Carr, Robert

    Gammans, L. D.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Kaberry, D.

    Channon, H.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Odey, G. W.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Osborne, C.

    Storey, S.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Page, R. G.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Studholme, H. G

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Summers, G. S.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Low, A. R. W.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Profumo, J, D.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Ramsdon, J. E.

    Turton, R. H.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Redmayne, M.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Rees-Davies, W. R

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Macpherson, Naill (Dumfries)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Renton, O. L. M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn Sir Reginald

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wade, D. W.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Maude, Angus

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Maudling, R.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

    Russell, R. S.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Wellwood, W.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Scott, R. Donald

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr.R.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Shepherd, William

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Neave, Airey

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Mr. Wills.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Chapman, W. D.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Adams, Richard

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hale, Leslie

    Albu, A. H.

    Clunie, J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Coldrick, W.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Collick, J. H.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hannan, W.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Baird, J.

    Daines, P.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Balfour, A.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hastings, S.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Bartley, P.

    Deer, G.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Bence, C. R.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Holman, P.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Blackburn, F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Finch, H. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Follick, M.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Foot, M. M.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Forman, J. C.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Burke, W. A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Glanville, James

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Keenan, W.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    Kenyon, C.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    390

    391

    Lawson, G. M.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Pannell, Charles

    Steele, T.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Parker, J.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Paton, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Pearson, A.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Peart, T. F.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Logan, D. G.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Popplewell, E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    McInnes, J.

    Porter, G.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    McLeavy, F.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Thornton, E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Timmons, J.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Tomney, F.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Usborne, H. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Rankin, John

    Warbey, W. N.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Reeves, J.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Weitzman, D.

    Mason, Roy

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Rhodes, H.

    West, O. G.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Richards, R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Mitchiton, G. R.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Ross, William

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Morley, R.

    Royle, C.

    Willey, F. T.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Mort, D. L.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Moyle, A.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsdon)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Willis, E. G.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Oswald, T.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Paget, R. T.

    Snow, J. W

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 31, after "acquire," insert:
    "within the next five years."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 39.—(COMPENSATION FOR SEVER ANCE, INJURIOUS AFFECTION AND DISTURBANCE.)
    Amendment made: In page 43, line 43, after "assessed." insert:
    "in respect of an interest in land."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 44, line 4, to leave out from "with," to the end of line 5, and to insert:
    "subsections (2) to (7) of this section."
    This is the first of another series of rather complicated Amendments carrying out further the process of what I might call the slaughter of the Schedules, so I hope it will be popular from that point of view, at any rate.
    The purpose of this Amendment and the one which follows it in line 11 is to dispense with the Eighth Schedule and to insert the substance of it in the present
    Clause in a somewhat simpler form. Certain of the provisions will be inserted in a subsequent Clause. The arrangements for the necessary adjustments in the unexpended balance, the machinery for which is contained at the moment in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Schedule, will be found in Clause 40 in due course.
    It is, of course, essential to carry out the same type of calculation as was previously required, this Schedule being the one which deals with the machinery for compensation for severance or injurious act or event on compulsory acquisition of the land. The depreciation which is caused by the injurious act or event has to be dealt with in two branches—the damage to the prospects of development, which we call "loss of development value," and the damage to the existing use of the land, which is called for purposes of convenience the "loss of immediate value."
    8.30 p.m.
    The compensation, therefore, is to be the amount of the loss of immediate value plus the amount of the loss of development value—if the land affected has an unexpended balance—within the limits of the balance. That is provided by subsections (3) and (4) of the Amendment and

    393
    that, with the definitions, replaces paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Schedule. The changes in Clause 19 make it unnecessary to provide anything to replace paragraph 6, which can now come out. The proviso to subsection (4) and subsection (5) of the Amendment deal with cases where two or more interests exist in the whole of the land or part of it. They are very similar to the provisions which we have already discussed in Clause 21.
    The proposed subsection (6) serves as a pointer to the forthcoming Amendment in Clause 40, which contains the substance of what is now paragraph 9 of the Schedule. If hon. Members will look at the Amendment they will see that it carries out one of the objects which were so much insisted upon by hon. Members during the Committee stage. They will see the way in which the definitions are set out, and the provisions which follow them can, I think, be read very simply and clearly. I hope that the House will agree that the Amendment makes a substantial improvement in that respect.
    Mr. Lindgren: As the Attorney-General has said, we now see the end of the Eighth Schedule, and we are very glad of it. I should like to say that my colleagues and I appreciate the drafting of the Amendment, and especially the wording of the subsections (6) and (7). From time to time Parliamentary draftsmen come in for a great deal of criticism, some of which is justified and some unjustified, but this, at least, is a piece of work of which they can well be proud.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 11, at end, insert:
    (2) In the subsequent provisions of this section, the following expressions have the following meanings respectively—
    "the compensation" means compensation such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection;
    "the interest affected" means the interest in respect of which the compensation falls to be assessed, in so far as that interest subsists in land, other than the relevant land, which is affected by the injurious act or event;
    "the land affected" means the land in which the interest affected subsists;
    "the injurious act or event" means the act or event in consequence of which the compensation falls to be assessed;
    "other interest affected" means an interest other than the interest affected which subsists in the whole or part of the land affected
    394
    and in respect of which compensation such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection is payable by virtue of the injurious act or event;
    "qualified land" means land which immediately before the injurious act or event has an unexpended balance of established development value;
    "the loss of development value" means the amount, if any, by which the value of the interest affected immediately before the injurious act or event, if calculated on the assumption that, until such time as the land affected might reasonably be expected to become ripe for new development, no use whatever could be made of that land, would exceed the value of that interest immediately after that act or event if calculated on the like assumption;
    "the loss of immediate value" means the amount, if any, by which the difference in the value of the interest affected immediately before and immediately after the injurious act or event exceeds the loss of development value.
    (3) If neither the land affected taken as a whole nor any part thereof is qualified land, the amount of the compensation shall be the loss of immediate value.
    (4) If the land affected taken as a whole satisfies the following conditions, that is to say—

    (a) that it is qualified land; and

    (b) that no other interest affected subsists in a part only thereof,
    the amount of the compensation shall be the aggregate of the loss of immediate value and whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

    (i) the loss of development value; or

    (ii) the amount of the unexpended balance of established development value of the land affected immediately before the injurious act or event:
    Provided that if one or more other interests affected subsist in the whole of the land affected, and the aggregate of the loss of development value of the interest affected and of any such other interest or interests exceeds the amount mentioned in paragraph (ii) of this subsection, that amount shall be allocated between the interest affected and any such other interest or interests in proportion to the loss of development value of each of them respectively, and the amount of compensation payable in respect of the interest affected in addition to the loss of immediate value shall be the sum so allocated to that interest.

    (5) If the land affected, taken as a whole, does not satisfy the conditions mentioned in the last preceding subsection then, for the purpose of assessing the compensation in respect of the interest affected—

    (a) the loss of development value of the interest affected and of any other interest affected shall first be ascertained with reference to the whole of the land affected;

    395

    (b) the land affected shall then be treated as divided into as many parts as may be requisite to ensure that each such part consists of land which either satisfies the conditions aforesaid or is not qualified land; and

    (c) the loss of development value of each of the interests aforesaid, ascertained as aforesaid, shall then be apportioned between the said parts according to the nature of those parts and the effect of the injurious act or event in relation to each of them,
    and the compensation payable in respect of the interest affected in addition to the loss of immediate value shall be the aggregate of the amounts which would be so payable by virtue of the last preceding subsection if each such part had been the whole of the land affected.

    (6) If in any case the amount of the compensation attributable to the loss of immediate value is less than the depreciation in restricted value of the interest affected, subsection (3) of the next following section shall have effect with respect to the amount of the difference.
    In this subsection the expression "the depreciation in restricted value" means the amount, if any, by which the value of the interest affected, immediately after the injurious act or event, would be less than the value of that interest immediately before that act or event, if both values were calculated on the assumption that planning permission would be granted for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to the principal Act but would not be granted for any other development.
    (7) In calculating value for any of the purposes of this section in its application to compensation for damage to land not held with the relevant land, being damage sustained by reason of the construction or erection of works on the relevant land, no account shall be taken of the use, or the prospective use, of those works.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 40.—(EFFECT OF PART III ON UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTAB LISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)
    Amendments made: In page 44, line 21, at beginning, insert "any of."
    In line 21, leave out "or any part thereof."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 44, line 23, to leave out from "date," to the end of line 47, and to insert:
    "(in this subsection referred to as ' the relevant balance ') then, in determining whether that land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time—
    (i) for the purposes of section thirty-five of this Act and, if the relevant balance was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been, disregarded for the said purposes, or if immediately after the acquisition or sale no person other than the acquiring authority is entitled to any interest in
    396
    the land other than an excepted interest, for all other purposes of this Act, the original unexpended balance of established development value of that land shall be treated as having been extinguished immediately before that subsequent time;
    (ii) subject to the preceding paragraph, it immediately after the acquisition or sale some other person is entitled as aforesaid, there shall be deducted from the said original balance the aggregate of any amount by which the relevant balance was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been treated as reduced for the purposes of the said section thirty-five, and any amount which was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been, included by virtue of that section in the compensation payable on compulsory acquisition, and the original balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been reduced or extinguished accordingly immediately before that subsequent time:
    Provided that in the event of a subsequent compulsory acquisition of that other person's interest, being a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the said section thirty-five shall have effect for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable as if this subsection had not been enacted.
    (2) Where—

    (a) in connection with a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies an amount by way of compensation such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section was paid in respect of an interest in any land other than the land to which the acquisition related; or

    (b) on such a sale as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, the price paid included an amount in respect of damage sustained by an interest in land other than, but held with, the land to which the sale related, being damage sustained by reason of the severance of the land or by reason that the interest in that other land was injuriously affected,
    and the said amount exceeds what was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been, the loss of immediate value of that interest as defined in the last preceding section, then, for the purpose of determining whether that other land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time, there shall be deducted from the original unexpended balance of established development value of that other land an amount equal to the excess, or so much thereof as was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been, calculated by reference to that balance, and the original balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been reduced or extinguished accordingly immediately before that subsequent time.

    (3) If in a case such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of the last preceding subsection so much, if any, of the amount mentioned in that paragraph as was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been, attributable to the loss of immediate value

    397
    of the interest in question was or would have been less than the depreciation in restricted value of that interest within the meaning of subsection (6) of the last preceding section, then (whether or not the land in question or any part thereof would apart from the provisions of this subsection have had an original unexpended balance of established development value) for the purpose of determining whether at any time after the acquisition or sale the land in question or any part thereof has such a balance, but for no other purpose, it shall be deemed that immediately after the commencement of this Act a claim holding subsisted with an area consisting of the land in question and a value equal to seven-eighths of the amount of the difference."
    This Amendment carries further the process which I have just indicated. It has two purposes. The first is to correct certain errors in the present Clause 40, and the second, and more important, is to include in the Clause the substance of what I call the bookkeeping provisions at present included in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Eighth Schedule. If necessary I can explain the nature of the improvements, but I do not otherwise wish to occupy the time of the House. The provisions are simply expressed more happily in the form adopted in the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 42.—(REGISTRATION AND APPOR TIONMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR DEPRECIATION.)
    Amendment made: In page 46, line 9, leave out "whose interests appear," and insert:
    "entitled to an interest in land which appears."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 46, to leave out lines 23 to 27.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to correct what we believed earlier in our discussions to be a fault in the words we desire to omit. I think that the Minister will remember the point. They impose upon the Lands Tribunal in dealing with matters coming to it from a local planning authority a particular method of treatment of the case, which was not imposed on it when it was dealing with a reference to it of decisions by the Minister.
    The words appeared to us, on earlier consideration, to be capable of carrying the interpretation that, in dealing with a reference from a local planning authority, the Tribunal was limited in the method that it could apply and was obliged to
    398
    place itself in the position of the local planning authority and treat the case as if it came to it de novo. It is with these matters in mind that we think that the deletion of this passage would be advantageous.
    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman raised this point in Committee, as he reminded us, and it was, as I understood it, that there some difference in treatment between the case where the Lands Tribunal apportioned on a reference from a decision by a planning authority and the case where it was the Minister's apportionment that was in question. I then said that I would look carefully into what the hon. Gentleman had said, but that I was advised that the provision in the Clause was precisely parallel with that in Clause 32 (3). All I can say is that I have specially called the attention of my advisers to that question, and that they still adhere to the view that I then expressed. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has reminded me of the point, and if it should be raised in another place we shall certainly look again carefully at it, but I hope that we shall be able to say, with the bellman, that what we have said three times is true.
    Mr. Irvine: I cannot complain that this matter has not been investigated, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 45.—(SCOPE OF PART V.)
    Amendments made: In page 48, line 35, after "land," insert:
    "to which the planning decision or order related."
    In line 42, leave out from "paragraph," to end of line 44, and insert:
    "or, where by virtue of any provision of this Act two or more separate claim holdings have been constituted thereout, one or more of those separate holdings whose area consisted of or included that land was still subsisting at the commencement of this Act;
    and in this Part of this Act any such land is referred to as qualified land ' and any claim holding such as is referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection is referred to as the relevant holding'."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 46.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PAST PLANNING DECI SIONS.)
    Mr, H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 49, to leave out lines 4 to 13, and to insert:
    "or order as is mentioned in the last preceding section if he is entitled to an interest in any qualified land and the value of that interest or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that interest in so far as it subsisted in that qualified land, was depreciated by the decision or order:
    Provided that compensation shall not be payable under this Part of this Act in respect of an order under section twenty-one of the principal Act so far as it relates to any particular land if—

    (a) compensation in respect of that order is or was payable by the local planning authority under section twenty-two of that Act; and

    (b) by virtue of paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section twenty-two (which relates to development exempt from development charge by virtue of Part VIII of that Act) the compensation includes or included compensation in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of an interest in that land."

    This Amendment, and the other Amendments down to Clause 46, have this effect: they widen the Clause so as to deal with past revocation or modification orders at present dealt with separately in Clause 49. The proviso in this Amendment replaces subsection (2) of that Clause. The other changes are merely drafting, and I think that this is really just a better arrangement.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am quite prepared to agree with the general substance of what the Minister said, but it seems to me that he should give us an explanation of paragraph (b). It seems to me that the Clause would be better if the paragraph were omitted, for I cannot see its purpose or its meaning. If the Minister will explain this, we shall be prepared to accept this and the subsequent Amendments.
    Mr. Macmillan: The proviso in lines 6 to 15 contains the substance of subsection (2) of Clause 49 which we are amalgamating with this Clause. I do not think there is any other point of substance in the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 49, line 16, after "decision," insert "or order."
    400
    In page 49, line 17, leave out "Part II," and insert:
    "sections twenty-five and twenty-six."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 49, line 21, after second "Act," insert:
    (b) as if the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twenty-six to section twenty-nine of this Act were a reference to section fifty thereof.
    Under Clause 26 (1), the assessment of depreciation takes account of any permission or undertaking given by the Minister when reviewing the original decision under Clause 29. The Amendment substitutes a reference to Clause 50, which contains the review provisions applicable to Part V of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In line 24, at beginning, insert:
    "For the purposes of the application of this Part of this Act with respect to such a planning decision as aforesaid."
    In line 26, leave out from "shall," to end of line 27, and insert:
    "have effect as they have effect for the purposes of Part II of this Act."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Clause 47.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR PAST PLANNING DECISIONS.)
    Amendment made: In page 49, line 28, leave out "section," and insert "sub-section."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 49, line 30, to leave out from the first "of," to the end of line 13, on page 51, and to insert:
    "the depreciation of the value of an interest in qualified land by a planning decision or order, the principal amount of the compensation shall be whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

    (a) the amount by which the value of the interest, or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the amount by which the value of the interest in so far as it subsisted in the qualified land, was depreciated by the decision or order; or

    (b) the value of the relevant holding at the commencement of this Act or, if at the time of the decision or order the qualified land in which the interest subsisted constituted part only of the area of the relevant holding, the fraction of the said value which attached to that qualified land.

    (2) If at the time of the planning decision or order the whole of the land to which the planning decision or order related in which

    401
    the interest subsisted was not qualified land, then, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection, the depreciation of the value of the interest by reason of the decision or order shall first be ascertained with reference to the whole of the land aforesaid and shall then be apportioned between the parts of that land which respectively were and were not qualified land according to the nature of those parts and the effect of the planning decision or order in relation thereto."
    Clause 47, as proposed to be amended, will replace Clauses 47 and 48. Clause 49 has already been amalgamated with Clause 46. The words which it is proposed to insert are on similar lines to those already adopted in Part II of the Bill. Since payments under Part V are made only to a holder of a claim holding, no question of competing interests arises, and the present Clause is therefore considerably shorter than the amended Clause 21.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 52.—(CANCELLATION OR REDUC TION OF LIABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.)
    Mr. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 54, line 22, to leave out from "workers," to "the," in line 23.
    8.45 p.m.
    The House will recall that under an arrangement for dealing with cottages for agricultural workers, development charges were held in suspense. It seems to us to be putting a quite unnecessary administrative burden on the Central Land Board to have to inquire into the circumstances of the last couple of years or so with regard to these cottages. This might be arguable if the charge were continuing, but as it has gone, to keep these inquiries going into past circumstances seems to be putting an unnecessary burden on the Board, and the object of the Amendment is to avert that.
    Mr. Page: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: We discussed the substance of this matter in Committee, and no doubt the Opposition still hold the same view as they expressed then. I think that the Amendment makes clearer what the Government tried to make clear when the Bill was drafted. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin), because the words which he asks the House to accept do make clearer the Government's intentions.
    402
    I do not want there to be any misunderstanding between the two sides of the House as to what is the Government's intention. The Government's intention is that the old procedure cannot be carried on merely for the purpose of trying to find out whether someone, who built an agricultural cottage without paying development charge, in five, 10, 15 or 30 years ahead turned that cottage into some other house. It may be that it would be right to do so, but I do not think that it is. When a tax is abolished it is abolished, and that is the end of it. Whatever may be the theoretical merits of doing so, the real trouble is that we cannot ask the Central Land Board to do this job. I think that on practical grounds we cannot do it, and since this Amendment makes more clear what we want to do, I ask the House to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 55.—(RECOVERY OF CERTAIN SUMS FROM ACQUIRING AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 58, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    (d) the interest was acquired pursuant to a purchase notice resulting from a planning decision made before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
    We had some discussion on this matter in Committee, and I do not want to repeat the arguments at length. I think that there is an important point of substance here which might well be cleared up at this stage or in another place. Subsection (2) provides exception to the general rule laid down in subsection (1) as to the recovery by the Central Land Board of payments made by them in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land from the acquiring authority.
    Subsection (2, b and c) provides for cases where the local authorities may avoid these back payments where interest in the land was acquired either by reason of notice to treat or by contract made by 18th November, 1952. That, of course, as the House will remember, was the date of the White Paper abolishing the development charge. They may escape that payment for development or redevelopment of an area as a whole—the so-called blitzed and blight areas under the Town and Country Planning Act—or where land is to be used for open spaces or allotments.

    403
    It will be noticed that the back payments can only be excused, and are only excused, in cases where the notice to treat was served, or the contract made, on this date, 18th November, 1952. As I pointed out in Committee, there are many cases where a local authority has gone through all the motions by that date, and may have been only awaiting the decision of the Minister. A local authority may be completely committed to acquiring the land but, because it had not technically completed the process by 18th November, it is not excused these back payments.
    It seems to us that this is a very arbitrary proceeding. I know that there has to be a date, but we consider that this arbitrary division is not a satisfactory or necessary one when it is quite easy to determine what steps have been taken by the local authority which may only be awaiting confirmation by the Minister. It seems to us unfair that, because the Minister has not given his decision, the local authority, or the acquiring authority, should have to pay the whole of the back compensation. It is the failure of the Minister, not of the acquiring authority.
    I am disappointed that, although he promised on Committee stage to consider the matter—and I am sure that he has—the right hon. Gentleman so far has not seen fit to make an exemption in this category of case where the local authority has virtually acquired the land. I hope that, even at this late stage, he may be prepared to reconsider this matter.
    Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not suppose this will cover a large number of cases. In London there are about 20 cases to which this would apply. I wish to put it to the Minister that there is a precedent in Section 14 (3) of the War Damage Act, 1943, where a somewhat similar point was dealt with and similar arrangements made to avoid the payment of compensation in such cases by local authorities. I hope that the Minister will agree to examine this matter again, and that if he is not prepared to accept this Amendment, perhaps something might be done in another place.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: This Amendment is almost in the same terms as that moved during the Committee stage, which was
    404
    opposed first on the ground of time. That is a familiar ground which we must consider in this and so many other cases. Where some change is made there is always a problem of the dividing line. I have carried out my undertaking. I said that I would examine the matter although I did not think there was a great deal in point, but that I could not promise to make a concession. These matters arise on the point of time, and sometimes cause hardship.
    The hon. Gentleman also developed the case about the character of the land and the matter was argued in terms of land which was acquired for open spaces or areas of comprehensive development. The argument was that the acquiring authority were virtually committed to these purchases at a certain date. But this Amendment goes far beyond that. It would apply to all purchase notices served before 18th November, 1952. Not only that, but it could apply to all notices served after that date in pursuance of a decision before that date, and there is no limitation to land acquired for open space or comprehensive development. Indeed, there could not be because land acquired under a purchase notice is not acquired for a particular purpose. The local authority can use it for any purposes for which it is empowered to use land. It has the land free of any liability to development charge or any payment in lieu, and it is not unfair that in the circumstances it should pay for any development value. I must ask the House to agree in resisting this Amendment. I have thought about the matter, but the character of this Amendment goes further than that which originally was moved.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 59, line 30, to leave out paragraph (a).
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that with this Amendment we could take the next three Amendments to lines 41, 42 and 43.
    Mr. Skeffington: The owner of an interest in land whose interest is compulsorily acquired by a local authority after the commencement of the Bill may have received, or be entitled to receive, compensation in three categories of cases. In the first place, under Part II of the Bill he may receive it in respect of the refusal of permission to carry out

    405
    development or the grant of permission subject to onerous conditions after the commencement of the Bill; or, secondly, under Part V of the Bill in respect of planning refusals or orders revoking or modifying planning permission before the commencement of the Bill; or, thirdly, the Minister may have made a contribution under Part IV—I think it is Clause 43—in respect of an order of a local planning authority under Section 21 of the principal Act revoking or modifying planning permission.
    In the case of a refusal of permission or its grant subject to conditions after the commencement of the Bill, compensation will only have been paid by the Minister after he has reviewed the planning decision under Clause 29. He will have satisfied himself that the proposals of the planning authority are reasonable proposals and he will, therefore, approve them and thereby make himself financially responsible to pay compensation. The fact that the Minister in these cases will have made payments is evidence, I think, that he is generally in support of the decision arrived at by the planning authority.
    Some of the land which has been the subject of the Ministry's decision and on which compensation has been paid may some time in the future—in some cases a great many years afterwards—be acquired by a local authority. As the Bill now stands, the local authority will be required to make good the compensation even though the decision was one which the Minister obviously upheld, for he approved it under the appropriate Clause and he agreed that compensation should be paid. It seems very unfair that if years afterwards in some cases the local authority acquires that land, even at that stage it will have to make good the compensation which the Minister himself has approved. It is asking the authority to pay for its own planning proposals.
    9.0 p.m.
    The Amendment to delete paragraph (a) of subsection (6) is designed to remove the obligation placed on the local authorities in this connection, and the remaining Amendments are consequential. These are matters which have seemed to local authorities to be unfair. Decisions have been made by the Minister approving on general grounds of public interest the
    406
    decisions of the local planning authority, compensation has been paid and, perhaps years afterwards, because the public authority requires it, that land is acquired by the local authority which has then the additional burden thrust upon it of repaying to the Minister any payment made by him as compensation for restrictions placed upon its development. I hope the Minister will see his way to clear that up.
    Mr. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Macmillan: These four Amendments raise a single point. If they were accepted their effect would be that the Minister, acting for the Treasury, would be unable to recover from an acquiring authority any sums previously paid out of the unexpended balance on account of planning restrictions.
    Why have we put in this provision? Because a large part of public acquisitions are preceded by safeguarding action under planning powers. It is almost the general course. For example, if a local authority proposes to buy land for open space or schools, and permission to develop that land is refused for that reason, under this Bill the Exchequer pays for the loss of development value caused by that decision, thus extinguishing or reducing—sometimes one, sometimes the other—the unexpended balance. Consequently, the payment which the acquiring authority makes to the owner by way of the unexpended balance is very much reduced, if not wiped out.
    Supposing nothing was done to deal with this position, the result would be that public authorities would be buying land more or less at existing use value, as they did under the 1947 Act, but relieved of any liability to pay development charge. Therefore, in order to restore a fair balance between them, it is necessary to see that the Exchequer is not left to pay the whole of the development value without, in this case, recovering the development charge. In other words, we should have a form of concealed subsidy and we think it better, when we want to give a grant to local authorities, to do so in the ordinary way. Hon. Members may dislike the method or, indeed, the whole Bill, but I think they will agree that it is logical within the structure of the Bill that we should require the acquiring authority to repay the payment to the Exchequer.

    407
    It may be argued that the planning decision had nothing to do with the needs of the authority. In point of fact no public authority will buy land subject to restrictions which prevent it using the land for its own purposes. And if the restrictions do not hurt the acquiring authority, they have no grievance and have suffered no hardship.
    The only other point which I thought might be made and I believe was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, was that, in a sense, it is making the authorities pay for planning restrictions. As a matter of fact, in practice the restriction is normally the herald of the intended acquisition and this is a fair balancing arrangement in view of the fact that the development charge is no longer levied upon the local authorities when they purchase land for development. For these reasons, I must ask the House to resist the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 68.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MORT GAGES, SETTLEMENTS, ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY, ETC.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 75, line 4, after "to," to insert:

    (a) a claim holding which is subject to a mortgage, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulation; or

    (b).

    This Amendment deals with a legal point which we have already touched upon. Its purpose is to enable the regulations under Clause 68 to deal with cases where a claim holding has been mortgaged, not by way of assignment but simply by way of a charge. This will make it possible to divert any payment due in respect of the holding from mortgagor to mortgagee. Where the mortgagee has taken an assignment of the claim holding, he can claim under Clause 10, any payment to which the mortgagor would have been entitled had he kept the holding.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 71.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 77, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "compulsory acquisition" does not include the vesting in a person by an Act of Parliament of property previously vested in some other person.
    408
    The Amendment deals with another legal point, namely, the definition of compulsory acquisition. As a result of Clause 6 having been applied to the vesting of the property of road haulage undertakings under the Transport Act as if that vesting were a compulsory acquisition, it is desirable to point out in the definition that vesting by Act of Parliament is not to be regarded generally as compulsory acquisition. If this were not done, anyone purchasing such property from the authority in whom it is vested might be disqualified from claiming compensation under Part II of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 77, line 13, at the end, to insert:
    "in the same capacity," in relation to entitlement both to a claim holding and to an interest in land, means entitled to one only of the following capacities, that is to say, beneficially, or as trustee of one particular trust, or as personal representative of one particular person;
    "interest in land" means only an interest in fee simple or a tenancy.
    This Amendment again deals with legal matters and I am sure that those who are interested in the Bill from a legal point of view would wish a few words to be said about it. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) raised one or both of these points. The first concerns the expression "in the same capacity,". That has to be read in conjunction with certain Amendments which we have made to Clauses 6, 8, and 9. The definition now includes the substance of what was previously Clause 9 (3).
    The second concerns the definition of "interest in land." The definition now makes it clear that only owners of an interest in fee simple or a tenancy can claim compensation under Parts II and V of the Bill in respect of depreciation caused by planning restrictions, or receive any share of the unexpended balance under Clause 35 where there is a compulsory acquisition. The meaning of the word "interest" was questioned by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, whose absence I very much regret. He raised the matter in Committee and my right hon. Friend promised to consider it after an Amendment had been moved to Clause 34. The matter is now dealt with.

    409
    The interest need not be a legal interest. It might be an equitable interest. The definition, of course, would debar the owner of an easement from claiming. That seems right and proper, certainly so far as Part III is concerned, and, as far as I am aware, it is also correct in Part II. Rent charges have been mentioned once or twice in our discussions. The owners of those are dealt with under Clause 68.
    Mr. Lindgren: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reference to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). I would hesitate to come into conflict with the Attorney-General on a legal point, but I am informed that "in the same capacity" is a term well known and in every-day use in the courts and that to define it here would be likely to lead to some legal trouble. If the Attorney-General can disabuse me on that point, we shall be only too pleased to let him have the Amendment.
    The Attorney-General: I will certainly do so. The hon. Member seems more advanced on that point than I am at the moment, but I will undertake to look into the matter. His suggestion may very well be right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in line 21, at the end, to insert:
    "previous apportionment" in relation to an apportionment for any of the purposes of this Act means an apportionment made before the apportionment in question, being—

    (a) an apportionment for any of the purposes of this Act as made, confirmed or varied by the Lands Tribunal on a reference thereto; or

    (b) an apportionment for any of the purposes of this Act which might have been referred to the Lands Tribunal by virtue of any provision of this Act but in the case of which the time for such a reference has expired without its being so required to be so referred, or which was so referred but in the case of which the reference was withdrawn before the Tribunal gave their decision thereon; or

    (c) an apportionment made by or with the approval of the Central Land Board in connection with the approval by the Board of an assignment of part of the benefit of an established claim under subsection (2) of section two of the Act of 1953.

    This Amendment is a definition of the expression "previous apportionment"
    410
    and is moved mainly for the purpose of clarification. The definition inserted here replaces a provision previously in subsection (5) of Clause 14 and in subsection (4) of Clause 31. The opportunity has been taken to rectify an omission in the form of words previously used which did not cover cases where a reference was made to the Lands Tribunal but was withdrawn. These are now covered by paragraph (b).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: in line 45, at end, insert:
    "means an amount ascertained in accordance with sections eighteen and nineteen, and ' original unexpended balance of established development value.'"—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 77, line 48, after "include," to insert "marriage or."
    The effect of this Amendment is that marriage settlements are to be treated in the same way as gifts.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move in page 79, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    "and in relation to an interest in land conveyed or assigned without a preliminary contract, are references to the conveyance or assignment."
    This Amendment is to meet a point made by the Law Society. It adapts Clause 6 to cases where an interest in land was sold without a preliminary contract. In such cases the question of qualification as to date under Clause 6 (3) is to be settled by reference to the date of the conveyance or assignment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 73.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 80, line 42, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
    (3) Any order made under the last preceding subsection shall be made by statutory instrument and may, at any time before the day appointed thereby, be revoked or varied by a subsequent order under that subsection.
    This is a purely precautionary Amendment. If an error were made in the order fixing the date of coming into force of the Bill it would be most inconvenient to have no power to amend it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Fourth Schedule,—(APPORTIONMENT OF VALUE OF CLAIM HOLDINGS.)
    Amendment made: in page 88, line 32, leave out Schedule 4.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Sixth Schedule.—(CLASSES OF BUILDINGS TREATED AS COMPARABLE FOR PUR POSES OF PARTS II AND V.)
    Amendment made: In page 90, line 29, leave out Schedule 6.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Eighth Schedule.—(COMPENSATION, ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, FOR SEVERANCE AND INJURIOUS AFFEC TION.)
    Amendment made: In page 91, line 33, leave out Schedule 8.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

    Ninth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS AMENDED.)
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 96, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that any building works or use in so far as the same might be subject to enforcement proceedings under the principal Act shall not hereby be brought within the said Schedule.
    This Amendment raises a point which we think is of some importance. Under the Bill, when compensation is paid on compulsory acquisition, it is to include the element of existing use value. That value is ascertained by reference to the Third Schedule to the principal Act. Therefore any alteration of that definition or effect of the Third Schedule is of considerable importance. The effect of the amendment of the Third Schedule, unless the amending words of the Amendment which I am moving are included is that even a contravening use may be an existing use.
    We believe that the effect of that can be very serious. It can be to put a premium on contravening uses and there might quite easily be the result that so soon as the owner of an interest in land suspects that a compulsory purchase order is approaching he will commence a contravening use and, if I may use a colloquialism, get away with it; and be paid, on the compulsory acquisition, on the basis of what he would have made sure was a relatively profitable use put into effect and initiated for his own nefarious purpose.
    412
    We regard that as undesirable and we expect the Government to agree as to its undesirability. The Attorney-General made the point in this connection, in our consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee, that after the appointed day there might be a contravening use which none the less subsequently received retrospective sanction and permission. He also made the point that after the four-year period had elapsed it would not be open to the local authority to commence any enforcement proceedings.
    The Attorney-General brought forward those points as points in favour of the proposed alteration in the Schedule. We have gone out of our way to recognise the weight of so much of his case as can be presented against our original proposal, and we think that what is now proposed in this Amendment would meet the case satisfactorily. Although this Amendment comes late in our consideration of the Bill, we regard it as raising a very important point.
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Macmillan: This Amendment has, as the hon. Gentleman said, the same purpose as the somewhat different Amendment moved in the Standing Committee, and on which we had some discussion towards the end of our debates. Its purpose is one with which we all sympathise, to ensure that a building erected or use begun in "flagrant contravention of planning control" should not acquire Third Schedule rights under the 1947 Act.
    The hon. Gentleman has, in the new form of words in his Amendment, gone out of his way to meet one of the objections which we brought against the old one because it does not damage the position of development which was carried out without permission but is none the less secure against any enforcement action because the four-year period has expired. On the other hand, it does not meet the case—this was acknowledged by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) to be a fair point—of the development for which permission would have been given had it been asked.
    Some people do not know all these regulations, perhaps, as well as they ought to do, and it might happen by omission

    413
    that something which certainly would have been agreed to is done without formal permission. If the development conforms with the planning requirement, there is no reason why the acquiring authority should acquire the land any cheaper because the formality was not observed.
    It is not easy to find exactly the right solution. The hon. Member has made a great step towards doing so in the form of his Amendment. It may be that the best course would be for the status of the development to be cleared up prior to the acquisition. If permission to retain the development is granted, it should have Third Schedule rights; if not, the Third Schedule should not apply.
    I would ask the hon. Member to leave this matter and see whether, in another place, the right solution can be found. The hon. Member has met one of our difficulties, but we have not yet ourselves found a way of meeting the other, although it should not be beyond the wit of draftsman or man to do so. I hope that with this assurance the hon. Member would like to feel that we can end on a note of agreement.
    Mr. Irvine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his considerate attitude in dealing with this matter and for his helpful treatment of it. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Tenth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
    Amendment made: In page 97, line 18, column 3, at end, insert:
    "and subsection (4) of section one hundred and nineteen."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Motion for Third Reading.—[Queen's consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
    9.22 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Hon. Members: Make it short.
    Mr. Marples: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I take the
    414
    advice that has been given so freely and generously by the Opposition and make my remarks as short as possible. There are, however, one or two things which ought to be said.
    This has been a very complex Bill and the discussions upon it have necessarily and properly been long, detailed and very careful, but on Third Reading we can have a refreshing change and possibly extricate ourselves from the mass of details which we have been discussing and concentrate for a few minutes on the main themes of the Bill.
    Despite the length, importance and difficulty of the Bill, it is in effect a tidying up Measure and is consequential on the major decision taken by the House in 1953. That decision of the House was based on two main principles: first, that the development charge was abolished—I do not think any hon. Member would want to revive it; and secondly, that the £300 million fund was not to be paid out as originally intended in the 1947 Act. This 1954 Bill, therefore, although complicated, is a machinery Bill.
    From the 1953 decision the Government had to consider two points. The first was concerned with the past and was the obvious and immediate problem that something had to be done for those people who had suffered from the financial system of the 1947 Act. That is known in jargon as the unscrambling process. That is mostly in Part I of the Bill and deals with the past. Although very complicated, it will only have its effect once and for all; it will not be continued into the future. The second main theme to flow from the 1953 decision was that regarding the future we must provide, in place of the £300 million pay-out in 1953, a basis for compensation for loss of development value as and when loss is sustained.
    The loss of development value can be sustained in two ways. First, realisation of the development value can be prevented by planning restriction, and in Part V we deal with development so prevented in the past. In Parts II and IV we deal with development prevented in the future. By the past I mean where restrictions have been imposed between the coming into force of the 1947 Act and of this Bill, and by the future I mean after the coming into force of the Bill. That is the first category.

    415
    The second category is where land is acquired compulsorily. In Part III, the provisions deal with the case where local authorities acquire land compulsorily. When working out the compensation details the Government have firmly stuck to one clear principle which was laid down in the White Paper of 1952, that the claims which were established on the £300 million fund have been made the foundation of all the payments made under the Bill. In other words, this is what my right hon. Friend referred to as the Domesday Book.
    I do not think that the correctness of the general principle has been seriously contested. There has been vigorous criticism and many hon. Members have brought forward examples of people who have omitted to make a claim as a result of which some hardship may have occurred; but it was generally agreed that it would have been impossible to have reopened claims on a large scale.
    As the correctness of that general principle has not been seriously challenged, two things follow. First, the Government are bound to reject admitting to the benefit of the scheme any land where a claim was not made. Secondly, the Government have found it impracticable to modify the basis of assessing development value. There are minor exceptions in the First Schedule, but they would have been made in any case under the old scheme.
    Accepting that broad concept, which the House agreed in 1953, it can be said that the Committee upstairs worked extremely patiently, very hard and most effectively. Scarcely any time was wasted by hon. Members on either side, and all hon. Members gave help. That can be proved, because the result is a better Bill. That work has made it a shorter Measure, which is just as important as making it a better Bill. We have lost two Clauses and three Schedules on the way and yet we have introduced new matter and we still have some suggestions in hand which might be dealt with in another place.
    I should like to express the thanks of the Government to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who, unfortunately, cannot be present today, and also to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren).
    416
    Perhaps I should also express thanks to the local government experts, if I may call them that without offence, who sit on the benches opposite and who have a great deal of knowledge of this planning procedure from the local authority point of view. They have been constructive and not obstructive.
    I think that the House would like me to acknowledge the contribution made by the Attorney-General, who has always been patient in these matters. In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government I think that I can fairly say that his performance throughout has been most courteous. It has been a really magnificent performance for a lay person, dealing with all the intricacies of this procedure.
    In Committee upstairs and also on Report I have seen a degree of modesty which I have never known before. This is not so much a tribute to the complexity of the Bill or the modesty of hon. Members. I have never heard so many speeches prefaced by the remark, "I am almost certain that I am wrong, but I should like someone to explain."
    Mr. Gibson: On both sides.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, on both sides. In fact, I would go so far as to say that almost every hon. Member who made a contribution to our debates prefaced his remarks with those words. I have been on some Committees where hon. Members have been fairly dogmatic—not Committees composed of the same hon. Members as the Standing Committee on this Bill, of course—and where they have adopted Lord Jessel's dictum, "I am often wrong, but I have never had any doubts; but that cannot be said of this Committee.
    Having made reference to the economy of the Clauses and Schedules, perhaps I may refer to the encouragement which has been given to the inclusion in the Bill of some complex and tiresome provisions which originally we thought should be reserved for regulations. There are some matters, procedural, and so on, of a complicated nature, which are made the subject of regulations; but apart from these, the volume of subsidiary legislation which will result from the Bill has been cut to a minimum. The Government intend to continue this process still further, and, if

    417
    possible, they will suggest means of dispensing with certain sets of regulations for which the Bill still provides, so we hope that the Bill will be streamlined even more.
    There is one other point, and that is the awkwardness of what has become known as the two-price system.
    Mr. Lindgren: The two-tier system.
    Mr. Marples: There is the two-price system as well as the two-tier system. The two-tier system is functional and administrative, and the two-price system refers to the pay-out financially. Take the case of a man who sells his land privately, and gets a price which is different from the price which he would get if he sold to a public authority. I think that has genuinely worried hon. Members on both sides of the House. A system of this kind cannot be avoided except by the rigid enforcement of some unpopular and unworkable device such as the development charge, and I think the House will agree that it was unpopular.
    Mr. Lindgren: No.
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman says, "No," but I can assure him that the letters which my right hon. Friend and I and hon. Members opposite have received from constituents complaining of the development charge are numerous. I can assure him that in the country as a whole there was resentment against the development charge.
    Grave apprehensions have been expressed about the inequities to which this system which we have adopted will give rise. But the Government have not heard of any workable alternatives, and they consider that with the safeguards which the Bill provides, the scheme is a great deal more acceptable now than when it was first introduced, and is also more acceptable to a wider range of interests in the country than the straightjacket system which this Bill is intended to replace.
    I know that many hon. Members want to say a final word on the Third Reading, and I should like to say only a few words about the time when the Bill may be expected to come into operation. A great deal of correspondence has reached my right hon. Friend and me stating that a large number of people who have been kept waiting for money which would be
    418
    due to them under Parts I and V of the Bill are very anxious to receive payment. Some cases of severe hardship have been quoted. Some people with claims on the Fund have had to borrow from their banks, pay interest, and have been kept out of the money for a long time.
    It is a matter of great regret to the Government that no payments can be made until the Bill has been passed. We should like to mitigate the hardship, but constitutionally it is impossible. The Central Land Board and the Ministry will do their utmost to ensure that applications can be made as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and payments will be made as soon as the Bill can be brought into effect. The Parliamentary programme is such that the Royal Assent cannot be sought until October or November.
    That means, I regret to say, a still further period of waiting for these people who have been kept from their money for so long. The Government will try to ensure that the Bill is brought into effect and that payment will begin before the end of this year, and at this stage that is as far as I can go.
    With that very short but, I hope, not unfair summary, I trust that the House will now give the Bill its Third Reading.
    9.35 p.m.
    Mr. Irvine: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that a great amount of invaluable work was done in Committee upstairs. We are most grateful to the Attorney-General, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for N.E. Leicester on this side of the House. Despite these considerations, however, the fact remains that considerable dissatisfaction still exists in regard to this Bill—certainly among hon. Members on this side of the House, and, I strongly suspect, also among hon. Members opposite.
    This was not a well thought-out Bill. The Government decided to dismantle the provisions of the 1947 Act and an unscrambling operation was set in motion. One might have thought that they were dealing with road haulage. The destroyers, however, had no coherent alternative to offer. The consequences are manifest. First, the Bill is barely

    419
    recognisable as the Measure we first saw. The Fourth, Sixth and Eighth Schedules have gone, some into the body of the animal and some elsewhere. If the Bill had been as well thought out as Parliament is entitled to expect, it would not have had to be altered in the way it has been at this very late stage.
    A summary of the whole story is to be found in the Report of the Standing Committee. The Minister, in what was a revised explanation of the effect of Clause 10, is reported to have remarked:
    "I got it wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 11th May, 1954; c. 242.]
    That is what is on the record. It is not an unkind reflection upon the Minister to draw attention to that fact, because an archangel would have got it, wrong. Another example of the way in which this matter has been rushed through is the treatment which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) received in regard to Clause 19. I shall not embarrass him by seeking to diagnose further what I assume to be his opinion on that point, but what took place was a consequence of the matter not having been satisfactorily considered.
    The policy of the Bill has got out of the control of Parliament and into the hands of the Department. This is an example of what we all know to be happening in a dangerously wide field. Why has this occurred? It is because the Government have told the Department concerned what is their general policy and objective, and have given the Department an outline of their purposes.
    The Department has thereupon proceeded to translate those purposes into words which can be put down upon paper. The moment it makes that attempt unforeseen difficulties arise and unexpected complexities occur. Every room in the edifice is found to need four anterooms, and at the end one is confronted with a labyrinth. The only people who can begin to find their way through that labyrinth are the officials of the Department. Unless the position is carefully watched, power slips out of the hands of the House of Commons and into the hands of the Department in just that fashion. Consideration by this House has much too nearly been an Operation Rubber Stamp.
    420
    The Bill, rather curiously, indirectly recognises the fact that finance is the key to good town and country planning. If the planning authorities are always looking over their shoulders to ascertain whether they can afford the cost of compensating for refusals of obviously undesirable development, that ruins planning. That is recognised by all concerned. There is only one way of solving that problem, and it is not the method adopted by the Bill. Planning restrictions and the planning of development can have the effect of diminishing values of some landlords, but they also have the effect of increasing values of other landlords, and it is in this combination of compensation with betterment that the solution of this problem is to be found. It is very much regretted, certainly on this side of the House, that that is not the solution that has been adopted by the Government. It is in that combination of compensation with betterment that good planning can flourish, because it is freed thereby from the financial handicap.
    What is the inevitable consequence, illustrated by the Bill, of settling the financial provisions so as to attempt to avoid hindering planning but without calling betterment in aid? I suggest that the result of the attempt being made to recognise the importance of financial provisions to planning but of refusing to make any concession to the principle of betterment, is to put into effect a system of compensation which works out iniquitously unfairly as between different owners of property. We are not in favour of that. It is not part of the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House to encourage iniquitously unfair treatment as between different classes of property owners. Far be it from me to suggest that it is any part of our policy to do that.
    Yet that is happening in this Bill. Some owners of property will come well out of this, and some ill, but as between them there will be a remarkable lack of equity and fairness, and I regard that as being the consequence of the recognition, on the one hand, of the importance of the financial provisions to make planning effective and, on the other, the refusal to give any recognition to the principle of betterment.
    The Bill revives the difficulties that followed from the 1944 Act. We have

    421
    as a consequence of this Bill two scales of values operating concurrently, the compulsory acquisition price and the open market price. The 1947 Act attempted—and, whatever may be said, it was a rather noble and distinguished attempt, in the opinion of many of us—to equate the existing use value of the land and the open market value, and many of us on this side still think that if the Central Land Board had lived up to our hopes and expectations that could have been done and put into effect. The existing use value and the open market value of the land could have been the same. The floating value, the unpredictable element which makes it difficult to equate over a period the open market price and the compulsory purchase price, was paid for once for all under Part VI of the 1947 Act. That disturbing unbalancing element was got rid of.
    Now this Bill is beginning, as I say, all over again to revive the difficulties which were recognised to be inherent in the 1944 Act of two concurrent and different scales of values, the one in the open market and the one for compulsory purchase. What the Minister is doing is to peg valuation for the purpose of compulsory purchase at the 1947 values. He is overlooking or avoiding the fact that that valuation was based on development values as they existed in 1947.
    The development charge on the one hand and the global sum on the other hand were the keys to the 1947 Act. What the Government have done is to do away with the development charge but to perpetuate the importance of the global sum, at least in the sense that they have used as their peg the development value of land which was represented by the global sum set up under the 1947 Act.
    I think they have gone the wrong way about it. I think it would have been better, if they intended to abandon the 1947 Act—and we object to them doing that—had they done it the other way round. They should have retained some development charge—something less than 100 per cent.—to be levied on grants of permission and then used the money coming in from the charge to create a fund which would have paid compensation at open market prices and
    422
    avoided the gap which we are all anxious to avoid between the open market price and the compulsory purchase price of land. Grants of permission are going to be very valuable things to possess.
    They have failed to do that. We believe that they have followed the wrong course. Local authorities, estate agents, property owners and many others will be trying to understand the Bill. In the interests of the good government of the country, it is very desirable that they should be able to understand it and quite wrong that their time and energies should be wasted hour after hour in trying to discover what is meant and what is the law. I believe that it is very important that the provisions of a Bill of this character should be clear, but I believe that these local authorities and estate agents, and others of whom I have spoken, will not find them clear. Their verdict will be the verdict of the Minister which I quoted earlier in my speech—"He has got it wrong."
    9.47 p.m.
    Mr. Horobin: I hope that the House will bear me for a few minutes at this late stage, for I was one of those who attempted to play some small part in moulding the policy and form of the Bill. One thing at any rate will be agreed—that the Bill is not as simple as it looks. It is too late in the day for me to go into great detail even of the major points which still remain doubtful and difficult, and I will refer to only three of them.
    I am afraid it is too late to have anything done about the first of them, but I regret—and here I find myself to a certain extent in agreement with the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)—that some of the unfairnesses arising from de mininds and late claims, for for example, have not been dealt with by some kind of escape Clause. I realise the Minister's difficulties and it is no use going over the point now, but the unfairnesses remain.
    Secondly, there is a point which I hope may still be dealt with in another place—the anxieties which apply to trustees of charitable operational land in relation to refusal of planning permission. I have had some experience of this and it seems to me that they are placed in a worse position than that of ordinary owners.

    423
    Thirdly, I merely record this point at this stage because it may be considered in another place, where so many high legal luminaries exist. It is a thing which does not divide us at all as to its intention but which is vital to the structure of the Bill. I am quite satisfied about the intention. I am not a lawyer and I have no reason to doubt it, but it means not what the Minister says that it means but what the judges find that it means. The whole working of the Bill depends on the linkage between Clauses 23, 24 and 29 and what used to be the Sixth Schedule, and I am quite satisfied, as the Minister said, that the Bill does not mean what it appears to mean and that the linkage exists. It would be an absolute disaster if the lawyers were to discover that the intention is not carried out, and I hope that in another place very careful scrutiny will be paid to that point.
    There are two major issues on which I think we must say a word on this side of the House before we part with the Bill. The first has already been referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary—the difference between the value of land as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and when it is C.P.O.'d. I am quite sure that this Bill will not endure indefinitely, but I do not think that that is a fundamental criticism. I think that a search for finality in this matter is probably a mistake. The fact, however, does remain, that in the course of time, and not a very long time, I believe that these differences will become intolerable.
    I am not thinking primarily of the major difference in the value of money. That can be dealt with in rough and ready fashion in the same way as war damage was dealt with. The mere passage of time as between neighbouring and quite distinguishable pieces of land will, I think, lead to some changes in the future. The Bill is, however, a greater improvement on what we found, and we must just let it work its course.
    The second thing which I think it is necessary to point out from this side of the House is somewhat newer. I think that some people will be disappointed in what this Bill does. It is ironical and characteristic of the way we do things in this country that, almost without exception, it has been a Conservative Government which has brought us extremely
    424
    near, if not all the way, to town planning without compensation. It is very peculiar, but I think that the amount of compensation that will be paid out under our town planning procedure when this Bill becomes law will be less than many people imagine. So far from it being a bonus to landlords it will be, in many cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "A shock."]—yes, a shock. I am not at all certain, although I speak consistently for the rights of owners, that this is as serious an objection as may be supposed.
    I do not think that the Minister would disagree with this summary of what is likely to come out of this great operation in which he has been involved ever since we decided to bring to an end the 1947 Act. He has not really been producing, or trying to produce, a system which restores to owners the development value of their land. What he has been doing—and I hope successfully—is to restore that much of it as is necessary to produce a free market in land. That being so, I think that he would agree that his approach to this problem is not so much a calculation of compensation for stopping people from doing things, as an honest attempt which is being made by this Bill to find for every piece of land some useful development, which can be done without doing damage to neighbours and to the public interest, and allowing that to be done rather than paying someone for not allowing it to be done.
    That will be the reason, I think, why compensation will be very much less under the new system than some people imagine, because the whole basis of the Bill is to recreate a free market and, so far as possible, to enable development to take place. Although I think that the Minister has made an honest, and, on the whole, successful attempt to meet it, the main anxiety felt by hon. Members on these benches about a system which gets so near to town planning without compensation is, of course, to protect owners from being "Cricheled. To "Crichel" is to steal a man's property by a process of law by a series of conspiracies by Government Departments to abuse their powers. On the whole, I think that the Minister has attempted to balance the scales evenly and by the Amendments which have been accepted today he has gone even further than hitherto.

    425
    Though I say it with considerable hesitation, I think that my right hon. Friend is right in saying, in effect, to the owners of property, that planning and control of land use has now gone so far in this country that it is useless to rely on trying to build up little bits of protection here and there. We must act on the assumption and try to make it work so that, by and large, planning control will be reasonable. That is the only basis upon which this Bill can work. We must hope that it will work.
    This Bill is, in my opinion, a genuine attempt to recreate conditions in which free inter-buying and selling of land, and the development of land, can flourish; as against a system which, as we all know—there is no need to go back over it at this late stage—had tended to make dealing in land almost impossible without the introduction, or threat of it, of compulsory purchase at one stage or another.
    While no one could feel that this is either a perfect or permanent settlement, it is, in my submission, a genuine attempt to deal with a difficulty which we found, and an improvement on the situation, which ought to work quite reasonably—given a reasonable amount of good will on both sides—for at any rate a substantial period, and for as long as we need to consider tonight.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. Gibson: I believe it fair to say that this Bill, which started as an ugly duckling which no one liked, has hardly been made beautiful by its progress through its various stages or by the extensive Amendments which have been made to it. I still cannot find anyone either in the profession or in local government who is prepared to say that he understands what is done by this Measure; and I think it is bound to lead to difficulties when, in the years ahead, attempts are made to make it work.
    The real trouble is that the Government have been engaged in trying to unscramble an Act of Parliament by which an endeavour was made to give back to the people that value which they themselves have created. I do not think that that process has been a success. I considered that the £300 million compensation to landowners was a £300 million ransome and I said so when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading.
    426
    What the Government have done in this Bill is to abolish that Section of the 1947 Act, but they have left the £300 million to be shared out, not at any definite date, but as and when development takes place.
    It has always seemed to me that it is difficult to make anything good of something which is completely unmoral. Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) it is unmoral that values which the community have created should be taken for the benefit of private individuals, which is what is being attempted by this Bill. That is why I say it is so difficult, and I doubt very much whether it will work for very long without very great pressure being brought to bear by the local authorities in this country for substantial changes, because they in the main will have to work it.
    I am all the more convinced that that will happen because it is obviously the general policy of this Government to get rid of all kinds of controls. One Minister has boasted about abolishing his Department and putting himself out of a job, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government is busily engaged in breaking the effective controls of town planning. If my information is correct, he is breaking up the organisation which was built up to administer town planning in this country, something which nobody is prepared to say is not vitally necessary in the interests of our economic and social development.
    I hope the views I am expressing are wrong, but it seems to me that not only are we engaged in unscrambling the 1947 Act, but it looks as if we are doing the same thing with the organisation which has been shown to be necessary to administer normal town planning powers. I am told that the original organisations are being broken up, and that one region has already gone. That kind of thing will inevitably drive us back in town planning matters to the chaos which existed before the war. Those of us then interested in local government with some responsibility for town planning, found it extremely difficult effectively to carry out the then town planning legislation.
    Town planning legislation is on the Statute Book in order that the towns in which we live should be properly planned and made fit for human beings. It is

    427
    because I am afraid that the Bill will make the position worse, and because I am quite sure it is wrong to hand back to the people who have not created it the value in land equivalent to £300 million, that I shall have great pleasure in voting against it.
    10.4 p.m.
    Mr. Lindgren: After the Second Reading, a lengthy Committee stage and the Report stage this afternoon, on Third Reading there is little that can be said which is new, and so I shall be very brief. It is merely a matter of principle between the two sides of the House. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing the best they can for their landlord friends. They are giving back to them values in land development which the community created. The 1947 Act nationalised the future land values. But this Bill gives back to a privileged community the benefit which comes from increased land values which the community create. No amount of talking will convince hon. Members opposite to the contrary, nor shall we be convinced that that is not so. Therefore, the really effective thing to do is to register our vote in the Division Lobby against the Bill.
    We do not like the Bill, and we have not liked it from the beginning. We agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that, after detailed criticism and consideration in Committee, a bad Bill has been slightly improved. I agree that finance and planning are tied together and that this Bill can only work if landlords get compensation. I cannot see that happening, and therefore this Bill will not work. So, in the interests of the House, I think we should now proceed to vote on the Third Reading.
    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I shall not keep the House more than a few moments, but first I want to thank those Members of the Committee who served through what sometimes seemed to be long and tedious proceedings for having made the Committee what, in the spirit of the House of Commons, a Committee should be. When we pass the Second Reading of a Bill, whether we like it or not, the House accepts the principles in it. Our Committee worked on that basis and did its best to improve the terms of the Bill
    428
    within the general principles accepted by the House on Second Reading. I am also grateful for the courtesy shown me and the help given by all Members of the Committee, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who is not with us today, but who was a most admirable leader of the party opposite throughout our proceedings.
    The White Paper of 1952 set out what we were trying to do and I think I can say that we have kept to it with great sincerity. We wanted to abolish the development charge and we have abolished it. We wanted to abandon the great takeover bid and we have got rid of that. At the same time we wished to preserve the power and strength of planning and I claim that we have done that. The development charge was a hateful tax and we shall see whether its restoration will play a part in the election policy of the party opposite.
    As for the idea that the State ownership of development value had some benefit either for the individual or for the local authority, never was there any greater error. With the private landlord one might have a chance, he might be indolent or ill-informed; but with the bureaucrat who owns all the potentialities of development, one has no chance at all. Every single penny will be exacted, whether from an individual or a local authority. We have got rid of that too.
    We heard today those delicious phrases—I remember them from my youth—floating value, betterment and all the old Henry George stuff re-created; all the vague, useless academic arguments that have never done any good, which have brought many great Ministers to trouble but no Ministers to great success. I hope, therefore, that those arguments will go on being part of the stock-in-trade of the party opposite. The nationalisation of development rights means, alas, the sterilisation of land.
    What we have tried to do is to maintain the principle that if the public interest is not in any way injured, a man may do what he likes with his own. I believe that to be right. If, however, the public interest requires either that he should not be allowed to develop his land in a particular way or that his land should be compulsorily acquired, then he should

    429
    have to surrender his interest to the major interest of the local authority or of society as a whole.
    I do not think that the possessing classes, the owners of land—which means a lot of small people as well as big people—will gain greatly under the provisions of this Bill. We are going to pay at 1947 values. The only difference is that the party opposite would pay all the claims at once and we shall only pay when it is necessary. We acknowledge the problem of the late claims—it may be unfair to many people—the problem of the de minimis question. We have accepted the principle of good neighbourliness so that many owners are excluded from compen
    sation. Why have we done it? Not, as the hon. Gentleman said, because we want to give benefit to our landlord friends. That is all right on the hustings, but it is not good enough here.
    It is because we think that upon development being made possible depends the hope of this country to recover and develop its strength and create the wealth upon which rest the hopes and happiness of all our people. This Bill is not a charter for the landlord, it is a charter for the developer.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 228.

    Division No. 201.]

    AYES

    [10.10 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hope, Lord John

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    De la Bére, Sir Rupert

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Arbuthnot, John

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Horobin, I. M.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Dodos-Parker, A. D.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

    Donaldson, Cmdr, c. E. McA

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dormer. Sir P. W.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Birch, Nigel

    Fell, A.

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Bishop, F. P.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Black, C. W.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Kaberry, D.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Fort R.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Foster, John

    Kerr, H. W.

    Braine, B. R.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Lambton, Viscount

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Sir Gurney

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollock)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Galbraith, T. G. (Hillhead)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. GT.

    Glover, D.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Godber, J. B.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Bullus, Wins Commander E. E

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Gower, H. R.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Grimond, J.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Carr, Robert

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Channon, H.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Cole, Norman

    Harvey-Watt, Sir George

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Colegate, W. A.

    Head, Rt Hon. A. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Heath, Edward

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Ho. Sir Reginald

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Summers, G. S.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Marples, A. E.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Maude, Angus

    Rayner, Brig. R

    Teeling, W.

    Maudling, R.

    Redmayne, M.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C

    Rees-Davies, w. R

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Tilney, John

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Robertson, Sir David

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Mott-Radclyffe, c. E.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Turton, R. H.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Neave, Airey

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Russell, R. S.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Noble, Comdr A. H. P.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Wade, D. W

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Oakshott, H. O.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Odey, G. W.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Orr-Ewing.Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Osborne, C.

    Soames, Capt. C-

    Wellwood, W.

    Page, R. G.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O-

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Pelo, Brig. C. H. M.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Wills, G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Storey, S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Daines, P.

    Hastings, S.

    Adams, Richard

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Albu, A. H.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R-

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Awbery, S. S.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Deer, G.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Baird, J.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Holman, P.

    Balfour, A.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Holmes, Horace

    Bartley, P.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Bence, C. R-

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Edwards Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Benson, G.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Blackburn, F.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Boardman, H.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Finch, H. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Follick, M.

    Janner, B.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Foot, M. M.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Forman, J. C.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Burke, W. A.

    Glanville, James

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Keenan, W.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Kenyon, C.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Grey, C. F.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Champion, A. J.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Clunie, J.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Coldrick, W.

    Hale, Leslie

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Collick, P. H.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col M

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hannan, W.

    Logan, D. G

    Cros'and, C. A, R.

    Hargreaves, A.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    McGovern, J

    432

    433

    McInnes, J.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Sylvester, G. O.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Porter, G.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    McLeavy, F.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Pryde, D. J.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Thornton, E.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Rankin, John

    Timmons, J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Reeves, J.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Mikardo, Ian

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Monslow, W.

    Rhodes, H.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Moody, A. S.

    Richards, R.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Morley, R,

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    West, D. G.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Mort, D. L.

    Ross, William

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Moyle, A.

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Mulley, F. W.

    Short, E. W.

    Wigg, George

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Willey, F. T.

    Oliver, G. H

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Orbach, M.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Oswald, T.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Padley, W. E.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Paget, R. T.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Willis, E. G.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Snow, J. W.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Pannell, Charles

    Sparks, J. A.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Steele, T.

    Yates, V. F.

    Parker, J.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Paton, J.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Pearson, A

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Peart, T. F

    Swingler, S. T

    Mr. Popplewell and

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ARMY BANDSMEN, EXETER (EMPLOYMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: The issue I wish to raise tonight concerns the employment of Army bandsmen throughout the length and breadth of these islands, but the more recent manifestation of this problem has been in Exeter. I apologise to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) if I appear to him to be taking on his job, but that is not the case. As he knows, and as hon. Gentlemen know, I am particularly interested in Army affairs. I hope that the hon. Member for Exeter will accept my statement that I intended no discourtesy, nor did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), when we interested ourselves in the problem of Army bandsmen.
  Indeed, I go further, and say that I think the action taken by the hon. Member for Exeter throughout this unhappy story has been an endeavour to be help
  434
  ful. I believe that if his influence could have been brought to bear there would have been a happy end to this story. I hope that the hon. Member will continue to use his good offices to secure what I am pleased to call a happy ending to this story.
  The hon. Member for Exeter comes out of this matter with a clean bill; but as usual, when one inquires into the activities of the War Office, there are several black spots there, although I must say that truth has come out. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that the more recent communications which have passed between the War Office and the Musicians' Union show that in high places truth has emerged, and again one is looking forward to happy relations, based on fact and not fiction, between the War Office and the Musicians' Union.
  The facts are quite simple in so far as they concern the Theatre Royal, Exeter. There, for better or worse, four civilian musicians were dismissed. A dispute arose between the Theatre Royal and its musicians. For a long time the War Office hid behind the fiction that no trade dispute existed, but, finally, even the authorities at the War Office could not maintain that story. The dispute having started as long ago as February of last

  435
  year, an attempt at conciliation was made in August, 1953, under the chairmanship of an official of the Ministry of Labour.
  Subsequently, I put down Questions to the Minister of Labour and there was correspondence from that Department, which made it abundantly clear that the War Office, with the knowledge of the Secretary of State, and certainly of the local officers concerned, were using troops or allowing them to be used in what was, after all, a strike-breaking action. I am sure that the War Office must regret having got into that position. There is no excuse for this.
  At one stage an affidavit was sworn by people in Exeter who saw musicians—soldiers in uniform—going into the Theatre Royal, Exeter. Of course, the facts were denied. The only serious complaint in the hangover which has emerged is a letter written on behalf of the War Office, on 26th November, signed by a Lieut.-Colonel V. A. P. Bridge, on behalf of the Director of Personal Services.
  Having been asked by the Musicians' Union, courteously and competently, to investigate this complaint, which had deprived four of the union's members of their livelihood—allegations which were based upon a sworn document—Colonel Bridge concluded his letter in these terms:
  "I am, therefore, to ask, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary waste of public time and unnecessary correspondence, that you will be good enough to ascertain that your information comes from a reliable source and that the alleged contravention is relevant to the regulations."
  Weighing my words carefully, I say that those are the words of a "Jack in office." That paragraph was an improper paragraph, and I hope very much that we shall have an assurance from the Under-Secretary that never again will an officer in his Department use such language without very good reason in corresponding with a trade union which is discharging its very responsible job of looking after its members.
  Subsequently, I was able to give the Musicians' Union a little advice. Knowing the ways of the War Office, I was quite convinced that the union had the whole of the facts and that the Secretary
  436
  of State, as far as he was responsible, and the officers on the spot, probably in the regimental depot, were fighting a rearguard action against the facts. The advice I gave to the Musicians' Union was to ascertain the numbers, ranks and names of the soldiers who were engaged in playing, and taking the place of civilian musicians, at the Theatre Royal, Exeter.
  On 27th April this year, I asked the Secretary of State the circumstances in which two soldiers, whose particulars were contained in my Question, were playing at the theatre. Faced with that, the Secretary of State dropped the façade of pretending that no soldiers had been playing in the theatre and said that the question of whether there was a trade dispute was in doubt. On 4th May I was given a written answer to a Question addressed to the Minister of Labour, and subsequently in correspondence it became clear that there was a trade dispute, that soldiers had been playing all the way through, and that the War Office knew it.
  The story has moved to a happy conclusion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton and I gave notice that we would raise the matter on the Adjournment. As a result of the fact that there was to be a little publicity and we would have an opportunity of pressing the Minister, the truth got to work and the Musicians' Union have had much more conciliatory and truthful communications from the Department than ever in the past.
  All that I say to the Under-Secretary is, let the good work continue. Let the hon. Gentleman go back to the authorities in the War Office and be sure that if ever the Musicians' Union again get a communication of the kind that was signed by Colonel Bridge the matter will be raised on the Adjournment. We shall seek every opportunity to prevent Army bandsmen from being employed in this way, and we shall do it in the interests of the Army.
  The bandsmen have an important part to play in keeping up morale and maintaining the respect of the soldier and his pride in his regiment. But the Army bandsman some day has to return to civilian life, and in so far as a bandsman is attracted to Service life, it is in the knowledge that when his Army days are over employment will be available for him in civilian life. The guarantee of a good living is to be found not in the

  437
  evasion of the regulations by people of the character of Colonel Bridge, but in the work and the efficiency of the Musicians' Union.
  I hope that I shall get from the Under-Secretary of State an assurance that this unhappy episode in Exeter is going to be forgotten, and that from now on the Army Council Instructions and the Queen's Regulations are going to be strictly applied. I hope also that the Under-Secretary will give the House an assurance that when the Musicians' Union discovers that there has been any breach of these regulations the matter will be handled as courteously and as efficiently as it has been handled since the time when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton and I gave him notice that we were going to raise this matter on the Adjournment. We should not have to wait and use the sanction of publicity in raising the matter in this House to achieve something which, after all, the interests of the Army and common decency demand.
  Again may I express the hope that as a result of this debate, we shall not only get those assurances but that the owners of the Theatre Royal, in Exeter, will remember that since last February four men have been deprived of their livelihood. I gather that one of them has managed to get a job outside Exeter. There are three men still drawing unemployment pay, deprived of their jobs. A settlement has been made very difficult, and if the Army had behaved with more consideration towards a difficult problem, these men would now be in employment. They have got families to keep, and decency demands that they should have employment.
  The Under-Secretary cannot deal with that problem; that is a problem for Exeter. I only mention it because the story started in Exeter, and if we can have a happy ending as regards the reemployment of these three men I am sure the hon. Member for Exeter will be delighted, and so shall I, and this Adjournment will have been worth while.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the kind references that he made to myself. I do not want to take up more than a few minutes, especially as I understand that negotia
  438
  tions are proceeding at this moment between the management of the Theatre Royal, Exeter, and the Musicians' Union in order to try to bring an end to this matter. I have been in touch with both sides in this case, and I think that it is right to say that the hon. Member has put the case for the Musicians' Union very fairly.
  I hope I may be allowed to state the point of view of the theatre management. I am giving the view that they have given to me, and I am not in a position to judge whether that view is justified. They maintain most emphatically that there is no dispute in this case, and I understand that they are advised by most competent lawyers that such is the case. They state that they have not broken any agreement.
  There is also the point that should be made, that these Army bandsmen were not brought in to take the place of the orchestra which had left. The theatre got together an orchestra very quickly after this cessation of work by the members of the Musicians' Union. It was a small orchestra consisting of a drummer, a pianist and an organist. The inclusion of the Army bandsmen was asked for only on two or three occasions for various productions which needed a fuller orchestra. They were not taken on in toto to take the place of the band which had left.
  I hope that this unhappy state of affairs will swiftly be terminated. I share the view of the hon. Member. Neither of us wants the misery which has been caused to these men who have not been able to find employment to continue any longer.
  10.36 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): I should like to say at the outset to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has been thumping the drum less loudly than I have sometimes heard him do, that I am much too used to crossing swords with him in Adjournment debates to be frightened by any threat, or to be made more conciliatory than I otherwise would have been, by him threatening to bring about future debates. It appears, moreover, that in this musical interlude we have struck some form of harmony.
  As I see it—and I think that this was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's

  439
  speech—the main point is not whether one or two Army bandsmen performed in the Theatre Royal, Exeter, on such-and-such a date, or whether they did not. The hon. Member and the union contend that they did: we are satisfied that they did not. We agree, however, that they played in their private capacity on certain other dates during the period under review, and I think that the matter can be left there.
  I should like to point out that the disagreement, or whatever terms one applies to it, had been going on for five months before the Army bandsmen made their appearance on the scene. Even then there were only three or four of them in a band or orchestra which consisted of some 10 or 12 musicians. So I do not think it can be claimed that the presence of the Army bandsmen for these three performances—I do not want there to be misunderstanding in my use of the word "performances"; I mean the three separate presentations of plays—really dominated the situation. However, protests were made to us, and the Army bandsmen were withdrawn.
  That is the outline of the incident, and I do not think that it is a matter of more than passing interest to any of us in considering the problem. It is the general principle that is more important both to the War Office and to the Musicians' Union. I should like to explain how I see the problem. I am concerned with the welfare and the good name of the Army and those who go to make it up. That is my prime—indeed, it might be said to be my sole—consideration and concern. We start from that point. It is not War Office policy to interfere more than is necessary with what a soldier does in his off-duty hours. If we were to do so it would be, I think, an unreasonable curtailment of the liberty of the individual which it would be hard to justify.
  Further, we see no reason why Army bandsmen should be treated any worse than, or any differently from, other Service personnel in what they do in their spare time. If we were to interfere with their off-duty activities, it would be particularly hard on Army bandsmen, who obviously require to improve themselves musically by participating as much as possible in outside musical activities of a public and private nature, using their own instrument. It would be difficult,
  440
  if not impossible, for an Army bandsman to get an all-round musical education if he were confined only to playing Army instruments in Army bands.
  Bearing in mind this general rule, we do not want to interfere with the off-duty activities of soldiers where it is not necessary. The Army Council appreciates that there are certain activities which it is undesirable that a soldier should undertake, in view of the fact that he is a member of Her Majesty's Forces, since participation by soldiers in certain activities might bring Her Majesty's Forces as a whole into disrepute.
  For example, it is not our policy that Army bandsmen should accept off-duty engagements when we are satisfied that a trade dispute exists, and that, in the circumstances, it would not be politic for soldiers to accept employment in view of the disrepute which the Army would suffer as a whole because of such action. Here, I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said, that doubt exists whether a trade dispute exists in the particular circumstances of the present case. Some competent opinions that must be respected say that that is not so—that no trade dispute does, in fact, exist.
  Each case must be examined and considered in the light of the prevailing circumstances, and the decision is taken by us at the War Office on each one separately. Naturally, we have consultations with the Ministry of Labour, and if we were advised, or if we thought, that a technical trade dispute did, in fact, exist that would weigh with us very strongly indeed. It is even conceivable that although no technical trade dispute might exist, it would still be against our policy to allow bandsmen or, indeed, other Service personnel in other spheres to offer their labour.
  When I used "trade dispute" in the Questions and answers to which the hon. Member has referred on 27th April, 1954, I was using the words in the sense that the ordinary man in the street would understand and recognise, and not by reference to any technical definition in any of the Acts which deal with these rather complicated matters. Indeed, I think one might get a very curious situation arising. I do not know when a trade dispute may be said to end, but we would not be prepared to accept any particular definition of a trade dispute,

  441
  although in coming to our conclusion we would, of course, listen to views upon whether a trade dispute existed.
  It may be appropriate at this stage to say a word in defence of Army bands and bandsmen. The British military musicians are in great demand in many countries in the world both for help and for instruction, because they are recognised as being foremost in their skill. We endeavour to meet these demands whenever we can. I think that, provided the correct War Office policy, which I have tried to outline this evening, is adhered to, it is difficult to see where any reasonable complaints can be made by civilian musicians, many of whom themselves accept musical work on a part-time basis after their ordinary work.
  It seems to me that the interests of the union are adequately protected by
  442
  our determination that soldiers shall not be allowed to take action which would bring the Army into disrepute. On that assurance I ask the hon. Member for Dudley to rest content. I need hardly say that we are only too willing to investigate any circumstances brought to our notice by hon. Members or by the union in which it is thought that this overriding Government policy, which I have tried to outline, is not being followed. In conclusion, may I add that I was glad to hear that negotiations are going on between the contesting parties in Exeter, and I hope that they will come to a happy solution of their difficulties.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Eleven o'Clock.

  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (ENVELOPES AND LABELS)
  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (ENVELOPES AND LABELS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bedridden People's Radio Sets (Tax)
  Bedridden People's Radio Sets (Tax)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  British Citizens, Riviera (Currency)
  British Citizens, Riviera (Currency)
  New Tax Reserve Certificates (Interest)
  New Tax Reserve Certificates (Interest)
HOUSING
  Rent Increases (Notice and Booklet)
  Rent Increases (Notice and Booklet)
  Subsidies Review (Rents)
  Subsidies Review (Rents)
  WATER SUPPLIES,. BRECONSHIRE AND RADNORSHIRE
  WATER SUPPLIES,. BRECONSHIRE AND RADNORSHIRE
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (PICTURES AND TAPESTRIES)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (PICTURES AND TAPESTRIES)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  New Government Buildings (Parking Space)
  New Government Buildings (Parking Space)
  Statues, London (Removal)
  Statues, London (Removal)
  Uranium Supplies
  Uranium Supplies
  Cement Industry (Expansion)
  Cement Industry (Expansion)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Membership)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Membership)
  NUCLEAR RESEARCH (EUROPEAN ORGANISATION)
  NUCLEAR RESEARCH (EUROPEAN ORGANISATION)
  RESEARCH DEPARTMENT (BUILDING PROGRAMME)
  RESEARCH DEPARTMENT (BUILDING PROGRAMME)
  NATURE CONSERVANCY (STAFF)
  NATURE CONSERVANCY (STAFF)
EMPLOYMENT
  Wales and Scotland
  Wales and Scotland
  Middlesex
  Middlesex
  NATIONAL SERVICE (EX-STUDENTS, CAMBORNE)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (EX-STUDENTS, CAMBORNE)
SCOTLAND
  Health Centre, Glenrothes
  Health Centre, Glenrothes
  Investment Company's Houses (Subsidy)
  Investment Company's Houses (Subsidy)
  Local Authorities (Derating Losses)
  Local Authorities (Derating Losses)
BRITISH ARMY
  Fatal Accident, Breconshire
  Fatal Accident, Breconshire
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  R.E.M.E., Middle East Land Forces (Complaints)
  R.E.M.E., Middle East Land Forces (Complaints)
  Raid, Armagh Barracks (Report)
  Raid, Armagh Barracks (Report)
  National Service Men, Kenya
  National Service Men, Kenya
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Film Quotas (Prosecutions)
  Film Quotas (Prosecutions)
  Trading Estate Factories (Rents)
  Trading Estate Factories (Rents)
  New Factory Building
  New Factory Building
  East-West Trade (Anglo-American Talks)
  East-West Trade (Anglo-American Talks)
  Cotton (Stocks)
  Cotton (Stocks)
  Copyright Act
  Copyright Act
  United States Publications (Dollar Expenditure)
  United States Publications (Dollar Expenditure)
  Surplus Foreign Food (Imports)
  Surplus Foreign Food (Imports)
  Hire-Purchase Orders (Revocation)
  Hire-Purchase Orders (Revocation)
  CRICHEL DOWN
  CRICHEL DOWN
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  U.S. Canned Goods
  U.S. Canned Goods
  Lemons
  Lemons
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  REBATES FOR CREAM MANUFACTURE
  2.35 p.m.
  Viscount ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg 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 are aware of the injustice operating against the farmers producing cream under the terms of the scheme inaugurated by the Ministry of Food; whether under that scheme farmers are denied the equivalent of the rebate granted to large producers on the price of milk sold for the production of cream, unless such farmers are dealing with not less than 200 gallons of milk for cream daily and handling not less than a total of 500 gallons of milk daily; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to put such farmers upon a basis of equality with these large concerns in the production and sale of cream.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, during the six weeks before April 1, 1954, the Ministry of Food, in consultation with the Milk Marketing Board, operated on a short-term basis a system of rebates on milk sold for the manufacture of cream. This system was similar to the one used by the Board before the war. Since its powers were restored on April 1, the Board has operated a scheme for rebates on milk sold by it for cream manufacture, broadly as described by the noble Viscount. I understand that as a result of representations at its annual general meeting, the Board has again given most careful consideration to the possibility of providing rebates for farmers manufacturing cream and has decided that it is impracticable to do so.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of this fact? I went with one of my neighbours, a farmer, to the annual meeting of the Milk Marketing Board—I went there to help him; I myself do not produce cream. I asked whether the Milk Marketing Board was consulted by the Ministry of Food with regard to this scheme. The answer of the chairman of the Board to me was that it was informed but not consulted. Therefore, I am a little anxious about the phrase in the Parliamentary Secretary's Answer on that point. I may come back to that in a moment.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I have most carefully checked that point, and I am informed that, there was consultation between the Milk Marketing Board and the Ministry of Food.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware of the great unfairness of this decision to individual farmers, who came into the cream business as long as two years ago, as soon as they were able to do so, and who have now been placed in a position in which it is impossible for them to compete? The fact that a rebate is being given to the largest distributors of cream in the country, virtually creates a small group of large people with a monopoly, and interferes with the individual rights of the farmer.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course we all have great sympathy with the difficulties in which these small cream producers find themselves; but the reason why the Milk Marketing Board does not find it possible to give this rebate is primarily because of the administrative difficulties which would result. It would be almost impossible in these cases to check the amount of cream which was sold and also the amount of milk which was used by these small men, because there is no way of doing it, and even if it were possible it would entail an enormous staff.
  There is, of course, another point which I think one ought to bear in mind when one considers this matter—namely, that if it did what the noble Viscount is suggesting, the Milk Marketing Board would be granting a rebate on milk which, in point of fact, it had never bought and

  827
  which the owner had never sold as milk; and in effect the result would be that the producers would be asking for a special subsidy to be paid to them in respect of milk which they had kept back for their own purposes, although the 1947 Act does no more than guarantee a price for milk sold off the farm. Bearing in mind both the administrative difficulties and what I have just said, the Milk Marketing Board has come to the conclusion that, much as it would like to, it finds that it cannot help.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether or not it is a fact that these milk producers for cream manufacture are perfectly willing to devote the whole of their milk off their farms for this purpose; that it would therefore be perfectly easy to give them the rebate, since they also are subject to milk recording and cannot "fiddle about" with the figures? They are quite prepared to give proper commercial invoices and to have their accounts audited by a chartered accountant. What difficulty really exists in such circumstances? Would the noble Lord also bear in mind that, whereas 60,000 gallons of skimmed milk at a time are being poured down a coal mine because it cannot be distributed, every one of these farmers has a market in the neighbourhood for his skim?
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, all these things have been borne in mind, but what the noble Viscount has said does not alter the fact that the administrative difficulties of granting a rebate to the cream producer are such that the Milk Marketing Board cannot at the moment see any way over them.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I propose to raise this matter at greater length on another occasion.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he is aware of the inconvenience which is caused to consumers by this monopolistic arrangement, and that in many areas of the country it is now extremely difficult for a consumer adjacent to a farm to get any fresh milk at all?
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that that has much to do
  828
  with the subject; but, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think he is quite wrong. I do not think anybody has the slightest difficulty in getting fresh milk when he wants it.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I think it is a fact that no one can like a scheme whereby a rebate is granted to the big man and not to the little man—I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary as much as any of us would dislike that. I would suggest that he devotes his great talents, and those of his Ministry, to trying to find some way out of these administrative difficulties. "Where there's a will," there is very often a way.
  LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, everybody would pay great attention to what is said by the noble and learned Earl, but I would point out that this is the responsibility of the Milk Marketing Board, which is itself a producer-controlled Board. It is run by the producers, and all these cream producers are themselves registered with the Milk Marketing Board. They have their own remedies under the Agricultural Marketing. Acts.

ELECTRICITY REORGANISATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOUSE) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL
2.41 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (ANAESTHETICS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POST OFFICE (SITE AND RAIL WAY) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MARRIAGE ACT, 1949 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TELEVISION BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I wish to intervene in order to get the voting records of yesterday corrected. If noble Lords will look at Division Lists Nos. 2 and 3 they will find that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is recorded as having voted both ways. I do not think this is a fault on the part of the noble Lord. I rather think there has been some confusion with the Clerks, who mistook my noble friend Lord Darwen for Lord Derwent. I hope, therefore, that the necessary correction can be made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 3:
General provisions as to programmes and publications of Authority.
3.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements, that is to say—

(a) that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British;

830

(e) that a proper proportion of the films and other recorded matter included in the programmes is of British origin;

(h) subject as hereinafter provided in this subsection, that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes:

Provided that nothing in paragraph (h) of this subsection shall prevent—
(ii) the inclusion in the programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure the exclusion from any publications which they may issue and, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, from the programmes broadcast by them, of all expressions of their own opinion as to any of the matters referred to in paragraph (g) of the said subsection (1), or of the opinion as to any such matters of any of their members or officers, or of the opinion as to any such matters of any programme contractor or, in the case of a programme contractor which is a firm, of any partner therein or, in the case of a programme contractor which is a body corporate, of any director or officer thereof or person having control thereof.
(3) Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value, whether competed for or not, or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1) (a), after the first "the" to insert "content." The noble Lord said: On the occasion of an Amendment earlier this morning, some play was made of the fact that my noble friend Lord Listowel moved the deletion of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 3 and that I had down a subsequent Amendment to the same paragraph; it was thought that there was some inconsistency. There is nothing inconsistent about wanting a clause or a paragraph deleted, and, if that fails, in trying to improve the relevant passage. I had put down my Amendment on the assumption that noble Lords would be unreasonable and would not be prepared to accept deletion or amendment of paragraph (a), and that therefore I should be entitled to try to improve its language. Early this morning better counsel seems to have prevailed and noble Lords have taken back this clause for reconsideration.

831
In those circumstances, my Amendment would be inappropriate. I am not therefore arguing or moving the Amendment, but I thought I ought to make this explanation.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) In the ease of any programmes transmitted from a transmitter situated in Wales, a proper proportion alike of advertisements and programmes shall be in the Welsh language."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order paper. We are not tied to the actual wording of the Amendment—indeed, I think some words ought to be added to show that it is not merely transmitters situated in Wales with which we are concerned but also transmitters serving Wales; in fact any programmes which are normally received by the Welsh people in Wales should come under the objects of this Amendment. I am sure the Government will not tie us to the actual wording, and will understand that that is what we mean. If, as I hope, they will accept the principle enshrined in the Amendment, no doubt we can easily, with their skilled Parliamentary draftsmen, arrive at correct wording.
I make no claim that this Amendment will in any way affect the 300,000 or 400,000 Welsh people living in London, or the large numbers of Welsh people working and living outside of London, in England or Scotland. This is intended to assist, and to be an act of elementary justice for, Welsh people living in Wales. As I mentioned on another Amendment yesterday, there are roughly 2,500,000 people living in Wales and Monmouthshire and a little over one-half—something over a million of the people in Wales without Monmouthshire—living in Glamorgan. I would point out that my Amendment includes advertisements, as well as programmes, and it is therefore intended that such benefit as there may be, or even such defects, or anything else, shall equally apply to those who speak Welsh as to those who speak English. We do not ask for any more favourable treatment for those who speak Welsh than we ask for those who speak English. We want them to be treated exactly alike, and that is the object of this Amendment.
Television in Wales is a vital question affecting culture and language. Your Lordships will remember that early this morning, on the last Amendment, we had a sprightly debate, considering the time, on the meaning of the word "British" and there was considerable diversity of opinion as to what "British" meant. The Government themselves were not clear and did not know whether "British," in this context, would include Sinhalese and exclude the Irish living in Eire; but it is quite certain that the meaning of "British," however one interprets the word, whether by nationality or race, applies to the people of Wales. If the Government are anxious, as they appear to be, to ensure that the tone and style of programmes are "predominantly British," they can certainly achieve that object by seeing that the original language of this country—the original, ancient British language—shall be used, in the manner suggested, by the new transmitters which are to be set up.
It is a very important point for us in Wales, because Welsh culture is to a very large extent tied to the language. It is a living language, a growing language, one rooted in the past, and it has a tremendous effect on the present. Every week in London, in a Welsh Club, we have a poetry reading at which the works of Welsh poets and Anglo-Welsh poets are featured. Poems, old and new, are recited by the young people. Only a fortnight or so ago I was at one of these poetry gatherings, and I was very much struck by the resemblance which the poetry of Dafydd Ap Gwilym, the Welsh poet who lived about 500 years ago, bore to that of Mr. Dylan Thomas, who died only last year—it really was extraordinary. There were alternate recitations of the works of these two poets, and if you had not known which was which it would have been a very difficult thing to say, of your own judgment, which poems were the work of the poet who lived 500 years ago and which were the work of the one who lived until a year ago. I am only seeking to show how important it is that the ancient Welsh tongue should be retained, and what a great effect it has on the life of Wales in these days.
There is no doubt that in the past the little country of Wales has been shamelessly exploited by people from other countries—and also, I regret to say, by some people in our own country. It was

833
deserted and betrayed by its own leaders who should have stuck to it. The culture and language of Wales were not retained in any way at all by the great people of the land; they were retained by the peasants. They were retained, very often, under great difficulties. The language was banned, sometimes by Act of Parliament—indeed I think an Act banning it is still on the Statute Book. Certainly the ban was upheld, by people in Church and State who should have been concerned to preserve the language. As I say, the language was the language of the peasants, just as the culture has always been the culture of the peasants. It is one of the most surprising features in the life of this island that the culture and the language of Wales have survived at all. But they have survived, and they are very strong. In spite of all opposition, the culture and the language of Wales are still powerful influences. In fact, there are now twice as many people speaking Welsh as were comprised in the total population of Wales before the Industrial Revolution. From a percentage point of view far fewer speak Welsh, but in actual numbers twice as many do.
In these days, any small people—small numerically, that is—is under very great pressure: pressure from the Press, pressure from the radio, pressure fom literature; and now, most of all, from television. A number of those countries, some of them countries on the Continent, are finding that their own idiosyncrasies are largely being submerged by the enormous wealth of propaganda and wealth of information that is being poured out by other and larger countries. With all the improved media of propaganda and information it is difficult for them to stand up to the flood, so to speak; and if they are not careful they go downstream, instead of being able to stand up to it. Therefore it is extremely important that in television, the greatest medium of all time of instruction, persuasion, entertainment and propaganda, a reasonable proportion, a proper proportion, of the material that is transmitted from this new station should be in the Welsh language. That applies, as I have said, not only to the programmes but also to the advertisements. It is vital to Wales I feel, for if we lose this language and lose this culture it means that something that can never be replaced will have gone from our national life.
Here—and English people take very little interest in it, I regret to say—is the language of the Ancient Britons, the language of the early people of this country. If it were spoken in any other country than Wales, people would go thousands of miles to hear the language. They would want to see the people; but because it is an easy journey from London to Wales, no one bothers. I repeat that if this culture and this language are lost, something that will never be replaced will have gone out of our national life. Therefore, without labouring the point, I ask the Committee to agree to the Amendment. I might say, with regard to the advertisers, that even to-day there are some who do advertise in the Welsh language. Quite recently, I saw a number of buses running in mid-Wales and in North Wales carrying on the rear panels advertisements in the Welsh language for football pools. People were being invited to send their coupons to Liverpool. So this is not a fantastic suggestion at all, because, in fact, even at the present day advertisers do advertise in the Welsh language. I think the case for this Amendment is a very strong one. I believe that this is a vital matter for the Welsh people, and I ask for the sympathetic consideration of the Government and the Committee of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Ogmore.)
2.56 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I am sure that the whole Committee has been moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said in support of his Amendment, and I think it will be agreed that we could not have had a more agreeable or informative overture than he account which the noble Lord has given us of Welsh history and Welsh culture. I am sure that it moved us all. The songs of Wales we can understand, whatever our nationality or our language. The noble Lord, I believe, used to sit for an English constituency—no doubt he can speak Welsh.
LORD OGMORE: I do not speak it nearly so well as I should like to do.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course, we were greatly moved by the story of all

835
the betrayals which have taken place in Welsh history, from the earliest times down to Mr. Lloyd George's record with the Liberal Party. All that has moved us. As Nurse Cavell said on a famous occasion:
"Patriotism is not enough,"
and it would also seem that patriotism, admirable virtue that it is, may be carried a little too far. I am sure that on consideration the noble Lord will see that it would not be wise to put in the Amendment which he proposes, that a proper proportion of advertisements and programmes should be in the Welsh language. As a matter of fact, though it has never been done over the ordinary broadcasting radio, it would be much easier to do this over the ordinary broadcasting system—that is, it would be much easier to put over the Welsh language, to have a proportion of features in the Welsh tongue, features in which people speak in Welsh. Acting is a different matter and, as we agreed last night, it is much more international in its scope. It may even be that some people, loving their own language and their own traditions, may want to see and hear actors who are not able to act, alas! in the Welsh language. I may observe that no such direction has been given to the B.B.C. as is proposed here, and I have never heard any complaints that the B.B.C. does not give reasonable consideration to Wales.
The noble Lord will see that we have, in fact, adopted what I think is a practical way of doing this. We all want to get a start with Welsh stations; and presently I hope television will extend into Wales. If the noble Lord looks at paragraph (f) of the clause we are discussing he will see there a provision which requires:
"that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations;"
That is intended, in a sensible and flexible way, to make sure that local tastes are properly catered for. When it comes to advertisements, if the noble Lord would look at paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule, he will see that it says:
"If, in the case of any of the television broacasting stations used by the Authority, there appears to the Authority to be a sufficient
836
local demand to justify that course, provision shall be made for a reasonable allocation of time for local advertisements, of which a suitable proportion shall be short local advertisements."
The general purpose that the noble Lord has in mind was very much in our minds when we prepared the Bill, and I venture to think that we have dealt with it in just the spirit he would wish to see but in a more flexible and practical manner than the direct order he prefers to insert in the Bill. Indeed, when he moved the Amendment he said he did not care about the words but wanted to know that there was reasonable provision in the Bill for Welsh interests and local events. I think I have referred to provisions which will surely satisfy him that the Bill is all right as it stands.
LORD WINSTER: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I deplore the wave of standardisation which is passing over our country, blotting out local traditions. The Welsh are a great people, with distinctive characteristics, habits and customs, who have made a great contribution to the history of this country, and I should like to see their feelings of nationality and their pride in their language and distinctive habits recognised by the introduction into this Bill of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for his support. It shows that he has the root of the matter in him. I entirely agree with what he said. I was impressed not only by the matter, but also by the manner, of the noble Viscount's speech. I feel there is not much between us: I hope he agrees with that. What I am trying to achieve, perhaps rather bluntly put down in this Amendment, he is trying to do in another way. I see that paragraph (f) may cover it, but it is in such broad terms that also it may not. If the Government could give me an assurance on this matter, I should be satisfied and should not press my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I left out one thing I ought to have said. I think it is actually provided in the Bill that on the board (if that is the correct term) of the Authority, there is to be one member who is specially concerned with Wales. I think that is important.
LORD OGMORE: I agree that is important; but after all, he is only one and he may be outweighed.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Do you want a Welsh majority?
LORD OGMORE: Oh, no, I do not want a majority. I want an undertaking from the Government that they will act in accordance with the spirit of this Amendment. If they can give me this undertaking, I will accept it, because I know they will keep it. Then we shall be quite sure that the one solitary nightingale on the Authority will not be drowned by the more mellow and fuller tones of the other birds. It is within your Lordships' knowledge that when Wenvoe station was being set up, I raised the same point. If your Lordships were to look at my intervention then (which I am sure you will not bother to do) you would see that I made the same plea. The Postmaster General was most sympathetic and it had a good deal of effect, because what is said in your Lordships' House has a great deal of effect. Since then we have had two or three times a week, indeed almost daily, Welsh programmes from Wenvoe. The B.B.C. have played the game. And my noble fried Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who is chairman, has been keeping a careful eye on the situation as well. I think that that intervention in this House, with the support of the Postmaster General, had a great deal of effect, and that is why I want today to put on record that the principle enshrined in my Amendment, which I now will not press, is going to have the support of the Gov ernment and will be observed by them. If I get that assurance I shall be quite happy and I am sure the people of Wales will be grateful to the Government for what they are doing for the preservation of Welsh culture.
EARL DE LA WARR: When one sees the provisions in a Bill, they look cold and soulless, but let me say to the Committee that, as the Minister responsible for the administration of this Bill, I give the noble Lord the firm assurance that paragraph (f) is a provision I have deeply at heart. I think it is vital to all broadcasting in this country that there should be a strong regional bias to a great deal of what goes out on the air. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord that the provisions
838
of the Bill are definitely meant to be realities. I hope that some of these programmes, even though not in Welsh (and the same applies to Scotland and other regions) will be Welsh in "tone and style"—whatever we said about that phrase when we discussed it yesterday.
LORD OGMORE: In view of that handsome assurance, for which I am grateful to the noble Earl and other members of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) (e), to leave out "proper" and insert "prescribed." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord one thing? Obviously, Amendment No. 88 goes with this. Would it be convenient if we discussed the question of whether or not there should be a prescribed quota on this Amendment?
LORD SILKIN: I was going to mention Amendment No. 88.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: And No. 40?
LORD SILKIN: I will refer to it; I had it in mind. This is an Amendment to Clause 3 (1) (e), which provides that the Authority have to be satisfied so far as possible that a proper proportion of films and other recorded matter included in programmes is of British origin. My Amendment provides that instead of "proper" proportion, it should be "prescribed" proportion, and (the noble Viscount is quite right) later on, Amendment No. 88 defines what is meant by "prescribed" it is prescribed by the Postmaster General by statutory instrument, which is subject to a Negative Resolution by the House. The first point is that the principle is laid down in paragraph (e) that a proportion of the films included in programmes should be of British origin, and there will be no dispute about the desirability of that from any part of the Committee. The question is: Is the word "proper" adequate to ensure what we all desire to do? The word "proper" is a vague word. What the noble Earl may regard as proper may be regarded by many on this side of the Committee, and even on the other side, as quite inadequate. There is no provision for defining what "proper" means and, as it stands, it is

839
entirely within the discretion of the Authority, who may be satisfied, so far as possible, on flimsy grounds, or on good grounds, as to what is a proper proportion.
I put this forward as an important Amendment. It is not merely a change of word, but a change of character, the issue being as to whether it should be left in this vague and, in my view, unsatisfactory way, to ensure that you get films and other material of British origin, or whether you lay down a specific proportion. Of course, we are not laying down any proportion in the Bill, and the Amendment does not suggest one. What the Amendment suggests is that the Postmaster General should be empowered to decide from time to time what is a proper proportion of films and other recorded matter of British origin to be included in the programmes.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Does the noble Lord adhere to his definition of "proper" in Amendment No. 40? Is that his idea of "proper"?
LORD SILKIN: I know that the noble Lord is trying to trip me up.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: No.
LORD SILKIN: When we get to Amendment No. 40, then it will be quite appropriate to ask me about it, but I would rather deal with this Amendment for the time being—"Sufficient unto the day.…"
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Quite sufficient.
LORD SILKIN: I think I should command general agreement to this Amendment, if it were considered practicable, but I imagine that the Postmaster General is going to say that it is not practicable, and has not been found practicable, to prescribe a specific percentage. I imagine that he is going to quote the experience of the Cinematograph Films Acts, where a quota has been laid down with which it has not always been possible for the operators to comply. I should like to distinguish between the case of a quota for television purposes and the quota laid down in the Cinematograph Films Acts. As the Committee will appreciate, the quota in the Cinematograph Films Acts provides that each individual hall or theatre showing
840
films should show the prescribed percentage of British films. There are thousands of halls, cinemas and so on all over the country, of various types and characters: those of the large circuits; the West End pre-release houses; the provincial and non-circuit cinemas, coming down to the village hall. Each of them has its own particular characteristics and its own difficulties; what is possible for one may not be possible for another. Some cinemas are under American influence, America dictating the policy to a considerable extent. All these things make it exceedingly difficult for the Board of Trade to ensure that the quota provisions are complied with. It is possible to secure partial exemption from compliance with the quota. Any cinema may make application, possibly providing good grounds for being granted partial exemption from The quota; and generally one can see why the quota provisions in the Cinematograph Films Acts have not been entirely successful.
I concede the fact that we started off with a much higher quota than is in operation to-day, and that most of the movements of the quota have had to be in a downward direction. Let me make these concessions, because I think it is right that the Committee should be in possession of all the facts; that your Lordships should not hear them merely from the other side but from me, in presenting my case. I face up to all that, and I recognise that, so far as cinemas are concerned, the quota provisions have not been so successful as to encourage us to make similar provisions in this Bill. However, as I say, I draw a distinction between the two, and it is this: that instead of dealing with thousands of different types of cinemas and halls, and hundreds of different types of proprietors, all of whom have to be catered for, and all of whom have different conditions to satisfy, we are dealing here with one, two or three different programme authorities. It is much easier for this limited number of programme authorities to comply with the requirements of a quota than it is in the case of this large number of different proprietors; and, of course, it is much easier for the Postmaster General to keep in touch with them, to discuss with them what is a reasonable proportion to prescribe from time to time, and certainly to ensure that it is successful. In fact,

841
putting it in a sentence, in my view the difficulties which have led to the lack of success in enforcing the quota, so far as the ordinary cinema and hall is concerned, would not obtain in the case of the limited number of television programmes, and it would be relatively simple for the Postmaster General to provide a quota in the case of these programmes.
Furthermore, the governing words, "so far as possible," still remain in Clause 3 (1). Whether the actual position of that will remain, or will be changed, is not relevant. I imagine that the Government will want to make the duty of the Authority not absolute, but qualified by some such words as "so far as possible." They would, in fact, govern the quota provisions, so that the duty of the statutory Authority would be restricted by what is practicable; there would not be an absolute obligation. But it would have immense advantages from the point of view of all those who are concerned with the industry (I want to say rather more about that on a later Amendment) that everybody should know that we are out to provide a certain fixed proportion of films and other matter of British origin, though the proportion may be varied from time to time. I do not think I need elaborate on this matter, because the issue is sufficiently clear. I have given the Committee my reasons for believing that the difficulties which might obtain in connection with films are not valid in connection with these programmes. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this Amendment, and will do what they can to meet what is a popular and important body of opinion among people concerned with the industry in this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("proper") and insert ("prescribed").—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I agree that this is an extremely important Amendment, and it is one which the House should consider carefully. I also regard it as an Amendment with no Party political significance at all. I do not say that I speak with authority on this subject, but at any rate I do speak about film quotas with some knowledge, because I invented the film quota. Certainly no one will accuse me of not wanting to do the best I possibly can for the British film industry, because I think I can
842
claim to have rescued the film industry from death by introducing the Act of 1927. That Act was greatly opposed at the time, not so much by the Labour Party as by the Liberal Party, who divided 150 times against me when the Bill was going through Committee. Ten years later it was accepted unanimously, with agreed Amendments in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, was piloting the next renewal, and I, in Opposition, was glad to act as his lieutenant in support. Therefore, it is common ground between us that we want to do the best we can for the film industry.
I should like to tell the House quite sincerely—and we have given a tremendous amount of consideration to this matter—why the Government came to the conclusion that it would be unwise to try to lay down a quota, at any rate in the first instance. The noble Lord has put his case, if I may say so, very fairly. It is true that an enormous number of exceptions have had to be made in the quota legislation about films—this and that cinema in different parts of the country have had to be exempted. I think the noble Lord was also right, up to a point, when he said that it might be difficult for a cinema house in Galashiels to do that which would not be difficult for the Odeon in Leicester Square. We are dealing not only with hundreds of cinemas owned by one authority, but also with individual people. Here we are dealing with three or four programme contractors.
I should like to put this point to the noble Lord. If we put in a compulsory quota, we must put it fairly low. That was my experience, and the noble Lord will bear me out. I remember that we both tried to raise it, and we had to bring it down, because, although a man might be genuinely trying to show as many British films as he could, it might also be that he was able to show no more than 50 per cent.—and it had to be remembered that it was to be a statutory obligation and, indeed, that it was a criminal offence not to show the prescribed quota. So inevitably the quota had to be fixed rather low—you always do that when you have compulsory control legislation. I am not arguing whether statutory control is a good thing or not. It does not apply only when you put on a quota on a thing

843
like films. It applies when you fix prices. That is one reason why I do not like control, because you always have to fix the price, not at what the efficient man can sell at but, in theory, at a price at which a sort of middle-grade man can sell, though it often becomes, where guarantees are being given, what the least efficient man can do. When you fix a price, it is apt to be the price at which the biggest "dud" can sell without going out of business. That is why I do not like that sort of control. In all this control legislation, where it is statutory with a penalty, you tend to go pretty low, because everybody has to comply with it.
I believe that if you put in a statutory quota in the first instance—and it does not matter whether it is prescribed by the Postmaster General in an order; it would be just the same as if you put a long detailed Schedule into an Act of Parliament—Parliament would probably insist on seeing it, and even if there were variations they would insist on seeing the variations. I am sure the Committee will agree with that, because it is proposed here to put a statutory obligation upon somebody, and possibly make it a criminal offence if he does not comply with it. It will certainly be an offence, because at least he would be breaking his contract, and he might, on the third offence, be liable to have his whole contract rescinded. Parliament would certainly insist on having the quota laid down either in an Act of Parliament or in an order which could not be varied. The one thing needed in this scheme is flexibility. When the Authority are making a start on this scheme they do not want to be tied to something which might be either too high or too low.
I am most anxious to see the maximum opportunity given to British films. If I had to administer this scheme and make sure that the programme contractors showed the maximum number of British films, I would much rather have the provision in this Bill under which I could talk to the Authority and the Authority could talk to the programme contractors, both when they make a contract and afterwards. Therefore, with an experience which is, at any rate, as large in these matters as that of anybody in this Committee on something which certainly is
844
not a political matter, I would most strongly counsel the Committee to leave this paragraph as it is. Of course, if we imposed this quota we should also have to impose it on the B.B.C.—that obviously would be right, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that. If we are going to impose a quota on one set of people, we must also impose it on the other. As a matter of fact, the B.B.C. have been in television now for a good long time, and whatever views may be held about the quality of their television, I do not think there has been a complaint that the Governors and the officials of the B.B.C. have not been able to give British performers and British film-makers a fair chance. I see no reason why the same should not apply here. From such contact as I have had with the people who are likely to be engaged in this matter, I know that they are extremely anxious to show these films. I know that there is a feeling: "Well, you might get a flood of American stuff in, very cheap." I am quite certain that we can safeguard against that by all the directions we give here, and I am also quite sure that that is not what these people want to do.
When it comes down to definitions, they are not too easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will remember from our discussions on the Films Act. We had to define what was a British film. It would have to be completely Commonwealth. A film is a pretty large undertaking, and even there we had to take a power to exempt—I think we had a power to exempt. The basis adopted was that 80 per cent. of the cast should be British, or that 80 per cent. of the cost of the cast should be spent on British actors; and you took into account whether the script writer was included. Then you had to put in an extra provision that one or two "stars" might be foreign. It was not an easy thing to define who constituted a "British" film, and I believe it would be found that with television, which is also using live shows, the problem would be still more difficult. The noble Lord was quite right when he said that the words are "films and other recorded matter"—which technically, I suppose, would be the film. But what happens then? When you make a film to be shown in a cinema there is the film, but in a great many instances here there will be a live performance

845
which may be shown straight on to the screen in the first instance, but which is being recorded at the same time so that there can be repetitions afterwards. The Comédie Francaise may give a performance. The first one might be live, straight on to the screen. Records are taken and those may be shown three or four times more. Would such a performance be British or foreign?
May I say just one other thing which is worth remembering—the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will no doubt regard it as very good Free Trade doctrine, coming from me. I am anxious that we should be able to send our stuff all over the world. I was greatly impressed when I visited a studio near London the other day to see these half-hour films being made, essentially British in character, with British script writers and British actors. There were some very distinguished actors and I may say there was a highly moral tone. I saw Cautionary Tale which was both entertaining and of the highest moral purpose. The whole of these were to be sold in America, which is interesting. They are very good. I was delighted with them. Anybody would be delighted to see them on a screen here.
That is going all right. But suppose we lay down in this legislation a specific quota of what is to be British. You will get reciprocal action. It is not happening at the present time because the legislation has not been brought in. We all know it has not been too easy, though these films are going on all right; but suppose we put a kind of quota restriction upon these things at home. We might easily get retaliation and find that we were not going to get our films accepted abroad. For all these reasons (which I have dealt with in detail because the whole issue is raised here) I would say to your Lordships that we should be well advised not to give directions to the Postmaster General or to the I.T.A. and to lay down a lot of hard and fast rules. But let us go forward in the spirit—as the Government and, I know, the I.T.A. will do, and I am sure the programme companies will want to do—to give the maximum opportunity to these films. I think that is the better way. As was said in another place and, as the Postmaster General has said, if it does not work and legislation is actually necessary to give protection (and if it was not
846
improper to bet in this House I would offer to bet that it will not be necessary to introduce legislation) that legislation can always be introduced and we shall not hesitate to introduce it. I beg the House to leave the Bill in its present form.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I had been waiting rather impatiently for the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to say a word about this Amendment. I should like to ask one or two questions. First, everything is to be "British" or "prescribed." My noble friend does not like the word "proper" which is an ambiguous word; he likes the words "prescribed proportion." What is British? I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, this question. Suppose they are showing a scene from the film of the climbing of Mount Everest: is that British? You can show Ludgate Hill—that is British, unquestionably—but you must not show apparently the last scenes of The Conquest of Everest. Supposing, for example, their Majesties are visiting Ceylon. Can you show a picture of that? That, certainly, is not British, because we do not have a "British Commonwealth"; we have the "Commonwealth and Empire."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the noble Viscount referring to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or to the clause as a whole? Everything he says is relevant to the clause as a whole, because it says that a "proper proportion of the films" should be "of British origin."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Exactly. The two hang together. I shall not repeat the few words I have to say for the substantive Amendment. They hang together in the same argument. It is a question whether we should have a proper proportion of British, and we get "British" by excluding things that we do not call British. We exclude scenes representing the vast majority of the inhabitants of our Commonwealth, an extraordinary thing to do. The second thing I want to ask, for I am convinced by the partnership between the two Front Benches, is this: could not this rule of having things which are wholly British or a "proper proportion" British be extended? Could not a committee be appointed to go to the National Gallery? There are a great many pictures in the National Gallery that are not British at

847
all. Could not a committee be appointed to see that the different concerts at the Albert Hall are all British? And you might extend the quota to the Harringay Stadium. My few words are merely in protest against the type of thing which is really the greatest enemy of the growth, power and influence of our Commonwealth. Originally, we were "Norman and Saxon and Dane," as the Poet Laureate has said. We are an amalgam of many races, and our influence in the world exists because we are an amalgam of many races, able to 'understand and comprehend other peoples' point of view. This aspect of "proper proportion" or "prescribed proportion" is something which is seriously inimical to the future greatness of our country.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I had not intended to speak in this debate and I was loth to interrupt the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, but, since he and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, have mentioned my name, I feel impelled to say a few words. Indeed, I was much tempted to interrupt the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he was speaking, because I was delighted to hear one passage in his speech in which he pointed out that the effect of quotas and tariffs is to protect the inefficient at the expense of the more efficient, and that your standard has to be put very low in order to keep people in business, otherwise your tariff is ineffective. Furthermore, towards the end of his speech he pointed out again that to impose a tariff is only to provoke retaliation against your own goods. There is hope even for the most unregenerate; and that the day should have come—with he and I both getting well on into middle age—when he should have confessed to be preaching free trade doctrine, is indeed a memorable occasion. I agree on the whole with what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has said. I feel very sceptical about all these proposals—for example, that Beethoven was really, if one properly understood it, a British composer; that Shakespeare, according to the Nazi doctrine, was a German and the Japanese honorary Aryans. We have heard all those doctrines preached in recent years. I think that all this discussion, to a great extent, is futile, and that the Bill will have little effect in this direction. If the general public, the Government,
848
the programme producers and the Authority are all anxious to secure that there shall not be an ordinary, commonplace American broadcasting of television films in this country, they will not be broadcast; and if, on the other hand, they do not care about it, they certainly will be. As for us, we seem to me to be to a great extent wasting our time this afternoon, to which I shall not further contribute.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that this is an important Amendment, but at the same time I agree with him that it is one which should be resisted. I think the position would be very difficult indeed if this Amendment were passed, because the Postmaster General would be too far separated, surely, from the day-to-day conditions under which the Television Authority will be working. There would be bound to be lack of flexibility. With regard to Viscount Stansgate's remarks, paragraph (e), about which we are talking, deals with films. Surely a film is of British origin if it is made in Britain, whether it is a film of Everest or one about a Beethoven sonata.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Can the noble Lord explain—he is a technician—how and when you can have a film of Everest in Britain.
LORD GIFFORD: The film is edited and produced in Britain.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: You make a mock-up of Everest and photograph that and call it British.
LORD GIFFORD: I take it we are all concerned about the possibility of the dumping of cheap American or other programmes, and I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, one question. The word "proper" is, of course, rather a vague word. I presume, therefore, he would visualise that the Independent Television Authority, when making its contracts with the programme companies, would, in accordance with the conditions at the time, make some provision in the contract, possibly by quota or other means, to see that what the Authority considered at that time a reasonable proportion of British films was included, and that would be protected by contract and not just left rather vague.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I make one point to the Committee before

849
we pass from this Amendment? It is that we have now been approximately one hour and five minutes on two Amendments. We have been something like three-quarters of an hour on this present Amendment. Important as it is, I do suggest that there are many noble Lords who might like to make some contribution but are imposing upon themselves a self-denying ordinance. If we go on at the present rate and have the length of speech which seems to be necessary to develop the case from one Front Bench and refute it front the other, we Shall be here till the early hours of the morning, occupying a lot of our time on matters which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said are somewhat irrelevant to the particular debate and not particularly important at the moment. I would suggest with great respect, as a Back Bencher—and I hope I have the support of the Committee—that those who are primarily responsible for the conduct of this Bill through the proceedings of the Committee should impose upon themselves something of the same restraint that other noble Lords are doing.
LORD SILKEN: That is an extraordinary statement to make. This is a most important Amendment and I feel that those who are responsible for it are entitled to put their case adequately, I hope not with redundance, and to have an adequate answer.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Half an hour answer.
LORD SILKIN: I can assure the noble Lord it will not all take that time. This Amendment raises an issue which is probably amongst the most important in the Bill. I refuse to be intimidated or influenced in any way in putting forward a proper case for discussion. May I say that I have no complaint about the way in which the noble Viscount has dealt with it. I sometimes have a complaint about the way in which he deals with Amendments, but I have no complaint at all about this one. I think that there have been a certain number of irrelevancies, but they have come from my noble friend behind me who has stabbed me in the back, and from the noble Lord at my side, who took the opportunity of embarking on one of those dead issues which can never be revived. I am impressed
850
with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, and I certainly have no desire to force a matter which is non-Party and to which I know the Government have given careful consideration, to a Division, or even to try to divide the House into sheep and goats. I am going to withdraw this Amendment and to leave it to Her Majesty's Government to do as they please about it. But we are not really very much at issue. The noble Viscount has said, if I understood his speech correctly, that he agrees that we should get the maximum amount of British films shown in television. He agrees to that. Whether it can best be done by means of prescribing a percentage or whether it can best be done by other means is a matter which is capable of a difference of opinion, and a genuine one. I think prescribing is right, but I am not going to force it, the Government having considered it. I would ask two things. One is, would they look again at this word "proper" which really is much too vague? I do not ask them to commit themselves in any way; but to talk of a "proper" proportion does not give very much guidance to the Authority.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can say at once that we did consider a large number of alternatives and we came to the conclusion that "proper" was much the best word to use.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry to hear that. I think if they had one more look, perhaps it would be possible to find a better word which would more clearly indicate what we all have in mind; that is, that it has to be a substantial proportion. The other thing is that it may be that means can be devised for securing what we want by administrative methods. But suppose they are not successful. Would it not be worth considering whether the Postmaster General should not take powers in this Bill, if at any time he thought it right, to provide for what I am seeking to do now in this Amendment? Before the noble Viscount says "No" to that, I would merely ask him to give consideration to it. Of course, there is another stage and one can have another word about it. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that it will not be at this length. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.49 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) to insert:
"(f) That there shall be no transmission of any film or other recorded programme which has been publicly exhibited at home or abroad at any time before the date of the first public transmission from any station under the control of the Authority; provided that the Authority may except material from the provisions of this paragraph on cultural or educational grounds."
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to inflict myself again on the Committee, but I regard this also as a very important Amendment. It is one which I have been asked to move by a large number of organisations representing the whole of the entertainment industry in this country, including the British Actors' Equity Association, musicians, composers, authors, dramatists, screenwriters, technicians, variety artistes, and concert artistes. They are all very anxious that an Amendment of this kind should be put before the Committee. It provides that there should be no transmission of any film or other recorded matter which has already been publicly shown, but there is an exception that where matter which has been shown previously has a cultural or educational value, then the Authority may except it from this embargo.
I need hardly elaborate the reasons why these various organisations are so concerned about this matter. As the Committee know, there is a large—indeed abnormal—amount of unemployment in the entertainment industry. In the case of actors, I am told that 50 per cent. of them are unemployed, and in the case of other members of the different sections of the industry the proportion is almost as high. They are naturally very concerned that they should be able to play their part in the new television programmes. I am told that the various organisations are not necessarily opposed to commercial television—they are divided, as we are in this House, and not at all on a political basis; some are in favour, some are not. But they are all worried about what they regard as the overriding danger which threatens them through this new medium—that is, the importation of films and recorded programmes which have already been used abroad, mostly on American television; which have already been paid for out of receipts in America and other
852
places, and which can therefore be brought into this country at very low cost.
This operation used to be called "dumping." The producer had received profits already in the home market and was able to export at a cost which was, so far as the producer in this country was concerned, one which could not possibly be competed with. That will be the position with a large number of films and recorded matter that will be brought into this country. There are no safeguards in the Bill against this "dumping," and I would submit that it is necessary for the protection of those who are engaged in the industry. The Amendment recognises that certain films and recorded matter are worth repeating or reproducing and, as I have already indicated, the terms of the Amendment provide for those cases. What we are mainly concerned with in this Amendment is to preserve and safeguard the livelihood of the many thousands of people who are engaged in the entertainment industry, an object with which I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment, or something like it, will be acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I hope that we shall not spend as much time on this "important" Amendment as we did on the last "important" Amendment. There is really no case to be made for this Amendment, because, if there were a parallel case, it would equally be applicable to the B.B.C. This is not a Bill for helping artistes, but for amusing, entertaining, educating and instructing viewers. Macaulay, in a well-known passage, said that the Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not because it was cruel to the bears but because it amused the spectators. In this Bill we ought to have regard to the benefits which are to be conferred on the viewers. The Bill takes nothing whatever away from artistes or musicians—no injury is inflicted upon them at all. Their opportunities are increased; they will have more work than ever before, and it would be an unreasonable price to pay, that the viewer should be told that he is to have only inferior programmes because

853
the object of the Bill is to keep persons in work or to provide persons with work, quite regardless of their competence.
I think that the decisive argument, however, is that these proposed restrictions, whether they are jingoistic or protectionistic—because we are having to meet one after another—are not applicable to the Authority set up under this Bill unless they are also to be applied to the B.B.C. It is really imposing too great a strain upon the patience of the Committee to impose e number of conditions upon this new Authority which will not be equally imposed upon its competitor. One can quite understand the motives of the noble Lord; they are sincere and genuine, on behalf of persons who doubtless desire to get employment, or to secure themselves in employment. But, after all, that is not the purpose of this Bill. I therefore hope that we may get to Amendments which really do go to the root of the matter.
LORD LAYTON: We have had it on the authority of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that everything that is televised is educational; if so, this Amendment will exclude nothing. But if we take a more restricted view, then I hope that it will be rejected. In the course of the Second Reading debate I mentioned what I thought was one of the most important television programmes that have been shown in recent times—namely, the two programmes concerned with McCarthyism, the first an attack on McCarthy by Ed Murrow and secondly McCarthy's defence. If this Amendment had been in the Bill it would have been impossible to make those broadcasts in this country.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I certainly could not possibly accept this Amendment. As we discussed on the other Amendment, the real safeguard is to be found in paragraph (e), and that is really the right way of putting the safeguard. It is also reinforced in paragraph (a), if we should decide to retain paragraph (a) in the Bill. That is the way to keep out a flood of cheap second-hand stuff; it is the only effective way of doing it. This Amendment would have the effect of preventing anybody from seeing a revival—and after all, revivals are pretty popular in this country; some of them have been most successful. One of the best things that I have seen on the B.B.C.
854
was Tovarich. That was a quite admirable performance some weeks ago. But Tovarich had been performed twenty years before, and I was amused when I saw it in those days. So far as I can make out, this Amendment would prevent any revival, from Shakespeare to modern times, and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to press it. Moreover, if any restriction were to be put on at all, I entirely agree that it must be imposed on the B.B.C., as well as on this Authority.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is a very important point. Do I understand that if it turns out that in this Bill, when it becomes an Act, certain restrictions have been put upon the Television Authority, then, in the same way, those restrictions will be transferred to the B.B.C.?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. The noble Viscount is quite able to understand when he wants to understand. What I said was that if we were to accept an Amendment in this Bill to impose a particular obligation or restriction upon the programme contractors, we should at the same time and by the same token have to impose it upon the B.B.C.
LORD SILKIN: My reply to the answer to this Amendment is the same as on the previous one. I felt it my duty to put this matter before the Committee; the Committee are not disposed to accept it, and I will not press it. I would only say to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that he is not doing the Amendment complete justice when he says that it would prevent Shakespeare from being shown or any film of the kind he mentioned from being revived. We have specifically provided for that by the last words of the Amendment, which would bring such things within the exception. But I agree that the principle is very much the same as in the last Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: After the last Amendment, and the decision taken, I do not propose to press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e), to insert:
"(f) that no film or other recorded matter which has been exhibited, shown or broadcast

855
at home or abroad otherwise than in the programmes shall be included in the programmes without the consent of the Authority."
The noble Earl said: My heart has been so moved by the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and my intentions so paralysed by the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Hore-Belisha and Lord Swinton on the preceding Amendment, that I shall ask your Lordships' permission not to move this Amendment.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and" at the end of paragraph (g). The noble Lord said: I want to get to what is beyond "and." The next Amendment provides that on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day certain hours shall be devoted to religious services. A suggestion is made as to the time that should be devoted to these services, one hour between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. and one hour between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. I do not think that this is too much to ask of this new Authority, an Authority which, so far from being independent, is being created, sponsored and financially supported by the Government and those whose support the Government can command; I mean the taxpayers. This is a reasonable request to make of anyone wielding the powers given by this Bill. It will be in the interests of those who will be in charge of this great machine of publicity, who will be desirous of achieving balanced programmes, to make provision for religious services on Sundays. This is reputed to be a Christian country. Perhaps not a majority are formally committed to the Christian faith, even in this so-called Christian country; but any instrument of this kind should be used for what I consider to be the greatest cause put before mankind. I make no apology at all for putting forward these Amendments here this afternoon and asking for support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("and") at end of paragraph (g).—(Lord Mothers.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord need offer no apology for an Amendment of this character; I think its sole object is one which would receive the sympathy of every part of this House. But I must ask whether this is really the best,
856
or indeed a possible or desirable way of doing it. The noble Lord has laid down pretty stringent regulations that there should on these days be one hour's religious service in the morning and one hour at night. Up to the present time the technique of presenting a religious service on television is undeveloped country. It is very difficult to do; and, if we judge, as we must, by the experience of the B.B.C., we find that they have the same difficulty in knowing how best it can be done. After all, a religious service is conducted for those who are present and not for someone who is watching; and the B.B.C. have in the past put such services on very rarely. I think I am correct in saying they have, according to recent figures, only about one a month at the present time.
I believe there is a positive danger in putting a statutory obligation of this character upon the Authority, because religious services should not and cannot be judged by their quantity; they must be judged by their quality. I see the possibility that if there were a statutory obligation to put on services it would be formally fulfilled without, perhaps, a great deal of merit. On those grounds I would ask the noble Lord to think again as to whether this is the best way of achieving what he has in mind. One hour in the morning and one hour in the evening is quite a lot. I assume the noble Lord means that one service shall go on for an hour, and it is going to be difficult to get a religious service of such sustained character as to last for a whole hour as a reasonable televised programme. I do not know whether what I am saying is agreed to by the right reverend Prelate, but I believe it would be rather difficult to do. There are other points. I think it is right to ask who is going to pay for this. Does the noble Lord intend that it shall be paid for by the taxpayer? Because at a later stage he rather objects to advertisements on Sundays. It is difficult to see who is going to pay, and I would suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment and that it must be for the I.T.A. to give such emphasis as they think proper to Sunday. If I may express my personal view (with which you may not agree), I have always believed that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, was right in having a distinctive tone in B.B.C. broadcasts on Sundays. That has been

857
somewhat whittled away and most people are more pleased with what happens now, though I personally preferred it as it was. I think this Amendment carries the matter too far and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
LORD MATHERS: The noble Earl frightens me with his reply—that if anything of this kind were done, it would be done in such a slipshod way that it would not be worth having: that, in fact, is what he says. Yet we left things alone last evening in order that arrangements might be made for the position of the Churches and of religion to be properly considered and properly safeguarded. He has made a terrible admission. I hope that what he has said is not going to be carried out. I am asked who is going to pay for this. I have already said that the Authority is being created by the Government in the name of the people of this country. It is being supported by advertisers and others and is being sponsored by the Government. Without what is being done here in the name of the people of this country, this Authority would not exist to carry on its purpose of making profits out of advertising. My noble friend, Lord Rochester, has indicated to me his regret at his absence because he has been advised by his doctor not to come here to-day. I greatly regret his absence, for I feel sure he would have added great force to what I have endeavoured, very crudely, to put. I made no provision for financing what is called for in this Amendment. Indeed, I did not think it was necessary. I thought that a proposition of this kind would commend itself to those who will be in charge of this great machine of publicity. I do not know whether any other noble Lord wishes to add to what I have said. I do not feel that there is much more that I can say in urging the desirability of putting something of this kind in the Bill.
4.10 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: Since direct reference has been made to me, I feel that I ought to say one word. I confess that I find myself in a real difficulty in giving my judgment on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will recognise, without my saying it, that of course I agree with his intention. Any idea that Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sundays should pass
858
without some religious observance is abhorrent to me. At the same time, I am bound to say that I thought there was real force in part of the reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the effect that quality matters more than quantity; that the path of religious television is as yet only rather rudimentary; and that to enforce a quota of religious services might be not the best way of doing things. What I should like to say is this—and I hope it may carry some reassurance to the noble Lord who has just spoken. A quota of this kind has never been enforced on the B.B.C. There is no regulation of this kind governing the B.B.C. I think it is fair to say that the B.B.C. has never failed in observing the spirit of a proposal of this kind, and in so far as I might in future have any responsibility for helping to advise the new Authority, I would give a guarantee that we would use our best influence to ensure that this sort of observance was recognised.
May I add two other points—one quite small—just to illustrate the difficulty of laying down a strict regulation of this kind? In my own Church, the Church of England, there is a very well-known service on Good Friday—a three-hour service which lasts from twelve noon wail three o'clock. The last two hours of that service would be excluded by this regulation. That shows that we have to be a little careful how we try to regulate exact times. The second point I regard as a point of very great importance and, indeed, of the utmost gravity. The noble Earl who replied for the Government asked: Who is going to pay for these services? Does that question apply to all religious broadcasts on television? We were, I thought, assured in a statement made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the £750,000 was, at least in part, provided for that purpose. We know that there is no revenue from advertisers and we hope that there will be no revenue from buying time. If we are then told that, of course, there will be no religious broadcasts, because no one will pay for them, it seems to be that we are faced with a very serious situation indeed.
EARL JOWITT: I do not want to enter into this controversy, except in order to stress the last point which the right reverend Prelate has made. I must say

859
that I was shocked by the observation of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, "Who is going to pay?"
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Earl, I would point out that in speaking of this Amendment proposed by Lord Mathers, I pointed out to him that if there were no advertising on Sunday there would be no revenue from advertisements. Advertisements are not connected with the individual programme items, though obviously one part of the whole programme falls in with the other.
EARL JOWITT: Do I understand that it is contemplated that religious services will be paid for out of advertisements on Sunday?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They will be paid for out of such revenue as is available. Overheads would, obviously, have to be paid for, and to some extent they would be paid for out of the revenue derived from advertisements.
EARL JOWITT: It seems to me a most extraordinary idea that religious services and advertising on Sunday should be mixed up together, one giving a kind of quid pro quo to the other. I leave it at that, but I think it is the most deplorable feature of the Bill that I have heard of yet.
EARL DE LA WARR: There ought to be an end to the sort of misrepresentation from which we on this side are suffering. I remember hearing it said in debates in another place—and, indeed, hearing it said here—that this £750,000 was a monstrous part of the scheme; that the programme companies ought to be compelled to carry out of their general revenue the cost of such items as religious broadcasts and so on. It was merely that possibility to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was referring. He said nothing else. I should like to refer to what the right reverend Prelate said. Of course I informed him perfectly correctly that this £750,000 was available for this purpose—I made that perfectly clear. I also said that I thought it would be more likely to be used for this purpose in the first two or three years of the operation of the scheme, before the companies had got on to a profit-earning basis, and that later on they would pay for such things.
EARL JOWITT: I am very glad to hear that. I have not consciously made any misrepresentation, but I was surprised when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is usually so careful of his language, put the question, "Who is going to pay?" I say quite frankly that I had assumed that the money would come out of the £750,000. Though there are strong arguments against the £750,000, a strong point in favour of it is that it is there for this sort of purpose; and religious broadcasts, clearly, should have no sort of connection with any sort of advertisement. I have always assumed that it is the intention of the Government to use the £750,000 to pay for, amongst other things, such items as religious broadcasts. I devoutly hope that that is so. If I have been wrong in what I said, I gladly withdraw. The reason I said what I did was because, as a result of the noble Earl's question, I began to doubt whether it was the Government's intention to use part of the £750,000 in this way.
LORD MATHERS: I am conscious of the fact that this Amendment puts things crudely and that my language in submitting it has also been crude. That is due to a defect in me, yet it is one that I am not terribly worried about, because I feel that I would rather be a blunt-spoken Scotsman than an over-eloquent speaker of any other nationality. I have a much greater regard for the noble Earl, as a man, as a personality, than I have for him as a spokesman, from time to time, for the Government; and I felt there was a certain amount of sympathy with the idea put forward in this Amendment. I am now going to leave the matter, having ventilated it; and having elicited the contribution which we have heard from the right reverend Prelate on the subject I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MATHERS: I hope that the Record will show the next Amendment and that it will not appear as if we have simply been speaking on the first one.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Move it then.
LORD MATHERS: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name, in order to have it set down on the Record.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, at end insert—
("and
(i) that on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day certain hours shall be devoted to religious services, that is to say, one hour between nine o'clock a.m. and one o'clock p.m. and one hour between five o'clock p.m. and ten o'clock p.m.:").—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD MATHERS: That having been placed on the Record, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
LORD KENSWOOD LORD KENSWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (h) to insert:
"and
(i) in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure as far as possible that the programmes broadcast at any one moment by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority should so far as possible offer a reasonably effective choice:"
The noble Lord said: A number of noble Lords have been at pains to impress upon the Government that they think this Bill is an outrageous effort. It is bad in its conception and it is bad in its implementation. I have an idea that noble Lords sitting on the Government Front Bench have realised our attitude, and that makes it easy for me to make a very short speech. The object of this Amendment is in some measure to palliate the evils of the Bill. We hope it may be possible for viewers to get some value out of the television situation. We hope that there will be consultation between the commercial Authority and what is the really independent television authority—the B.B.C. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for stressing that, but there still seems to be a misconception about the way the B.B.C. is independent of the Government. It is my conviction that the two authorities will have to consult with one another. I hope this period may be short, because I dislike anarchy on the air as much as I dislike it in other spheres. I hope these two corporations will not be at one another's throats. It is far better for them to come together and see what arrangements they cart make, for the benefit not only of their purses but also of those who have to look at the programmes which are put out from their stations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Kenswood.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think we realise the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, in this matter, so I will not labour it. I find myself very much in agreement with what he said, but I would ask him whether this is the best way of I doing it. Is it really desirable to impose compulsory consultation on both these bodies? The noble Lord must realise that compulsory consultation will operate on both: it will act just as much on the B.B.C. as on the I.T.A. Therefore, he is insisting that the B.B.C. regulate their programmes, at least in some measure, in relation to the I.T.A. I agree with him entirely that they will have a lot to examine together and a lot to consider together, but I would say that we should not go so far as to lay down what might be described in different circles as a cartel between the two broadcasting organisations to work together, possibly to their own advantage and not to that of other people. We have deliberately set out here to provide for a certain amount of competition. We should not like to see two organisations getting together to divide audiences between them and putting on only the bare necessities. I am not suggesting for a moment that that would happen, but it is a possibility. With compulsory consultation, the corporations might feel that Parliament had commanded them to consult together, and that if they consult together it does not matter what they do. If we laid down compulsorily the need for consultation it might possibly seem unnecessary to the B.B.C. to fulfil the duty of providing a second programme. For all these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. I hope, as the noble Lord said, that the two corporations will not be at each other's throat and that friendly and cordial relations will exist between them, but I think it is going too far to have statutory consultation.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: As my noble friend Lord Hailsham is not here, I should like to say one word about this Amendment. I hope the Government have not said their last word on this subject. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, throughout the Bill the importance of effective competition has been stressed. Therefore, I think it is important, following out that principle, that there should be co-ordination between the B.B.C. and the new Authority

863
on the times and the nature of the programmes to be transmitted. Unless there is such co-ordination it seems to me that in the end the effect may be that the times of viewing will be stretched out unduly and that, instead of having a really effective choice and real competition, there will be a wholly unnecessary and undesirable extension of the hours during which television will be available to the public or to particular sections of the public. This is a matter dealt with in a later Amendment, so I cannot develop the point. It seems to me that the principle of co-ordination ought in some way to be indicated, and indeed emphasised, in the Bill itself. For that reason I think that the principle of the Amendment is well worthy of sympathetic consideration. There cannot be a really effective competition, which is the desire of the Government, unless there is open to the viewers a really effective choice at particular times of transmission. Therefore, I venture to support the Amendment.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I have sat next to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, throughout these discussions and have managed to disagree with him in complete amity. On this occasion I appeal to his sense of consistency. He is supporting an Amendment which invites the Authority
"in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure as far as possible that the programmes broadcast at any one moment by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority should so far as possible offer a reasonably effective choice:"
I recall to your Lordships that last night we had a long discussion on an Amendment, with which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, were associated, which sought to delete the words "so far as possible" from Clause 3 (1) of the Bill. The burden of their case was that if a direction is put into a Bill, it should be precise and definite, and that it is not possible to imagine the Authority satisfying themselves "so far as possible"; they will either satisfy themselves or they will not. And the Government were brought under considerable criticism for the looseness of that drafting. Now the noble Viscount comes to-day, without any apology and without any apparent sense of inconsistency, and supports an Amendment in which "as far as pos-
864
sible" occurs not once, but twice. So that on the mere ground of drafting, the Amendment fails to satisfy the noble Viscount's own standard.
With regard to the principle underlying the Bill, of course there would be consultation wherever it would conduce to the improvement of programmes. That goes without saying. All great business corporations consult when it is to the general advantage to do so. But there is no need to put in a direction to that effect in the Bill. In fact, it is derogatory to the intelligence of the members of the Authority. If it were to be put in, it should be put in the first clause, which defines the position under which the corporation should act. They are to provide programmes of high quality, in addition to that of the B.B.C., not in co-operation with them. The real test must be the quality of the programme, and the person to whom we should have regard throughout is the viewer. It is not a question of getting a patched-up arrangement between the B.B.C. and the Authority at the expense of the viewer; it is a question of directing this Authority to have regard to the high quality of the programmes. For that purpose they have all reasonable powers and should be trusted to exercise them. In all the circumstances, I trust that, both on the ground of drafting and on the ground of lack of necessity, the Amendment will not be pursued, sincere as were the motives of those who have supported it.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I should be sorry to infringe on the principle enunciated by my noble friend, that propinquity in this House should imply agreement or, at any rate, amity. But as the noble Lord has referred to what passed on an earlier Amendment, I must point out to him, in the interests of accuracy, that what we emphasised, in the first instance, there—and emphasised with some effect—was the misplacing of the phrase "so far as possible." We further said that it was quite ridiculous to use the words "so far as possible" in relation, for example, to the elimination of indecency, which is what the earlier Amendment dealt with.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: How do you act "as far as possible" in offering "a reasonably effective choice"?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I see no difficulty at all in doing certain things

865
"as far as possible." There is no analogy, in my submission, between the matter which arises here and the matter which arose on the earlier Amendment.
EARL JOWITT: We had a mild rebuke from one part of the House a short time ago about wasting time, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, joined in and added his patronage to the remark.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: No.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Lord did join in, as he will see if he reads what he said: he sometimes makes observations without quite knowing what they are, I think. I do not think I have ever heard such utter waste of time as all this talk about the drafting of this Amendment. If I may tell the noble Lord so, we do not do that in this Committee, as he will appreciate when he has been, here a little longer. There is here an important point of principle. For the benefit of the viewer, we want the greatest possible alternative offered—and I know that the Postmaster General agrees with that to the full. The only problem is, how we are to get that. In saying that every company will do it to improve their programme, the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, only shows how little he understands of this matter.
The difficulty is that it may sometimes be necessary deliberately to select the worse of two alternatives. I gave an illustration the other day (I do not know whether it is a good one), the Wimbledon tennis finals. Suppose that they have the biggest appeal, and that a large number of people want to see the tennis finals. If the tennis finals are being shown both on the B.B.C. and on the I.T.A., then both of them will be showing that which is most popular; and the net result will be that a considerable number of viewers who are "bored stiff" by the tennis finals will have no alternative. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the problem from the point of view not simply of putting on the best programme but of doing something which, from the point of view of making money, may be altruistic, but which will give the viewer the benefit of a choice. That is the problem, and I know that the Postmaster General is fully alive to it.
I have said before that I dislike the second Authority just because I am
866
frightened that, by reason of having a second Independent Authority, it may not be possible to get this alternative. But we have now agreed what is to be done. I believe that it would be a pity to let this Bill go without some statement in it that this is the objective. I should have thought that there might quite well be meetings of representatives of the two authorities—convened, if you will, under the chairmanship of the Postmaster General, or some official of his—to see whether they can work things out. It may be that on one day one Authority should be able to insist on their right to have the most popular programme, and that on another day the other Authority ought to have it. This is typically something which we ought to try to arrange, by relying on the Minister, who ultimately is in charge of the whole scheme, to bring these two bodies together.
I do not want to press this particul1ar Amendment, but I am going to make this appeal to the Postmaster General. There are a large number of people who are concerned about this important question of a true alternative. I hope that he has not said his last word on this matter. I shall be content if he tells us that, although he has considered this matter before—I quite realise that—he will look at it again, to see, from the point of the interests of the viewers, whether he cannot devise some scheme and put something in the Bill to make sure that the viewers, who are the people that matter, will have a real alternative. I beg him to do that—and I believe that it is his desire to do it. I think that at the moment he is in some difficulty about knowing quite how to do it, and I can sympathise with him in that. All I ask is that he should look at it again to see whether he cannot give us some hope that he may be able, as a result of discussion, to find some means of securing that these two bodies will consult together, not in order that each of them may have the most attractive programme but in order that the viewer may have a fair alternative.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like briefly to suggest to the Government that there is a simple way of implementing the proposal that has just been made by my noble and learned friend. The noble Earl has said that consultations between the Authority and the B.B.C.

867
will be necessary. Would the Government be prepared to ask the B.B.C., and the Authority, when it is set up, to discuss the content of their programmes in advance, with a view to avoid overlapping, so far as possible. If the Government were prepared to say that they would ask the two Authorities to consult in this way, and the Authorities agreed to do it, then clearly the statutory obligation implied in this Amendment would be unnecessary. I think the next step, if I might suggest it, that of putting this idea to the B.B.C., and, later on, putting it to the I.T.A., and their saying that they were willing to do it, would go a long way towards achieving what my noble and learned friend has just asked.
4.39 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: It seems to me that we have got at slight cross-purposes, but on the whole I think we mean the same thing. It is really a question of how best to deal with the matter. Obviously, in the most highly competitive industries you have a getting together of the heads of the industries for what I would call common-sense purposes. I am quite sure that on this and many other points there will have to be discussions between those responsible for the B.B.C. and those responsible for the I.T.A. I would go further and say that I believe there is room both for economy and increased efficiency if they will collaborate on many technical matters. I can well see that there are many useful points on which they should be asked to get together. I have used the words "should be asked." Naturally, I am prepared to give the Committee an assurance that I will ask them. I make only this qualification. I believe that when noble Lords see the type of men who will be responsible for the I.T.A. they will be satisfied that they will comprise the sort of body which will naturally take a responsible view of its position and collaborate with the B.B.C., just as I am sure the B.B.C. will want to collaborate with the new Authority. All I can do is to give your Lordships an assurance that, in so far as my intervening and bringing to bear any influence that I may have may be necessary—I sincerely hope that it will not be, because I think they ought to get together on their own—I certainly undertake to do that, with the object of ensuring the maximum of
868
collaboration and co-operation between these two bodies for all constructive purposes.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I suggest that this is not really a technical matter at all? I am sure that the B.B.C. will be ready to colloque with the I.T.A. on such questions as using their wireless masts, and other things of that sort, in common. No doubt they are already preparing to do that, and other similar things. But this is a purely financial matter. The programme companies depend on getting a large advertisement revenue. The most valuable hours that they can secure for their public are the hours before or after, let us say, the Cup Final or other things in which the whole or a large part of the population is interested. They will not give up their advertisement to the B.B.C. and say, "The B.B.C. can have the Cup Final this year, and we will have it next year." If they are going to pay, the programme companies are solely concerned, while observing the provisions of the Act of Parliament, in collecting a clientele, a viewing public, which will be remunerative to their paymasters, the advertisers.
The B.B.C. is doing at the present time the very thing that these two bodies are now to be called upon to co-operate in. Every day the B.B.C. is allocating subjects between the Home Service Programme, the Light Programme and the Third Programme, or between the central corporation and the regional. Within the organisation, that is a matter of incessant conversation, regulation and distribution. But now this Bill throws the whole subject into confusion, and quite deliberately is creating a separate competing outside authority; and the two are left to struggle together over which is to have the programmes that are most likely to attract the whole population. Are we to suppose that one or other is going to televise a ceremony like the Coronation and that the other shall not do so? It is an impossibility, and this is just another example of the complete confusion into which this Bill is throwing the whole undertaking of television.
LORD KENSWOOD: I thank the noble Earl the Postmaster General for his assurances. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The next Amendment is No. 39: page 6, line 24, leave out ("political") and insert ("controversial").
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: It is not moved.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I think it would be a pity if this Amendment were not even brought to the notice of the Committee, because it seems to me that important points are involved in it. Your Lordships will observe that the proviso on page 6, which this Amendment seeks to amend, provides that nothing in the previous paragraph shall prevent
"the inclusion in the programmes of relays of the whole … of a series of the British Broadcasting Corporation's party political broadcasts."
The second sub-paragraph provides for
"the inclusion in the programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character."
It is surely highly desirable that upon this programme which, for some time at any rate—we fear for all too long a time—may be the only alternative programme, there should be live, controversial discussion about matters of public interest, and no doubt that was the intention of the drafters of the Bill. But, unfortunately, they have limited it to discussions of a political character, if I understand the clause right. There are wide ranges of controversy suitable for debate on television which are not political subjects, and the purpose of this Amendment as I read it—though I am not one of its sponsors—is to widen the possibility of controversial discussion to include other than political subjects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("political") and insert ("controversial").—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think there is a misunderstanding here, and I daresay that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who has read the Bill more thoroughly, was careful not to move the Amendment. This deals only with paragraph (h) on page 6, and the noble Lord will see that paragraph (h) deals only with the interests of any political Party. Accordingly, it is not necessary to insert the word "controversial," because the only subject in the proviso is "political." If the noble Lord
870
is anxious that these will not be enough controversy in political discussion, I think his anxiety could be allayed.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) (a) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that not less than an average of 80 per cent. of the transmission time of any station over each period of thirteen weeks shall be occupied by British programmes. This percentage shall be applied separately to peak and off-peak periods as defined by the Authority from time to time.

(b) A programme shall for the purposes of this subsection be deemed to be British if and only if—

(i) The originator of the programme is a British subject ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or a British company carrying on business in the United Kingdom and having its principal place of business therein; and

(ii) The place of origin of the programme in within the United Kingdom; and

(iii) The whole of the labour costs of the programme subject to the provisions of subparagraph (b) (iv) have been paid or are payable in respect of the labour or services of British subjects ordinarily resident in, or persons domiciled in, the United Kingdom;

(iv) When the provisions of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) are satisfied and those of sub-paragraph (iii) are only partly satisfied the programme shall be deemed to occupy a proportion of its actual transmitting time equivalent to the percentage of labour costs attributable to the labour or services of British subjects as defined in subparagraph (iii), provided that not less than 50 per cent. of the labour costs is so attributable.

(c) For the purposes of this subsection "labour costs" in relation to a programme means the total sums paid or payable in respect of the labour or services of persons directly engaged in the production of the programme in so far as such payments are attributable to the programme:

Provided that where no specific sum is paid or payable or where it appears to the Authority that any sum paid or payable is so great or so small as not to be a bona fide payment by way of remuneration for the labour or services in question, then for the purposes of this subsection there shall be deemed to be paid or payable a sum assessed by the Authority as the value of such labour or services in the light of sums currently payable it respect of labour or services of a similar character.
(d) For the purposes of this subsection—

(i) Fees paid or payable for the use of copyright material shall be deemed to be part of the labour costs of the programme;

871

(ii) The author adaptor translator and editor of the script of a programme shall be deemed to be persons directly engaged on the production of the programme;

(iii) A person shall not be deemed to be directly engaged on the production of a programme by reason only that he is financially interested in the production of the programme or is engaged in an administrative or clerical capacity as an officer or servant of an undertaking concerned with the production of the programme; or that he supplies goods used in the production of the programme or is in the employment of persons who supply such goods; or that he is engaged in the processing of a recorded programme."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which seeks to put upon the Authority the duty to secure a quota of transmission time of any station over which television is being provided. It is rather wider than Amendment No. 33 which I moved previously, and it is an attempt to set out in considerable detail the manner in which this quota would be exercised by defining carefully what is British, what are labour costs and so on. I must recognise that the feeling of the Committee, if not the votes, are not entirely sympathetic this afternoon to the idea of a quota. Therefore, I do not propose either to explain this rather lengthy Amendment, or even try to argue the case, because it is based entirely on the contention that a quota is a desirable thing. But underlying it is the point which I argued before, and which I think was conceded very largely by the noble Viscount Lord Swinton who replied: that it was desirable that, to as considerable an extent as possible, the contents of the programmes—and in the case of television the transmission time—should be British, and an attempt has been made to define it. I shall be glad to hear from whoever is to reply what steps are being taken. As I say, in view of the earlier discussion, I do not propose to press this, but I think the Committee is entitled to know—because I imagine the Committee is generally in favour of the broad idea of giving as large a preference as possible to British programmes—what the Government propose doing to implement that idea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I entirely agree with my noble friend below me when he said that he did not propose to
872
press the Amendment. That was the only part of his speech which really affected my argument. This is a totally misconceived Amendment—
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Viscount gets too excited, I should not like him to get too excited on false premises. He thinks that I have not moved the Amendment, and I have moved it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is a most vital affair—the Amendment has been moved; therefore I am at liberty to examine it on its merits, if any. It is a totally misconceived conception, if the object is to encourage British art and have the finest television show available, whether from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A But if you are going to make a parochial hole-in-the-corner, in which no one can come unless he is of 80 per cent. British blood, or the shareholders are of British blood, you kill the whole thing from an art point of view. This thing is a great educational agency; it is something we hope to be proud of. Now we come with a whole rigmarole of tests which are to be applied. We found out that under an earlier Amendment broadcasts from the main parts of the British Commonwealth would be excluded. It is not a British Commonwealth; it is a Commonwealth which is very largely non-British.
The second point is that 80 per cent. of the time is to be devoted to what is described as "British programmes." The whole wording could be riddled but after the reproof from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I dare not make more than the briefest remarks. What is meant by British labour? Suppose the Hungarian footballers are going to be shown. The fellows are foreigners, I regret to say, but they are a definite part of the show. Instead of showing them, you have to show a local team playing a second eleven, because they are British. Equally, you could not have a leading prima donna because she is not British. The fact of the matter is that we have made a great contribution to art and culture in the world, but it has been because we have had open minds and have not attempted to apply silly little principles of tariff reform to the great cause of art.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I am not surprised that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has left the Front

873
Bench, because last night he delivered himself in scathing, terms upon a modest little phrase in this Bill:
"that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British."
Unfortunately, the OFFICIAL REPORT of the latter part of last night's proceedings is not yet with us, but he was sustained by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whose words are on record and whose opinions do not differ from those of the noble Earl. In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 87). col. 393) he described this poor, modest little phrase about British style and character as
"barbarous, illiterate, Philistine nonsense, without the benefit of the Parliamentary draftsman."
He added:
"This is sheer artistic censorship, of the worst possible kind. Culture is international. European culture is based not upon these islands but upon the whole Continent of Europe. …"
If that language could be used about a modest little phrase which the Government have offered to reconsider, what is to be said about this Amendment, which puts the Authority in a complete straitjacket, wraps it up in a Union Jack and almost requires that Rule, Britannia and God Save the Queen be sung on every programme.
It is true that I am new to the House, but I never believed that I should hear from the Front Bench opposite such jingoistic claims as we have heard this afternoon. Before this programme could be put before viewers, the most elaborate mathematical calculation would have to be made, for under this Amendment 80 per cent. of the programmes have to be British. The originator has to be British. That would rule out the Edinburgh Festival right away, because any foreign impressario who graced these shores and gave us the benefit of his skill and experience would, under these proposals, be taboo. The place of origin of the programme must be within the United Kingdom—that, I suggest, must be termed the Everest clause—and the whole of the labour costs of the programme have to be payable in respect of British labour. I think it is a very fortunate thing that it is on record for the whole world to see what kind of Authority would be produced, and what kind of programme would be shown, if noble Lords opposite had their way. I am glad the noble Lord has
874
moved the Amendment, but I am even,more glad that he is about to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because that is the line we should like the entertainment industry to take—that is, they should be on the attack with a view to getting reciprocal rights in America and other parts of the world. In fact, Lord Silkin's Amendment also goes a long way, because he is emphasising not British but United Kingdom tone and style. He is confining it right down to that, which goes further than the film quota. It is said about labour that we have to be certain that opportunities of employment in the industry are not lost. With your Lordships' permission, I will read part of a resolution passed by the American Federation of Labor two years ago at the Film Council in Hollywood. It began:
"Whereas we deem it grossly unfair and improper for American industry to attempt to sell American production to American workers by means of advertising films that have been made in foreign countries by foreign workers with the specific purpose of avoiding the wage and living standards which make purchases of our products in America possible …"
That resolution puts the other side of the matter. That is the sort of retaliation we want to get rid of. I am glad to say that British trade unions are making representations to their colleagues in America: they are saying, "If we allow 20 per cent. into this country, you must not worry if 1 or 2 per cent. of British stuff goes to America." That is the position at the present time. This will be a matter for the I.T.A. when it is appointed, but I notice that the B.B.C. recently made a contract in this direction: they obtained a certain amount of material from America, and I hope that a certain amount will be going back.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is it not a fact that special machinery exists for protecting the interests of labour?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, there is, at the end.
LORD SILKIN: I was very interested in, and received a certain amount of entertainment from, the two former Liberals who are to-day sitting in art opposite direction. It is amusing that although they have travelled a long way from those days, they are still very much of one view. I did not appreciate that

875
the principle behind this Amendment was one from which the Government were now dissenting. I thought we were on common ground—indeed, it was the reply of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the Government were in favour of ensuring that a large proportion of the programme would be British, and that the only disagreement between us was on whether a specific quota should be stated in the Bill or whether it should be left to the Authority. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has gone very much further than that. When noble Lords opposite read their briefs it ought to be quite clear that they are getting the same kind of briefs on the same Amendments, otherwise business becomes very difficult. I made a short statement on the assumption that, in spite of the noble Lord on this side and the noble Lord on that, we were in agreement on the objectives of this Bill; and it was only for that reason—accepting the assurance that we were in agreement but that the Government preferred to do it some other way by ensuring that the Authority were going to carry out this principle—that I said I would not press the Amendment. But if there is any idea that the Government are against the principle of securing the preference for British programme time then the position is very different indeed.
I may say that this is not a "one man" proposal: this is a proposal which is backed. as I said on an earlier Amendment, by all the organisations concerned with the entertainment world. Of course they have to give value; they have to produce the best programmes they can. But they have to be given a chance; and whereas they are quite prepared to face fair competition, some of the competition which they have had to face has been unfair. For example, there has been the importation of films produced in America, the cost of which has already been paid for by American viewers and which can thus be imported into this country at a low rate. The noble Earl himself read out the resolution of the American trade unions, and it indicates that we should be in a strong position if we were able to take reciprocal action. I feel that the reply of the noble Earl is not satisfactory and rather detracts from what was said earlier, with complete satisfaction so far as I was concerned, by the noble Viscount. I should be glad if the noble
876
Earl would reconcile those two statements and give us the assurance which I hoped to receive when I originally moved the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Lord is labouring this Amendment unnecessarily. I did not repeat every argument used by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, because I did not want to bore the Committee; but what I did do was to try to emphasise certain aspects of this matter which seemed important, because every word the noble Viscount has said I endorse. What I did say then—possibly I over-emphasised it in the excitement from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—was that reciprocal action (the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, emphasised that) was very important. I said that it was important to protect labour in this country, in certain cases. Of course we accept the proposition that a great deal of it must be British in origin—there is no question about that. How we do it is another matter, but I should be very happy if 40 per cent. were American in this country and 40 per cent. were British in America. If somebody made an arrangement of that sort, it would be satisfactory. But putting a fixed quota to some extent restricts that flexibility which might be more advantageous. I do not think the noble Lord need be anxious about withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl has gone a little bit nearer to what I had in mind. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after the first word "contractor" to insert "or advertiser." The noble Earl said: In the temporary absence of my noble and learned Leader, I think I can put the case for this Amendment on his behalf briefly. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 deals with the views of certain persons on political and other controversial subjects, which views it will be the duty of the Authority to exclude from broadcasts or from publications. These persons are the Authority itself and its employees, and the programme companies and their employees. This is the accepted practice in the case of the B.B.C., and it is right that in setting up a new organisation of this kind the same

877
practice should be applied. I must say that if the views of the Authority on these controversial subjects are to be excluded, I cannot see why the views of the firms of advertisers who pay for time for advertisements in these programmes should not also be excluded. It would seem to be quite logical to exclude all three categories of persons from taking an active part in political and other controversial discussions that may be broadcast by any of the programme companies. I hope very much that, even if this Amendment cannot be accepted, the Government can give us some assurance that it is the intention in any case that advertisers and their employees shall be excluded in the same way as the other persons mentioned in this subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, after ("contractor") insert ("or advertiser").—(The Earl of Listowell.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Earl what he means by "advertiser"? Does he mean "advertising agent" or does he just mean anybody who uses television for advertising?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am speaking on behalf of my noble and learned friend—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know, but it is very important.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: —and I should not like to take the responsibility of saying how he would define the word "advertiser." But I can speak for myself, at any rate, and I would say that "advertiser" ought to cover either "advertising agent" or an advertising firm—either agents employed by advertisers or the advertisers themselves.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The definition of "advertiser" by the noble Earl would mean anyone who is connected, as a director or as a partner, with a concern that uses the television medium for advertising. I submit that that is far too wide. We might lose the services of Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge in "In the News," because Punch was using television as an advertising medium. One could cite many other instances. Suppose The Times chose to advertise, as it might well do, through this new medium; then Sir William Haley would be precluded by the noble Earl from taking part in some very useful discussions to which he could
878
give an important contribution. I thick that the noble Earl, on reflection, will find that his definition goes far too wide and that the Amendment is not really necessary.
THE EARL of SELKIRK: This subsection relates to the subject of paragraph (g) above—that is, due impartiality in political or industrial controversy and in matters of current public policy. We want due impartiality, and we put that straight obligation at Clause 3 (1) (g), and we have added something to it. We have added this: that there should be no. What might be described as, "editorials"—that is to say, either by the Authority or by the programme contractors—in the sense in which any paper like The Times might contain an editorial. We think it is undesirable that even high-minded men like those who will serve the I.T.A. or programme contractors should be in such a strong position as to give a personal view on television, so we are inclined to cut that out. I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is absolutely right in saying that if that is extended from the programme contractors and the Authority to all the people who may be advertising, all their employees and all their directors, it will cut out, or may cut out, a substantial body of people holding responsible positions, who have nothing to do with television and are possibly not the least interested in it, from taking part in important discussions.
The point at issue is: Can they use their privileged position in any way advantageously? I really do not think they can, in any sense. Perhaps I may take the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as an example. He was, I believe, connected with the Co-operative Movement. If the "Co-ops" had chosen to advertise in this field, it would not have affected his views if he had spoken on some political controvery. I think it would be a great pity if he could not take part, just because his concern was in some way connected with advertising on television. I think it goes too wide and there is not the slightest danger of any undue influence being exercised.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with the view that the line has to be drawn very carefully, and it would be the gravest mistake to exclude from taking part In political discussions many responsible people whose businesses

879
might at some time or other be connected with this broadcasting service. In that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earl opposite. At the same time, as I think the noble Earl himself admits, there is some risk of undue influence. He said he thought that risk could be discounted. and I hope he is right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I said that there is a privileged position of the Authority and the programme companies. I do not think I said that there was any risk of undue influence from the advertisers, who have, after all, nothing whatsoever to do with the programmes. We are dealing only with the programmes here. Advertisements, as such, are dealt with by another provision altogether.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged for the reference to myself made by the noble Earl, but I must say that it has drawn me in, whereas otherwise I might not have been drawn in at all. The whole clause is very interesting. It brings us up against not only the word in the Amendment, "advertiser." but also "programme contractors." I have been very quiet about this Bill. I am sure I have not been objectionably obstructive about it. But if you are going to mention the Cooperative Society, with which I used to be connected by which I am now honourably superannuated, you are raising a great difficulty. You are raising something which affects trade, political views and everything else. It seems to me that, by this clause, you are going to exclude them from ever becoming programme contractors, although they are most adequately fitted to be one. Certainly I think a clause of this sort will be used objectively against their taking part, although they have been engaged for decades in organising entertainments, arranging debates, examining philosophies and the like. Apparently they will not have a chance to become a programme contractor for the production of programmes which could emanate entirely from or be contributed to by literary, musical and other elements contained within the training part of the movement, and all because of this particular clause. I must say the noble Earl has brought me to my feet on something I wanted to mention before in
880
connection with the Bill, and I do protest about it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I really think the noble Viscount has misunderstood this. Certainly the intention is not that. All it says here is that programme contractors cannot express their own views. I cannot, for the life of me, see how that would affect the Co-operative Societies if they wanted to advertise. The only thing before us is whether it should extend to someone who is advertising.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It applies directly to programme contractors. This clause will practically exclude the whole of the great organisation of Co-operative endeavour, including all the things which some subsidiary organisations of the Co-operative Societies have already been broadcasting quite frequently upon the sound service. I should say that this would handicap them from ever becoming their own programme contractors.
EARL DE LA WARR: The speech the noble Viscount has just delivered is a fairly strong argument against the Amendment and for leaving the clause as it is. I do not think he heard the beginning of the discussion or he would not have intervened. Perhaps I can suggest, for the benefit of his friend, Lord Listowel, who is trying to push the other way, that he should leave him to handle it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think there is a danger of some degree of undue influence. It might happen in this way: the programme contractor might invite, responsible people certainly, but people connected with firms that were doing advertising, that were engaged by them, or that were paying for advertisements in their programme, so as to give undue bias to their views as compared with other people who might be invited to take part.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This deals only with political controversy.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am talking about political controversy. I am saying that you might get too one-sided a view because the programme contractors might invite the representatives of those firms to the exclusion of other people better qualified to present a more balanced political argument. I think that is a real danger. At the same time,

881
I do think the Amendment goes too wide, and I do not consider it meets the danger which it was designed to meet. For that reason, I ask leave of the House to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (2); "or having a substantial shareholding therein". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44. In view of the statement of the noble Earl, explaining the provisions of Clause 2, I do not think I need enlarge upon the purpose of it. The object of my Amendment is to accept the clause and accept the purpose of it, but to make quite sure that it really does achieve in all respects the purpose it had in mind. The clause provides that partners in a firm of programme contractors are excluded from taking part in publications; and it provides also that a body of persons haying control of a corporation are excluded.
I want to go just a little further and provide that those who have a substantial holding in a corporation should be excluded. My reason is simply this: that those of us who have any experience of companies will know that a body of persons having a substantial holding are quite often very influential indeed, and if they co-operate can very largely determine the policy of the company. It is not essential that there should be a majority holding; a substantial proportion can in many cases achieve the same result. In order to be consistent, therefore, what we are really aiming at is that any body or group of people who can influence the decision of a corporation should be excluded. I feel, like my noble friend, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that this clause is a very wide one. For instance, you may have a partnership of eight or nine people. You are excluding any person who is a partner in a firm. He may not even control the firm, but this clause excludes him. This Amendment is much stronger; it excludes a group of people having a substantial shareholding. I think, to be consistent, these words ought to be included. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, at end insert the said words.—(Lord silkin.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the same clause and I do not think I need
882
explain it again, except to say that this is by way of being an extension of the safeguards provided in paragraph (g) in regard to impartiality in public policy. We have effectively excluded the Authority and its servants, the programme contractor and his servants, and the controller. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, takes out the extreme instance of someone who may have a very effective control over one of the programme contractors but is not a director; he has not control, either direct or indirect. I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 17, where the word "control" is defined, if he has not looked at it already, which he probably has. The Amendment excludes somebody who is not a director and who has not got control, either direct or indirect.
I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. He admits that this clause is pretty widely drawn, by bringing in partners and that type of person. In what circumstances will a man be in a position of holding such a substantial holding that he can exercise influence but not be a director? I would suggest that that is almost always the case of a rigged company, or a rigged board of directors. If that is not the case, I do not quite see how he exercises control. If the directors are not his nominees, or if the board is not rigged, how can he exercise control? He may put his money in as a form of investment. The noble Lord can haw no objection to that. What he objects to is that the man exercises influence. The only way he can exercise influence is by nominating directors, and, with great respect, I should call that a rigged company. If it is a rigged company, it will be unsatisfactory to the I.T.A.—for a large number of reasons.
To begin with, the requirements of impartiality in paragraph (g) will certainly begin to show themselves. The I.T.A. will be on their guard against it, and the various safeguards will come into play. But the moment anything of that sort, directly or indirectly, came to the attention of the I.T.A., I am quite certain that they would be fully justified in using their powers under the Third Schedule. These powers are pretty extensive. They envisage that some unfortunate use would be made of the powers which this man possesses. With great respect to the noble Lord, l suggest that the circumstances envisaged are utterly remote; that even

883
if they did exist, there is ample provision in this Bill to deal with them. I really do not think we need to add what in any case is only another safeguard. I do not think there is any danger in the point that the noble Lord has in mind, and I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I think that the noble Earl is rather "playing down" the importance of this Amendment. I think it is important, and I do not think it is remote. I can quite conceive a body of people who have not a majority holding being able to exercise important influence over the policy of a company. However, I do not attach particular importance to this Amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will look at it again. I shall not press it. I do not think there is anything of policy between us. If we want to make these safeguards really watertight, I believe that this is worth looking at again. I hope the Government will do that. In the meantime, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "of significant value," where that phrase first occurs. The noble Viscount said: For the reasons which I gave yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is unable to be here, and I am moving this Amendment on his behalf. I am sure that it will already have occurred to the Committee that the object of this Amendment and the next is to preclude the possibility of prizes being offered by way of advertisement, whether they are or are not in connection with competitions. I must say that it seems to me almost incredible that one should put into a Statute words of this kind, words which may afterwards have to be interpreted in a court. How is one to decide what is a prize "of significant value"? We all know enough of the enormously wide range of prizes now offered by way of trade advertisements. One has the scale extending upwards to one or two motor-cars, or the cost of a free Continental holiday; or it may be confined to quantities of soap as a free gift, or biscuits as a free gift, or things of that kind.
It may, however, be interpreted very widely in other directions. If, through
884
this limited provision for programme contractors, a co-operative advertiser obtained the opportunity to advertise co-operative sales, would the offer of dividends be "of significant value?" What are the actual benefits of becoming a trading co-operative member just by advertisement? Is the fact that they will get a dividend "of significant value"? Where lies the beginning and end of the interpretation of this phrase? I cannot possibly see how these words can be administered. I feel that when the Government have looked at this matter impartially they will see that the desirable objective at which they are aiming in this subsection will be endangered as a result of the inclusion of these words and the later lines of the subsection. That is why I want to prevent them from legislating at all for advertisements that offer prizes. I do not see how such a provision can be difficult to administer. It would be quite easy and quite fair to all the other people, whether or not they advertise through this particular medium.
I emphasise most strongly that not only will there be enormous controversy, between advertisers advertising through the contractors, but there will be differences of interpretation placed by the viewers upon the offers made over the television. I think that will lead to all sorts of difficulties. There are certain forms of trade advertisements contained in reputably published and clearly printed journals in which there is almost a form of contract as to what the prize will be and how it will be either given or competed for. But in the case of television and broadcasting I think that it is quite illusory—it will not be possible to create any impression upon the mind of the individual as to what is going to be the result of the advertisement. Therefore, I hope that the Government may reconsider the matter straight away, and will agree to this Amendment, which will make it perfectly clear that prizes may not in any circumstances whatever be offered on television. After all, the Government have not given us very much in regard to this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("of significant value").—(Viscount Alexander of Hills-borough.)
EARL JOWITT: I should like to reinforce in a few words what has been said

885
by my noble friend. I think the Government are quite right here in applying the principle to prohibit prizes and gifts, but I think that they should do it rather more clearly, without this qualifying phrase. What is a prize "of significant value?" To Mr. Rockefeller it would be one standard, but to a schoolboy who is prepared to pick up hot pennies it is quite another. These words may have to be construed by the courts, and it is going to be extremely difficult for the court to say whether the prize offered is "of significant value." Why not say simply that there must not be prizes or gifts? That is a very simple way out. I hope the noble Earl will give us this Amendment. It is a small Amendment, and does not in any way touch the vitals of the Bill—in fact, I think it improves the Bill.
We have had practically nothing from the Government; they have made no concession whatever on this Bill, except for two or three to which we are coming immediately, and which were offered before this Bill was debated in this House. As a result of our debates in this House we have got nothing whatever, and one wonders whether we are serving any useful purpose here at all, or whether we had not better pack up and say to the Government, "Well, this is your Bill; you had better take it away and administer it." This matter concerns the working of the House. I venture to say that your Lordships will be giving nothing away by agreeing to this Amendment. It would be more satisfactory to say in plain language that the giving of gifts or prizes is prohibited and to strike out this very difficult and ambiguous phrase, "of significant value." I see that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is preparing to say something. Where it is possible to get clarity of language perfectly easily, as here, I believe that the noble Lord will be on our side, perhaps for the first time but I hope not for the last.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I ask Lord Jowitt this question? As I understand it, the Amendment would apply to what is broadcast, whether in an advertisement or not; that means that it would apply in the programme. Obviously, it would have to apply to the B.B.C. equally, and would it not have the effect of washing out those very harmless but enjoyable little gifts that Mr. Pickles gives—"Give 'em the money, Barney," is,
886
I think, the expression he uses—or even giving insignificant things like certificates to someone who has beaten the Panel in the "What's my line?" programme? Would not that be the effect of what the noble and learned Earl suggests?
EARL JOWITT: I do not think so, certainly not in respect of certificates given on "What's my line?" I do not know anything about Mr. Pickles' programme.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: He gives away a few shillings.
EARL JOWITT: I have not competed in that particular programme or won a prize, but I think it is best to have no prizes at all.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: You would spoil a lot of people's fun.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In view of what happens in American broadcasting, I should like to ask whether the Government have in mind to permit or prohibit this kind of prize-giving. When I was last in America I tuned in to a broadcast programme modelled on our "Twenty Questions," to which I often listen in this country; but there every question was connected with a prize gift. At the end of each question the announcer said, "This question was sent in by Mrs. So-and-so, of such-and-such an address. She has accordingly received a valuable crocodile skin leather case made by Messrs. So-and-so, of No. 499 124th Street, New York." A similar announcement followed every question when the answer wags given, and similar crocodile skin leather cases were awarded. The consequence was that the questions were hurried over and were not nearly so good as our "Twenty Questions" programme, because the announcer wanted to get them finished as quickly as possible in order to have as many repetitions of the advertisement within the given time as could be got in; because, of course, every one was paid for. I want to know whether that kind of gift system, which might grow to an enormous extent on these advertisement programmes, is to be allowed in this country or not. Does this clause apply to it or not? I imagine that it does not apply because it says:
or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons."

887
The people who receive the gifts are persons who send in the questions, and the advantage goes to the shopkeeper who provides the prizes—perhaps ten of them given within a quarter of an hour. That is a concrete example of the kind of thing which will become rife all over this country as soon as this Bill comes into operation.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we must all regard the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as a most fortunate person, in that he seems to be in the happy position of feeling it is an open question whether a crocodile skin case is "of significant value" or not. Most of us who live more humble lives are perfectly clear in our minds that a crocodile skin case, particularly when it is described as of value, is, in fact, "of significant value." On this question, I confess that I have a very open mind. As the noble and learned Earl said, we are completely together in principle. The real "give away" programme is most undesirable, and we have made that perfectly clear in the Bill. But one does not want to be silly. We know that quite simple people in villages are sometimes harried because of little raffles that they run. They are very harmless, and although there is a little legal quibble they get round it, and then have trouble about it. We do not want to start that kind of thing. Noble Lords who listen in to the B.B.C., will know that Wilfred Pickles now runs a good programme where the successful person to answer a certain number of questions gets a pound in his hand. It might even be that if we accepted this Amendment the B.B.C. would have to cut out certain elements in its "What's my Line?" programme. I should be sorry, to accept an Amendment that led to our having to prevent the B.B.C. from carrying on quite innocent programmes like that. We are really at one on this, and perhaps we can have a discussion between now and Report in order to see whether we can deal with this subject on a reasonable basis.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged for the answer of the noble Earl, the Postmaster General. I do not accept at all the analogy of the Wilfred Pickles programme. That is not a case of an advertiser giving away prizes; it is a
888
gift to people in the localities which he visits for the purpose of entertaining them and others who listen-in in other districts. There is no point in that illustration at all.
EARL DE LA WARR: The clause refers to programmes; the Amendment would apply to Wilfred Pickles.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Why this should apply to the B.B.C. I do not know. We are seeking to apply this to an advertising arrangement—a very different thing. There is to be no advertising on the B.B.C. I am quite willing, however, to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl that we should have conversations about this matter before the Report stage of the Bill, and an that understanding we will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Let us be quite clear. I have not gone into this, but we can enter conversations only on the assumption that if an imposition or prohibition is put upon this undertaking, there should be a similar obligation upon the B.B.C. We should not like to go into conversations on any other basis. No advertiser may offer a significant prize in the advertising part; therefore, what we are dealing with here is the programme itself and a prize that is part of, or arises out of, the programme. That would not be permitted. It would be quite wrong to impose such a restriction on the undertaking we are setting up unless we also do it to the B.B.C. It is exactly like the other things we are discussing. I do not want to discuss it further but, so that we shall have no misunderstanding, I think that would be the view of the Government if it were discussed.
EARL JOWITT: Has the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, already discussed with the B.B.C. the question of putting upon them a prohibition in respect of prizes "of significant value"?
EARL DE LA WARR: We should deal with that as it occurred, and it has not yet occurred.
EARL JOWITT: You have a perfect illustration on this Bill; you are proposing, I think very rightly, to prevent any prizes of significant value being given, and with regard to the B.B.C. you have made no such statement. Therefore I merely suggest that in our conversations that question (which is one which should certainly be discussed) might be left open.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we have made our own point clear. I made the suggestion of discussions only in order to meet noble Lords opposite. If you feel you want to continue this controversy here that may be done; but I thought my offer of talks might be helpful.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am quite prepared to discuss the matter, but it was narrowed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to such close confines. I am quite prepared to join in conversations to see whether we cannot come to an understanding. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL moved to add to the clause:
"(4) Except with the previous approval of the Authority, there shall not be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority—

(a) any religious service or any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature;

(b) any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or Objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."

The right reverend Prelate said: I am afraid that, speaking on another Amendment, as the circumstances were a little unexpected and unfamiliar to me, I may have given the impression of not quite knowing my own mind. But I am certain that in moving this Amendment I know my own mind very clearly indeed. I believe that this Amendment is essential to the wholesomeness, dignity and freedom of religious broadcasting. I am thankful to know that Her Majesty's Government are inclined favourably to consider it, and therefore I need spend little time in presenting the case. There are, however, just one or two things which I would ask leave to say.
A few moments ago I said that I believed the Amendment was essential to the freedom of religious broadcasting. I am not one who is ever afraid of argument, or discussion, or even controversy, in religion. I believe that sound religion thrives on that; I am in favour of the fullest possible opportunity for it on the air. But even in religious discussion and controversy there are, I suppose, such things as Queensberry Rules, and it is desirable that these rules should be kept.
890
These Amendments which I am proposing are not intended in any way to short-circuit the freedom of expression of different convictions and traditions. They are intended only to prevent what I believe Members of this House would wish to prevent—what I would call an unregulated, competitive buying of time in order to sell particular denominational or religious views. That I believe to be a most undesirable practice which we should wish to prevent. There are those, I think, who might well hope that this new medium of television might afford them an opportunity for that particular kind of activity. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept this Amendment. It affords, I believe, a fair, honest and effective way of preventing the undesirable practice of which I have spoken. I beg to move.
Amendment moves—
Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I should like to say straight away that I am extremely pleased to accept this Amendment. I do so because I think it effects an improvement in the Bill, and also because I think it is a clarification. That, in itself, is an improvement. There is no question but that there have been some lingering doubts in certain minds on the subject of the buying of time in programmes by religious bodies. Though I took the view that that was made impossible by the machinery of the mandatory Religious Advisory Committee, whose advice was binding on the programme contractors, I think it is very much better to be completely clear on this point. Now everything is subject to the Religious Advisory Committee, excepting where the Authority otherwise decides. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, has now left the Chamber, but I hope that his attention will be drawn to this. If the Churches' Religious Advisory Committee took, as they never have taken, too narrow a view, then, of course, the last word would rest with the I.T.A. But, having regard to the conduct of the Committee in the past, and in view of what the right reverend Prelate said yesterday, I do not think any of us could possibly conceive of any difficulty arising. I repeat that I am very pleased to accept this Amendment which, as I say, I consider to be an improvement and a clarification.
LORD MATHERS: May I say how pleased I am to hear the words that have fallen from the lips of the noble Earl Lord De La Warr. I think this makes the position which I was endeavouring to contend for last evening much clearer, and this is something that can well be accepted by those who shared the fears and apprehensions that were in my mind. It seems to me that, with the position of the Authority set out as it is, even when they allow things to be done under advice by the Advisory Committee, the final authority still rests with the I.T.A. itself. I am very glad indeed to think that that should be so.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The right reverend Prelate, in moving this Amendment, dealt with subsection (a) of the Amendment. I cannot see what subsection (b) means or whether it has any relevance to subsection (a). Would the right reverend Prelate be kind enough to explain? Subsection (b) reads:
"any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."
What has that to do with religious broad-casting?
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: I think the point is that in addition to buying time on the air it is also possible for well-disposed and wealthy people to offer free time to a body on the air. There are a number of religious bodies which could, I think, very well present their case as being a case for additional funds and additional workers, and which could set out additional needs of various other kinds and, by a rather skilful use of their time, do a good deal of advocacy for their cause under conditions which are left out by subsection (a). I confess that if I had been drafting this Amendment myself, I should have been inclined to use some such words as
"which is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association conducted for religious, charitable or benevolent purposes."
But it was thought proper to draft this part of the Amendment in this way.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I should like to ask that at the Report stage, it should be drafted in the way suggested. As it stands you could not, for instance, show in a programme a house held by the National Trust or other of the National
892
Trust properties—and the National Trust is a legal charity—without getting the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee, which would be perfectly ridiculous. Would it not be better to put in subsection (b) a special reference to religious charities which would make the matter perfectly clear?
EARL JOWITT: I think the noble Viscount has a rather good point there. I have an Amendment down—it is No. 102—which I intended should deal with this very point. Perhaps this is a matter that might be looked at, and possibly our conversations with the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, might extend to this topic. I think we should all agree that it is very undesirable that associations or organisations which are charities in the ordinary sense should buy time and advertise and compete against each other. I agree with the noble Viscount that if we were to say: "In your programme you are not to refer to any of these good causes" those concerned might find themselves terribly handicapped in what they could put in the programme. I think this is a matter which needs to be looked at, and I will ask the Postmaster General whether we might have a look at it when we are considering the other topics which were mentioned a few minutes ago.
EARL DE LA WARR: The actual purpose of this Amendment is slightly to extend the Authority's surveillance beyond religious matters to charities. At the present moment there is provision for appeals on various programmes, and we feel that appeals made on behalf of charities should be subject to the same rules as on the B.B.C. It should not be a matter of some large charity with plenty of money, who might put on an expensive documentary, getting all the money of the week, and when the "Week's Good Cause" comes along on Sunday, it is found that everybody has already "shelled out." But I am willing to talk with the noble and learned Earl on this matter.
LORD MATHERS: There seems to be some failure to apprehend what is in this Amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seemed to think that the items referred to in paragraph (b) were being completely prohibited, but that is not so. They can be brought in with the previous

893
approval of the Authority, the supreme body under which this new instrument is being created.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Advertisements
4.—(1) The programmes broadcast by the Authority may, so long as the provisions of this Act are complied with in relation thereto, include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or, in the case of an advertisement included in a programme or part of a programme provided under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act, to the Authority.
5.52 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to omit "under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act," and to insert, "by the Authority." The noble Earl said: This is rather a different point. I do not know whether there is any great controversy between us. The Postmaster General will tell me whether there is or not. I am proposing here to do two things—to leave out the words "under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act," and to insert "by the Authority." So the subsection will read as follows:
"The programmes broadcast by the Authority may, so long as the provisions of this Act are complied with in relation thereto, include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or, in the case of an advertisement included in a programme or part of a programme provided by the Authority, to the Authority."
I suggest that that simplifies the matter. I do not know whether the noble Earl has any real objection to that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("provided") to ("to") in line 2 and insert ("by The Authority").—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl is pursuing what was the first stage of my thoughts in this matter. Then it seemed to me that if we were inserting a provision in Clause 9 to provide £750,000 for the express purpose of making it possible to have programmes not connected with advertisements, it would not be logical then to associate them with advertisements, and for that reason I was responsible for this change.
894
I thought the whole purpose of this £750,000 was to make it possible to have programmes to which advertisements were not attached. I hope that the noble and learned Earl will feel convinced and not press the point.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I put this point? It would be a duty of the Authority to balance the programme of a commercial company if that company does not produce a balanced programme. That is an obligation. Suppose a company were to put on a lot of light music and very little serious music, then it would be the duty of the Authority to put on serious music, a symphony concert or something of the kind. Under the Bill as it stands they would be prohibited from getting any revenue from advertisements on a programme of that type. That means that the programme of serious music would have to be financed out of the taxpayers' money. Why should not the Authority be given, a chance of saving the taxpayers' money by having the right to invite advertisements for suitable programmes? Obviously a religious programe is not a suitable programme, but if part of their duty is to balance the prograntmes of commercial companies, obviously there are some programes with which advertisements could he associated. I hope the noble Earl will consider whether it would not be to the great advantage of the taxpayers that in suitable cases the Authority should be able to include advertisements in any programme they themselves may provide.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Earl has made a logical point, but I would say to him that if the programme company were producing a fundamentally unbalanced programme, it is not for the Authority to come in and insert material of their own; it is for the Authority to use their power to compel the programme company to carry out their instructions to provide a balanced programme. On the other hand there might be a particular programme which the Authority were very anxious to have, probably one that was very uncommercial in character, on which they felt it most undesirable to have advertisements. In that case they would have the programme put on and pay for it themselves.
EARL JOWITT: I certainly cannot divide on this Amendment. I will look

895
at it again in the light of the noble Earl's words and consider it. As it is at present, I am anxious to see that if the Authority have default power, then they have the right to make some revenue by advertisements out of the exercise of that power.
EARL DE LA WARR: I would point out to the noble and learned Earl that under Clause 2 (2) (b), where the Authority exercise default power, in the event of there being a gap, they can have advertisements.
EARL JOWITT: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to move this Amendment. It is pure and unadulterated drafting. It does in twenty-six words what the original clause does in forty-seven, and I think it does everything that the original clause does.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
("(4) After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by Statutory Instrument amending, repealing, or adding to any of the provisions of the said Schedule:")—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL DE LA WARR: It is not often that any of us succeed in beating the Government draftsman, but in this case he freely admits that this is an improvement and I gladly accept this Amendment, subject to one small point. If the noble Lord would be prepared to omit the words "any of" in the last line but one, I should be grateful, otherwise his paragraph has an unduly limited effect.
LORD SILKIN: Of course, I gladly accept that. It reduces the number of words to twenty-four. I withdraw my Amendment and move it again in its altered form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
("(4) After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by Statutory Instrument amending, repealing, or adding to the provisions of the said Schedule:")—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment and No. 53 are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL: I understand that this Amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 47, which has already been agreed to, and brings the wording into conformity with that Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 46, after ("needs"), insert ("or objects").—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: As I have said, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out from ("under") to second ("the") in line 23 and insert ("this section").—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether "this section" means the whole of Clause 4.
EARL DE LA WARR: We have two obligations in one clause to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure. All we have done is to take those two obligations and put them into one subsection.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The Affirmative Resolution procedure is retained for the whole clause?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, for the whole lot.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
"5. Without prejudice to any other application to the said advertisements of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1953, any communication broadcast in the said advertisements, whether an express communication or a communication by representation or inference,—

(a) shall be deemed to be a commercial communication for the purposes of section ten of the Patents, etc. (International Conventions) Act, 1938; and

(b) if in that communication a trade mark or mark or trade description is used in a manner calculated to lead to the belief that the goods in connection with which it is used are designated or described by that

897
trade mark or mark or trade description, shall constitute the application of a trade description to those goods."

The noble Lord said: This and the next Amendment, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, cover the same point and are really alternatives. They deal with complicated questions arising out of the Merchandise Marks Acts which, as your Lordships know, give certain rights to the owners of trade-marks and also lay down certain provisions for the protection of consumers. I can say now that I will withdraw the Amendment if the Postmaster General, or someone, can give me an assurance on the point. I understand that the main point—namely, the protection of the consumer from the use of false descriptions of goods, and so on—is covered by Amendment No. 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, which no doubt has been put down on behalf of the Government and under which it is provided that one of the duties of one of the advisory committees to be set up, or arranged, by the Authority, will be to advise as to the exclusion of misleading advertisements from programmes. It may be that in quite simple language that deals with a most complicated problem. If that is so, and if I receive an assurance that that is as far as the Government can go in that direction, I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure your Lordships are most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, for moving this Amendment with such brevity and common sense. This is a highly complicated subject. What I would say to the Committee is that if it were necessary to do anything in relation to the Merchandise Marks Acts it should be done in a Merchandise Marks Act; this is not the place to do it. The subject raises a host of complicated considerations with which I need not bother your Lordships now. What I can say to the noble Lord is this. I have here a letter from the Retail Trading Standards Association saying that they thoroughly approve of the new Amendment to the Television Bill—that relates to Amendment No. 77, which will be moved in due course and is designed to prevent mis-
898
leading advertisements. That fully covers the point which did at one time give them a measure of anxiety. I am able to give that assurance to the noble Lord.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I understood him to say that he had the approval or agreement of some association. If that is the British Trading Standards Association, I may say that they are closely concerned with this matter of false descriptions. Having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Contracts for programmes
5.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that persons who are disqualified persons as defined in this subsection do not become or continue as programme contractors, either alone or in partnership with other persons.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programmes contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control; and, in the case of such public ceremonies, public spectacles and important sporting event; as may from time to time be agreed upon between the Authority and the Postmaster-General or, in default of agreement, determined by the Postmaster-General, it shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that no broadcast thereof takes place from any television station as part of the broadcasts of the Authority, unless, in the opinion of the Authority, reasonable facilities are available or reasonable terms for the broadcasting thereof from all television broadcasting stations in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, whether used by the Authority or by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
(5) The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain all such provisions (including provisions for the purposes set out in the Third Schedule to this Act) as the Authority think necessary or expedient to be inserted for complying and securing compliance with the provisions of this Act and any restrictions or requirements imposed thereunder in relation to the programmes provided by the programme contractors:
Provided that the Authority shall not be enabled by any such contract to exercise any such power as is referred to in the said Third Schedule unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so having regard to a breach which they apprehend on the part of the programme contractor of any provision included in the contract in pursuance of this subsection.
(6) Every such contract shall in particular contain such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient as aforesaid for the

899
payment by the programme contractor to the Authority of sums by way of penalty in the event of such breaches of his contract as may be specified in those provisions, and any such provision as is mentioned in this subsection shall be valid and enforceable in accordance with the terms thereof notwithstanding any rule of law restricting the cases in which or the extent to which provisions for penalties are legally enforceable:
Provided that every such contract shall be such as to secure—

(a) that the maximum penalty which may be demanded by the Authority by virtue of this subsection in the case of any breach shall not exceed five hundred pounds; and

(b) without prejudice to the power of the parties to agree upon any wider form of arbitration provision, that any dispute whether any such breach of contract has occurred as to give rise to a liability to such a penalty as aforesaid, or as to the amount demanded by way of penalty in respect of any such breach, shall be determined by arbitration.

(7) Without prejudice to the previous provisions of this section, every contract between the Authority and a programme contractor shall contain a provision reserving to the Authority an absolute right, if, in view of any breaches by the programme contractor of his obligations under his contract with the Authority, the Authority, after giving the programme contractor a reasonable opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter, think it necessary so to do, to serve on the programme contractor a notice in writing, taking effect forthwith or on a date stated in the notice, to determine or suspend for such period as may be specified in the notice or until a further notice is given the Authority's obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by the programme contractor (without prejudice, however, to the programme contractor's obligations as to the supply of programmes up to the date when the notice takes effect); and where a notice is given in pursuance of a right reserved in accordance with this subsection, the programme contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation from the Authority or to any refund of any sum previously paid by him or to any relief from any liability which has accrued at the date when the notice takes effect for any sums payable by him to the Authority:
Provided that the contract shall be such as to secure that no notice is given in pursuance of a right reserved as aforesaid unless such penalties as are mentioned in subsection (6) of this section have been paid or agreed to be paid or adjudged by arbitration to be payable by the contractor in respect of breaches of the contract occurring on at least three separate occasions.
(8) The provisions of this section relating to breaches of contract on the part of programme contractors shall be without prejudice to any other remedies of the Authority for the enforcement of their rights in respect of contracts with programme contractors, and shall not, except as expressly provided therein, affect the jurisdiction of any court in respect of such contracts.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: We now come on the Marshalled List of Amendments to Amendment No. 56, but I think that should really come after the Amendments to Clause 5. Therefore, I will call Amendment No. 57.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "to do all that they can." The noble Earl said: The point here is a quite simple one. What I want to ask the Government, in moving this Amendment, is why they wish to qualify the obligation they are placing upon the Authority by the words which I am proposing to leave out. The obligation is perfectly clear. It is one to see that people who are disqualified do not act as programme contractors; and if they do become programme contractors, then they should be removed as soon as possible. What puzzles me—I hope that the noble Earl can explain it satisfactorily—is why this obligation should, as it would seem to me, be weakened by the words "to do all that they can." Presumably, it would be possible, if the wording of the clause were left as it is, for a disqualified person—a foreigner, or whoever it may be—to become a programme contractor if the Authority had done their best but failed to prevent it. There seems to be a certain loophole there. I would hope that the Government could make this obligation unconditional. That is really the simple point of my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can tell the noble Earl why it was put in this form. Once the Authority know, then obviously there is an obligation upon them to act. If the Authority have ascertained that somebody has become a disqualified person, then there is clearly an obligation on the Authority there and then to do one of two things. If they feel the person has not been gravely at fault, then they should tell him to remedy the defect and become respectable again, as it were—we shall have to deal with that in the next Amendment. On the other hand, if they are satisfied that there is a clear default, then they must say: "You have ceased to be a programme contractor." In order to secure this, they have to find out something which prima facie is not within their

901
knowledge. It is not as if I said to the noble Earl that he must not do so and so. Clearly, the noble Earl would know at once whether he was or was not doing what the Act of Parliament told him not to do. Here the duty to enforce compliance with the Act arises only when they have found out what the circumstances are which makes it a duty for them to act. Therefore, the draftsman preferred to use the words, as it was something the Authority had got to find out, "do all that they can to secure," instead of putting an absolute obligation upon them.
I have taken such legal advice as I can, and I am advised that, so far as we can make out, it would make no difference whether these words are in or not—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree with this—because if, in fact, the Authority had taken all reasonable steps they would have complied with the clause. There is no penalty upon them. You cannot put the Authority in the dock and fine them because they have not taken all reasonable steps. Presumably somebody could bring an action for mandamus or some-thing like that. I am very nervous of using all these legal terms, but I am glad to say that the House is almost devoid of legal talent at the moment. I think the best thing for me to do would be to let the lawyers have a look at it and make sure that the provisional legal opinion that they have given me—because I said I did not see why I could not accept this Amendment—is right. If I am correct in what am saying, that it-fact it does not make any difference, then the words will be unnecessary. There are several places in the Act where they are necessary, where it is a case of using your best endeavours to find something out. I do not mind accepting the Amendment now and, if I am told that I am wrong, putting the words back on Report. I will do whatever the noble Earl prefers.
EARL DE LA WARR: I rather hope that the noble Earl will allow them to stay in until we can find out whether they can be omitted, because upon me falls the responsibility of conducting the work of the I.T.A. If I ask them, without any qualification, to secure something, when there is an element of great difficulty in doing that they may say, "You have taken out these words and we, as responsible people, cannot take it on." There is a serious point there. I
902
agree that if the words do not perform a function, then by all means let them come out.
LORD SILKIN: This is not a very big point, but I must confess that, looking at it as objectively as I can, I consider that some words are necessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Some words like these?
LORD SILKIN: I am not at all sure that they are the best words, but I do not think you can put an absolute obligation on the Authority which they may not be in a position to fulfil.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I wanted to meet him if I could, but I think we ought to keep the words in for the time being.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount and the noble Earl. I think their proposal is entirely reasonable. Let us leave these words in and discuss the matter with the draftsman between now and Report stage. There are three courses open to us: either leave the words as they are now, find another formula, or leave them out.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If they are to stay in, I do not see that we can have stronger words to tell a person to do his best than "Do all you can."
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: If you tell a man he is to secure something and he says, "I did everything I could to secure it," that is an answer. We are making very heavy weather over a matter of drafting, believe me, and I know something about this business.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: With that undertaking, I gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the first paragraph of subsection (1):
"without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing it shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that every contract entered into with a programme contractor provides that if at any time after the execution of the contract it shall appear to the Authority that the programme contractor shall have become or shall have entered into partnership with a disqualified person the contract shall he determined automatically, and it shall be lawful for the Authority in such case to give notice to the programme contractor in writing declaring the contract to be at end, and where

903
such a notice is given but no such disqualification has in fact been incurred the contract shall nonetheless be determined but subject to any right to recover damages for breach thereof which may enure to the benefit of the programme contractors."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same point. I could make a long speech in explanation of it, but I shall be quite content if I receive the same assurance as was given on the previous Amendment that this matter will be looked at again. This Amendment is designed to ensure that the Authority put into their contract a provision that programme contractors are not to appoint as directors, or to go into partnership with, disqualified persons. Looking at this again, I think the penalty of immediate automatic determination of a contract is rather harsh, and on further consideration I do not think I should feel prepared to press it. It is a sanction which might be out of all proportion to the offence involved. On the other hand, as the clause stands there is no sanction at all. The Authority are required to do something, but what is to happen if the programme contractor, despite the pressure of the Authority, defies them? It may or may not be a breach of contract. It would, however, be a breach if words corresponding to my Amendment were included, because it would be part of the contract that they are not to take in disqualified persons. We are now getting on to fine legal points which I should be quite happy to develop, but I do not think the Committee want to do that. Therefore, I will move the Amendment in the hope that the noble Viscount will agree to have it looked at again to ensure that there is some sanction provided in the Bill for people who do something in defiance of the Authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Lord silkin.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Part of this Amendment might be all right, but part of it would certainly not be right at all. Let me take the part that obviously is not right. Supposing that, quite inadvertently, a programme contractor has acquired a shareholding in a company, and that control had passed to somebody on the prohibited list. The noble Lord knows what I mean: it might happen that somebody had acquired a share-
904
holding under somebody's will. When he finds out, the programme contractor has a duty to comply with the Act of Parliament. If the Authority discovered this and the contractor had not, it would be the duty of the Authority to bring it to his notice and tell him to correct it. It would be very unfair in a case like that—and we can all think of other cases—to say that an enormous contract, in which a couple of million pounds had been invested should be determined. Obviously the thing to do is to remedy the mistake as soon as it can be done. The noble Lord accepts that.
The other side of the matter is that we should put into an Act of Parliament something to say that when the Authority are making a contract—and I agree that we depend here on contractual relationship; that is the structure and notion of this—they should put in a clause to say that this and that must be complied with; that you shall not allow yourself to become illegitimate, if I may so phrase it. I doubt whether it is necessary or wise to put those words in, but I will have a look at the point. There is a duty imposed in the Bill upon the Authority to ensure that a programme contractor does not become, or continue to be, disqualified. It may be that that should go into the contract, but if that is so, would not that be forced upon him by the words we have already used—either an absolute obligation or a qualified one to do everything possible to ensure that the proper thing happens? What I think would be dangerous would be, on the expressio unius principle, to say that this and that must be put into the contract. Either everything ought to be in a contract, or nothing, because it is already an obligation under the Act of Parliament. Having said that, I think that is probably the reason why it is not there. I will ask the lawyers to look at this matter, and if they advise that some Amendment is necessary I shall be glad to let the noble Lord know.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that the noble Viscount will appreciate that if the Bill puts an obligation on the Authority there will be no means of enforcing it. I can see that this Amendment goes too far, but I think the noble Viscount has the point, and I am very much obliged to him. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "that" to insert:
"on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority."
The noble Earl said: The noble Viscount opposite will remember that during the Second Reading debate a good deal of anxiety was expressed by several noble Lords, and particularly the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Liberal Party, about the danger that local broadcasting monopolies would be created from the fact that one programme director would acquire the right to the whole of the broadcasting time on one station. The object of this Amendment is to prevent such a local monopoly. I am not at all sure that this is the right form of words, but if it is the intention of the Government to prevent local monopolies perhaps they will be able to suggest another form of words. May I read to your Lordships the first four lines of this subsection as they now stand:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control."
That is a general duty to secure competition. But is it sufficiently specific? There is no definition in the Bill of "adequate competition." Perhaps it is impossible to define.
The Government have stated what they mean by "adequate competition" and of course it might mean no more than that no one programme contractor will control the time of more than one station. If that is the meaning, there would be what I may call horizontal competition, competition between different contractors, in different parts of the country, broadcasting from different stations; but that is by no means a guarantee that there would not be a vertical monopoly.
What I should like the Government to explain, in reply to this Amendment, is whether they consider that the subsection as it now stands would prevent a local monopoly; and, if not, are they prepared to suggest some form of Amendment which would secure that object? I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 8, after ("that") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I put my name to this Amendment because I am anxious to secure some elucidation of the point raised by me in the Second Reading debate. On that occasion I ventured to interrupt the noble Earl the Postmaster General in the course of his speech. On that occasion I said. (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 86), col. 194):
"My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but there is one point with which he has not dealt in his speech and with which I expected he would deal."
Later I said:
"He also mentioned that it was proposed, in the first instance, to set up three stations. Is there to be competition between the contractors for the use of those three stations, or is one contractor to be licensed for a period of time for each station?"
The reply seemed to me to be somewhat cryptic, as it did to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who asked for a clear reply. The Postmaster General, in his speech, ended his answer to us both by saying (col. 195):
"What is laid down, and if this Bill is passed will become the law, is that adequate competition shall be ensured. I can give the noble and learned Earl the definite answer that the Government intend to ensure that that is done."
The Postmaster General, who was good enough to interrupt me in the course of my own speech, then used these words (col. 221):
"I said quite clearly that the words in the Bill showed that there shall be no new monopoly, and that there shall be adequate competition. I did not inform noble Lords what steps would be taken to enforce that."
We have put down this Amendment in order that the Postmaster General may have the opportunity of telling us how this competition is to be obtained, or whether in each of the stations (there are to be three at the beginning) there will be licensed for a period, whether for one year or for ten, one programme contractor; and, if that is so, whether that will fulfil the very clear and specific undertaking that he gave on Second Reading.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before the noble Earl replies, may I add a plea to the Postmaster General to treat this Amendment as it is intended. The Amendment is designed to allay genuine fears without taking away anything from the essential qualities of the Bill. Supposing this Amendment is accepted—and

907
this is a plea I want to put quite shortly to the Postmaster General—all that will be said in the subsection, unless I have misread it, is this:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that on each broadcasting station there is adequate competition."
It is a very modest Amendment which does not impose an absolute obligation. I frankly admit that I should have liked to see an absolute obligation, but the Amendment does not seek to do that. We have not sought to do anything in the Amendment which could legitimately be said to interfere with the principles of the Bill which the Government secured on Second Reading.
We want to know from the Government how they regard the matter of local monopoly. When the Bill was read a second time, the House was told, and no doubt the Government sincerely believed it though we challenged it, that the whole issue was between monopoly and competition, and the Government came down on the side of competition against monopoly. It so happens that I am entirely in that camp. I would not be a member of the Party of which I am a member if that were not so. I gave the House my reasons for thinking the application of the principle was misunderstood by the Government on Second Reading. When I see the Government proposing a system of television the effect of which may be, so far as one can tell, to erect a series of local monopolies over the country for the purpose of television, I am bound to inquire of the Government how that squares with the principle of competition as against monopoly. Because these three broadcasting stations will not in effect be competing against one another or against the B.B.C. Whatever they are competing against, they will not be competing against one another. When it is said, "We are going to leave that to the Independent Television Authority because we trust the Independent Television Authority," I must plead with the Government that that is not good enough.
We are told that the whole object of this Bill is to secure competition. We are entitled to know, surely, what the policy of the Government is to be about this. Is it to secure competition on each broadcasting station, is it to erect a chain of local monopolies or are we going to be
908
left in doubt, having passed the Bill, as to which of those two very different things is going to be attempted? Surely the I.T.A. ought to be given some guidance, and surely we should be told what guidance it is to be given. There has been no lack of guidance in other matters. There has been no lack of directions to the Television Authority about, for instance, the use of studios or the provision of programmes. There has been no undue trust of the Television Authority in relation to matters of that kind. Surely we are not asking too much when we ask the Government to tell us what guidance they have to give to the Television Authority in this matter, much of which goes to the root of the whole Bill.
I venture to close, modestly I hope, with the sentiment with which I began. Let the Postmaster General look at the wording of this Amendment. All that it proposes to do in terms, and all that it can do in law, is to impose upon the Television Authority the obligation, not an absolute obligation but a qualified obligation, to do all that they can to see that there is adequate competition, not merely on the air in general but at each broadcasting station which they operate. Therefore, I do respectfully submit to the Postmaster General that there is nothing in this Amendment offensive to the principles to which the Government have committed themselves, and that they might do well to accept it as well as give the statement of policy which has been asked for—if they can do so in the howling gale which appears to be rushing through the Chamber.
6.33 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for putting down this Amendment because I think it gives us an opportunity for a useful and important discussion. I know that this is a point about which noble Lords are deeply anxious. I am, in fact, going to ask your Lordships not to press this Amendment, and I am afraid one of the reasons I shall give is the reason which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked me not to give—which is that I feel that the Bill is fundamentally right in saying that this is a matter that should, subject to the proviso which is already in the Bill, be dealt with by the I.T.A. On the other hand, whether the duty is laid on me or not, it is perfectly obvious that I, as the Departmental Minister responsible,

909
would be expected to give some guidance and to express my views to the I.T.A., and I think your Lordships are clearly entitled to ask me what that guidance would be.
First of all, with regard to the point that has been particularly raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel: I remember he made a most eloquent, albeit inaccurate, speech on my behalf yesterday, when he said that if I were making the speech I should be making a passionate plea on behalf of the local monopoly. I do not want to disappoint him, but I must say that I have some considerable sympathy with the point of view that has been expressed about the dangers of establishing a commercial monopoly—not, of course, a monopoly of television, because, in fact, if there were only one other service it would provide competition. But I quite appreciate the point that noble Lords have made that there would not in fact be commercial competition. I think that point has been made clear.
All of us, I think, who are trying to face the problem—certainly the Government who have to be responsible for this policy—have to recognise that, whatever we do about making provision for competition in the existing circumstances, that competition is bound to be limited. Your Lordships know that we are only just coming to operate on Band III and, at the present moment, there is virtually only room for one more programme that can give the national coverage—that is, until we can clear the other six channels on Band III. That is a very serious limitation. Your Lordships will forgive my being slightly technical for the moment, but we do labour here at a great disadvantage compared with the United States, who can obviously make a great deal more use of a channel than we can because their cities are great distances apart; therefore, a channel can be used again and again without causing interference. But we are very much more closely concentrated and, therefore, have a greater limitation in the use of these channels. That is a limiting factor that we have all to face.
The noble Lord asked me how I would favour running this scheme. I think there are many factors to be taken into account and that the I.T.A. will have to look at. But I can quite visualise that
910
the best system—and I mean the best system from the point of view of introducing genuine competition and also for the commercial success of the scheme—is likely to be a system of time-sharing under which the whole network will be allocated between, shall we say, two or more contractors, each of whom may have the sole use of it for a number of days in the week. This could be—indeed, I think it should be—supplemented by smaller local companies in the individual regions. These would provide local regional programmes with what seems to me extremely important—we have already touched upon this subject when the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, moved his Amendment—regional roots. We do not want just regional programmes that are put on by companies in London who think that Manchester and Liverpool would probably like some particular development.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, the large majority of those companies who are considering applying to come into this scheme when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—in fact, I can say all but one—favour this sort of scheme. It appears also to be suitable to the advertiser. I hope that this will not be accounted as a reason against it by noble Lords opposite, but it is actually suitable to advertisers, who naturally, in the main, want national coverage because we are used to a national Press in this country, whereas America is much more used to regional or local advertising; they do not have a national Press. There is going to be room for local advertisements too, and they would be placed in the regional programmes. I am fairly sure that from the financial point of view—that is, from the contractor's point of view—this is likely to prove to be the best arrangement, and also from the point of view of the quality of the programmes, because it will mean that each contractor can concentrate his energies on producing fewer programmes with the revenue of the whole network behind them.
I am not going to say that that is the ideal scheme, but it does seem to me that, in view of the admitted technical limitation that we have to face at the present moment, it may well be the best scheme for the time being, and certainly it is the scheme that I would commend to the consideration of the programme contractors. I hope that I am not going to

911
be asked to put this in the Bill, because the Bill lays on the I.T.A. the responsibility for negotiations with programme contractors. There may arise many other considerations, including technical considerations, which I have not yet been able to visualise, and I feel at the moment in dealing with this medium—which is so full of uncertainties, so full of changes from day to day—that we should make a mistake in laying down anything in this Bill that is either rigid or permanent.
May I say one more word in expressing my fear of putting anything rigid into the Bill? It may well be, even if I prove to be right in the sort of machinery that I contemplate—that is, what I have always called the horizontal organisation—that in some fairly remote part of the country, which perhaps it might be difficult to reach with the necessary Post Office links, and so on, for a long time, perhaps some enterprising individual or company might say, "We should like to be licensed to start a small station in our area." It would be impossible to connect them up with the main network, and it might be desirable to consider some special arrangement for them. I think that it is important to keep this scheme as flexible as possible.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before my noble friend sits down, can he deal with the point I put to him? How will the scheme be made more rigid, or the I.T.A. hampered in any way, if we insert the words proposed in this Amendment, that the Authority shall do all they can to see that on every broadcasting station there is adequate competition? How does it make it more rigid or hamper them in any way, because that is all the Amendment proposes?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I certainly think that the Postmaster General has carried matters a stage further from where they were on the Second Reading, because the position then was that this was to be left to the I.T.A.; that it would be within their own discretion to do as they liked; that Parliament should not have any understanding before passing this Bill into law as to what the ultimate arrangement would be. It was quite plain that the Postmaster General necessarily must have had communication with those
912
probable applicants for licences in the local stations, and also with those who organise the advertising. There would be nothing improper in that; in fact it would be very wrong if he did not have a very good idea in his own mind how this scheme was going to work out in practice, once the Bill had been passed. It appears that these conversations and anticipations have now taken a more definite form, and although he does not say that conclusions have been arrived at, the scheme that he has in mind is apparently something like this: that there will be left the B.B.C., and there will be competition against the B.B.C. by programme companies. Probably in the first instance there may be two programme companies, who will each have a national coverage on certain days a week.
EARL DE LA WARR: Two or more.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: There are not so many days in the week, are there? If the Government are to allow room for possibly some local company to have its local programme on one day a week, or part of a day, you cannot sub-divide it too much; also it is very expensive to establish these organisations. However, that scheme is said to be sufficient for adequate competition as between programme companies. I do not think that that is the kind of lay-out of the scheme that the public have in mind. We have been told that in New York viewers have a choice of eight different programmes. It was thought that something of that kind would be possible here. It never has been possible, for the reason given by the Postmaster General—the shortage of wavelengths. As I have said repeatedly during this discussion, if this Bill had been put forward after very-high-frequency had become practicable, and a large number of stations in the same area were technically feasible, then it might be that we should have to consider it in another light. As it is, the competition now, the horizontal competition, will be limited as a rule to two companies: two companies and a fraction of a company, possibly, for the local service, over the whole country.
How do you know that that will provide real competition? What is to prevent those two from getting together and consulting, as it is suggested that the B.B.C. and the programme companies should consult, on certain points; arranging

913
things in their own way, and making the competition, though apparently complete, sotto voce very friendly competition as the thing is arranged? They might have a tariff among them for payment of artistes; they might allocate the times between themselves to divide the best features between the two of them week by week. With such limited competition as that between two companies it is almost impossible to avoid something in the nature of a cartel between the two. In any case, it appears to me that the programme of "setting the people free," letting the public have what they want, and envisaging a great number of eagerly competing companies, with as many competing companies as there are competing newspapers (continually we are given the Press as an example; the people might take in the Daily Mirror televisor or The Times televisor as they prefer) will not be attained at all. There will be competition as between the B.B.C., on the one hand, and the programme companies, on the other, but the second is not a real, effective, widespread, lively competition, in which private enterprise, ruthless private enterprise, competing here and there, will ultimately result in the highest possible efficiency and liveliness and success. It will be so limited, and must be so limited, owing to the technical nature of the whole situation, that it will be far indeed from the expectations that have been aroused by the promoters of the Bill.
6.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I wonder if I might add one word, which I will try to make impartial, having listened to this discussion and drawing on such knowledge as we all share of ordinary commercial undertakings. I do not think we need pay too much attention to the speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just delivered. It seems to me a little bit in the nature of the way he described other people's speeches earlier in the debate today: "Pah!—competition. Of course you will rot really have any competition." Even if the situation were likely to emerge as described by the noble Viscount—and it certainly will not be anything like it—I am quite certain that there will be a good deal more competition than there is today; because to-day you have to see the B.B.C. or nothing. Therefore, obviously, even at the worst, there is going to be
914
more competition. I think, if I may say so, that the Postmaster General is wise not to tie himself down, with only certain wave lengths at his disposal to-day, in developing a service on which—I will not say one proceeds by trial and error, but on which what is needed is essentially, not a theoretical but a sort of pragmatical approach. If he said, "I will not in any case allow one company to have a monopoly of a particular station," that would make it impossible, very likely, to give a localised service.
We heard to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that he wants a special station set up for Wales which would cater for Welsh people. We too want that. You may get small stations for local purposes for which it would be quite impossible to get two contractors competing. It may even, be that it will not be a commercial proposition for one, and it may be wise to allow a subsidiary of one of the larger undertakings to do it, so that the people would get better service; or it may be a subsidiary which is in partnership with some more local interest. Assuming that you could get one person to do it, and do it very well, with all the knowledge of the locality and of what the people of the locality wanted, the Postmaster General, by accepting this Amendment, would be cutting out that possibility.
How is this plan likely to work in fact? I am with the Postmaster General in his decision not to tie his hands. But what I think the Committee will want to look at is what will probably happen. It seems to me that all interests support the sort of plan which the Postmaster General has outlined. The revenue is to be drawn from advertisements; the contractors will draw their revenue from advertising. They want to give the best programme they can, and, quite obviously, they want to get the largest revenue they can. The excellence or merit of their programme will depend upon their revenue. What will be wanted by the advertising company whatever company it is? It will be the largest medium through which the company can make its appeal. People advertise in papers having a wide circulation. I think that what the advertiser will want will be to be able to go on the air at a particular moment, not in London alone, or in Birmingham alone, or in Liverpool alone; he will want to go on all over England.

915
As a matter of fact, if you were to have, say, three companies—I am saying this on the assumption that what you have is a London station, a Midlands station and a station somewhere in the North-West, which is probably what will happen—even if you gave those stations to three separate companies, I believe that they would make the kind of interlocking arrangement which the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel has suggested, not in order just to get together to make a cartel but to make an arrangement of a different kind. They would make an arrangement whereby one of them, with a programme in Manchester or Birmingham, would televise that programme over the whole national network, over each of the three stations. It is only in that way that the programme would reach the big listening public and command a large price. Therefore, it seems to me that it is in the commercial interest of those who are going to run these stations to do it in that way. I should not enter the field even if I were to retire from the Government; but I am quite sure that if anybody came to me and asked me for my advice in this matter, I should say that I would not advise him to take over only one station, even if it were the London station; and I certainly should not advise him to take over one of the other two. But given two days or selected periods during which one could go out to the whole country, then I think it might be a reasonable proposition. In that way there is much more competition.
Suppose that you gave each of the three stations to a different company merely for the purpose of functioning there. It is true that in each case you would get competition, and different competition with the B.B.C.; but you would get no competition between the companies. Therefore it is in the interests of competition that it should not be done in this way. But commercial interests and competitive interests are at one in this matter, because there is more money in it and you will certainly get much more attractive programmes that way. As I say, there will be more money available, because the programme which is televised will be seen by more people.
I come now to what my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha has said, more than once this evening, in regard to the viewers. The viewers have to be con-
916
sidered. I believe that in this way the viewer will get much greater variety and will be more attracted to the programme. The more attracted he is, the more the advertiser is attracted to advertise. It seems to me, in looking at the ordinary commercial probability of how this plan will turn out, that that is the most likely thing to happen. I believe that if it does happen in that way it will be in the interests of the programme companies, in the interests of the people who want to advertise and, most important of all, in the interests of the viewer.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to seem importunate, but I put a question to the Postmaster General, and I did not do it simply with the idea of asking a rhetorical question. I also asked him to reply. The question was this. Assuming the truth of everything that the noble Viscount and the Postmaster General have just said, how do the words proposed in this Amendment interfere with the policy of the Bill? All that they do is to ask that the Independent Television Authority shall do all they can to achieve adequate competition on every station. I have listened carefully to both Government speeches. One does not come down to the House to ask a question simply for the sake of asking it; it is because we genuinely do not see the answer, and we want the Government to give an answer. I am sure the Government mean to be conciliatory in this matter, but it is really not treating people with genuine difficulties in a conciliatory fashion, to ignore the questions which they specifically put. I wonder whether one of my noble friends could deal with that point.
EARL JOWITT: May I, as I hope, conclude this debate by this short statement? We have listened to a remarkable speech by the noble Viscount. It was of brief length, and if its clarity had been equal to its length no doubt we should all have been convinced. I venture to think that this Amendment is such a small one that it really needs no lengthy speech at all. I derived some hope from the speech of the Postmaster General, but I confess (no doubt it is entirely my fault) that I got confused with the speech of the noble Viscount. The subsection reads as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes"

917
and so on. The Amendment, if we get it, would make the subsection read in this way:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority there is adequate competition to supply programmes."
The whole basis of this Bill is that competition is a good thing. If we believe that, why is it not a good thing to have that competition on each broadcasting station, so far as that is possible? If there are, as the noble Viscount suggested there may be, circumstances which make competition quite impracticable, then you need not have it—the clause so provides. But, upon my word, on the assumption that competition is the right thing, I cannot see why you should not have competition on each broadcasting station. If it is going to be difficult for the noble Viscount, and if he wants a little time to consider it—perhaps a year or something of that sort—then we can deal with that on Report stage. But I would ask him—and this is the same question as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked—why does he hesitate to give us this Amendment? He wants competition, so far as practicable, on each station. If it is not practicable, then he need not have it: the Authority are not bound to provide it.
I do not want to suggest that the Committee should divide on this matter, because we are trying to do all we can to save time, but I would suggest that between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Viscount should think again about it, possibly after some more discussion. Obviously, he has had some discussion, but perhaps later on he may be able to see that what this Amendment seeks to achieve is that so far as practicable there should be competition existing on different stations. That is all this Amendment does. It is a little Amendment. I would have ventured to hope that he might have given it to us, but if he does not give it to us now I hope that on Report he will be able to do so, because I cannot see the slightest objection to it. It seems to me to be carrying out the principle of this Bill.
7.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am not especially concerned with the particular Amendment which is now before the House, and I have nothing to add to what
918
has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt; but the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is one of great importance, perhaps the most important that we have had on the Committee stage of this Bill. He has made it plain that over the country as a whole there will be national programmes, to be contributed to by possibly two or three different programme contractors. I do think that is a good arrangement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is my forecast.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Probably it will not be a mere coincidence if that forecast is fulfilled. But, from the point of view of a sound, economic, businesslike arrangement, I think that it is quite right. It is much better that there should be national programmes over a single national network and that they should be able—because it is a very costly business—to produce as good programmes as they can. But to suggest that if it is divided up between two or three that is open competition, is, I think, not justified. These two or three companies, of course, will have to concert between themselves about their programmes. They will not want to have the same programme on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, as they have on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. They will agree together on exactly what each of them shall do. They will arrange which artists, so called, are to be engaged by each one of them and the sort of salaries to be paid. In effect, the ultimate result will be, as we have forecast from the very beginning (because we foresaw all this), that owing to the nature of things—the number of channels and so forth—there will be set up in effect another monopoly, side by side with the monopoly of the B.B.C. You may say that that is a good or a bad thing, or question whether it would not be better to have the competition inside the B.B.C. as between the Home Service, the Light and the Third Programmes or as between Regional and National Programmes. That would be a better plan until we get a large number of channels with perhaps a great number of competing stations and very high frequencies. That is not being done, and I still think that, as the outcome of our whole discussion,

919
we are going to have a second commercial monopoly side by side with the public service monopoly of the B.B.C.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, felt it necessary to make that speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I were perfectly clear in what we said, and we had very much better stand by that. I am sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, thought I was trying to avoid giving an answer, but I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had really dealt fully with his point. The noble Viscount is quite right that the words of the Amendment he proposes are not completely binding; nevertheless we should feel we were to a very considerable extent tied by them. I feel strongly that at this moment, right at the beginning of this great new scheme, we ought to keep our hands as free as we can. We must remember we are not only legislating for to-day but for a considerable time ahead. I cannot help feeling it is not entirely fair to take up the position of noble Lords who present this Amendment, namely, "It does not really tie you to anything; it means nothing; nevertheless, we are determined to insist upon it." It seems a pity that, having achieved so much agreement, or at any rate come so much nearer to understanding each other's position, we should close this very useful and constructive discussion by a Division. It is entirely in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but I should have thought he had, from both the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself, an expression of opinion that brought us very closely into line with each other.
EARL JOWITT: I suggested we should not have a Division. I suggested that the noble Earl should include this matter in our talks. Does he reject that offer?
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to be unto-operative or dishonest, and it might suggest that during those discussions we should be able to accept this Amendment. That would not be really fair. We should be wrong to put anything in the Bill which in any way tied our hands in the future, and it would be dishonest for us to say that that point is open to discussion.
EARL JOWITT: At any rate, we will have a discussion with the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There is a very old rule of Parliamentary practice that an intention ought always to be put in a Bill. We certainly had that rule thrown at our heads again and again when we sat on those Benches.
EARL DE LA WARR: And we have had it thrown at our heads.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is the intention of the Government that there shall be two programmes, or that there shall be local competition as well as broadcasting competition between different regions. Therefore, I cannot really see why this simple Amendment or something like it should not be included in the Bill. But, of course, the noble Earl has been kind enough to say he will discuss this matter with us—
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, says he is going to discuss it with me. I said I cannot give any undertaking.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It takes two people to make a discussion possible, and unless the noble Earl can give us some assurance that he will discuss the matter, then we must assume there will be no discussion. I must confess that that is a great disappointment to us in view of the fact that noble Lords on both sides of the House accept the general principle. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time, but I feel that this is an Amendment which I cannot possibly withdraw.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, says he feels very strongly about this matter and he is evidently sincere. Some of us feel quite sincerely. Does this Amendment do him any harm? Assuming the truth of every word he says, will he not at least take a little more advice from those who advised him about the legal effect of the measure? It occurs to me he is entirely wrong in saying that we shall tie the hands of the I.T.A. It can do its best to secure, on every broadcasting station which it operates, adequate competition. That does not tie its hands in any way. It does not interfere with Goverment policy. If the noble Earl thinks it does, is he really going to be so stiff-necked that he will not even ask those who advised him about the legal effect of this Bill? It really does

921
not take away anything from the policy; it will give us something we sincerely want, and will exactly reflect the tone of the speeches which the two noble Lords on the Front Benches have given.
EARL DE LA WARR: There are certain matters in Parliamentary parlance that are very important. When you say an Amendment is a drafting Amendment, it must be purely drafting. When you say you are going to enter into discussions you must mean in your heart that you are prepared to consider adopting

CONTENTS

Listowel, E.

Darwen, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Lucan, E.

Derwent, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hailsham, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Quibell, L.

Samuel, V.

Henderson, L.

Sempill, L.

Kenswood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Carnock, L.

Mathers, L.

Simon of Wythenshawe, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Winterton, E.

Dovercourt, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Dunleath, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Gifford, L.

Furness, V.

Hampton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Exeter, M.

Hudson, V.

Hore-Belisha, L.

Reading, M.

Leathers, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ridley, V.

Leconfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Swinton, V.

Lloyd, L.

Bessborough, E.

Woolton, V

Mancroft, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Melchett, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Raglan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Remnant, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Saltoun, L.

Glasgow, E.

Blackford, L.

Sandford, L.

Howe, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Morley, E.

Brocket, L.

Munster, E.

Broughshane, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Teviot, L.

Radnor, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
7.20 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have a statement to make regarding future Business. First of all, I should like to say that it has been arranged through the usual channels that we should, if possible, get to Amendment 88 to-night, but it is not proposed to detain your Lordships until a very late hour. We are sure that the Committee will do its best to
922
your opponent's proposal. I cannot say that. I should feel that it was wrong to insert this Amendment in the Bill. I have told noble Lords very frankly what I think, which is in very close accord with what they think. I really do not want to be asked to put anything more into the Bill.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; No:-Contents, 60.
co-operate and enable us to reach our target.
It has also been arranged, with the kind consent of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, that his Motion on the Navy should be postponed until Tuesday, July 27. The reasons are that it is necessary to get the Television Bill through its Committee stage as soon as possible, and it is considered that an important debate like that on the Royal Navy should have the first place on the day on which it stands. I would add that noble Lords opposite have promised that we shall have completed this stage of the Television Bill tomorrow in reasonable time.

TELEVISION BILL
Committee stage resumed.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "control" to the end of the subsection. The noble Earl said: This is an important Amendment, but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to open up the matter and then adjourn for dinner. It is an attempt to deal with an extremely difficult and complicated problem. Your Lordships have not had much notice about it and I should like to start by saying that I shall very much welcome the advice and opinion of your Lordships. We are faced with a very real dilemma here. On the one hand, I think we are all agreed that it is most undesirable that a certain limited number of events—it may be only nine or ten a year, like the Cup Final and certain Test Matches—can be bought up and restricted to a small number of viewers. On the other hand, it would be grossly unfair to take action which would depreciate the value of selected events solely because they are especially popular and important, and that is what may be done by embarking on restrictive legislation against them.
In facing this problem we have this happy advantage: that the sporting promoters, most of whom are businessmen, and all of whom incur considerable expenses in organising these events, have shown during the last few years that we have every reason to trust them. Certainly the Government feel confident that the programme contractors themselves will want to handle this matter in a wise manner. Therefore I can say straight away that the background of the Amendments I am venturing to propose is the decision that we should try to leave the matter to voluntary arrangement. We propose to give the Postmaster General powers to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for broadcasting certain events to restricted audiences. What are the powers contemplated? First, the Postmaster General is given power to schedule a limited number of events—on the sporting side I would mention the Derby, the Grand National, the Australian Test Match and the Cup Final. The power to schedule these events will be subject to Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, nothing could happen until the Postmaster General had
924
come back to both Houses and laid a Resolution.
Secondly, there must be a request to the promoters to broadcast, both from the B.B.C. and from the programme company. That request must be made five months before the event. If the three parties are unable to agree on terms, or if the sum payable to the promoter has been agreed upon and they are unable to agree upon the allocation as between the B.B.C. and the programme company, they must go to arbitration. I should make it clear that right up to the point of going to arbitration the promoters will be free not to grant any facilities or, if they do so, to limit them to certain areas. Having agreed to negotiate, then all parties, including the promoters, will be bound by the arbitrator's decision. In skeleton form, those are the proposals which I propose to introduce into the Bill.
I have discussed them both with the B.B.C. and with the sporting promoters. Of course, the sporting promoters would prefer to have absolute freedom in the matter. Nevertheless, they note that it is not intended to operate this clause unless experience proves it is necessary. I would express the views of the Governors of the B.B.C. by saying that they have been consulted in the drafting of this clause and, being strongly in favour of the principle of non-exclusivity, they would be glad to see a safeguard in the Bill in these terms. They agree that it would be well to have such powers in reserve and that these powers should not be applied unless experience showed that they were necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out from ("control") to end of line 22.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I think it would be convenient for the Committee to adjourn during pleasure now and meet again at a quarter to nine.
[The Sitting was suspended at half past seven, and resumed at a quarter before nine o'clock.]
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Earl, the Postmaster General, has just made—"just" is perhaps not strictly accurate, and I should say recently made—an interesting and important statement about the televising of sporting events. I

925
think it would be rash to express a considered opinion about that statement until we have had an opportunity of studying it carefully in Hansard, but perhaps I might at this stage say two things. It looks to me as though the powers which the noble Earl wishes to take are powers which are essential to safeguard the interests of the public. I understand from what he said that the B.B.C. approves of the safeguards proposed. The essential thing is that, if a sporting event is televised, it should be available equally to a commercial company and to the B.B.C., and that position seems to be safeguarded by the powers which the noble Earl wishes to take. The second thing I want to say is this—and it is really in the form of a question. I cannot help wondering whether, as the promoters of these events will not be allowed to sell an exclusive right to televise whatever it may be for which they are responsible, they will, in fact, be willing to allow the Cup Final, the Derby, or whatever it may be, to be televised at all. I do not know whether the noble Earl, who has had discussions with the promoters of these events, reached a stage at which they made their intentions plain to him. Clearly, whatever their intentions may be, these powers are necessary, but I think it would be of interest to know whether the noble Earl has had any indication of how far the promoters of these important sporting events would be willing to allow television under the terms and conditions laid down in the new clause.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is only right that I should speak very tentatively here, because this is a ground over which we have to feel our way, and I want to be perfectly frank with the House. Briefly, the answer is that as the promoters will be under no obligation to sell their events, they are therefore in a position to state their own price. Therefore, it is up to them, before going to arbitration, to assess the price of their event, and if they open their mouths too wide and are unreasonably difficult, of course they will not sell it, and they will have to go without the money altogether. But if it is a reasonable price, then no doubt the two bodies will come together, and if they cannot come to an agreement, themselves go to arbitration.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask the noble Earl's guidance on this question? We want to do what we can in the way of time. This is a preliminary Amendment to the new Clause 5 and, after that, the Fourth Schedule. Whatever discussion we are to have, obviously we had better have it once, and not three times. Would this be a convenient time to have it?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think so.
EARL JOWITT: I understand the noble Earl has said that he has discussed this matter with the B.B.C. and they are satisfied?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. I actually read out the agreed statement.
EARL JOWITT: I am sorry. I was away for the moment but of course I accept that. I must say that I was in a state of alarm and despondency on reading the noble Earl's Fourth Schedule, because it seems to me that these things often have to be settled very quickly. I remember watching the Oval Test Match last year on television. We had finished here the day before the last day of the match and the broadcast was not due to come on, I think, until one o'clock. It was obvious that the Test Match might be over by one o'clock, and your Lordships will remember that it was arranged finally, with the consent of the cricket captains, that the broadcast should be started at eleven o'clock. Obviously that has to be done at the last moment. It was there done to the great satisfaction of those who, like myself, like watching cricket on television.
All this business in the Fourth Schedule about five months' notice seems to me to make matters very difficult. I am entirely at one with the noble Earl, and I hope that he will not think there is any controversy between us here—there really is not—if he would simply lay down this proposition: that where one of these two bodies, the I.T.A. as we call them for the moment, or the B.B.C., get some sporting event, then it should be open to the other to have it on reasonable terms. It seems to me that that would not be at all a difficult thing to arrange without all the elaborate machinery about five months and three months which is in the Fourth Schedule. If that is the substance of what the noble Earl wants, then I am entirely with him, because we are looking at the interests

927
of the viewer and are not concerned about the sectional interests of one or other of these two bodies. If there is nothing between us there, I would ask the noble Earl to look at it and ask the Lord Chancellor about it, who I am sure will advise him as to whether it would not be possible to make a much simpler clause than this, simply by inserting that where one of these bodies gets the right then they must allow the other body to have it at a price arranged, whether by arbitration or anything you like.
Subject to that, I will not say anything about the new clause, about Clause 5 or about the Fourth Schedule. There is nothing controversial between us here. I am greatly disturbed about the rigidity of the noble Earl's Fourth Schedule, and I cannot think that it is really necessary, if that is all he wants to achieve. It seems so simple to say that where one of these people gets an event, the other must have a right to have it at a fair price. There is no political issue involved here, so far as I know. Perhaps the noble Earl could look at it from that point of view, to see whether he could not scrap his Fourth Schedule and perhaps his new clause, and achieve on the whole a desirable result. If he can do that I should be entirely with him.
EARL WINTERTON: I feel that in the discussions up to now the principal point has not been brought out. It is all very well to say that there should not be rigidity of arrangement, and that arrangements should not be made a long time ahead. The real position is that the promoters of sporting events, here and across the Atlantic, have not yet made up their minds whether it pays them to televise. They have experts working on it and astounding figures have been produced on the other side of the Atlantic. Thousands of dollars have been lost by sports promoters through sports televising.
It should be made plain in your Lordships' House that we cannot say to these people that they have to do this or that; they must have an absolutely free choice in the matter. Nobody has any right to say, "I am going to televise this thing whether you like it or not." It is important to bring out the fact that this is an unknown quantity at the moment, and no one can tell what
928
consumer resistance there will be to the televising of popular sporting events.
EARL JOWITT: I agree with the noble Earl. I do not want to impose the right to televise. I do not think the Government contemplated it. I do not; nor, I think, does the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is simply machinery for dealing with the situation when all three parties, the promoters and the two broadcasting entities, are willing to come together. There is a very genuine difficulty about value, and I cannot give quite so simple an answer as the noble Earl would like. When I started, it seemed to me very simple, and I put in Clause 5 and hoped that it would deal with the situation. But I am not giving away any secrets when I say that the Government draftsman produced something like ten drafts on this subject: it has been the most difficult problem in the Bill. The problem is this: that while we do not want exclusivity in regard to these limited number of events—probably at most there are nine or ten—on the other hand, it is not fair to say that, because the event is particularly popular and particularly important, we propose to do something which will depreciate the value of it. It might end by £10,000 being paid for the St. Leger but only £5,000 for the Derby, because there cannot be exclusivity with regard to the latter. That would obviously be wrong and unjust. The moment you have said that there is no exclusivity, by that statement you have depreciated the value of that property. That is really why we want this rather complicated machinery, and it seems to me that we do get to the right point by saying that on the whole we are dealing with extremely decent, sensible people. Let us give them a chance to work this machinery among themselves, on a purely voluntary basis; but let us have in reserve these powers, which are not unalterable. If we find they are unworkable we shall have to come back to Parliament.
EARL JOWITT: Will that not prejudice a last moment decision?
EARL DE LA WARR: Speaking generally, if arrangements for a match are made and then are to be varied,

929
special arrangements will have to be made. I cannot see that it would prejudice the point. It is a very real point.
9.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend has asked us, in a sense, to think aloud because we have not had much time to consider this Amendment. There are two or three points that I should like to suggest for his consideration. In the first place, I feel that in our desire not to impose upon promoters of sporting events we must not lose sight of the interest of the public to see and hear the events. Nor, I think, must we lose sight of the fact that some sporting events, like the Boat Race, if I may give a simple example, can be televised at the expense of the promoter. The universities might be considered, in a sense, to have something to do with the Boat Race. Owing to the terrain upon which some other sporting events are held, they cannot be televised without the permission of the promoter. I feel that, on the whole, it is quite a relevant circumstance that the Boat Race is held on a public waterway and that the Grand National, say, is held on private property, because the promoter of the Grand National has an advantage which is not shared by the two universities who promote the Boat Race and who are certainly equally in need of funds and have less of a "gate" than the promoter of the Grand National.
Secondly, there is a technical point in this Amendment, I take it that an Amendment of this kind is not in order unless it is within the Long Title of the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord De La Warr has considered whether this Amendment is within the Long Title which describes the Bill as:
"An Act to make provision for television broadcasting services in addition to those provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and to set up a special authority for that purpose; to make provision as to the constitution, powers, duties and financial resources of that authority and as to the position and obligations of persons contracting with that authority for the provision of programmes and parts of programmes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
In point of fact, the Fourth Schedule, which is ancillary to the Amendment now under discussion, provides considerable arrangements for the regulation of the B.B.C. in relation to these sporting events.
930
That may or may not be intrinsically desirable, but I venture to think, with respect, that this Amendment could not be legitimately brought within the Long Title of the Bill without some Amendment to the Long Title. I should be obliged if my noble friend would consider that before he finally parts with the measure in this House.
There is a third point, and this, like my first, is a question of policy which I should like to submit for the consideration of my noble friend. This obviously requires interim provisions because, on any view, if the Amendment is passed the provisions of Clause 5 (2), which under the present Amendment are to be removed, will no longer be there. Clause 5 (2), on the whole, is designed—and it is, after all, the subsection which was originally provided, I think, by the Government and has survived the deliberations of another place—to safeguard the interests both of the B.B.C. and of all the television producers. It was designed to prevent what most of us would desire to prevent—that is to say, one particular television profiteer making a "corner." After all, you do not break a monopoly—and we are told that this Bill is designed to break a monopoly—by creating the opportunity to make a "corner."
The object of subsection (2), which is now to be amended, is to prevent anybody from making a "corner" in sporting events. It is now proposed to delete that provision so that, so far, there is no provision against making a "corner" in sporting events of this important kind. Nothing is to happen under the new code until first, the Postmaster General promulgates a statutory instrument and secondly, that statutory instrument is approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. That appears from the new Clause 6, subsection (5) which is ancillary to the Amendment. It follows, therefore, that the safeguard is to be deleted, and that nothing new is to be substituted for it until there is a statutory instrument and a positive Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That seems to me to be a little odd and, possibly, undesirable.
It seems to be odder still when we come to consider the nature of the new code. The purpose of the new code is, broadly speaking, to prevent exclusiveness

931
—"exclusivity" was the word used by my noble friend, though it has a doubtful parentage. To prevent exclusivity in relation to these sporting events there is to be introduced an elaborate new code which is to be substituted for the principle contained in the provision which, by this Amendment, is to be deleted. I say nothing against the new code. I think it will require a great deal more time for consideration than we have had to give it, but it does strike me as odd that the interim arrangement, if that is to be the new code, should consist in the deletion of the principle of non-exclusivity from the Bill. If this Amendment is passed, it seems to me that all the sporting producers will be as free as air to do all the things the new code is designed to prevent, and which the Government themselves consider it desirable to prevent, owing to the fact that their existing Bill prevents it. I ask my noble friend between now and the Report stage to consider whether there may not be something in these criticisms.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank noble Lords for their helpful remarks. I said at the beginning that I should be grateful for the wisdom of the House. If I may answer Lord Hailsham's question about the Title, I would say that I am advised that this would be within the Title, but, of course, if necessary the Title can be amended. I will make particular inquiry; but on my first inquiry I am advised that that is so. This makes quite a change in the nature of Clause 5 (2), because that was a provision—an extremely vague one, but still it was a provision—for taking immediate action. This did, as I stressed to your Lordships when I was putting this Amendment before you, say, to begin with, that we shall trust the promoters, the companies and indeed the B.B.C., and that nothing will happen until somebody starts making "corners." From the day this Bill becomes law, these people will be operating, knowing that the appointed day will be the moment anybody starts what the noble and learned Earl calls making "corners." It seems to me that on extremely new ground like this, that is really the right line to take, I can say that in so far as certain protection may seem to be removed from the B.B.C. by deferring these powers of non-exclusivity, they are themselves satisfied that this is definitely the wisest course
932
to take. Perhaps I may suggest to noble Lords that if we pass this Amendment now, nothing prevents further comments on the Report stage; and I say also that if after the passage of this Bill into law we find on further examination of the problem that we have not taken quite the right course, then we will have to see whether we cannot work out the really best solution.
9.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) During the currency of a contract between the Authority and a programme contractor, who is a body corporate, no transfer of control of that body corporate shall be made without the previous consent in writing of the Authority."
The noble Viscount said: This is a technical Amendment designed to deal with the question of the transfer of control in a body corporate. As your Lordships will realise, it is obviously of the essence of this matter that the I.T.A. should be satisfied with the personality of the programme contractor with whom it deals. That is a familiar topic of the law and indeed of commercial practice. A landlord will always desire to be satisfied with the personality of his tenant, and indeed there are many kinds of contract which no commercial man will enter into unless he is content with the satisfactory nature of the person with whom he is doing business. I think we shall all be at one about that. It therefore follows, and I think it is already in the Bill, that a contract of that kind may be readily assignable without the consent of the person with whom the contract is made. That, again, I think will be common ground. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a body corporate you are dealing with an entity which is sometimes strangely distinct from the persons who really control it, and the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that control of a body corporate with whom the I.T.A. is in contractual relations shall not, without the consent of the Authority, pass to somebody whom the I.T.A. consider unsuitable. I should have thought that this was largely a technical Amendment, designed to give effect to what was already the policy of the Bill but applying it more specifically to the peculiar conditions in which the I.T.A. will

933
operate when it is dealing with a body corporate instead of a flesh and blood human being or partnership. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the noble Viscount is going a little too far in this Amendment. He is, of course, quite right in saying that you must not make a contract with a person who is obviously disqualified under the clauses of the Bill which lay down whether a person is a legitimate or an illegitimate contractor. But, as he himself said, you may get the position where a contract has been made between the Authority and a company which is absolutely legitimate at the start; and then, as the years go on, the shares of that company may become quotable, if it is a successful company, and it may be that, without the knowledge certainly of the Authority, who could not possibly know, and very likely even of the company itself, a majority of shares pass into the hands of a certain number of disqualified people. Obviously, when that is discovered, then is the moment at which the company has rendered itself unsuitable. It must then arrange to get rid of the disqualification; otherwise it renders itself liable to be cut out of its contract.
At the start nothing can happen. I think that is common ground. Certainly the people who have invested perhaps a couple of million pounds in these undertakings are going to take the greatest possible care that their investment is not put in jeopardy by something that happens on the stock market. What the noble Viscount is really seeking to do here is to ensure that control does not pass without leave of the Authority. As the noble Viscount has pointed out, one must observe what that means in practice. When you get a public company operating it would mean that no shares could be transferred by ordinary sale on the Stock Exchange without the leave of the Authority. The Committee will observe at once that that would make those shares entirely unquotable. I once made my living out of Company Law; that was a long time ago, but the simple principles have not changed since then. I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that this Amendment, well-inten-
934
tioned as it is, places on the Authority an obligation that the Authority could not possibly discharge, and puts upon the programme contractor a liability which it would be quite unfair to ask him to incur. I am sure that with that explanation the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am disposed to think that there is a good deal in what my noble friend has just said, and for that reason at the close of these two or three sentences I shall certainly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, I think, with respect, that my noble friend has minimised the danger against which this Amendment was designed to guard. I was not primarily concerned with the question of controlling corporate bodies and others who, under the law as it will be under this Act, are actually disqualified. I take it that when that happens in one way of another the programme contractor will forfeit his time. I was looking at it from the point of view of suitability on more general lines. It is a fundamental right of persons who enter into business relations that they shall be satisfied in types of contract which depend largely upon the personality of the other party to it (and I give as an example the landlord and tenant, though there are very many other cases, such as one's tailor); it is a fundamental principle of law which must be considered that, where personality enters into the contract shall not be assignable without the leave or permission of the person Who is interested in the personality of the other party. In the case of a limited company that presents a difficulty of a kind on which the noble Viscount, with his experience as a company lawyer, can put his finger. But in a public matter of this importance some machinery ought to be evolved to guard against those difficulties. Therefore, although I now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, I ask the Government also to consider the danger against which the Amendment was designed to guard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of an Amendment, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) The Authority may require from time to time from the programme contractor such declarations, returns, documents and other information as the Authority, after consultation

935
with the Postmaster-General, may consider necessar or advisable for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of this Act are complied with."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The Bill so far as we have gone imposes a number of duties—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I might make an agreeable interruption if I told him that if he will strike out from his Amendment the words "after consultation with the Postmaster General" which add another complication to it, I shall be delighted to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: Most disappointing!
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, at end insert—
("(5) The Authority may require from time to time from the programme contractor such declarations, returns, documents and other information as the Authority may consider necessary or advisable for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of this Act are complied with.")—(Lord Silkin.)
9.19 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), after the first "in" to insert, "paragraph 4 of." The noble and learned Earl said: This is a most astounding position. I hope that I am going to meet with similar success, but I am afraid that I am not. These five Amendments, of which I should like to discuss the first two together, are matters of importance but not in any sense going to the structure of the Bill. If the noble Earl, the Postmaster General thinks it at all important that he should have some measure of consent from the Opposition to the passing of this Bill, he can get it if he can give us some assistance with regard to these five Amendments. The scheme of the Bill is that there is the Authority, and the Postmaster General (because I know him well) will take the greatest care, in setting it up, to get the most responsible and reputable Authority he can; he will want to do that because they have a responsible job to perform. I confess that I do not like the set-up of the programme contractors, but obviously the whole scheme turns upon the responsibility of the Authority, and I am sure that it will be a responsible Authority.
This Amendment deals with this situation. The Bill has a Third Schedule which contains four paragraphs. The first enables the Authority to require the provision by the programme contractor of scripts and particulars of the programmes, including advertisements. The second enables them to ask for the making of visual and sound records. The third reserves to them powers to forbid recording of certain descriptions of matter; and the fourth, more drastically, reserves to them power
"to require that nothing shall be broadcast without the previous approval of me Authority."
My plea to the Postmaster General is this. As he has this very responsible Authority, why cannot he trust them to make such agreements and take such steps as are reasonable and proper in all circumstances? They deal with the programme contractors by means of contracts. Why cannot they, as business men, put in their contracts what they like? Why must the noble Earl have this proviso—it will be understood, of course, that I am taking together Amendments Nos. 66 and 67. Why must the Postmaster General have the proviso that they are not entitled to stipulate for certain things unless they are frightened of an apprehended breach?
I think I am right in saying—there are many lawyers here—that the form of action in which you establish that you are frightened of a breach is called a quia timet action. It is so called because you are frightened, and you have to show that there are good reasons why you are frightened of a breach. I suppose the mere fact that in some other contract there has been a breach, or there have been breaches, is no reason why you should apprehend a new breach. I submit that this proviso is a very great limitation on the powers. What I want to do is this. At the bottom of page 9 your Lordships will see a proviso which, in effect, says that the Authority shall not be enabled by any such contract to exercise any such power as is referred to in the Third Schedule unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so having regard to a breach which they apprehend. I cannot see why you should not entrust this responsible Authority with complete freedom to make whatever contracts they like. I suggest that that is what is called for if there is to be happy working between the Authority and the programme

937
contractors, and I appeal to your Lordships, many of whom have much more knowledge of business than I have, to support me in this.
Would not the Authority say to the programme contractor: "We should like to see what you are going to do about this or that particular thing. Will you let us have the script"—or whatever it may be? I should have thought that if you have a responsible body to whom you have given power, you ought not to tie them up and say to them in effect: "You may not do that unless you can establish that you apprehend a breach"—which means that there is reasonable grounds for apprehending a breach. We are setting up this Authority who are in some position of control over the programme contractors—and I am glad they are—and I beg your Lordships to appreciate the position. If we take this Amendment to a Division I know I shall be defeated. I have only once had a Division with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the other side, which I won; and I have sat in this House for nine years. So I am accustomed to being defeated. The point of having a Division is really to show that the matter is one which we care about. I am going to suggest to my noble friends that on these five Amendments we do not divide, because that means that each Amendment would take about a quarter of an hour. But the fact that we do not divide does not mean that we do not care about these things; it does not mean that it is not desirable for the Government to try to meet us on the principle that it is always desirable to carry the other side with you if you can.
I believe I am right in saying that this proviso was put in during the proceedings in another place. I believe that as the Bill started out the proviso was not there. I regard the proviso as a very great misfortune and I suggest that if you want to have it (and I would rather have it out) you should make it plain that it relates only to the extreme powers in paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule. If you like, with regard to this matter, you could say that the Authorities must not, in their contracts, stipulate for certain things. I beg noble Lords to trust their own Authority. I cannot think it is desirable that the Authority should not be in a position to exercise some measure of supervision and control, if these programmes are to be the
938
sort of programmes we should like, and that they should be able to ask, for instance, for a script, of what is going to take place only if they can establish that they apprehend a breach of contract. I do not believe it is on those lines that the business ought to be conducted or will be conducted. It would be very much better if either this proviso were struck out altogether—it was put in, most unfortunately, I presume under pressure, in another place: I do not know how it happened—or if you want it in, it were limited to paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule and the Authority enabled to make in all contracts with the programme contractors such terms and stipulations as reasonable and sensible businessmen, whom I predicate them to be, think fit and proper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 43, after ("in") insert ("paragraph 4 of").—(Earl jowitt.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The appetite grows with eating. Although we gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on something which we thought improved the Bill, I say at once that I cannot hold out any hope of doing the same thing here. The noble and learned Earl said that what he proposes would make it better to conduct business: from all the business experience I have had, I think it would make the conduct of business extraordinarily difficult, and even impossible. We should not be putting it in for fun. The fact that we put it in would indicate that it would be frequently used. Why should the Authority have power to do this? And power implies something of a duty. What is the noble and learned Earl asking of these people? The Authority will select the most reputable programme contractors they can find, men of integrity, men who have sunk a million pounds in the enterprise they are conducting, and they are as interested as anybody else in seeing that it is properly conducted in accordance with the Act. We trust the B.B.C. over this: why not trust the people responsible in this case? The noble and learned Earl does not like the Bill. I know he does not want any alternative system. That we accept. But we decided that matter on Second Reading, and, having once decided that, do not let us cast a slur upon men of high repute who are going to conduct this business and treat them as if we assume that they are going to try and find a way round the Act

939
in every possible way. I say that advisedly. I believe these people are going to maintain as high a standard and certainly have as high a moral integrity as the B.B.C., and that is saying a great deal.
EARL JOWITT: I accept that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Very well. Observe what you are asking these people to do—"these people" being the programme contractors. If the Authority are going to have the power to do something, presumably they are going to exercise that power, or it would be foolish to put it in the Bill. I presume it is going to be exercised. How are these people going to conduct the business? They have a six to eight hour programme to fulfil and they have to deal all the time with different advertisers who are going to pay advertising fees. Anybody who knows anything about how a broadcast programme is framed, knows that it cannot be done in a hand-to-mouth fashion: it has to be dovetailed in, in hours, in half-hours, and sometimes in quarter-hours. They have to be negotiating all the time with the people who are going to pay for advertisements. It is going to be a whole-time, daily job and the people engaged in it must have the broadest discretion and the greatest facilities to close here and there and make arrangements with an actor who is going to perform or an advertiser who is going to pay them a fee. The noble and learned Earl, who had a tremendous commercial practice at the Bar, will know that the essential of all business is that you can go on doing your business from day to day, and that at any one moment you can close with a contract, whether big or small.
EARL JOWITT: All I am asking is that these bodies—they are both responsible bodies; I am not saying a word against the programme contractors or the I.T.A.—shall have freedom of contract, to make such contracts as they like. What is wrong with that?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You are not doing that at all. If they have this power, they obviously have a duty—the duty to require in advance provision of scripts or details of programmes, the making of records of programmes and their approval by the Authority. I say frankly to the
940
Committee—and I am sure your Lordships will agree that I have treated you with frankness, because I do not regard this as a political Bill, once we have passed the Second Reading—that if you did that it would make it much more difficult to get the right kind of people to come forward and put up their money.
We must divide upon this Amendment, because I can tell the noble and learned Earl that it is no good asking us to consider it between now and Report. This is fundamental with us. If the Authority suspect that the programme contractors are guilty of a breach, or are likely to be (I hope that it will not arise), then they should have this power to require all these things, even though that would gravely interfere with the man's business and cost him thousands of pounds. That is a perfectly fair power to give to the Authority, if they have reason to believe—it is not a question of their going to the court; they have to be satisfied in their own minds—that there is a risk. We really ought not to put it in otherwise. The noble and learned Earl says, "Just put it in; it does not mean anything." But you do not put in things that do not mean anything. If you put it in, you mean the power to be exercised. I say that it ought to be exercised only if they suspect that the contractor is going to transgress the Act or the contract.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Viscount has been addressing his Back-Benchers, and I did not hear the last part of his remarks.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry; I will repeat them. I say that it is a power which it is right the Authority should have if they have reason to suspect—and they are the sole judge of this—that the programme contractor with whom they have made a contract is likely to transgress the Act or the contract. It is not a power which ought to be given to them—a power costing thousands of pounds and interfering with the contractor's business—if there is no reason to suspect that he is not conducting his business in an honourable way. I have put the position fully and frankly to the Committee. As the noble and learned Earl has said, this is an important Amendment; it is one to which the Government attach great importance, and we must flatly stand on the principle as laid down in the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should not say that the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat is unreasonable, but I would say that I have never heard from anybody a more explicit assurance that he is deaf to reason, and is going to remain so. Therefore, it is with some feeling of trepidation that I ask him to look again at the actual terms of the Amendment proposed. I thought that in his enthusiasm for the causes which he has at heart he was losing sight of the fact that there was an Amendment before the Committee. It is the merits of that Amendment—if the noble Viscount will hear with me, and give me his attention and his ears, even if his mind, as he has said, is wholly closed to anything that may be said—that I desire to canvass.
The noble Viscount seems constitutionaly incapable of believing that anyone can put down an Amendment without desiring to go back on the Second Reading of the Bill. But I can assure him that if he looks more carefully at this Amendment he will find that its merits are far more modest than a revision of the Second Reading. As the noble and learned Earl who moved it has pointed out, this proviso is an Amendment which occurred to the Government only as an afterthought. It was not in the Bill originally, and in spite of what the noble Viscount has told us. I still adhere to the belief that in some respects, at any rate, it was put in by mistake. I will tell the Committee why I think it was put in by mistake. Under the provisions of Clause 5 (5), without the proviso it was originally laid down that the Authority should have the right, by a provision in the contract (and, indeed, I suppose in some circumstances the duty, although I must join issue with the noble Viscount in his statement that when you have a right conferred by an Act of Parliament you have a duty to exercise it always and on all occasions: it seemed to me that that was going a great deal too far), to exercise the powers of the Third Schedule presumably if they thought it right to do so.
Just look, for instance, at Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule. The Authority have the right to reserve to themselves power
"to forbid the broadcasting of any matter, or class or description of matter."
942
I myself should have thought that that was an essential means of being able to discharge the duty imposed upon them by Clause 3 (1) (b) of the Bill, which provides that the Authority shall satisfy themselves
"that nothing is included in the programme which offends against good taste or decency …"
I should have thought it was inherent in that that they would have the ultimate right forbidding certain classes of matter. Whether that be so or not, it is, I submit, clearly necessary to the Authority to have that right in connection with Clause 4 (5) which provides that:
"Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection … it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed and to carry out any direction which he may give them in those respects."
I cannot conceive how the Authority can, in Fact, comply with the provisions of Clause 4 (5) of the Bill as drafted if they are not to have the power conferred by Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule.
Moreover, under Clause 6 of the Bill it is the duty of the Authority to provide two advisory committees, and maybe more, and when they have done so to comply with their requirements. I see, too, that one of those advisory committees is to be
"a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with the standards of conduct in tie advertising of goods and services … to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors as to the principles to be followed in connection with the advertisements included as aforesaid."
When I see that that is the committee which they have to set up, and with whose directions they are bound to comply, then I cannot conceive how they can, perform the duty imposed upon them by Clause 6 (2) (b) and the following provisions of the Bill unless they have the right conferred upon them by Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule. If that be correct—and the noble Viscount has said nothing whatever to indicate that it is wrong—then why is it provided in the proviso to Clause 5 (5) that they cannot exercise that right unless they apprehend a breach?
After all, quite clearly, the obligation under Clause 3, the obligations under

943
Clause 4 (5), and Clause 6 (2) (b), arise irrespective of whether the breach is apprehended or not. I know that the noble Viscount's mind is closed, but I wish he would do me the courtesy of listening to my argument, which is meant seriously. I am concerned as to how this Authority can do the things imposed upon them by the provisions of the Bill, as drafted, if they are to be fettered in the way provided by the proviso. When I was asking myself for what purpose the proviso came into the Bill I discovered that it was not there at all until Back Benchers in another place proposed it; and it was carried. It is for that reason that I genuinely came to the conclusion that the proviso in its present form, whatever form it might ultimately take, was inserted in the Bill per incuriam.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does the noble Viscount suggest that if an Amendment is moved by a Back-Bencher it is accepted per incuriam and is always to be struck out?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount is to be forgiven for thinking that is what I said, for my last sentence was the only sentence to which he directed his attention. For the rest he was engaged in a happy conversation with the Leader of the House. The rest of your Lordships, I hope, thought better of my argument than that. If I may engage his attention for thirty seconds I would point out that I was not complaining that a Back-Bencher's Amendment was accepted in another place. Yesterday the noble Viscount said he had never been accused of discourtesy, but at least he is inattentive to a serious argument when it is presented to him.
I was designing to show, as I thought I had, that there were duties imposed upon the Authority by the Bill, namely, those in Clause 3, Clause 4 (5), and Clause 6 which could be carried out only if the Authority were given the right, irrespective of apprehension of breach, as it was given before the Bill was amended. If the noble Viscount really desires to take the House seriously and to listen to the argument, may I say that I tried to impress upon him the view that the obligation arises quite irrespective of breach. When I looked at the Bill and discovered the proviso was not originally in it I could only come to the conclusion that it
944
had been accepted by way of Amendment and accepted in its present form per incuriam. To suggest that I ever put forward my argument because I had some deep-rooted objection to the acceptance of an Amendment from a Back-Bencher is frankly a travesty of what I was saying and it can be explained only by the urgency of Government business which prevents the noble Viscount from listening to the speeches of Back-Benchers in this House.
Let me point out the merits of this modest little Amendment. I think its exact purpose the noble Earl tried to put forward in his speech. The protection of programme contractors against the unreasonable use of powers under the Third Schedule would, in fact, be fully safeguarded if you retained the safeguard in respect of Paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule, which reserves to the Authority the power to require that nothing should be broadcast without the previous approval of the Authority. For my part, I should be happy to agree with the noble and learned Earl that it would be reasonable to trust the Authority with a matter of this kind. But if the Government are not prepared to trust their own child—well, after all, parents are the best judges whether their child is to be trusted or not, and I can see that Paragraph 4 might be a little difficult to give to an untrustworthy Authority. If the noble Viscount, instead of asserting without the smallest justification that these Amendments are proposed from some devious motive to get round the Second Reading, would carefully attend to Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Third Schedule and tell me which of those he thinks essential, no doubt we could come to a compromise. I should have thought that Paragraph 3 was not essential. Not a word has been said by the noble Viscount to justify the imposition of a fetter on Paragraph 3. If the noble Viscount closes his mind to any argument and tells us in advance that, whatever we say, he is not going to be persuaded, and shows us by his evident lack of interest that he is not going even to listen to what we say, no further progress can be made.
EARL JOWITT: I am not going to seek a Division. A Division takes a quarter of an hour and we want to save time on this Bill. I am disappointed with the attitude of the noble Viscount. He can beat me in the Division Lobby, I agree,

945
but what I want him to do is to try to destroy my arguments. I do not think he has done that at all. Centuries ago a very distinguished judge, talking about public policy, said:
"It is a paramount feature of public policy that you are not likely to interfere with the freedom of contract,"
That I believe to be profoundly true. If you have a sensible body like the I.T.A. and, on the other hand, a sensible body of programme contractors, and you have certain duties cast upon the I.T.A., I cannot see why you should not allow them to make what contracts they like. I shall not carry this Amendment to a Division. Let it be negatived. That does not mean that I do not care about a Division. It means only that in the peculiar circumstances I am anxious to save time. And the only point of a Division in this House is to show that a matter is something which we regard as important.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.48 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in proviso (a) to subsection (6), after "any" to insert "first". The noble and learned Earl said: This Amendment can be put shortly. The machinery of the Bill is this. It is provided in the Bill that the maximum penalty is to be £500. It seems to me that that is quite right in the case of the first breach, but if there is a second breach which may be a glaring breach, or even a third breach which may be still more glaring, I cannot see why the discretion of the arbitrator or judge or whoever it may be should be fettered in this way. I seek simply to make the £500 maximum penalty apply to the first breach. I ask your Lordships to say that with regard to the second and third breaches there is no reason why this limitation should apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, after ("any") insert ("first").—(Earl jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl has put his point clearly and briefly. He feels that the present sanctions for a second and third breach are too slight. I think we have to look at the powers of the I.T.A. as a whole. The fact of the matter is that not only have the Authority already the power to
946
fine a company three times, but they have much more drastic powers than that. We know that after three offences the contract may be terminated, but what I do not believe the noble and learned Earl has appreciated—and I am not sure that noble Lords opposite have; I only wish I could persuade them on this point—is just how drastic all the powers contained in the Third Schedule really are. The noble Lord talks as if paragraphs 3 and 4 are the only really drastic ones; but if only we could picture ourselves trying to run an organisation of this character and being asked, under paragraph 1, to show all our scripts in advance—just imagine what that really means, and the gravity of such a request. I hope, looking at the sanctions as a whole (and I make no apology for bringing in the Third Schedule on quite a different matter), that your Lordships will feel that the sanctions as they stand are really satisfactory. If we make them heavier all we shall do is to preclude really careful, reputable business from coming in.
EARL JOWITT: We will not spend more time on it. We realise now that the attitude of the Government is completely non-co-operative in regard to all these matters. What I say is that if you have a case where the breach is of such a grave character that the arbitrator decides that £500 is the appropriate penalty in the first case, and then you have a second breach, I cannot for the life of me understand why the same limitation should apply to the second breach as to the first; and if you have a third breach, I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be the same limitation for the third as for the second and the first. That is the point on which I should have thought the Government could easily have given way to us, because, obviously, we have here what every man will agree, apart from Party politics, is a case which ought to be met. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (6), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble and learned Earl said: I have not the slightest hope of getting this Amendment, but may I just say this about it. I had at one time in my life as much experience in arbitration as anybody ever had, and

947
I have a very high regard for arbitrations. In certain classes of matters arbitrations are much better than lawsuits. I remember very well that I used to go to the London Corn Exchange, and there used to be disputes about the quality of a cargo of corn. After proper samples had been taken—and sampling is itself an art—experts would take some of this corn, look at it in their hands, blow on it and say, "I think you have to make an allowance of 5s. a quarter." If you had to have such matters decided by a court of law, you would have experts on both sides contradicting each other, and the unhappy judge, who knew nothing about corn whatever, would have to do his best to come to a conclusion. Let it not be said that I am opposed to arbitrations. I believe they are in proper cases most admirable institutions.
There are certain weaknesses, however, about arbitrations, and two occur to me. I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree with me that where there is a point of law, then in an arbitration the arbitrator can be asked to state a case for the opinion of the court. Thereupon the case which the arbitrator states has to go to the court; there can be an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and if the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords give leave, if it is important enough, there can be an appeal to the House of Lords. Lord Reading and I had experience of this in the old days in the commercial court. Everybody knows that it is apt to be a very lengthy procedure; the mixture of arbitration and law takes a very long time. That is one disadvantage of arbitration, where you are dealing with what turns out to be a question of law as opposed to mere questions of fact about the quality of goods. There is another difficulty which I think makes me decide against arbitration, and that is that in arbitrations you do not have publicity. I am one of those who are old-fashioned enough to believe that publicity is of tremendous importance in the law. If it were not that our cases were reported in the papers and the fierce light of publicity beat upon us, I do not think our justice would be nearly as good as it is.
Of course, not having publicity in an arbitration is undesirable, but it is also undesirable in that you do not get points
948
decided. If you have a case heard before a judge in court, then you get a decision on the case, which is reported and is available in other cases. If you have an arbitration you get no decision which can be relied upon in other cases. In the sort of arbitration that we are contemplating here, it seems to me that you may very well want guidance. You are not dealing with the quality of goods or anything of that sort; you are dealing with whether there has been a breach of contract, whether the programme is or is not in accordance with all the stipulations we have been discussing. That being so, I would ask the Committee to say this: not that we should stipulate either for arbitration or for law, but that we should leave it for the parties to decide amongst themselves. They can, if they are so minded, have arbitration, but if they cannot agree then they go to law. I believe that that would be by far the better method. I would therefore ask the noble Earl not to insist upon arbitration but to give the parties the right, unless they agree to arbitration, to go to law about this thing.
I welcome the fact that by going to law there is complete publicity. I welcome the fact that by going to law you get a decision that can be quoted in other cases. I cannot charge my memory for certain, but I believe that in many cases in the lifetime of the last Government the Opposition, as they then were, now the Government of the day, pressed for this particular point, saying that a man should not be deprived of his right to go to the law courts and to go before Her Majesty's judges. Therefore I would beg the Committee not to insist on arbitration here as a condition of getting three times over this £500, which cannot be increased. I do not for a moment suppose that the Amendment will be agreed to; perhaps it may not even be answered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In the first place there is no difficulty about going to law if the parties want to. I think it is worth while looking at the two Amendments that we have just considered. It is unusual in contracts to put in a penalty

949
clause at all, and if it is put in it is unusual for the courts to recognise it. I think we are on common ground there. In the first Amendment that we had before this, it was proposed that the penalty which could be imposed should be unlimited—any amount at all, like the fortune of the Count of Monte Cristo. In the second Amendment which the noble and learned Earl has just moved, the I.T.A. is to be judge, jury and prosecuting counsel in one on fines—in other words to be the sole judge as to whether a breach has taken place and as to what amount is to be paid. That is the effect of the noble and learned Earl's Amendments. I do not know whether that is what he intended.
EARL JOWITT: It is certainly not what I intended.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should be astonished if an ex-Lord Chancellor had said that it was what he had intended, but in fact that is what his Amendments mean. At the present moment, taken together, these Amendments are quite ridiculous, for the reason, of course, that no reputable company would join in a contract with a penalty clause in regard to which the amount imposed was controlled by the sole fiat of one of the parties to that contract. That is completely ridiculous. The noble and learned Earl spoke about arbitration taking a long time. I think the point is that either the company want to do the job or they do not. If they want to do the job, then, frankly, criticism will have some effect. If it does not have effect, then the whole force of the Third Schedule comes into play, for, at the moment there is any difficulty about it there is obviously apprehension about a breach of contract, so that the terms of the Third Schedule come into play. Such as it is, arbitration is there. If the noble and learned Earl has any proposal for hastening arbitration, I am sure we should be glad to hear it, although I do not know how we can do that. There is ample power for the I.T.A. to see that its duties are carried out, and the terms of the Third Schedule, paragraph 1, are fully fulfilled. But as the terms of the Amendments stand, I do not think we can consider them.
EARL JOWITT: I certainly never meant that this body should be the judge
950
and jury—that is the last thing I wanted. If my phraseology is wrong, I will apologise. But this question is as between arbitration and going to law. That is a point that I made perfectly plain in my speech and, though this is what I anticipated in this Bill, it is rather ridiculous to take me up on that point. I did not mean that that would happen, and the whole train of my speech was to point out that this was a case for a judge, rather than for arbitration, because of the question of publicity. The point of principle was decided. I do say, with respect to the noble Earl who answered, that what he said is not in accordance with the best traditions of this House. I have, in conducting this debate, attempted in every way to shorten the time. I have done everything I can to help. To be answered in that way does not assist. It is hardly courteous.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I reinforce what the noble and learned Earl has just said. After all, this is a Parliamentary discussion on an important matter and these Amendments are brought forward in good faith. We are asking for nothing more than courteous and fair consideration from the Government. I have come to expect rough handling from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, but I expected something better from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Innocently, of course, he has completely misled this House as to arguments contained in these Amendments. I am not going back, as he found it necessary to do, to a previous Amendment which has already been negatived. Under the Bill as now drafted the Authority may say to a programme contractor, "You have broken your contract, you must pay the penalty"—which is any sum up to £500. The programme contractor says, "No, what I did does not constitute a breach of contract." The Government say that this is a fine—that word was used by the noble Earl, the Postmaster General. But fines are not exacted in private, in my experience, in any rational or civilized system of law. What the Government say is, "Although we call it a fine, we are going to enact by Act of Parliament that you shall not go to Her Majesty's judges. You are not allowed to." If the party breaking the contract, or alleged to have broken the contract, does not agree, neither side can go to Her

951
Majesty's judges. I call that an insult to constitutional law in this country.
I do not know why Her Majesty's judges are not considered proper persons to discover whether or not there has been a breach of contract, and I wish the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is no doubt in charge of the legal side of this Bill, would tell me what is wrong with using Her Majesty's judges—the people he appoints—for this purpose, to say whether or not there has been a breach of contract. The noble Earl says that the Amendment would make the Authority the judge, jury and prosecutor in its own case. That is pure rubbish. There should be a clear statement from the Government, from those who are qualified in law to correct the false impression made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The effect of passing this Amendment, as was made plain by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—and there is no excuse for misunderstanding—would be that the Authority would be in a position to issue a writ in the ordinary courts of law, in the ordinary way that any other party to a contract is entitled to do.
The effect of the Bill as drafted is to provide secret justice for contract-breakers, in order that the public shall never know what they are alleged to have done. That is the real difference between us here. It is quite ingenuous for the noble Earl to say that the effect of our Amendment would be to make the Authority the judge, jury and prosecutor in its own case, because in fact the opposite is true. I cannot tell your Lordships in too plain language that what the noble Earl has told us—no doubt in all good faith—is the opposite of the truth. The effect of this Amendment is to enable the Authority to go to the courts. The effect of the Bill as it stands is to forbid them to do so. What the Government are providing is secret justice. What the noble Earl has not said in his speech in support of this present situation is why he wants secret justice, why he wants arbitration. I am not suggesting that arbitration is not very suitable for settling disputes when both parties agree. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has spoken of the many advantages which follow when both parties agree to arbitration, though
952
we have all known of many cases unsuitable for arbitration. I want to know why in this case arbitration is being imposed on the Authority by force of law.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says that it is extremely unusual for contracts to carry a penalty clause. With respect, the noble Earl is entirely mistaken about that. It is comparatively common for contracts to carry a penalty clause in the way in which this Bill proposes. The ordinary law with regard to the penalty clause is this. Under the ordinary law of contract a penalty clause is enforceable to the extent that actual damage can be proved. Obviously, in the nature of events, the Independent Television Authority will seldom, if ever, have suffered any actual damage, so the penalty clause under the ordinary law would be unenforceable. In return for that, the Government have properly inserted a provision to the effect that the original Common Law should be enforced, that a penalty clause should be enforced, with a penalty in a liquidated sum. What is wrong with letting Her Majesty's judges determine that question? Instead of telling us that, the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government has made a speech which might almost be described as insulting. As I have said, the noble Earl has told us what is really the opposite of the truth. He says that he does not want to go to the courts at all. It is all very well for the Government to ask for co-operation in Bills of this kind. None of us wants to protract business unnecessarily, but if in fact Peers of Parliament are to be treated in this insulting way, by having proffered to them the insolent kind of rubbish which the noble Earl has just given us. I can only say that the Government are not going about matters the right way to get co-operation.
10.8 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I think the noble Viscount who has just spoken has made an important point in drawing attention to the fact that in the ordinary way arbitration proceedings are conducted in private. It is well known in the legal profession that a certain type of insurance company which is proposing to rely on a release clause so to speak—a warranty—insists on having its disputes submitted to arbitration, for the very reason

953
that by doing so it avoids publicity, publicity which it has good reason to fear will deter other people from seeking insurances with it. It is important that, if there are breaches of the kind to which the noble Viscount has drawn attention in connection with these contracts, there should be as wide publicity as possible, in order that people should know what is going on. These disputes ought not to be settled behind closed doors, completely away from the light of day and with no reporters present. I should have thought that there was obvious reason, in some of these cases at any rate, for providing that the matter should be decided in the ordinary courts of law. Apart from that, the problem involved in most of these cases will be whether or not there has been a breach of contract. That is a question of law which a lay arbitrator is not really competent to decide, and which can be carried, as a matter of law, from the arbi-trator into the courts. The noble Viscount, who is the author of one of the best-known books on the subject, might well have pointed that out in his speech. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a reasonable case for the acceptance of this Amendment, and I suggest to the Government that they should think about it again.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know why the noble and learned Earl should think that what I said was insulting. I was arguing purely on the facts. If noble Lords feel strongly about this, we are prepared to consider that the amount of the penalty should be settled by the I.T.A., instead of by an arbitrator. Our purpose in referring it to an arbitrator—there was no question of being secret about it—was with the idea of making it more expeditious. This is quite a normal way of doing it; there is nothing unusual about it. There is no question of short-circuiting the courts. In the whole range of the contract the matter can be taken to law. If the noble and learned Earl wishes to discuss the possibility of making the amount of the penalty subject to the I.T.A., I am authorised to say that we are prepared to consider that.
EARL JOWITT: That is much more satisfactory. Never before have I thought the noble Earl was the least discourteous;
954
in any observations he made. Maybe I took him wrongly, but I thought he was discourteous in the way in which he referred to me in my Amendment. His observation that he was surprised that an ex-Lord Chancellor should move this Amendment was lacking in courtesy. If I misunderstood him, I am very glad to say so. I am all for harmony being restored, and I gladly acknowledge what he has now said. I never had the slightest intention of letting these people be judge in their own cause, but I thought that the matter should be decided by a judge and not by an arbitrator. But this is one of the matters which we might consider between now and Report stage to see whether we can get harmonious agreement. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I should like to make one point. I can assure noble Lords that it is not our object to be offensive in any way whatever, but in debate we all put our cases a little more strongly than we do in private conversation. I did not get the impression that my noble friend was in any way offensive in what he said. But I am afraid I can hardly say the same about the noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, who, rising to rebuke the noble Earl, said the Government's case was infamous rubbish.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Not "infamous"; I said "insolent," which was exactly what the noble Earl had said. I should not have applied that epithet because my epithets, if intended to hit, are not intended to hit wildly. I said "insolent rubbish."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a far more offensive phrase than that used by my noble friend or has ever been used by him. We are accustomed to the noble Viscount in this House and we do not pay too much attention to the words he uses, because his method of persuading us to his point of view is gratuitously to insult us in every speech he delivers.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to say that the very last thing I want to do is to insult either him or his colleagues.

955
Believe me, if I have said anything in the heat of debate which either wounded them or could be considered personal, I am very sorry. But let me tell the Committee this. I have put forward three or four Amendments, all carefully drafted; and on every one of them the Leader of the House—not the noble Marquess, but the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—went out of his way to pay absolutely no attention to what was said, to talk loudly to his colleagues, to chatter with those on the right and left of him. When I begged him to pay attention, he did nothing. When the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who after all is an ex-Lord Chancellor, proposed an Amendment, he was told by the Government representative something which, compendiously stated, though no doubt innocently, was the opposite of the truth and ridiculed him for his pains.
This is a House where there is a large Government majority which can carry its will whenever it wants to. I am in the painful position of differing from some of my colleagues in this respect. If I hit back, I hit hard, without the desire to be offensive. But for a minority to be treated as the Government have, I feel, treated us this evening, is enough to make us strike home when we feel they have been less than courteous. I may tell the noble Marquess at once that if I have hurt anybody's feelings, I am sorry for that. I do hope that the Committee will believe me when I say that, despite the last and rather—I was going to use the word "offensive," but the last rather savage remarks of the Leader of the House, and it is not the first time he has attacked me personally. After all, our debates are in a Parliamentary Chamber, and if all appeals to reason and good sense are ignored, then it is for the Government to be conciliatory to those who differ from them. I feel that the Government have been less than conciliatory and less than courteous to those who put down Amendments to-day, and less than reasonable in the use of their majority. I do hope the noble Marquess—while I say at once that I certainly do not want to pursue a personal quarrel, either with him, or with the noble Earl to whose assistance he came—will realise that if he persists in personally wounding Members of the
956
House, he must expect them to hit back, because we are none of us going to be bullied in this way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: think the noble Viscount is rather new to this House and he does not yet understand its ways, but no doubt he will in time. This House is not like another place. There is no Speaker in this House, and the rather invidious duty of maintaining the standards of the House falls upon the Leader of the House, although he is a Party Leader and is, therefore, often put in a position of some embarrassment. All I intended to say in my remarks was that there is a certain manner of speaking which is the custom in this House, and which has been scrupulously observed by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, throughout this debate. But the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says he speaks sharply, and he then says to me that I wish to personally insult. That is not so. All I am concerned to do is to maintain the general standards of this House, to which the House has been accustomed. As nobody else can do it but the Leader of the House, it is for that reason that I have spoken as I have.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should like to say one more thing to the noble Marquess. The last thing I wish is to pursue this matter. I do sincerely want the noble Marquess to believe that I speak from the heart when I speak, and I shall never speak very much otherwise. I tend to mean what I say. I have never tried, and never shall try, to curry favour with an audience, and I regard it as a courtesy to them not to do so. I am certainly not concerned to embitter feelings in this House. It is not altogether kind of the noble Marquess to remind me that I am comparatively new to the House—I have been here only four years. I have tried to take part in these debates, and I am bound to say that I have felt, perhaps wrongly, that the noble Marquess has not been altogether courteous in some of his dealings with me. However, I hope that now, if what he says is correct, we can put matters on a basis where things of this kind will not occur again. If only he would be conciliatory I should be grateful and would try and be so too.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Viscount that I have no personal feelings about this matter at

957
all. Indeed, the position in which I am placed, or the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, would be placed if he were sitting on this side of the House, is not one which is very easy or pleasant. But I know that there has been a feeling in the House that, perhaps not intentionally, the noble Viscount has been rather too sharp, and the arguments that he has used, though perfectly legitimate, halve been barbed rather too acidly for the usual custom of this House. I am sure that the noble Viscount will take that remark in the spirit in which it is intended, and I assure him again, most sincerely, that there is nothing personal in what I say. I am merely acting as I felt it was necessary to act, as one to whom the general maintenance of the standard of the House is entrusted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I accept that in the spirit in which it is offered? I do want the noble Marquess to realise that if my remarks have been barbed it is because I have felt wounded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.22 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to omit the proviso to subsection (7). The noble Earl said: Now that we have let off a certain amount of steam, I hope all of us will be happier. I think the opposition are entitled to this and this only: if they put their case simply and courteously, I think they are entitled to a simple and courteous reply. I notice the noble Lord is engaged in conversation. I was indicating that I thought the opposition were entitled to this: that so long as they put their case simply and courteously, they are entitled to a simple and courteous reply. I am sure that the noble Earl did not intend to be discourteous on the last occasion. I gladly accept his assurance, and I am sure that on this occasion he, or whoever is going to reply, will reply simply and try to meet the arguments, because although they can beat us in the Division Lobby the real point is, do they beat us in the argument?
I now come to Amendment No. 70 to which I attach great importance. Subsection (7) of Clause 5 provides a right to the Authority to give a notice determining the contract, so far as I am concerned, in the event of a breach. I should like it to be quite plain that I do not ask the Authority to be judge in
958
their own case. Might I have the attention of the noble Lord who is to reply? I am addressing a serious and short argument, and it would be much more convenient if I might have the attention of whichever noble Lord is going to reply. I am saying that in the event of a breach they are entitled to issue a notice terminating the contract. As far as I am concerned, it certainly should be the fact that that notice should be issued only if a court thinks it proper. I presume that to be so. If it is an arbitrary notice I do not want it to be so decided. But there is a proviso to this clause, and the proviso is that the contract is to provide that no notice is to be given unless the contractor has been held liable in respect of breaches of the contract on at least three separate occasions. I have already indicated the length of time before the finality of the judgment—because it is quite idle to talk about the I.T.A. fining these people; it is the work of the arbitrator and possibly the court afterwards. It may be as much as a year, and, indeed, if you are going to have a case stated, that is not at all an excessive period. If you are going to have this happen three times as a condition of terminating a contract, that seems to me quite wrong, and I would ask the noble Lord to see whether he does not agree that that is so.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these programme contractors are irresponsible people, but I am suggesting that the duty of the I.T.A. is to supervise what they are doing, and if the programme contractor is guilty of a serious breach of contract then I cannot see why it should not be possible for the contract to provide that the I.T.A. may terminate the contract, if necessary going to the court to get a decision of the court. But to say it cannot be done until three breaches have been committed seems to me quite wrong and without precedent. I speak subject to correction, but I rather think that this is another of the Amendments which were put down in another place. I rather think that this was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. The Postmaster General will know. Whether that is so or not, I think it is a thoroughly bad provision and I would very much rather that it should not be limited in this way. It should be at large, without this proviso. In those few words—and I hope I shall

959
have an answer which bears upon the question, for I am not in the least ashamed of this Amendment—I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 45, leave out the said proviso.—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I find it rather difficult to answer this because I do not want to be guilty of repetition. Naturally I want to give the noble and learned Earl a full and courteous reply, but I think he would agree that this Amendment comes within the orbit of the four or five stiffening-up penalties for breach of contract. This Amendment means that the I.T.A. can terminate a contract without three breaches of the contract having taken place. The answer is really the same. If we are going to stiffen up the penalties, we are not going to get reputable companies to come in. We feel—I feel it very strongly—that the termination of the contract ought to be the last resort, and I again ask the noble and learned Earl, at the risk of repetition, to read the Third Schedule which can be used as such a tremendous source of power, as a powerful sanction. Surely he will agree that it is very much better that the Authority should, by the use of these comparatively moderate powers—I say "moderate" only as compared with the termination of the contract—bring an erring company back on to the rails rather than terminate the contract in the very early stages of the erring.
EARL JOWITT: It is a contract we are talking about. I do not say that the I.T.A. will put this in the contract, but, being sensible business men, they will be better able to judge what is appropriate to the contract than I am. Therefore why prevent them from putting it in?
EARL DE LA WARR: If they do not put it in, or having put it in they do not operate the power, there is really no point in it. We feel that the termination of the contract should be the final step that is taken. By the nature of it, it is final, and it should be used only in the ultimate resort. That is definite Government policy. I do not see how, without a fundamental alteration of Government policy, the noble and learned Earl can ask us to make this very great change in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think we are asking in this Amendment for anything that is at all unusual. The normal thing in any relationship between two business people making a contract is that if one party commits a breach the other has a right to put an end to the contract. There are, of course, minor breaches which are not material, but if there is a material breach of contract it automatically normally gives the right on the part of the other side to bring the contract to an end. I have never come across a case where one of the contracting parties is entitled to break a contract three times before the contract can be put an end to, however serious the breach may be. I feel that this is a matter which ought to be looked at again. This is the most unusual arrangement that I have ever seen in any form of contract that has ever been presented to me. Personally, I am not very much interested in the penalty. I do not think a maximum penalty of £500—it is a maximum—will be a serious deterrent or will be very important, having regard to the large sums that may be involved in the contract.
The noble Earl can visualise, I am sure, serious breaches of contract which ought in the public interest to give rise to the normal remedy, namely, for the Authority to be able to put an end to the contract. The thing which one fears is that there may be serious breaches, but the Authority will have to wait until those serious breaches have taken place on three occasions before the contract can be put an end to. I suggest that that is something that ought to be reconsidered. You could, if you liked, say that they had to be serious breaches. Of course, nobody would suggest that the Authority should put an end to a contract because of a minor or technical breach. It is quite a common thing to define what is a serious breach or even, if you like, to define the kind of breaches which would give rise to the remedy of terminating the contract. I certainly think that this matter should be looked at again.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to ask the noble Earl who is replying for Her Majesty's Government whether the intention of this clause is, in fact, that the Authority should not be able to put an end to a contract in the event of one fundamental breach taking place. The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat

961
has pointed out one elementary proposition of law, that in the ordinary way a fundamental breach of a contract gives the innocent party the right to rescind the contract. I am not quite clear whether the intention of this clause is to take that right away. If the noble Earl says it is, I ask him whether he has been advised that the proviso is effective to that purpose, because it is a very complicated proviso. It seems to me, as a lawyer, that it is questionable whether in fact it achieves that object.
EARL DE LA WARR: In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I would direct his attention to Clause 5, subsection (8), where he will see that that subsection preserves the Authority's Common Law remedies. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. There is no question, from our discussion, that the noble Lords opposite are concerned about these provisions. I am not going to give any undertaking whatsoever, but, if they would like to talk with me on this matter between now and Report stage, I shall be happy to do so. We want to get this Bill through with a certain amount of mutual understanding, and I do not think there is any question that we must undertake to talk when we realise that the other side is really deeply worried on a matter.
EARL JOWITT: I should like to have a discussion with the noble Earl, if only to elucidate this question—I do not expect an answer now, but I mention it. It is the question Lord Chorley asked. Suppose there has been a fundamental breach of the contract which, under the normal contract law, would entitle the innocent contracting party to say, "You have breached the contract; you have repudiated it. I shall accept that repudiation and the contract is ended." Suppose that happened before there had been these three fines—because the three fines will generally cover a period of three years—is it, or is it not, within the power of the I.T.A. to terminate the contract? As subsection (8) of this clause is drafted at the present time it seems to me exceedingly difficult to know what the answer to that question is. I think it ought to be possible for the Parliamentary draftsmen to make that matter so plain that anybody can understand it. I do not ask the noble Earl to answer that question now, but I have raised it in the presence
962
of the Parliamentary draftsman and I should like to discuss it, because, having raised this question now, the noble Earl will be able then to give me a perfectly clear and categorical answer. In the meantime, although I regard this as a question of importance on which I should normally have divided the Committee, in view of the lateness of the hour I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.37 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to add to subsection (7):
"Provided however that in any event the Authority shall not be bound to transmit any matter contained in a programme the transmission of which would, in the opinion of the Authority, constitute a breach by the Authority of any of the obligations imposed under Section 3 of this Act or expose the Authority to proceedings for defamation or criminal liability for the publication of seditious, blasphemous, or obscene matter."
The noble Lord said: This Bill, and Clause 5 in particular, confers a great many powers on the Authority, and of course lays down many conditions which should be included in the contracts with the programme contractors. But nowhere does there seem to be the power set out in this Amendment—namely, a power whereby
"the Authority shall not be bound to transmit any matter contained in a programme the transmission of which would, in the opinion of the Authority, constitute a breach by the Authority of any of the obligations imposed under Section 3 or expose the Authority to proceedings for defamation or criminal liability for the publication of seditious, blasphemous, or obscene matter."
It would seem such a power should be conferred on the Authority, and that the Authority should have a complete discretion, within the four walls of the conditions laid down in this Amendment—that is, that in the opinion of the Authority there might be a breach or that there are possibilities about proceedings for defamation, et cetera.
It would seem reasonable and proper that the Authority should not be under any compulsion to transmit any matter which would come within those two conditions. I am aware that in the Third Schedule it is proposed that there shall be power in contracts to forbid the publication of certain matter, but that is not quite the same thing. Here, if your

963
Lordships pass this Amendment, before any difficulty has arisen, it will be possible for the Authority to decline to transmit any matter coming within the purview of the Amendment. That would seem a very desirable provision. Your Lordships will know of cases in which the B.B.C. have been concerned—not many of them, because I think the B.B.C. must have some similar power—but in any event it is even more desirable that this power should be conferred upon the Television Authority than upon the B.B.C. I submit to your Lordships that there should be this overriding power, which is a moderate one and one which can be exercised only within the four walls of the conditions laid down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
EARL DE LA WARR: This is an Amendment that I had definitely marked down to accept, until I looked at it more carefully; then I felt that there were reasons that could influence not only myself but also the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. I gather that the Amendment does not involve a question of policy, of control of the companies; it is more a matter of protecting the I.T.A. I have looked into that, and I can assure the noble Lord that that is quite unnecessary, because the I.T.A. are already entitled, without incurring penalties, to refuse to lay themselves open to criminal prosecution or to civil proceedings for defamation.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Where is that laid down?
EARL DE LA WARR: That, I think, is the general law of the land—that nobody need take steps that will render him liable to criminal prosecution. But if, contrary to the legal advice that I have received, the legal advisers of the I.T.A. take a different view, then they can doubtless advise the I.T.A. to insert additional safeguards in the contract. To put it shortly, that means that this Amendment is not necessary. Supposing that we were to say "although it is not necessary, it will do no harm; we will put it in the Bill," we should then have to ask ourselves exactly how it is to be operated. There are only two ways in
964
which this can be done. One is by having a permanent monitor watching the programmes, and to arm that monitor with powers immediately to switch off a programme, which is turning him into a censor. The second way would be by allowing scripts to be demanded in advance, which would mean dropping the proviso to Clause 5 (5); and that would mean that scripts would be demanded as a general rule and without apprehension of the likelihood of a breach of the contract. There we really come down to policy. We should either have to say that we are going to have a permanent monitor, sitting as a censor, or that we are going to allow scripts to be demanded, as of right and as a normal procedure, from a perfectly respectable company that has never committed an offence and is never likely to commit an offence. Certainly those reasons convinced me that I should be wrong to accept this Amendment, and I trust that they have convinced the noble Lord.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Whilst I cannot accept the first proposition put forward by the noble Earl, I think that possibly I must admit the accuracy of the difficulty arising on his second proposition. I fully appreciate that there may be difficulty, without recourse to scripts beforehand and so forth, in knowing whether anything which would constitute a breach is going to be shown on the television screen. I am not altogether happy about it, but, having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.44 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (8), after "prejudice" to insert:
"to the right of the Authority to accept as a repudiation by programme contractor any breach of contract by the programme contractor going to the root of the contract and"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put down in the hope of clarifying subsection (8). I am not at all sure that the Government did not mean in the subsection to cover the point of the Amendment. If they did mean that, I do not think it is clear. I understand that the noble Earl is going to accept this Amendment, in which case I need say no more.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I may say that I accept it in principle; I think I may need a little advice on the actual drafting.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, after ("prejudice") insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)
EARL DE LA WARR: May I now move that Clause 5 be divided into two. This is a purely drafting Amendment for the convenience of Parliament. I need only say that the new subsection (5) moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and accepted by the Government will, of course, be included in the first part of the division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
That Clause 5 be divided into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) to (4) inclusive; and the second to consist of subsections (5) to (8) inclusive.—(Earl De La Warr.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to move the new clause after Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
Television broadcasting facilities in respect of certain sporting and other events
"6.—(1) If in the case of any sporting or other event of national interest it appears to the Postmaster General that it is expedient, in order to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for broadcasting to a restricted audience, that provision should be made for regulating the grant of television broadcasting facilities, he may by order direct that the Fourth Schedule to this Act [Sporting events, etc.] shall have effect in relation to that event as from such date as may be specified in the order.
(2) this section and in the said Schedule 'television broadcasting facilities' means facilities for television broadcasting from stations in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; and for the purposes of the said Schedule 'the promoters' means, in relation to an event specified in an order under this section, such person or persons as may be designated in that behalf by the order.
(3) The provisions of the said Schedule shall not apply to the broadcasting of a record of any event specified in an order under this section unless the visual images are transmitted within seven days after the happenings represented by those images respectively (not exceeding hours) as may be prescribed by the order.
(4) The power to make orders under this section shall include power to revoke or vary any such order by a subsequent order made thereunder.
(5) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and before making any such order the Postmaster General shall lay a draft thereof before each House of Parliament, and shall not make the order until a resolution has been passed by each House of Parliament approving the draft."—(Earl De La Warr.)
Clause 6:
Advisory committees
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Authority shall in particular appoint, or arrange for the assistance of—

(a) a committee representative of the main streams of religious thought in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to give advice to the Authority on any religious services or other matters of a religious nature included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, or in any publications issued by the Authority; and

(b) a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services (including in particular the advertising of goods or services for medical or surgical purposes) to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors as to the principles to be followed in connection with the advertisements included as aforesaid,

and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees, subject to such exceptions or modifications, if any, as may appear to the Authority to be necessary or proper having regard to the duties incumbent on them otherwise than under this subsection.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: Amendment No. 74 is consequential to the passing of Amendment No. 47 earlier in our proceedings. It is clear in Amendment No. 74 that the Committee set up to advise on religious matters will advise only on items under paragraph (3) of Amendment No. 47 and not on paragraph (b). I think this makes clear a question raised earlier in the debate by some noble Lords. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out from ("Authotrity") to ("other") and insert ("as to the exercise of their functions in relation to any such items as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section three of this Act, and on any").—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
LORD MATHERS: This Amendment will have the effect of disqualifying Amendment No. 75, because it cuts out a word after which I wish to mention the time to be allowed to religious broadcasting. It seems that this particular Amendment should have been taken before the Amendment to leave out the words quoted, and I am wondering how my position can be safeguarded.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am not going to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, No. 75, but I accept Amendment No. 74.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, is that if you accept Amendment No. 74 that would involve cutting out certain words on which he wants to raise a question on Amendment No. 75.
EARL JOWITT: The practice of this House is always that, in those circumstances, before we accept Amendment No. 74 we deal with Amendment No. 75, so as to preserve the rights of any Member wanting to raise a point on that subsequent Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry, I did not appreciate that point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it suggested that we should take Amendment No. 75 first and, having disposed of that, if necessary return to No. 74? That seems to be a practical course.
EARL JOWITT: It seems the only way to preserve the rights of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, on his Amendment.
LORD MATHERS: In that event I presume I can proceed with my Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I now understand that it is improper for us to go backwards. Would it not be better to discuss the two Amendments together? That would get over the difficulty with which the Committee is faced.
LORD MATHERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 75.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: May I point out that we are actually discussing Amendment No. 74. Amendment No. 74 has been moved, and
968
the noble Lord should discuss Amendment 75 together with Amendment No. 74. The noble Lord cannot move No. 75 yet.
LORD MATHERS: Let me put it this way. I am explaining to your Lordships what is involved in Amendment 75. It seems to me that what is happening to this Amendment is that it is rather in the position of getting "Jeddart justice." I do not know if there are many Scots here, but no doubt they will recognise the expression. "Jeddart justice" was to hang a man and try him afterwards. It was a safe way of dealing with some of my forbears in the old wild days in the Border country. Clause 6 (2) (a) contains the words "any religious services or other matters." I claim that the amount of time to be allotted to religious broadcasts is not germane to religious services. What I want dealt with by this Amendment is the amount of time allotted to religious broadcasting. In view of the fact that there is some particularisation in the clause, I think that the amount of time to be allotted to religious broadcasting should be included in the categories of items that will be dealt with under this particular clause. That explains the point as I see it, and I hope that I may have at least some indication as to why, as I have been told, this Amendment is condemned to death.
EARL DE LA WARR: The reason why I find it hard to accept Amendment No. 75 is that we have made the I.T.A. responsible for the balancing of the programmes. This Amendment would mean giving what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bristol described as the C.R.A.C. the right to say how much time should be devoted to religious broadcasting, and I do not think that this is the proper body to advise on that matter. We must be clear in our definition of powers. We must give certain powers and certain duties to one body, and quite positive duties to the other. I should say that it will be for the Churches' Advisory Committee to advise as to the nature and conduct of religious services and propaganda, but when it comes to the allocation of time that must be the responsibility of the I.T.A.
LORD MATHERS: I have to accept that this is an advisory body. I have been contending with energy the desirability of

969
leaving the Authority to be finally the responsible body. That has been established, and the Amendments from the right reverend Prelate have been accepted. I feel that on the argument as now presented to me I must give way. We will first of all dispose of Amendment 74 and then I shall be properly disqualified from moving Amendment 75, and I will not move it.
10.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) a committee representative of persons with experience of and special interest in the welfare and education of young persons and children to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors on any matters intended for young persons or children in the said programmes or publications."
The noble Earl said: I am glad that we have reached an Amendment on which those of us who are completely unacquainted with the law can speak without feeling that we are dunces. This Amendment deals with a purely human point, but I think it is of some importance, and I feel your Lordships will agree that it deserves careful consideration.
The object of the Amendment is simply to get the Authority to appoint another advisory committee. There are already two, on religion and advertising standards, and I am suggesting that they should appoint another advisory committee on educational matters, a committee that would deal with the contents of broadcasts for children and young persons. I should mention that a similar Amendment was moved in another place, but under the guillotine it was discussed for only about ten minutes, and this important subject has not been dealt with since, either on Second Reading or during the last two days. I hope your Lordships will agree that if it is essential to guarantee a healthy and sound influence of television on the minds of children and young persons, then there is an extremely strong case for the appointment of a committee of this kind.
Speaking in another place the Assistant Postmaster General said the objection to this Amendment was that the Authority could already appoint a committee of
970
this kind if so desired, but surely it is far better to appoint the committee as soon as the Authority are appointed. That would enable them to avoid mistakes, probably disastrous mistakes, in broadcasting to children. Prevention is far better than cure. We ought not to wait until mistakes are made before they are corrected. I think we can draw conclusions from what has happened in America, where commercial broadcasts for children have been going on for a long time. I understand that in America Western films have been the most popular item on all children's programmes. Some of these films are perfectly suitable, but others are not; and, clearly, if films of this type are to be shown here in children's programmes it is essential for the experts qualified to judge these matters to advise on their suitability before the films are put on the television screens. It is only in this way that we shall know whether they are frightening or cruel, or whatever it may be.
I am strengthened in my view that such advice is desirable here before we launch into children's broadcasting under commercial auspices by the following message from the American correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, which I noticed in that paper this morning. Let me read two sentences:
"Increasing emphasis is being placed on crime in children's programmes on American radio and television, according to the annual report of the National Association for Better Radio and Televison of Los Angeles.
"It declares"—
and this is a quotation from the Report—
"'Murder, torture, sadism, morbid suspense and other fear and tension-inducing elements are saturating children's minds and physical senses to a degree never before experienced by any generation.
"'Television more than any other medium is responsible for this crime deluge'."
Then there is the last sentence, which I feel is rather an ominous suggestion of what may happen in the future here. It says:
"Many of the programmes, the report notes, are filmed for disribution abroad."
I do not say that we should ever get anything like as bad here, but a risk is taken when we embark on this experiment in this country. If we are embarking on an experiment, then we should look elsewhere to get advice from people

971
who have had experience. Therefore I think it is reasonable to suggest that this is a matter that deserves the sincerest consideration by the Government. Apart from anything else, I cannot help feeling that all homes in which people have or are likely to have television sets, where there are young children, will be reassured by a safeguard of this kind, and by the knowledge that every film and other items produced specifically for children are to be "vetted" by people who know what is good for children to see and hear. For that reason, I commend this Amendment to the Government. I do not expect them to decide it now—at least, I hope they will not decide against it, and I do not expect them to decide in favour of it—but I think it is a matter that deserves careful consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My noble friend has so clearly stated the main object of his Amendment that there does not remain much to be said, and I have no intention of detaining your Lordships. However, I should like to add this. I am a Governor of one of the King Edward VI schools that specialises in the care of children from broken homes. The knowledge and experience which those who manage that school possess is something that makes me realise that a mere amateur in such a matter, dabbling in the education of children, may be quite unfitted to judge whether a particular broadcast or television programme is desirable for children generally. I therefore hope that the Government will see fit to give this proposal their earnest attention. If they cannot accept the Amendment now, I hope they will at least promise to give it their full consideration, and that, as a result, they will see their way to putting down a similar Amendment on Report.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment before my noble friend replies. I am a little perplexed. Does the noble Earl who moved the Amendment intend that a similar committee as this should also advise the B.B.C.? I do not want to repeat what I have already
972
said, but I pointed out on Second Reading a number of programmes on the B.B.C. of a most acutely horrific nature. Admittedly, they were not in a children's programme, but they were on at times when a child could hear them. They were certainly enough to scare any child out of his or her wits. I cannot see the rightness of applying a provision like this to the commercial television while programmes such as we have heard are allowed on the B.B.C. It is a point which I feel the noble Earl who moved the Amendment should bear in mind. The Amendment as it stands would give rise to considerable inconsistency.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: May I point out to your Lordships that the first and most important advisory council appointed by the B.B.C. was the Schools Broadcasting Council, which is a very representative body—and more than an advisory body: in fact, it is largely executive. It was appointed twenty years ago; it has been a great success, and nobody would dream of altering it. That was done by the voluntary action of the B.B.C.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord opposite asked me a question, and I am perfectly prepared to answer it. This Amendment has nothing to do with the B.B.C. I am therefore not proposing in this Amendment that a similar committee should be appointed by the B.B.C. We are dealing now with commercial broadcasting, and the dangers which I mentioned in the course of my remarks are dangers which are associated with commercial broadcasting. If the noble Lord says he does not consider some of the films shown by the B.B.C. suitable for children, then I should be the first to say that there should be a careful examination and inquiry into the desirability of such a committee for the B.B.C. But that is quite separate from this Amendment; it has nothing whatever to do with it. I should be the first person to associate myself with any suggestion that a matter of this kind should be examined exceedingly carefully in relation to the B.B.C. if anyone with the authority of the noble Lord opposite, or anyone who takes a serious interest in the affairs of the young, were to suggest that the B.B.C. was misusing or falling short of its responsibilities.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to clear my own mind on what the noble Earl is proposing. If he is proposing a committee which is to look at every programme which every programme contractor produces for those of riper years, like the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and myself—
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can answer the noble Viscount straight off and spare him the trouble of talking at greater length. I do not propose anything of the kind. My intention was merely that this committee should see material intended for children and young persons; not material intended for adults.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The religious people do not "vet" the general broadcasts to see whether they have an effect upon religion, but only the religious programmes. If a programme contractor wishes to put on something such as what we loosely call a "Children's Hour." he should have expert advice.
EARL DE LA WARR: The reason why I was not keen on this Amendment was that the Authority will need a great number of committees, and if we started elaborating every one it would be a big affair, and I think that in the end we should probably not have got anywhere. But this is a special circumstance. Perhaps I may be allowed to consider this matter and put something down on Report. I do not think we can accept this Amendment. We have to take out programme contractors and make this a committee which will advise the Authority. That is a matter we could discuss. I do not want an undertaking from noble Lords, but I should not like it to be thought that we should enumerate every committee that the Authority would have to appoint.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. It exactly meets the point which I made—that the matter should be considered between now and Report. I was pleased to hear that the Government are likely to give this matter favourable consideration. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "contractors," to insert:
"with a view to the exclusion of misleading advertisements from such programmes, And otherwise."
The noble Lord said: This is a small but fairly important Amendment, and I hope that it may have some support. Clause 6 (2), paragraph (b), refers only in a very general way to the duties that the committee therein mentioned shall carry out in advising as to standards and principles in connection with advertisements. What is certainly implicit in the committee's terms of reference, however, is that it shall safeguard the public against misleading advertisements. To put some specification like that into this paragraph is the purpose of the Amendment. Nothing is mentioned so far. Some of your Lordships may feel that this Amendment is unnecessary since in a general way the paragraph already covers this particular provision, but I feel that more than that is required. This is a most important point indeed, and I consider that the committee should be specifically charged in the Statute with the carrying out of this duty. That is the first reason for moving the Amendment. There is another reason and it is something that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, may have had in mind in an Amendment which he withdrew earlier this evening—that is, that existing legislation safeguards against misleading advertisements in matters other than television advertising. But it does not cover television advertising. This Amendment of mine is to stop the gap which exists at the moment. It is to rectify a breach which will occur in the existing law after this Bill is passed.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, after ("contractors") insert the said words.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This meets the requirement of the Retail Trading Standards Association, and is designed to prevent misleading advertisements. The next Amendment extends the same regulations to publications made on behalf of the Independent Television Authority. I am glad to accept both these Amendments.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: This is consequential and I formally beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, after ("included") insert ("in such programmes, or in any publications issued").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2) to add to paragraph (b):
"and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: I think it would save time at this late hour if I were permitted to speak also to the two subsequent Amendments standing in my name while I am formally moving this Amendment, as all three are concerned with the same subject. I will not do it if it is inconvenient, but I think it might be a time-saving device, as all three are connected, and really follow one from another.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Earl will forgive my intervention, I would tell him, in order to save time, that I shall be prepared to accept his first Amendment. I think that has considerable point. But I am afraid I could not accept the consequential ones.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am delighted with that acceptance, and I willingly withdraw this Amendment or, if he is satisfied with it in its present form—
EARL DE LA WARR: Would the noble Earl move the present Amendment and withdraw the other two?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to put the argument on the others and find out what the noble Earl's objections are.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "them" and insert "the Authority." The noble Viscount said: I do not want to take up the time of the House. This is a purely drafting Amendment. It was thought the word "them" might refer to the Authority or the committee, and the Amendment merely makes it clear that it is the Authority which is referred to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("them") and insert ("the Authority").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I agree that it is better drafting to leave out "them" and insert "Authority."
11.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to subsection (2):
"and to submit to the Postmaster-General for approval and thereafter to publish and secure compliance with the said code as approved with or without modifications by the Postmaster-General:
Provided that from time to time the Authority may after consultation with the said last-mentioned committee and with the approval of the Postmaster-General modify the said code and that the Postmaster-General shall lay before Parliament the said code and any modifications thereof made as aforesaid by the Authority."
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak on this Amendment and the next together. Their object is the same. It is this. The noble Earl has said that he accepts the desirability of having an advertising code. What I am trying to do by these Amendments is to secure that this code is subject to effective Parliamentary control. This is a matter on which a great deal of Parliamentary interest has been shown, both in debates in another place and, subsequently, here. The only way to make this control effective is the usual way of making a Minister responsible, and in that way enabling Parliament to criticise the Minister if any alterations are made in the code of which he does not approve. That is why I am suggesting that the code should be submitted by the Authority to the Postmaster General, as the Minister concerned in this matter, and should require his consent. Again, it is obviously essential that Parliament should know any alterations in this code of advertising which the Minister may decide to make, and that Parliament should know that at the time they are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the year, or whenever it may be, when it has the opportunity of seeing what they are in the annual report submitted by the Authority. This is simply a device to secure Parliamentary control. I imagine that the noble Earl will agree that some measure of Parliamentary control is desirable. As I gather he objects to this, I should like to know what alternative he has in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know whether the noble Earl regards Nos. 81 and 82 as alternative or supplementary, but if taken together they are

977
powerful. We have agreed in the first place to No. 79, which means that the Advisory Committee on Advertisements can prepare a code and submit it to the I.T.A. Now the noble Earl wants to go a great deal further. He wants the I.T.A. to submit the code to the Postmaster General and the Postmaster General to submit the code to Parliament; and Parliament can, of course, annul it. What is the use of appointing an advisory committee if we do not trust it to do anything? First of all, it has to submit a code for the approval of the I.T.A.—and we are not to trust the I.T.A. Then, under the Amendment, the I.T.A. is to submit it to the Postmaster General—and we do not trust the Postmaster General. Then the code is to come to Parliament. That really is going too far.
Under the second Amendment the Postmaster General would be given exactly the same powers as the I.T.A. have under Clause 6—that is to say, he can the I.T.A. what committees they are to appoint, who is to be on the Committees, what terms of reference the committees are to have. In effect, it overrides the powers of these committees to give mandatory advice to the I.T.A. on religious or advertising matters and makes the Postmaster General responsible for the whole thing. This Amendment makes fools of those two committees and makes the provisions of Clause 6 ridiculous. I therefore hope the noble Earl will withdraw the first Amendment and will not move the second.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did not feel that my Amendments would have the disastrous effect which the noble Earl
978
appears to contemplate. I was merely indulging in a perfectly harmless and, I thought, quite usual desire to ensure that Parliamentary control was effective. The last thing I wanted to do was to say that we were going to distrust the Authority or the people who are going to act in the spirit or letter of the code. I do not think that was intended at all. However, if the Government object to this Amendment, I very readily ask permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JOWITT: I see the noble Marquess has returned. Having got those two Amendments, I do not think we have done badly. We have reached No. 83. I do not know what the Government think, but we should like to adjourn at this stage if we might.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we might bring our discussions to a close now. We have covered a great deal of ground and I think everybody is rather tired. It has been a long day, and if it is agreeable to the Opposition I suggest that we should adjourn the debate now and continue it to-morrow.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.