Sitting of 16 June 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  CLERGY ORPHAN CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  SHELL (STANLOW TO PARTINGTON PIPELINE) BILL
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Co-ordination
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he takes to co-ordinate the release to the Press of important statements of Government policy by Ministers.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply
    650
    I gave on 3rd February last, on this and other matters, to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and other hon. Members.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister explain why The Times is so inconsiderate in reporting the speeches of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently he delivered a speech which I found in the Scottish edition of The Times which had given it three and a half inches, and that when I came to London I found that the whole speech had been omitted in favour of a news item headed, "Live Shell Found on Beachy Head"?
    Dr. Hill: I am not responsible for the editorial decisions of The Times newspaper. It may be that that newspaper thought that readers in Scotland were more in need of the education I conveyed in the speech.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Small Farms, Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in his promised consideration of the problems of small farmers, he will pay special attention to the conditions of small farms in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I shall, of course, pay the greatest possible attention to the position of farmers in Wales in working out my proposals for helping small farmers.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I say that I have no doubt that he is aware that Wales is peculiarly a country of farms of this kind?
    Mr. Hare: That is entirely correct.
    Mr. Willey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may anticipate a statement from the Government on the small farms?
    Mr. Hare: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer on that point, but, as he knows, it is our intention that the

    651
    new scheme shall be introduced as part of the determinations of the 1959 Annual Review.

    Administration, Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many senior officers of his Department were born in Wales; what steps he proposes to increase the recruitment of persons for senior grades with particular knowledge of Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: I regret that the information sought in the first part of the Question is not readily available; but I can say that my Welsh Secretary and the heads of the major technical services in Wales are all Welsh. As for the second part of the Question, the selection of candidates for established posts in my Department, as in other Government Departments, is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that a close knowledge of Welsh conditions is given due weight when senior officers in my Department are appointed to posts in the Principality.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea how many senior officers operating in England were born in Wales?
    Mr. Hare: If the right hon. Gentleman would really like to have the answer to that question, I will certainly send it to him.
    Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the Answer given to this Question, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made during the last year in the devolution of the work of his Department in Wales; what progress is contemplated during the next twelve months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: Yes, Sir; there has been substantial devolution. On 31st March, 1957, the Welsh Secretary—who as the House will know is my chief official in Wales—was responsible for the work of some 60 staff. He is now responsible for some 870 staff, and will
    652
    shortly assume responsibility for a further 80 staff concerned mainly with milk and pests. The remaining staff in Wales are mainly specialists who are responsible to their senior officers in Wales. They in turn report to our technical advisers in London, but the Welsh Secretary is responsible for their general co-ordination.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most satisfactory answer?

    Iceland and The Faroes (Fishing Limits)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect on the British fishing industry if the Icelandic fishing limits are increased to 12 miles; and what steps he is taking to protect the industry against the effects of any such unilateral action.
    Mr. John Hare: The effects would be very serious: a heavy loss of catch and economic dislocation of the distant-water fleet. As to the second part of the Question, I cannot add to the Declaration made by Her Majesty's Government on 4th June.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industry is grateful to Her Majesty's Government for the firm action they have taken? Is he also aware that, however much our trawlers can be protected when fishing on their lawful occasions, the dispute must eventually come to the conference table? What progress is being made in the discussions with the allied Governments of N.A.T.O. in an effort to persuade the Icelandic Government to come to a more reasonable decision and to discuss the matter round the conference table?
    Mr. Hare: As Her Majesty's Government indicated in the statement made on 4th June, I entirely agree that this should be a matter of negotiation. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I and the other members of Her Majesty's Government are doing all we can to see that negotiations are brought into effect.
    Mr. Doughtyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of fish landed in Great Britain is caught in that part of the

    653
    ocean which Iceland and the Faroes have given notice that they intend to include in their territorial waters, and which is not now included.
    Mr. John Hare: The fish taken from the waters around Iceland and the Faroes accounted last year for over 30 per cent. of the total British catch of white fish from all waters. The best estimates available suggest that something like 40 to 50 per cent. of the British catch around Iceland and the Faroes, or about 13 per cent. of the total British catch from all waters, is taken within the proposed 12-mile limit in these two areas.
    Mr. Doughty: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that we in this country have no intention of giving up that proportion of our catch unless there is some agreement with the countries concerned, and certainly not by unilateral action on their part?
    Mr. Hare: I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that we made our position very clear on 4th June.

    Ordnance Survey Maps (Sales)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he makes to have an adequate selection of Scottish Ordnance Survey maps available for purchase by tourists and others at bookshops in England and Wales, including bookshops of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
    Mr. John Hare: The stocking of Ordnance Survey maps must be a matter for the booksellers, and no special arrangements are made in England and Wales for holding maps of Scotland, either in the shops of Her Majesty's Stationery Office or others. Copies of Ordnance Survey maps not in stock can be ordered through most booksellers or obtained from the Department's principal agents in London.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that he has the responsibility at least for Stationery Office bookshops? Is he aware that my information is that these Scottish maps are not readily available in sufficient variety in England? In view of the importance of tourism to Scotland, will not he start a sales drive for these maps?
    Mr. Hare: The Stationery Office is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend
    654
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will certainly see that the hon. Member's point is brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

    Advisory Service (Soil Analyses)
    Mr. Whitelawasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the National Agricultural Advisory Service staff employed on soil analysis is adequate to meet the demand from farmers for this important service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: The N.A.A.S. is reasonably well staffed to provide the soil analyses which it requires in order to advise farmers, but I think it would be difficult for the service to furnish routine soil analyses on request.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases farmers are having to wait a considerable time after their applications are made before their soil is tested? Is not this rather unfortunate, when it is most important and desirable that farmers should use this very valuable service?
    Mr. Hare: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I think he will realise that the supply of soil chemists and analysts to do this skilled job is limited, and that for all the essential work the National Agricultural Advisory Service is doing what it is asked to do.

    Ice Cream
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there were in each of the years 1957, 1956 and 1955 in respect of the quality of contents of ice cream on sale to the public.
    Mr. John Hare: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the most recent estimate of the proportion of ice cream on sale to the public which contains no real cream.
    Mr. John Hare: Ice cream manufacturers are not required to make returns of output. I regret, therefore, that information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available.
    Mr. de Freitas: In view of the fact that so many foreign countries find it

    655
    quite easy to insist that ice cream on sale to the public is not made of vegetable fats, will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the regulations so that the consumers and dairy farmers of this country may be similarly protected and ice cream may, in fact, be made out of milk cream?
    Mr. Hare: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but I must point out that during the last seventeen years the public has been buying something which it knows as ice cream, and I do not think that many of them have been under the impression that this in fact contained dairy products—and I think that to change the name arbitrarily would not be very sensible.
    Mr. T. Williams: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the average consumer of ice cream is of a very juvenile age and does not, therefore, make inquiries whether the so-called cream is of vegetable origin or dairy produce? Does not he think it is now time for us to ascertain the exact figures in relation to ice cream?
    Mr. Hare: There are two separate parts to that question. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the consumption of ice cream is confined merely to the young; the middle-aged and elderly have a considerable liking for it. I know that he and I, and many other hon. Members, share the same wish to increase the use of dairy produce in ice cream, but the sensible and right way to do this is to push the sale of dairy ice cream, and considerable progress is being made in that direction.
    Mr. Doughty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very large quantities of this article—whatever its name may be—are sold and that it is high time, in these days of plenty, that we should not be forced back to the situation where substitutes can be put into what should be the real article?

    Potatoes
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the recent further increases in the price of potatoes, what steps he will take to ensure additional supplies.
    Mr. John Hare: Special arrangements were made during the difficult period in May and early June to allow potatoes to be imported from Continental countries
    656
    after the dates which would normally be acceptable for plant health reasons. But supplies of new potatoes from the home crop and the Channel Islands are now increasing rapidly and prices have already fallen significantly. There should soon be ample supplies in the shops at reasonable prices.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sunderland Chamber of Trade—which is a very well-informed body—tells me that it is felt that unnecessarily large profits are being made somewhere in the chain of distribution? Does not he realise that there is a considerable amount of complaint from all quarters? In view of those complaints, will be institute an inquiry into these allegations in order to find out how well founded they are?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member knows quite well that the chief trouble was a general shortage of potatoes. That has not been helped by the dock strike. It may be that during this difficult period prices have gone up, but now that good supplies are coming in I hope to see prices return to a far more reasonable level.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the price of potatoes went up to 1s. 4d. a lb.—or a penny an ounce—which is an all-time record? My authority for this figure is that well-known character, Cassandra, of the Daily Mirror.
    Mr. Hare: I know that there was a great shortage and that the price was high.

    Meat Supplies, London
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about meat supplies in the London area arising out of current industrial disputes.
    Mr. John Hare: There is a shortage of imported meat as a result of the current industrial disputes, but most butchers have so far been able to obtain enough meat to satisfy consumer requirements, although choice may be restricted and prices higher than usual.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is it true that, notwithstanding the partial breakdown of distribution in London, considerable supplies of meat have been coming in from all round, through many channels, and is this

    657
    attributable to the fact that distribution of meat is in the hands of private enterprise rather than under central control?
    Mr. Hare: I think that probably has a great deal to do with it.

    Agricultural Holdings, Cornwall
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings in Cornwall are of less than 20 acres; how many are of between 20 to 40 acres, 40 to 100 acres, 100 to 150 acres, 150 to 200 acres; and how many of 200 acres and over.
    Mr. John Hare: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wilson: If, as I expect, the reply will show that there is a very large number of very small farms in Cornwall, will my right hon. Friend bear that fact in mind in defining the lower limit of what is a small farm in connection with any scheme to help the small farmer?
    Mr. Hare: I thought that my hon. Friend knew the answer to the question. There are, of course, large numbers of small farms in Cornwall. I cannot give any commitment at this stage on the acreage that I shall contemplate when introducing a scheme.
    The following is the reply:
    The following are the estimated numbers of holdings, excluding 73 holdings consisting entirely of rough grazings in the County of Cornwall in June, 1957:—

    Crops and Grass

    Less than 20 acres

    …

    …

    6,564

    Between 20 and 40 acres

    …

    …

    2,167

    Between 40 and 100 acres

    …

    …

    3,205

    Between 100 and 150 acres

    …

    …

    1,068

    Between 150 and 200 acres

    …

    …

    472

    200 acres and over

    …

    …

    384

    Dock Strike (Perishable Foodstuffs)
    Mr. Doughtyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantities, and what articles, of perishable foodstuffs have become unfit for human consumption in the Port of London by reason of the unofficial dock strike; and what is the approximate value of such foodstuffs.
    Mr. John Hare: I am informed that up to this morning the Medical Officer of Health for the Port and City of London
    658
    had declared 14 tons of potatoes and one ton of grapefruit unfit for human consumption. The approximate value is £150.
    Mr. Doughty: In view of the alarmist figures which have been published of thousands of tons of foodstuffs having gone bad, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that these figures are given due publicity?
    Mr. Hare: I think that the Answer to the Question will considerably help in that direction.

    Butter
    Mr. Doughtyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total amounts of butter imported from each country in 1957 expressed as percentages of the total amount imported.
    Mr. John Hare: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Doughty: Whilst not anticipating the Ministry's figures in any way, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will make quite certain that the proportions of New Zealand butter and of Commonwealth butter are maintained at the proper figures in future?
    Mr. Hare: I would prefer that my hon. and learned Friend should first digest the figures, and if he cares to discuss them afterwards with me I shall be only too delighted to do so.
    Following is the reply:

    UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS OF BUTTER—1957

    Country

    Tons

    Per cent.

    Kenya

    …

    300

    0·1

    Australia

    …

    53,373

    14·6

    New Zealand

    …

    146,224

    40·0

    South Africa

    …

    1,049

    0·3

    Irish Republic

    …

    14,474

    4·0

    Finland

    …

    20,218

    5·5

    Sweden

    …

    14,083

    3·9

    Denmark

    …

    86,991

    23·8

    Netherlands

    …

    12,686

    3·5

    Argentine Republic

    …

    12,335

    3·4

    Norway

    …

    350

    0·1

    France

    …

    814

    0·2

    Hungary

    …

    229

    0·1

    Austria

    …

    1,245

    0·3

    Poland

    …

    910

    0·2

    Others

    …

    34

    —

    TOTAL

    …

    365,315

    100·0

  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

    Lambs (Nematodirus)
    Mr. Whitelawasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made in research into methods of preventing losses amongst lambs from nematodirus disease.
    Mr. John Hare: A large amount of research bearing directly and indirectly on the problem of nematodirus is proceeding all over the world. Fundamental work on the life history and epidemiology of the parasite, which is necessary before any effective system of control can be introduced, is in progress at several agricultural research institutes in this country and work on finding new anthelminthic substance is also being carried on by the pharmaceutical industry. It is as yet too early to assess the effect of all this work in reducing losses from nematodirus.
    Mr. Whitelaw: May I, in the first place, apologise to my right hon. Friend for asking him a Question which necessitated his mentioning so many unpronouncable names in reply? May I call his attention to the fact that this nematodirus disease is spreading very fast in the North of England? Would it not be most valuable, therefore, if the highest priority were given to research so that effective methods of prevention may be found before the disease becomes a menace on a national scale?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is an important disease among hill sheep. I shall certainly see that the scale of research being devoted to it is adequate.

    Farm Buildings Research Committee
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, on how many occasions the Farm Buildings Research Committee has met; and what results the Committee has achieved.
    Mr. John Hare: The Farm Buildings Research Committee, set up by the Agricultural Research Council in June, 1957, has met on three occasions. As explained to the hon. Member on 15th April, a special unit has been established by the Agricultural Research Council to carry out surveys on existing farm buildings and
    660
    the immediate requirements of farmers. In addition, reports have been called for from experts in such varied subjects as animal physiology, pest infestation and agricultural machinery. In the collection of this information, the council is working in close co-operation with my Department's Agricultural Land Service. It will of necessity be some time before the results of all these inquiries are available to enable the Committee to formulate the research requirements and to recommend the steps that should be taken to implement them.
    Mr. Willey: I appreciate that this is effective comprehensive work. Nevertheless, does not the Minister agree that this is both very important and urgently required work? Will he see that the Committee expedites its consideration and issues its recommendations and advice as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hare: I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is extremely important work. In my reply, I have tried to show him that a great deal of preliminary work will be necessary before sound recommendations can be put forward.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Rents (Assistance)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will publish in HANSARD a table of figures showing either the weekly or monthly number of assistance grants made in respect of rents, for each of the months commencing one month before the commencement of the Rent Act. 1957, until the latest convenient stated date; and what was the approximate average weekly or monthly grant in each case.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I assume that the hon. Member is asking for figures for other dates corresponding to those given to him for April, 1957 and 1958, in reply to his Question on 19th May. I will therefore circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the National Assistance Board's estimate of the numbers for each month from June, 1957. As regards the second part of the Question, I can only repeat that it is not possible to say how much of assistance granted is attributable

    661
    to rent, as the grant paid, after taking all the needs and resources of the applicant into account, is often less than the rent.
    Mr. Lewis: Is it not deplorable that large sums of money are being paid out every week through the National Assistance Board, in effect to subsidise the landlords, and yet the Minister has no account of how much is being paid per week? Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to know. Will he take steps to ascertain how much money per week, per month or per year is being paid out to landlords in rent subsidies?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member is perfectly well aware, that is not an accurate statement of the position. Indeed, much of the rents and rates included in the figures which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT are rents and rates paid to local authorities. As to the figures, the hon. Member will be comforted by the fact that the number of payments which contain a rent element is actually 37,000 less in the most recent figure in the table compared with the earliest figure.
    Mr. Lewis: If the number of grants is less, can the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the total amount in cash is less? Is it more? If the right hon. Gentleman knows that fewer grants are being made, can he assure us that the actual amount of cash is smaller?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member has failed to understand how the grants are assessed. On the one hand, the needs of the applicant are calculated, including rent and other matters arising under the scale. On the other hand, resources are set against them and a balance is struck in that way. If the hon. Member understood how this is done, he would realise how quite impracticable is his question.
    The following are the figures:

    Estimated numbers of householders receiving weekly assistance grants whose grants took account of rent (or similar outgoings) and rates, at the end of each of the following months—

    1957

    June

    …

    …

    …

    1,263,000

    July

    …

    …

    …

    1,257,000

    August

    …

    …

    …

    1,259,000

    September

    …

    …

    …

    1,262,000

    October

    …

    …

    …

    1,274,000

    November

    …

    …

    …

    1,287,000

    December

    …

    …

    …

    1,302,000

    1958

    January

    …

    …

    …

    1,251,000

    February

    …

    …

    …

    1,242,000

    March

    …

    …

    …

    1,240,000

    April

    …

    …

    …

    1,230,000

    May

    …

    …

    …

    1,226,000

    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will state the total financial grant made in National Assistance towards rents by recipients of National Assistance since the introduction of the Rent Act, 1957.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For the reason just explained to the hon. Member in reply to his previous Question, it is not possible to state how much of the expenditure on assistance grants can be attributed to rent in isolation. Where there are resources taken into account, any attempt to apportion the amount of assistance granted between rent and other requirements would be impracticable and meaningless.
    Mr. Lewis: If I put a suitable Question on the Order Paper, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible for him to ascertain the figures in respect of old-age pensioners where grants are made for this specific purpose?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member understood the system, he would see that his attempt—I am sure wellmeaning—to ensure simplicity would, in fact, involve further complication.

    Commonwealth Citizens and Foreigners (Assistance)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many Pakistanis, other Commonwealth citizens and foreigners, respectively, are receiving National Assistance allowances in Accrington and district.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): The National Assistance Board does not maintain separate records of the kind requested, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service informs me that a special examination of the unemployment register at Accrington shows that 19 Pakistanis are receiving National Assistance through the Accrington Employment Exchange.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the hon. Lady aware of the growing concern about the inflow

    663
    of people from Pakistan and other parts of the Commonwealth who have no work ready for them in this country? Is any inquiry being made into whether there is some person or group of persons organising the sending of these Commonwealth people into this country? If this flow continues it may smash our National Health and National Assistance schemes.
    Miss Pitt: The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a question for my Ministry. Perhaps he would like to put a question to one of my right hon. Friends. I think it should be addressed to the Home Office.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Oil Imports
    Mr. Peytonasked the Paymaster-General what he estimates will be the oil imports into the United Kingdom in the years 1960, 1965 and 1970.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): It is impossible to make reliable forecasts for so many years ahead but, as my hon. Friend will know, net imports of petroleum into the United Kingdom have roughly doubled in the last decade and it is reasonable to expect further expansion in the future.
    Mr. Peyton: Has my hon. Friend satisfied himself that adequate steps are being taken to provide the harbour and dock facilities which will be necessary if we are to be able to use the fast and large tanker of the future? Will he also take all the proper steps that he can take to ensure that British ships are in a position to make use of these facilities when they are provided?
    Sir I. Horobin: I think all these matters are not matters for the Ministry of Power but for the Ministry of Transport.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will not be a percentage increase in dependence for oil supplies on any one group in any one area at the same time?
    Sir I. Horobin: All crystal-gazing is dangerous, and to be as explicit as that ten years ahead does not commend itself to me.

    Iron and Steel Industry
    Mr. Palmerasked the Paymaster-General if he will use the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to keep in use production facilities which are being closed down on Tees-side and in other iron and steel producing areas of the country.
    Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Palmer: Under what circumstances would Section 5 of the Iron and Steel Act be used? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in my constituency of Cleveland alone, quite apart from the rest of Tees-side, between 1,000 and 2,000 steel workers are likely to lose their jobs at present?
    Sir I. Horobin: On the first part of that supplementary question, which is hypothetical, I should not like to express any opinion at all. As to the second part, in relation to the situation on Teesside, a decision would depend largely on whether we expect the present demand position at home and abroad to be permanent or to be temporary. As my original Answer indicates, Her Majesty's Government at present do not consider that any action of this kind would be desirable.
    Mr. Marquand: Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to take action if it should turn out that the depression lasts longer than has been indicated? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Tees-side large quantities of structural steel are made? Are the Government prepared to put the Severn Bridge project into rapid execution if there are increasing signs of depression?
    Sir I. Horobin: A question on that specific point ought to be put down.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Paymaster-General if he will make a statement on the present recession in the iron and steel industry; and what action the Government propose to take.
    Sir I. Horobin: The demand for certain steel products has declined. This means that the industry is now temporarily working under capacity in certain sections. No Government action would be justified at this stage to deal with this fluctuation in trade.
    Mr. Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman say on what evidence he or the Government base their view that this is purely a passing phase?
    Sir I. Horobin: Partly on this: it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that the most recent figures, which are admittedly only up to the end of March, show that home consumption this year is actually rather higher than last year. What has happened is a very great fall in exports. Therefore, that should drive home to all concerned the necessity for competition. We do not envisage a situation in which the British iron and steel industry would not be fully competitive, because we believe it to be one of our most progressive industries.
    Mr. H. Morrison: If this industry had not been denationalised, I take it that the Conservative Party would blame the present state of affairs upon nationalisation?
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not quite know. What matters is what is happening now. That is the main thing. Both the nationalised section of this industry, happily only small, and the denationalised section suffer exactly alike. Nationalisation or denationalisation does not alter the fact that we have to sell at a profit.

    Coal Gasification
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Paymaster-General what research he is promoting in regard to the high pressure gasification of coal.
    Sir I. Horobin: The first commercial scale high pressure coal gasifier is about to be built by the Scottish Gas Board at Westfield in Fife, and the North Western Gas Board is constructing a commercial plant at Partington in Lancashire which includes another type of high pressure gasifier intended to work initially on oil and later on coal. The Ministry hopes to complete within the next few months a new experimental high pressure gasifier which has been commissioned for research into other aspects of this problem, and parallel work on gasification is being carried on by the British Coal Utilisation Research Association on the Ministry's behalf.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done in this direction? Does he appreciate the tremendous scope for the gas industry if research can be speeded up?
    Sir I. Horobin: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is to the obvious advantage of the British coal industry to have as much flexibility as possible. In the last few days I have seen one of these very interesting experiments. It is impossible to say which of them will prove the winner, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal is being done.

    Industrial Buildings (Thermal Insulation)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Paymaster-General what progress has been made with the drafting of the Regulations under the Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act, 1957; and by what date he anticipates it will be possible to lay them before Parliament.
    Sir I. Horobin: Consultations are continuing on the preliminary proposals circulated by my Department to representative organisations last February. My noble Friend hopes to be able to lay the Regulations before Parliament before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the requirement of the Act is that these Regulations should become effective from 1st January, 1959, or
    "such earlier date as the Minister may decide."
    Can he say whether it will be possible to make them effective before 1st January, 1959?
    Sir I. Horobin: Not at this stage. We must give everybody an opportunity to make observations and we must then consider them. At the moment, it does not appear likely that the proposals will require very substantial modification.

    Overhead Power Lines (Berkeley)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Paymaster-General how many overhead power lines he has authorised to be erected running northwards and eastwards from Berkeley; and of what height the pylons will be.
    Sir I. Horobin: No overhead lines have yet been authorised. The height of the towers, if authorised, would be 89 feet.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be received with a certain amount of surprise, because officials in that part of the world have been very busy contacting landowners about overhead lines? Is he aware that in a very short period the country will be covered with a spider web of power lines unless some better plan is put up? Is there no possibility of distributing electricity without covering the whole country with these hideous pylons?
    Sir I. Horobin: It is technically possible, of course, to put the lines underground, but the extra cost is quite fantastic over long distances. Therefore, the Ministry makes every effort to see whether it can combine economical distribution with the minimum damage to amenity. It is impossible to please everybody, but we do our best.

    Coal (Supplies and Prices)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Paymaster-General whether, with a view to preventing any increase in the price of household coal, he will allow reasonable imports of Polish coal.
    Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir. The Governments' decision to end the statutory control of house coal supplies and prices is based on the industry's expectation that sufficient supplies of coal will be available without the need of imports.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that Polish coal suitable for household use can be imported and off-loaded into merchants' yards at £1 per ton cheaper than its British equivalent? In view of the fact that we are now ending coal rationing, could it not be possible to allow people freedom to trade both in exports and imports? I am sure it would help British shipping, and the householder and industry as well.
    Sir I. Horobin: It would be the desire of all concerned to give our industry a chance to fulfil its expectations to provide the coal without our committing ourselves to any kind of decision about what might need to be done in the—I hope unlikely—event of the industry not being able to do what it hopes to do. We must bear in mind that a large part of this Polish coal is almost certainly dumped and that that raises problems of its own.
    Mr. T. Williams: If Polish coal can be imported at £1 per ton cheaper than English-produced coal, how is it that we have been losing £10 million, £20 million or £30 million upon imported coal for so long?
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that question arises. The figures arise from a relationship between export and import prices, which is a thing of the past.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on both sides of the House have been struggling for years since the end of the war to rid ourselves of dependence upon foreign coal? Will he therefore not resist every pressure to bring coal from Poland, America or anywhere else, but use our own coal to maximum advantage?
    Sir I. Horobin: I have already said that if we can provide our own coal at the proper price and quality it is obvious common sense so to do. I do not think that I need to go beyond that.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Paymaster-General if, in view of the proposed ending of statutory control of the retail price of coal, he will withdraw the Ministerial letter of 5th February, 1954, and give the National Coal Board the same freedom in relation to price policy as exists for the other nationalised fuel industries.
    Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir. Although the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in their recent report, questioned the informality of the present arrangements, they approved their purpose. My noble Friend is considering the Committee's Report and will express his views in due course.
    Mr. Palmer: Surely that statement is inaccurate and the Select Committee recommended that the present position should be ended as being unfair to the National Coal Board?
    Sir I. Horobin: Nothing that I have said differs from that. The point at issue is that the Select Committee made a recommendation that one type of control, namely, the gentleman's agreement, should be replaced by direction. That is a recommendation of the Select Committee which, with other recommendations, my noble Friend is now carefully considering.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Aircraft Industry
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Supply the approximate number of those engaged in all branches of the aircraft industry; and his estimate of the number that will remain at the end of the reorganisation of the industry.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): About 250,000. The number in the future will depend upon the volume of orders obtained. On present orders and inquiries it would be about 150,000 in five years' time.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this industry recruited in the post-war years a large body of highly skilled men at all levels? May we take it that one of the right hon. Gentleman's main duties is to see that the scaling down of the industry is scientifically planned so that the skilled ability of these men is not allowed to be wasted but is diverted to some parallel occupation?
    Mr. Jones: I have recommended to the industry that, in so far as it spread itself into activities other than aircraft, so the problems arising from the contraction of orders for aircraft would be mitigated. Diversification would be a good policy to pursue.

    Earth Satellites
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Supply to what extent his Department is now encouraging and financing a British earth space satellite programme.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: No financial support is at present being given by my Department to an earth satellite programme. There are, however, constant consultations with my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and with the Royal Society about the scientific value to be derived from such a programme.
    Mr. Mason: While appreciating the part that cost must play in the matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, in view of the development of the intercontinental ballistic missile and the expense involved in that, is not the cost factor added to that relatively small to launch a satellite into space? Secondly, has any research been conducted into the development of conquering gravity without the present high
    670
    speeds and thrust which are required, particularly the evolution of an antigravity technique which will allow us to escape the present gravitational pull of the earth?
    Mr. Jones: I am not at all sure that I understand the second part of the hon. Member's question, but on the question of cost, clearly that has to be balanced against scientific value. As matters stand, the countries which have launched satellites are pledged under the rules of the International Geophysical Year to disclose information and data to other countries. That being so, it would be premature to decide whether or not we have a ballistic missile to launch into the satellite programme.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be better to employ someone to launch the Government into space?
    Mr. Beswick: Even though we are not ourselves considering the projection of a missile into space, we as a country would have some interest in all these other missiles which are being sent up by other countries. We have an interest in getting liaison and co-operation with the other countries concerned. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be his Department which will be concerned with co-operation after the determination of the I.G.Y. arrangements?
    Mr. Jones: If I may indulge in a correction, I did not say that we were not considering launching a satellite programme. I said that this was a matter to be kept under constant review, the scientific value always to be weighed against the cost. My Department is mainly a military Department. The scientific advice on what should be done must necessarily come from the Royal Society and the Lord President of the Council. My Department is the researcher, the developer and, if I may say so, the fabricator.

    Transport Command (Aircraft)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Supply what new orders have been placed, or are about to be placed, for transport aircraft to enable the Royal Air Force Transport Command to undertake trooping operations.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: No new orders for large aircraft for Transport Command

    671
    have been placed since the contract for Britannias was increased to twenty at the end of last year. As the House knows, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is currently examining operational requirements.
    Mr. Beswick: May we take it that when the Minister of Defence said the other day that in future Transport Command would be carrying out trooping operations, he was talking a little prematurely and there is no indication of any immediate orders for further transport aircraft?
    Mr. Jones: I am afraid I am not here to answer for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

    Short Brothers and Harland
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Supply what practical steps have now been taken to maintain the firm of Short Brothers and Harland as a fully-balanced aircraft design and production unit.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: The various contracts which Short Brothers and Harland now hold for the design and production of aircraft and guided weapons do employ them as a balanced unit. For the rest, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on 2nd December, 1957.
    Mr. Beswick: The Minister will probably recognise these words as having been used by the Parliamentary Secretary in a recent debate when he said that all practical steps would be taken to maintain this firm as a fully balanced unit. Can the Minister say what those words meant and what practical steps have been taken?
    Mr. Jones: The practical steps clearly must consist of contracts placed. I would ask the hon. Member to appreciate that any Government—he would be in the same position as I hold—is the victim of a conflict of authorities here; one is the owner and the other is the customer. What one would like to do as owner one might not like to do as customer in the light of past practice and delivery times quoted.

  HOSPITALS

    Wessex Regional Hospital Board
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Health if he is yet in a position to fix a date on which the Western Area of the South-West Metropolitan Region will become a separate Wessex Regional Hospital Board.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) on 13th June, I intend that the date shall be 1st April next, and I am taking the necessary steps to bring the new region and regional hospital board into being on that date.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that on both sides of the House hon. Members from the Western Area are very glad to know that he decided to do last Friday what we have been asking him to do for a long time? His decision to make the area into a separate board will give tremendous satisfaction to all who have worked in the Western Area to build up an efficient National Health Service. They will be very grateful to him.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am very grateful in my turn for what the hon. Member has been good enough to say.
    Mr. J. Morrison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those on this side of the House are particularly grateful for his help in this matter, which has caused universal pleasure to all those concerned in the area?
    Mr. Peyton: Before he made this decision, did my right hon. and learned Friend consult the South-Western Board and also opinion in the neighbouring areas, particularly in South Somerset and the northern part of Dorset?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir, this decision was taken after examination over a period, as indicated by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). In the light of all the relevant circumstances, locally and nationally, I think we have come to the right decision.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Health what would be the approximate annual extra cost of making the Western Area of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board a separate board.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) on 10th March.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that there is some dispute between his advisers and the members of the Western Area as to the amount of actual expense involved, and it is the belief of the Western Area that the gain made to the South-Western Metropolitan Hospital Board may offset the extra expense involved in setting up the new administration?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, the estimate I gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is an estimate of the ultimate additional cost based on the cost of comparable regions of similar size, such as the Oxford Region and the East Anglian Region. I very much hope that the estimate will prove to be excessive, and I shall certainly expect the new board to keep its costs down to a minimum.

    Private Beds (London)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Health how many private beds are now available in London hospitals and nursing homes, as compared with the number before 1939 and before the creation of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: At 31st December, 1957, 2,255 beds were available under Sections 4 and 5 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, in the Metropolitan Police District. I understand that there were 2,288 beds classed as private beds in the same hospitals shortly before the inception of the National Health Service, but as there was then no accepted definition of the term "private", the figures are not strictly comparable. I regret that information for 1939 and for institutions outside the National Health Service is not available.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to see that these beds are being fully used? Is it not a fact that they are not being used as much as they should be?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I do not think, as a generalisation, that that is right. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act which makes these beds available for cases requiring urgent medical attention.
    674
    I think that between those two uses they are kept pretty well occupied.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that full use is being made of these beds, because the last figures suggested that perhaps almost as much as one-quarter or one-third of them were not in use?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There is not 100 per cent. occupancy. There never would be, as the hon. Member, with his experience, will appreciate. As he knows, these beds are used for their primary purpose and can also be used for the purpose to which I have just referred. Taking those two things together, there is a reasonable use of these beds, but I will certainly look at the matter, in answer to the hon. Member's request and that of my hon. Friend, to see whether anything can or should be done to promote the occupancy rate.

    Mr. James Mills
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the case of Mr. James Mills, a patient for the past 12 years at Rampton Mental Hospital; and what possibility there is of his transfer in the near future to an ordinary mental hospital nearer his home.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: This patient is not yet ready for transfer but his case will be kept under review.

    Children's Hospital, Southampton
    Mr. J. Howardasked the Minister of Health what plans have been accepted for alterations to the Children's Hospital at Southampton; and when it is anticipated that the present buildings will be replaced.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am informed that work will begin almost immediately to improve the wards and ancillary accommodation at this hospital at an estimated cost of £20,000. Proposals for the future development of Southampton General Hospital include the provision of a children's unit to replace the Children's Hospital, but I cannot say when it will be possible for this development to take place.
    Mr. Howard: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough to publicise the circumstances which led him to reach the decision about patching

    675
    the Children's Hospital in view of the fact that there is considerable disquiet among my constituents in Southampton about the wisdom of spending money on this old property?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not know about publishing it, but in summary I can tell my hon. Friend that the present condition of the Children's Hospital is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, and in view of the uncertainty as to when funds can be made available for the major development of Southampton General Hospital, it seemed necessary to carry out these improvements.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that all Southampton is agreed that the Children's Hospital is an old-fashioned and unsuitable building, that extensions and improvements are simply second-best solutions, but that the local board must be guided by the capital resources at its disposal? We should be grateful if Southampton could have some idea when the major projects for the Children's Hospital are likely to take place.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: A preliminary estimate of the cost of the proposed development at Southampton General Hospital, which, of course, includes much more than the children's unit, is said to be about £750,000 to £1 million. It is a big matter, and the regional hospital board has not yet put proposals before me.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Poliomyelitis (Inoculations and Vaccine Supplies)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Health (1) the categories of persons for whom registration is at present accepted for vaccination against poliomyelitis; and when he anticipates he will be able to extend the priority to other categories; and
    (2) when he anticipates there will be enough vaccine against poliomyelitis for all persons at present registered to have the full three vaccinations.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The classes at present eligible for vaccination are children over six months old born in or after 1943, expectant mothers, general practitioners, ambulance staff, hospital staff
    676
    whose work brings them into contact with acute poliomyelitis, and the families of the last three groups. By 30th April, the latest date for which detailed information is available, over 3 million persons in Great Britain had been vaccinated with two injections, just over 2½ million were awaiting vaccination and a further 500,000 were awaiting their second injection. On that date the local health authorities held 1 million doses of vaccine and they have since received over 5 million more.
    This is more than sufficient to complete the vaccination with two doses of all persons registered by 30th April if they are willing to accept the type of vaccine available.
    Registration is a continuing process, and further supplies of vaccine are being distributed from time to time to keep pace with new registrations.
    I cannot at present make any statement in regard to extending the offer of vaccination to other priority groups or about the giving of third doses.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will cause very considerable anxiety in the country? Is he aware that some of the categories outside those he has mentioned feel very aggrieved at the idea that they will not be vaccinated against poliomyelitis, particularly people in the sanitary service? I sent to the Minister details of a case in which a man died as a consequence of not being vaccinated.
    Is the Minister also aware that at present eight children in Halifax, the highest number ever registered there, are suffering from this disease in consequence of not having been treated? When is he going to get sufficient vaccine to enable the three doses, which are essential, to be given and for the appropriate categories to be dealt with?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am bound to say that I am surprised at the questions asked by the hon. Member, although little that he says in fact surprises me. In answer to his Question, I made a statement pointing out that sufficient vaccine is available to deal with the programme we have announced, and then he asked if I was aware that my Answer would cause anxiety. On the contrary, I should have thought that it would cause gratification to all right-thinking people.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the number of these who have refused vaccination on the ground that they cannot have the type they prefer?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The response to the offer of Salk vaccine varies in accordance with the areas, but, in answer to the right hon. Lady's general question, I would say that, on the whole, parents are accepting the advice of the Medical Research Council and are having their children vaccinated with the vaccine available in their area rather than let them go unvaccinated over the summer season.
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the increase in the numbers of poliomyelitis cases in London during 1957, he will give an assurance that a sufficient supply of vaccine will be available to give all the people eligible for inoculation two injections.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The London County Council already has sufficient vaccine to complete the inoculation with two doses of all persons registered on 30th April. Further supplies are being distributed from time to time to keep pace with new registrations.
    Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in close touch with the medical authorities in the London area, because there is a fear that they will not have enough, particularly as some people are dubious about allowing the Salk vaccine to be used?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad to say that we are in very close and continuous touch with the medical authorities of the London County Council. I think that they are quite happy with the position as it is. They will no doubt bring to the notice of parents the advice of the Medical Research Council about the use of the Salk vaccine.
    Mr. Edelman: Have there been any unfavourable results from the use of the Salk vaccine?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Not that I know of.

    Smoking
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health if he will undertake a pilot inquiry to ascertain what percentage of
    678
    smokers starts smoking regularly during each year of age between 12 and 20.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): My right hon. and learned Friend does not think there is a need for such a specialised inquiry since there is already a good deal of information published or being collected about the ages at which persons start to smoke regularly.
    Mr. Hastings: Does not the Minister feel that as his right hon. Friend passed on to the local authorities the distribution of information about the possible relationship between smoking and cancer of the lung and other diseases, they should at least be given information as to what class of people they must try to influence most?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir. Various small-scale inquiries have been made and most of them have been published. They show that the large majority of smokers have begun to smoke by the age of 20. Although estimates vary, a significant proportion have begun to smoke before the age of 16.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health if he will institute a pilot inquiry as to the physiological and sociological effects of giving up smoking by those who have smoked not less than 20 cigarettes a day for at least 20 years.
    Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Member would care to write to my right hon. and learned Friend elaborating his suggestions, he will gladly bring them to the notice of bodies which might be prepared to consider the value of such an inquiry.
    Mr. Hastings: Does not the Minister agree that people who have smoked for many years before giving up this habit, as they are sometimes urged to do for the sake of their health, should know what is involved in this? Is not that an important question with which everybody ought to be made familiar?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir, but of course the Ministry is not equipped to undertake an inquiry of this sort. There are other bodies which might do so if the inquiry were to be pursued. I have in mind the Medical Research Council or the British Empire Cancer Campaign.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is not the hon. Member aware that this is a matter for the Minister of Health? In view of the very serious information we have had about cancer of the lung, could he tell the House whether any action has been taken in schools with the view to bringing this matter to the notice of boys under 20?
    Mr. Thompson: The whole object of our propaganda in this matter is to discourage people from acquiring the habit rather than to cure them when, unhappily, they already have it

  MEDICAL RESEARCH

    Cancer
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what exchange of information and research into the causes of cancer takes place between the appropriate official authorities and organisations in the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Experience has proved that the most valuable international scientific liaison is that which takes place on an informal and individual basis and such communication between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and this country has recently shown signs of increasing. The attendance of a number of Russian experts at the International Cancer Congress in London next month will provide a further opportunity for useful
    680
    contacts to be made in this field of research.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in this field we have a common and very dangerous enemy and that his Answer will be received with pleasure in many quarters?
    Mr. Kershaw: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether research into cancer in this country is hampered in any way by lack of money?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I think not. The research into cancer in this country is making progress, as my hon. Friend knows, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) has pointed out, this is an international sphere in which we are anxious to pool our knowledge. I am grateful to him for what he said.

    NEW MEMBERS SWORN
    Brian Caldwell Cook Batsford, esquire, for Ealing, South.
    David William Ernest Webster, esquire, for Weston-super-Mare.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Opencast Coal Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OPENCAST COAL BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  New Clause.—(COMPENSATION FOR DEPRECIATION OF OTHER LAND IN SAME OWNERSHIP.)

  (1) This section applies, in relation to a compulsory rights order, to any land which—

  (a) does not form part of the land comprised in the order, or of any holding to which section sixteen or section twenty-eight of this Act applies, but

  5

  (b) immediately before the operative date of the order, is land wherein the interest of the owner is held by a person who is also the owner of the whole or part of the land comprised in the order.

  10

  (2) Where a compulsory rights order has become operative, and in the case of any land which, in relation to that order, is land to which this section applies (in this and the next following subsection referred to as "the relevant land") it is shown that for any year (being either the year beginning with the operative date of the order, or a year beginning with an anniversary of that date and falling within the period of occupation) the annual value of the relevant land is less than the annual value of that land would have been if—

  15

  (a) the land comprised in the order had not included any of the owner's land comprised therein, and

  (b) all the owner's land comprised in the order had remained in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date,

  20

  the person who is for the time being the owner of the relevant land shall be entitled to compensation from the Board for that year of an amount equal to the difference.

  (3) Subsection (2) of section seventeen of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section, so however that the appropriate circumstances referred to in the said subsection (2),—

  25

  (a) in determining the annual value of the relevant land for any year, shall be taken to be the actual circumstances existing immediately before the beginning of that year, and

  30

  (b) in determining what would have been the annual value of the relevant land in the circumstances specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the last preceding subsection, shall be taken to be the circumstances specified in those paragraphs:

  Provided that in either case the relevant land shall be assumed to have been available for letting with vacant possession immediately before the beginning of the year in question.

  35

  (4) Where a compulsory rights order has become operative, and in the case of any land which, in relation to that order, is land to which this section applies it is shown that the value at the end of the period of occupation of the interest in that land which then constitutes the interest of the owner thereof (in this and the two next following subsections referred to as "the owner's interest in the relevant land"), computed in accordance with paragraph (a) of the next following subsection, is less than the value of that interest computed in accordance with paragraph (b) of that subsection, the person who at the end of that period is entitled to the owner's interest in the relevant land shall be entitled to compensation from the Board of an amount equal to the difference.

  40

  45

  (5) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection there shall be computed the following values, that is to say,—

  50

  (a) the value at the end of the period of occupation of the owner's interest in the relevant land, assessed on the assumption that, in so far as any of the owner's land comprised in the order has not then been restored to the condition in which it was immediately before the date of entry, there will be carried out on that land in due course all such work as would qualify for compensation under section twenty-one of this Act;

  55

  (b) the value which, at the end of the period of occupation, the owner's interest in the relevant land would have if the entirety of the owner's land comprised in the order were in the state in which it was immediately before the date of entry.

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This new Clause has been put down to fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Standing Committee to deal with an injustice, in the Bill as it then stood, to the owners of land. The position was that in the Bill we had improved the compensation position of occupiers by allowing the compensation to be assessed over the whole of their holding but, in the course of doing that, we had, as I explained in detail to the Standing Committee, left the owner in the position that he could not claim compensation for injurious affection in cases similar to that in which he would have been so able to claim if his land had been compulsorily purchased. I also explained that it was impossible for the Government to go beyond that, and to offer compensation in cases of injurious affection relating to land not in the same ownership, as that would make a breach in the general compensation law.
  I should explain briefly to the House that this Clause has to be accompanied by consequential Amendments to the Sixth Schedule. It will also be necessary
  684
  to introduce, in another place, certain technical consequential Amendments to Clause 33, which deals with the time when compensation accrues due; to the Fifth Schedule, which deals with minerals, and to the Tenth Schedule, which deals with certain transitional provisions. However, they need not trouble us now.
  As in other cases in this Bill, the compensation dealt with under the Clause falls into two parts: the annual value while land is in possession of the National Coal Board, and terminal compensation afterwards. I do not think that at this late stage of the Bill—unless any questions should arise—the House would wish me to spend time in going further into the details of the Clause, beyond assuring right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I think is right, that we have taken care in subsection (6), as with previous changes in compensation, to ensure that there is no double payment. The chief circumstance in which this could arise is where the land is subject to a long-term tenancy where the rent cannot be reduced. In those circumstances, of course, the landlord would not have suffered any damage, and it would be unreasonable for him to obtain annual compensation when he was in fact, still receiving the full rent under the tenancy. Subsection (6) ensures that that position is preserved—
  Mr. Joseph Slater: Would the hon. Gentleman make clear one point in that statement? In the case of a tenant being so affected by subsidence that he must leave his holding, to whom would the compensation be paid, having in mind that the owner of the land is already receiving the rent? What about the tenant?
  Sir I. Horobin: The Clause is not addressed to that point at all. The provision for compensation to be payable to the tenant for damage of that kind is to be found in other parts of the Bill. This Clause is directed simply to the situation in which the owner of land, part of which is taken but the rest is damaged, will be able to receive compensation for the damage done to the land that is not part of the holding. That is all that this Clause deals with. I tried to explain the necessity for it, in much greater detail, in Standing Committee.
  We must be quite clear. The other compensation Clauses deal, rightly or wrongly, with the general compensation. All this Clause is concerned with is injurious affection to land in the same ownership, but which is not part of the same holding. If it is part of the same holding the question does not arise because, as we all know, that is already dealt with in other parts of the Bill. This Clause deals simply with land that may be owned by a man and damaged by the Coal Board, but in which the land that is damaged may not be part of the holding and, therefore, may not attract compensation under the other Clauses of the Bill.
  Perhaps I may give an illustration that I gave earlier. Suppose we have a valuable house looking out over a site that has been taken and damaged by opencast mining, but the land surrounding the house is not part of the holding where the opencast work is being done. It may be a park or a farm which has been let out. In those circumstances, the fact that a house might be very seriously damaged would not entitle it, under the Bill as presented to the Committee, to any compensation at all. All we are doing in this Clause is putting that injustice right, to ensure that if land in the same ownership is being damaged by opencast operations, it will attract, broadly speaking, the same type
  686
  of compensation as is attracted by land where it is in the same holding.
  That is all that the Clause does. It commended itself to the Committee; I gave an undertaking that I would deal with it, and that is the object of the Clause.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: The undertaking which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the Standing Committee to introduce this new Clause was one which he gave to himself, because he raised the point—nobody else did—and he thought it was one that ought to be met.
  We do not view this new Clause with great favour, because it appears to us to be giving an unnecessary degree of advantage to the bare owner based on his bare rights of ownership. Perhaps I could explain what I mean with reference to the example which the Parliamentary Secretary himself gave. What is worrying him is this: imagine a man who owns a very nice house in which he lives. He also owns a quantity of agricultural land adjoining, but he does not farm it himself. He lets the farm out to someone else. The National Coal Board carries out opencast coal operations on the farm. They do not touch the owner's house at all. The result is that the amenity value of his house is affected, and it is for that amenity value that the Clause intends he should be compensated.
  Without this Clause the owner would not be entitled to compensation because none of the land which is in his occupation is being taken by the Board at all. Compare the position of that owner with his neighbour who also lives in a nice house, but does not happen to own the farm. He suffers the identical loss of amenity value in his holding, but he gets no compensation at all.
  The Minister's answer, no doubt, will be that the first owner, one must imagine, acquired the farm to protect himself and to protect the amenity values of his home. That is a good nineteenth century answer. But we live in different days now, and now, with modern planning control, when the second owner to whom I have referred bought his house he will have inquired what were the planning proposals for his neighbour's land, including his neighbour's farm, and he will have learned, as

  687
  all other prospective purchasers will have learned, that that land will, as far as can be foreseen, remain as agricultural land, and therefore, he will buy his house, paying as part of the purchase price for the amenity value which derives from that farm.
  He will suffer just as much financially as well as in terms of amenity, as will the man who happens to be the freehold owner, the owner of the reversion, of the agricultural land affected. This would apply not only to a neighbouring owner of a nice house, but to an owner of a simple cottage. It applies to everyone. We feel that if compensation for loss of amenity value is to be given, it ought to be given to everyone.
  3.45 p.m.
  We are inclined to think that the proper course is to draw the line where the line was drawn in the original Bill. One must acknowledge the fact that in all these attempts to do justice in compensation there always will be someone just outside the line, wherever it is drawn, who will have ground for complaint, and that a proper course, therefore, is to give compensation to people who were the occupiers of land that was actually taken, and not to extend compensation for mere loss of amenity value beyond that.
  The neighbouring owner, the second man in the example that I gave, under the Bill will or may have rights against the Coal Board to bring a common law action for nuisance, but he is in no different position there, I think we are now agreed, from the owner himself who lives in a nice house. He will be able, as I am advised, to bring an action for nuisance in the same way as anyone else. The effect of this new Clause is to give a special benefit to the owner based solely on his property rights without regard to the fact that he will be suffering no more and no less than his neighbour.
  There is one other point that I would make on the contents of the new Clause, and that is to draw attention to the fact that the Clause as drawn, in my view, supports our case on what we consider to be one of the main defects of the Bill, to which I hope we shall have an opportunity to refer in today's debate. The point arises in this way. We consider that one of the defects of the provisions for compensation in respect of further cost of
  688
  works to be carried out after the land has been restored to the owner is that it does not enable either the Coal Board or the owner to know in advance what further cost of works will be considered as reasonable and will qualify for compensation.
  In Committee, we put forward various alternative proposals on how this situation might be met, and none of them found favour with the Government. It was considered impracticable at the end of the period of occupation to determine in advance what further works should be carried out and what should be considered reasonable. But when we look at the provisions of this proposed new Clause we find that this is precisely what the Clause demands that the valuer shall do at the end of the period of occupation in assessing the compensation which is to be payable.
  This arises in subsection (5, a) of the proposed new Clause, where it says that he has to
  "value at the end of the period of occupation … the relevant land"—
  that is, the land not taken—
  "assessed on the assumption that, in so far as any of the owner's land … has not then been restored … there will be carried out on that land in due course all such work as would qualify for compensation …"
  Those words are further defined in subsection (7, b), which says:
  "any reference to work which would qualify for compensation … is a reference to work for the purpose of further restoring that land … being work in respect of which … expenses would be treated as reasonably incurred …"
  The valuer is expected in his omniscience to be able to know at the end of the period of occupation what are the further works in respect of which expenses would reasonably be incurred, yet the Government say, or have said up till now, that there is no reasonable way in which that matter can be determined as between the Board and the owner. I hope that the introduction of this phrase means that we are to have some concessions from the Government on this point, to which we attach great importance.
  Sir I. Horobin: I should like to say a word or two about the points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot). The last one, I think, we had better discuss later, but, in any

  689
  case, I think it is based upon a misconception, because we are here merely assimilating these compensation provisions to the general compensation provisions. The difficulty is admittedly there, but there is no new point raised in this new Clause as compared with the Clauses which deal with the terms of compensation in any case.
  I agree, as, I think, does everybody who has looked into these compensation matters, that it is quite impossible, under our complicated land system, to provide complete justice for everybody. However, this is not at all the case which the hon. Gentleman made that, apparently, there is something wrong, as I understood him, in basing a claim for compensation on the fact that a man happens to own something. It is still not a crime to own things, although the Inland Revenue sometimes treats us as if it were. The basis for our approach is quite different.
  As regards the cases which the hon. Gentleman took, he said quite rightly that, in the matter of loss, they are exactly on a par. Nobody disputes that. The difference between the two, upon which this new Clause is based, is simply that the one who will not be compensated under this Clause never had any rights or powers to stop the development. It may be wrong that he had not, but he had not any such rights, leaving nuisance entirely on one side. We are all liable to be damaged by development next to us if town planning permission for it can be obtained. The people who are being compensated by this new Clause could have protected themselves in the absence of compulsory powers. That is the difference. They could have said to the Coal Board, "You shall not damage my house." In the other case, they could not have said that, for they had no rights. The people with whom we are dealing could have done so.
  It seems clear, therefore, that there is a difference, which is enshrined in our present law of compulsory purchase compensation, namely, that these people, having suffered injurious affection which they could have stopped, in the absence of compulsory powers, are a separate case and are entitled to compensation. I do not pretend for a moment that, as a result of all this, we can say that everybody we should like to have compensated will be compensated. All I do say is that we have compensated certain people who would
  690
  have been compensated if their land had been purchased instead of being subject to C.R.O., and who are a separate case, having definitely suffered damage. In our opinion, therefore, they are morally and, now, we suggest, legally entitled to compensation.
  Mr. Alfred Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary is right in the facts which he has presented to us, but I should like to ask him one question about something he said in Standing Committee on this very matter. He said that the owner of a house might be occupying that house at his own will yet might have let off to another farmer the whole of the farm which he owns and that, therefore, the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman has now brought before us is designed to provide compensation for the owner of both farm and house but to separate the two hereditaments. As a consequence, the new Clause is to provide for compensation for the owner of the house.
  In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the owner of a holding. Surely the holding was the farmhouse and private garden attached thereto, together with the farm. Therefore, would it not have been more equitable if we had described this as the land outside any Order? Do I take it, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that in all cases where an individual owns a farmhouse and land and has let the land off to another farm, himself not being engaged in farming but merely occupying the house at his own pleasure, it is not intended to apply a C.R.O. to the whole of the owner's land, which would include the house, but that the farm is to be separated from the house?
  I should have thought that, in most cases where an individual was in such a position, letting the whole of the farm but retaining the ownership, he would probably have had included in the whole of the C.R.O. the house and garden as well as the land adjacent to it. Shall we not, later in the Bill, be discussing questions about how far or how near to such a habitation opencast workings will go? Does it mean, therefore, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, and what he has said this afternoon, that it is intended always to separate the residence from the farmland, if, in fact, the owner of both happens

  691
  to be using the residence purely as a home and has let the farm to another farmer for agricultural purposes?
  Sir I. Horobin: The short answer is that, of course, the C.R.O. cannot in any case cover occupied dwellings of that kind. We were illustrating this, I think, in the case the right hon. Gentleman is now pursuing, but, as far as the actual house itself is concerned, it cannot be subject to a C.R.O., though it can be damaged.
  Mr. G. H. Oliver: There is one point that I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up. I have tried to follow the Parliamentary Secretary very carefully. He said that the owner of land which has been affected by opencast workings has a right to protect himself irrespective of this new Clause. Surely that cannot be right. Once the C.R.O. is granted, he has no power. He may endeavour, when the authorisation is being sought, to resist it, but once the authorisation has been given to the Coal Board and the Board is vested with the order, there is nothing he can do if his property is damaged, unless the Clause so provides.
  The new Clause does not provide for the unfortunate person who does not own the land. Perhaps he is a neighbour, or somebody in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot).
  Sir I. Horobin: So far as I follow the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), he is quite right: once the C.R.O. is there, the owner has no further powers in this matter. But that is not the point. The point arises from the difference between him and the type of owner cited by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), who, in circumstances before the C.R.O. and in the absence of the compulsory powers we are dealing with, had no right to object at all. He has, therefore, lost nothing compensatable.
  In the absence of any of these powers, if the Coal Board or anybody else came down on the land, as it is envisaged might happen, he would have no right to object, in the absence of nuisance. In the case we are considering, however, he would. He could have prevented the Coal Board coming on by agreement.
  692
  That is the distinction. In the one case, therefore, we say that, just like anybody else in the unfortunate position of having a power station established which emits grit all over his land, he just cannot stop it if the authority has town planning permission. On the other hand, he can stop it if the authority wants to do it on his land.
  In the one case, if one's land is bought, one does not receive any compensation, but, in the other case, one can obtain it for injurious affection. I will not go into all the refinements of separation, and so on, but, broadly speaking, if an authority takes a bit of one's land and damages the rest, one can obtain compensation if it is bought.
  What we are doing is to provide that, if after a C.R.O. on a part of one's land, the authority damages the rest, one can still obtain compensation for injurious affection. In very broad terms, we are assimilating the law of C.R.O. to the law of C.P.O. I am very carefully saying "in broad terms" because, as hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite know very well, there are certain points which arise. In broad terms, all we are doing here is to say that, in the kind of case where a man can obtain compensation for injurious affection if the land has been bought, he shall have his compensation if the land is made subject to a C.R.O.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) to move the Amendment to the proposed new Clause, I would point out that there appear to be three Amendments later on the Notice Paper which may be related. There is the Amendment to Clause 16, page 20, line 12, in the name of the right hon. Member for Blyth and other hon. Gentlemen, to leave out "operative date" and insert "date of entry", and there is an Amendment in page 21, line 4, again in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, to leave out "operative date" and insert "date of entry." Later, there is another Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, to Schedule 6, page 75, line 32, to leave out "operative date" and insert "date of entry". Is it possible that all these Amendments raise points which could be discussed now?
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robens: It is possible to take them all together, Sir. It is a matter of a principle. The other Amendments would automatically follow upon this one if the Government see fit to accept the first one.
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 11, to leave out "operative date" and to insert "date of entry".
  I think it would be convenient to discuss all four Amendments together, Mr. Speaker. They all deal with precisely the same point. As far as the new Clause is concerned, the Amendment is of a consequential nature. It bears very little relevance to the subject matter of the new Clause.
  The Amendments arise out of the Government Amendment to Clause 4, on page 2831 of the Notice Paper, in page 6, line 3. That is the Amendment by which the Government propose, as the result of an undertaking given in Committee, that the Board should be required to give 56 days' notice to the date of entry instead of 28 days' notice after the operative date before they become entitled to enter upon the land. The purpose of these Amendments is to provide that in those circumstances, and anticipating that that Amendment will be passed, the annual compensation, the rental compensation, and the additional compensation, the loss of profits compensation, should, in these circumstances, all date from the date of entry, not from the operative date.
  The operative date is, as it were, a purely notional date to the farmer. It is the date from which he starts measuring the period when he is liable to be dispossessed, and it is the date from which he knows he must set about doing certain necessary things to end his occupation, such as selling up his stock and implements that he does not want to keep. Of course, in practice he will have had informal notice a considerable time before that. No doubt he will have been given an indication in his discussions with the Board, but that is the legal position.
  We feel that if there is to be this extended period it is not right that the Board should have to pay compensation from the operative date, when the farmer will have had the extended period of 56 days, during which he may continue to
  694
  occupy and, in some circumstances, to occupy very profitably. I suppose that the kind of circumstance in which this point might arise most sharply would be a not unusual one, namely, where the Board had arranged matters so as to take occupation very shortly after the end of the harvest. I understand that, in practice, that is the normal thing that is done.
  Naturally enough, the Board waits until the farmer is able to take in his crops and harvest before it starts its opencast coal operations. If one imagines that situation, the harvest will be lifted in the 56-day period. As matters stand at present, the result would be that the farmer would get both the value of the harvest and also his compensation for loss of profit under Section 18 as if he had never had his harvest, because his Section 18 compensation would be back-dated to the operative date and would be based on the purely hypothetical profit that he would have earned from the operative date.
  This is a case where we all want to be generous to the farmer within reason, but we feel that it would be over-generous to him and would place an undue and unfair burden upon the Board. For these reasons, we propose that the compensation should date from the date of entry.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I beg to second the Admendment.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General, Who has just come into the Chamber, will pardon our persistency and help us upon the Amendment.
  We had considerable discussion in Standing Committee upon the point at issue. We have not changed our minds, but after the promise given by the Parliamentary Secretary we were hoping that he would at least change the situation in the new Clause. It would appear to the layman that there is a very slight difference between this side and the Government side, but to the farmers there is a great difference. The question is: when shall compensation begin? Shall it begin on the date of entry, or shall it begin on the day that the opencast coal mining operations begin?
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) will agree with me, because he is a farmer, that in some cases the prospectors, who are engaged by the

  695
  National Coal Board, enter on the estate or on the farm of the farmer and remain for eighteen months and even longer. During their prospecting they do a considerable amount of damage. I know that they do not do that damage intentionally, but in the process of boring operations they are bound to upset the farmer's land, and they may upset it at a very important time.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Mac-Dermot) said, they may come in during harvest time. It must be remembered—and I know that you have some knowledge of this, Mr. Speaker—that there are different harvesting times for different crops. The prospectors may come in during early August, late September, or in November. Crops are being gathered in many farms practically the whole of the year.
  The short point is, should compensation begin on the day that the opencast coal operations begin, or should it begin from the day of entry? Hon. Members opposite say that the Government are anxious to ensure fair play, to act honestly and to deal justly with the farming fraternity. In my judgment, unless they accept the Amendment, they are not dealing fairly or honestly with the farming fraternity.
  I made reference in Committee—and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) made play about this point—to "bleeding boreholes." I was not responsible for the coining of that phrase. It was coined by the legal luminaries in a compensation claim. They referred to the bleeding boreholes which had been left by prospectors and borers, and a considerable amount of damage was experienced by that farmer. After all their boring and prospecting they failed to find the coal resources simply because they were not there.
  Will anybody say that to refuse compensation to that farmer is right, honest and just? The farmer allowed the prospectors to enter under Section 61 of the Defence Regulations. In the nation's interest, he let them come on to his land. After they had been given permission to occupy his land and had retarded the normal procedure on the farm, they then said, "We shall have to give it up. We have failed to find the coal sections. There are no coal resources here. We shall
  696
  clear off." Are we to deny that man compensation?
  The Government said in Committee that they wanted to be honest and fair and to be helpful and amenable. I cannot bring myself to think that the Government are acting fairly. I hope that they will accept the Amendment. It would make the provisions of the Clause more fairer, more just and more honest to the farmers on whose land opencast operations have to take place.
  Mr. Harold Neal: We are indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for reminding us that the introduction of the new Clause is in fulfilment of a promise he made in Committee, but I do not recall that it is in response to any plea from Members on this side that the Clause should be drafted in the way we find it today. There seems to be a partiality about the Clause which does not appear in other features of the Bill.
  It seems unreal and unfair that annual compensation, rental compensation and compensation for loss of profits should begin on the operative date rather than upon the date of entry. It might satisfy us on this side if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us how the annual value could be lessened before the date of entry. I can well imagine that by the time that 10,000 tons of coal have been extracted from a site the depreciated value is noticeable; but on the day before even the surveyors enter the land I cannot see how the value can be depreciated.
  Those who are actively concerned in this matter must surely laugh at this generous provision for those who are to receive compensation in this way even before the Coal Board has "smelt" the ground. I shall be pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us how this is justified by proving that value can be lessened even before the date of entry.
  Sir Peter Roberts: I have only one point to put to the sponsors of the Amendment, who have raised the question of compensation for a farmer who has got his crops in. A point about which I am not happy, if the Amendment is accepted, is that a farmer who, for instance, is a milk producer and has a pedigree milk herd knows that he has to finish with the herd in, say, two months' time. Naturally, he will have to sell his milk herd early in advance. He then

  697
  waits—one does not know how long—until the Coal Board comes in, in which case he is making no money whatever.
  I would like to have that point cleared up. As far as I can see, the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) is that the farmer might be paid double compensation for his harvest. That is most unlikely. There must, however, be a continuing damage to a person who sells off in advance and then has to wait three or four months until the Coal Board comes in. Under the Amendment, the farmer would get no compensation whatever.
  Sir I. Horobin: First, we should dispose of the misconception of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who seconded the Amendment. The whole object of the Amendment, right or wrong, is to reduce the compensation to farmers. That, I assure the hon. Member, is the object of the Amendment and it was made clear by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal). To use a colloquialism, the hon. Member was rather "off the beam".
  All questions of what happens during prospecting are irrelevant to the Amendment, because prospecting must in the nature of things take place before the operation of the compulsory rights order. What we are concerned with in the Amendment is the period of time—56 days, it may be—between the compulsory rights order and the date of entry. Therefore, the whole of the discussion as to whether damage could be done by prospecting and whether the farmer should be compensated for it is beside the point. The object of the Amendment is to reduce the money paid by the Coal Board to the farmer and we must discuss it on that basis.
  4.15 p.m.
  I am not saying that we can be 100 per cent. certain that exact justice is done, but, on balance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) pointed out, the Clause as drafted is right and I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. Let us be quite clear that we are now dealing with land upon which a compulsory rights order has become operative.
  Mr. T. Brown indicated dissent.
  Sir I. Horobin: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. Perhaps one of his hon. Friends will be able to persuade him. We are dealing with land upon which a compulsory rights order has become operative.
  It is true that the extent of damage that can be done before anybody has started digging will normally be much less than after the digging has been begun, but it is not reasonable for anybody to argue seriously that no damage can be done. In cases where a change of tenancy or ownership takes place, the damage might be serious. If a man had to get rid of his tenancy, he would suffer serious damage, because nobody would take over land knowing that in 56 days the Coal Board was coming to start digging. Therefore, damage can take place, although in most cases it will be slight and the extent of it will be taken into account in the calculations which are made.
  Concerning the harvest, an additional point which should be made is that in nearly all cases—I dare say, in all cases—it is the sensible practice of the Coal Board, which, I am sure, will be continued, that its entry would take place after, and not in the middle of, a harvest. There might be circumstances in which it became extremely important to do otherwise, but the Board has usually been reasonable in these matters. In practice, even if it were not fully taken account of, as it is in the calculation of compensation, it would not be likely to be important. The point is that once land is subject to a compulsory rights order, it can be depreciated and, therefore, we should not from the very start cut out all rights of compensation.
  As we are discussing at the same time, I understand, later Amendments in which the same points arise, I should like to make clear, in case it may have been overlooked by the drafters of the corresponding Amendment in Clause 16, page 20, line 12, that it would have a very undesirable effect. I am advised that the same principle which they have attempted to apply would have the preposterous effect that the expenses of vacating possession under Clause 19, which, obviously, would normally be incurred before the date of entry, would, if the Amendment at that point were accepted, result in the occupier receiving no compensation at all. I am sure that hon. Members opposite

  699
  do not expect that result, but their Amendment would have that effect.
  The short point of all these Amendments is that once a compulsory rights order has become operative, the possibility and likelihood of damage to the annual value of the land occurs. That being so, we ought not from the start to cut out any possibility of compensation. The Amendment would not deal with the question of whether it was properly calculated. I think that the provisions in the Bill would have the desired result, but in any case the Amendment would not deal with that point. This Amendment would cut out any right to compensation for any damage, even if it did occur, within that period of 56 days. On balance, I think that the House will feel that it would be wrong not to compensate the occupier if he can establish damage.
  Mr. MacDermot: The Parliamentary Secretary has put forward weighty arguments, and I say at once, on the point to which he has directed our attention, that the effect of the Amendment on what I call the forced sale compensation in Clause 16 is not one which we had envisaged, and it is not the effect which we intended. If we can, even at this late hour, persuade the Minister to change his mind, we would invite him to give effect to our intention much more effectively than the way in which we have done it ourselves.
  There is here a real difficulty which ought to be faced, but which is not being faced, and I am confirmed in that view by the Minister's assurance that it will continue to be the practice of the Board to time its entry so as to enable the farmer to get his harvest in. The sensible thing is for the Board to come in as quickly as possible afterwards, because the farmer cannot do anything with the land after he has got his harvest in. He cannot prepare it for a new harvest. Everybody's time will be wasted if the Board does not start as soon as possible after the harvest is in.
  What the Minister says is that the order becomes operative at the operative date, but that is so only in a legal sense, and the way in which it becomes operative is that that is the moment as from which the Board can take the first step which it has to take under the order, such as giving this notice to the farmer
  700
  of the date on which it is to enter. Let us remember that under Clause 4, that date is to be, at the moment, not less than 28 days. We are assuming that the Government Amendment will be accepted, so that it will be not less than 56 days after the first publication, and not more than six months after the operative date. The period that we have in mind, to which the hon. Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) referred, is a period which amounts at most to six months and at the least now to 56 days.
  If, and we are assured that it will continue to be so, the date of entry is to be timed to come just after the end of the harvest, it means that the farmer will be able to get his harvest in, get all his profit for that year's farming in the form of his harvest, and yet have his compensation backdated as if he had never got his harvest in at all. As I understand, the Minister does not seek to deny that at all. I will give way if—
  Sir I. Horobin: I should make this perfectly clear. As I envisage this procedure, it would not be so. I think that anybody having had his harvest would find that that would be taken into account in the compensation which he received, but I was answering the point that the number of cases in which the question would arise would be small, because the operation would be so timed as to ensure that cases of this kind do not arise. I do not accept for a moment that the annual compensation provisions, with which we are not directly concerned in these Amendments, would enable a farmer to obtain his profit, plus compensation for loss of profit.
  Mr. MacDermot: In view of that, it would appear that we are at variance in our interpretation of the compensation provisions, and I am sure that it would be wearying and detaining the House if we attempted to argue the matter more fully now. It seems that we are at one in our intention, namely, that there should not be a duplication of compensation to the extent that I have envisaged, or, to put it another way, that a farmer shall not be entitled to compensation on the basis of loss of profit when in fact he has made his profit, and perhaps a very substantial profit, and not lost it at all. I would urge the Minister to undertake to look at this point again.

  701
  Perhaps I should try now to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Heeley. What he envisages is the case in which the farmer receives his notice of entry from the Board giving a date, say, four or five months hence. The farmer has a dairy herd, and he finds an opportunity of disposing of his herd which he thinks it is wise to take, and he does so. He may do so two or three months before the expiry of that notice and before the actual date of entry. The result is that he ceases to earn any income or profit on that herd from the date on which he disposed of it.
  I readily agree and concede that, as we have drafted our Amendment, that farmer would suffer loss of profit during that two or three months' period, and would receive no compensation for it. I quite agree about that, but what I would urge is that the number of cases in which injustice would operate that way against the farmer would be fewer if our Amendment were accepted than the number of cases in which injustice would operate against the Board if matters stand as they are now. Perhaps a solution, can be found whereby this annual compensation, and, more important, loss of profit can be determined as from the date when the loss begins to be suffered. I do not know whether a formula could be found which would assist in that way.
  Meanwhile, I submit that the most frequent contingency will be that the Board will give notice of entry to take possession very shortly after the harvest is got in, because that is the time when it would be wise to enter, and it would be sensible to enter upon the land as soon as possible and not waste time. The land is of no use to the farmer once he has got his last harvest in, but under Clause 18 as it stands, as I understand, the position is that loss of profit is not to be based on the loss which has actually been incurred during that period, but is to be based on a hypothetical calculation of the profit based on the profit he was earning in previous years.
  The result is that if that is dated back to the operative date before the time of the harvest he will get both rental compensation and loss of profit compensation as from the operative date, which ignores completely the profit that he has, in fact, made out of that harvest. There will be a duplication. There are difficulties about
  702
  it and arguments both ways, but I feel that the scales are loaded too heavily against the Board. I should like the Minister to look at the matter again and see whether he cannot introduce an Amendment in another place which will provide a fairer result to all concerned.
  Sir I. Horobin: As the hon. and learned Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has said, to argue this matter at full length is almost impossible, and the difficulties of drawing the line anywhere are by now fairly clear to all of us.
  I am very chary of holding out any hope, at this late stage, of a further Amendment to this Clause. We have done our best to put it in the right place. In view of what the hon. and learned Member has said, I will, of course, look at the point, but I must make it absolutely clear, at this very late stage of the Bill, that we must reach finality at some time. We have done our best to hold the balance fairly between the farmers, who are, in any case, having a rather rough deal in some ways with opencast coal mining operations, and the Coal Board, which has its duty to do.
  I will look at the point, but hon. Members must be quite clear that I am making absolutely no promise at all to introduce a change, because I feel that one change at this stage will be found inevitably to lead to claims for another. I think that we have drawn the line as close as we can to the right place. I will look at the point again on that understanding.
  Question, That "operative date" stand part of the proposed Clause, put and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  OPENCAST COAL BILL

    New Clause.—(PRESERVATION OF AMENITY.)
    (1) Where for the purposes of section one or section two of this Act

    (a) the Board are formulating any proposals as to the working of coal by opencast operations or the carrying out of operations connected therewith, or

    (b) the Minister is considering any such proposals, whether in relation to the granting of an authorisation under section one or to the imposition of conditions under section two of this Act,

    the Board or the Minister, as the case may be, having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical

    703
    features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest, shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects.
    (2) The provisions of the preceding subsection shall apply, with the necessary modifications, where—

    (a) the Board are formulating any proposals as to the restoration of land affected by the working of coal by opencast operations or by operations connected therewith, or

    (b) the Minister is considering any such proposals, whether in relation to the granting of an authorisation under section one or to the imposition of conditions under section two of this Act,

    as those provisions apply in the circumstances mentioned in the preceding subsection.—[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Here, I hope, I shall not be taken to task when I say that the proposed Clause fulfils an undertaking, because I believe that this is an alteration which every hon. Member who was in the Standing Committee and, indeed, every hon. Member in the House will welcome.
    When the Bill was introduced, I think that all of us on both sides believed that the amenity provisions required very careful examination. We have already made one or two important improvements in that respect, but the new Clause carries the matter very much further. The Clause puts a definite duty upon the Coal Board and the Minister when they are formulating or considering proposals under the authorisation provisions of the Bill to take into account a whole series of amenity considerations which I believe we all feel ought to be very carefully considered. The Clause follows broadly, as I suggested in the Standing Committee, Section 37 of the Electricity Act of last year.
    All I want to do—I feel that this will probably be generally welcomed—is to point out that, while the Clause requires the Board and the Minister to take into account certain factors, this is by no means window-dressing, especially in what I might call the post-Franks era. The situation will be that the Board will have to explain at the public inquiry precisely what it is doing in relation to the various points of protecting flora and
    704
    fauna and geographical features—trees, buildings of architectural interest and the rest—and be open to cross-examination.
    The inspector, in his report to the Minister, will have to say, with reference to all those points, exactly what is his advice to the Minister. This report will always be available to anybody who wishes to see it. Any big local authority, any responsible organisation like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, any responsible person who wants to see it, will be able to do so. The Minister, in his published decision, will, in his turn, have to deal with the inspector's report.
    Therefore, we shall be in the position that in every one of these cases where amenities are at stake the Board will have to say how it proposes to preserve them, they will be subject to discussion at the public inquiry, the inspector will have to give his report upon them, people who desire to do so will be able to discover what the inspector has said, and the Minister will have to say what he is doing about them and why. I am sure that the proposal will be generally welcomed as a great improvement by those who are keen about amenities.
    Mr. T. Brown: I want to express from this side of the House our appreciation and gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General for keeping their promise. It was due to our persistence during the Committee stage that we secured the promise about the preservation of amenities which is now being fulfilled by the Government.
    For a considerable time—for more years than I care to remember—I have been a very ardent advocate of the preservation of amenities, particularly in districts where amenities are scarce. Here I refer to the mining areas. All who have passed through the mining areas, especially in the North-West and the North-East, appreciate the devastation which has been caused by deep mining. Such persons will understand why those of us who are ex-miners are such vehement advocates of the preservation of amenities.
    As I said in Committee, we have for too long neglected the amenity side of our industrial areas. When the Bill was before the Committee it contained nothing which would afford protection to such

    705
    amenities as woodlands. What has been done has been due to our efforts. I see the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. He shook his head once before. I attach very little importance to his shaking his head when we condemn the Government for not including in the Bill a provision to preserve amenities. We are, however, very glad that the Government made a promise and have kept it, for that is all to their credit.
    I would emphasise what this sort of thing means to the people living in mining areas. Anyone who has travelled in mining districts where deep-mined coal operations have gone on for four or five centuries knows that the devastation problem is great and cannot be solved. On the other hand, a pleasing feature is that the devastation caused by opencast mining is easier to solve.
    We made a deliberate, desperate attempt—I appreciate that if I continued at some length on this point I should be ruled out of order—to protect our woodlands and forests by means of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. We sought to improve the position in the Forestry Act, 1951. We find, much to our regret and annoyance, that those Acts fall far short of what is required. This Bill would also have fallen short. It is one thing to put upon the Statute Book a Measure which we calculate will prevent certain things being done, but it is a vastly different proposition when what we say ought to be done is not done by the regional officers.
    I am concerned that the Clause should not be taken lightly, and that its importance to the preservation of amenities should be appreciated. I do not want regional officers to approach the matter lightheartedly. In most cases, they will be dealing with people who have lived in conditions of devastation for more than a century, the devastation caused by deep mining. Surely we have reached the stage in this century when we can make an entirely different approach in considering what should be done to create beauty where it can be created, especially in industrial areas.
    In this matter I may be misunderstood by other hon. Members, but I have not yet been convinced that I am wrong in believing that much of the future prosperity of Britain depends on its
    706
    forests and woodlands. No one can challenge the argument that we cannot attach too much importance to the preservation of our forests and woodlands. They are important in ameliorating climate and in supplying the needs of industry. Every farm needs a forest or woodland or shelter belt. Where they have not existed, farmers have provided them and are fully aware of their great benefit.
    Agriculture, horticulture and every form of husbandry is dependent upon trees. Although many people do not fully appreciate the importance of trees, especially the people in industrial areas, the fertility of these islands may be due to the sheltering hedgerows of trees which have not only protected fields from storms and winds, but have sent down roots to tap minerals and bring them to the leaves which, when they have served their purpose of carbon assimilation, have fallen to the ground to replenish the soil. Are we to allow the National Coal Board or even the Minister to ravage the woodlands of the countryside?
    I sometimes think that opencast mining should be reduced to a minimum, if not abolished. I know of the difficulties of the national economy, but I also know that people have responded to the nation's needs in spite of the abominable devastation which has had to result. In view of the sacrifices which have been made since 1941, the Government ought at least to pay some attention to the wishes of the mining areas today.
    The Clause is a promise, a promise which I hope the regional officers will fulfil. It is a promise that our woodlands and forests will be preserved for future generations. What right has this generation to exploit the country's coal resources which are near the surface? Such resources play an important part in the production of crops. It may be that the shallow seams are there for some good purpose. We all know that deep coal serves a good purpose, and yet we have wasted a considerable amount of what the Divine Creator gave to our country.
    4.45 p.m.
    Now we are advocating, I hope successfully, that we should continue carefully to consider any threatened inroads upon our woodlands and forests. We cannot tell the possible consequences

    707
    of removing coal, and our trees have been of immense importance to our economy. I feel very strongly about what has been taking place since opencast mining first began. It is our duty to be outspoken on these matters and to make practical suggestions so that our woodlands may be saved. The percentage of woodland in this country is the smallest in Europe. Less than 6 per cent. of our land is covered by woodland, while in France the figure is 25 per cent., in Germany it is 26 per cent. and in Belgium it is 18 per cent. I hope that the Government, the Coal Board and all concerned will ensure that the Clause is fully implemented when it becomes law.
    As I said in Committee, there is nothing more important to me than the preservation of forests and woodlands, especially in the mining areas. I will not dwell on the points which I had intended to develop this afternoon, but whatever our political philosophy, Tory, Liberal, Labour or Socialist, our duty is to preserve our woodlands, not so much for the present, but for the rising generation, who will thank us for it.
    Whittier said:
    "Give fools their gold, and knaves their power,
    Let fortune's bubbles rise and fall;
    Who sows a field or drains a flower.
    Or plants a tree, is more than all."
    What would he have said about men and organisations who have been concerned with the preservation of trees which were planted by our ancestors? That is our job. Let us not run away from it.
    I feel no bitterness towards those people who live in the South of England and who say that that is where all the beautiful woodlands are, but in the North, North-West and North-East we are entitled to have our few woodlands preserved against the ravages of opencast mining.
    I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has read in the Manchester Guardian this morning—I hope he has—a report of an important conference which took place on Saturday last, 14th June, where there was advocacy by the ordinary working man, supported and strengthened by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), that more attention should be
    708
    given to the industrial areas by local authorities, county councils, etc.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting very wide of the new Clause.
    Mr. Brown: I am carried away by my own enthusiasm. I welcome this Clause and I hope that the regional officers, the Minister and all concerned will see that the new Clause in its entirety is applied to the areas which have been devastated so much in the past. I heartily support the new Clause.
    Mr. Stephen Swingler: I cannot equal the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) but I heartily endorse his sentiments.
    I intervene briefly and only because of a letter which I received this morning from a very important constituent of mine, who is well known and highly esteemed throughout North Staffordshire, and who is also well known to many of my hon. Friends in this House who represent mining constituencies. He is Mr. Tom Lawton, of Alsagers Bank, Halmer End, Stoke-on-Trent. Years ago he worked in a pit and suffered a terrible accident. For a very long time indeed he has borne the agonies of paraplegia with the most remarkable fortitude. He is one of the real heroes of the mining industry whom I am proud to know and represent. He writes:
    "I observe in Thursday's HANSARD that a debate on the Opencast Coal Bill is to take place next Monday. How I wish with all my heart that all the Members representing North Staffordshire and all the mining constituencies, and some of the Government's Ministers could come to Church Hills opencast site in North Staffordshire during the weekend before this debate takes place, to see for themselves.
    Complaints over a period of many months have been made to me from many friends when they have visited me, but not having seen the Church Hills for some years, although I have seen two photographs, one showing a spoil heap and one a gaping hole,"
    that must be one' of my hon. Friend's bleeding boreholes—
    "I never realised the ravages the operations had inflicted on what was once a beauty spot, which provided untold pleasure to many people. The lovely church, grounds and hills are a noted landmark for many miles around. Last night, when my son returned home from work, he took me on my first outing for the Past eight months"—

    709
    he has been in hospital for that period of time—
    "to see the site and nothing that I can put in writing can adequately express my feelings of horror."
    He then goes on to refer to an article by the Director of Production, National Coal Board Opencast Executive, which appeared in the Daily Herald in mid-May He quotes from this article:
    "The Board recognise that in the course of opencast operations there must inevitably be some temporary disturbance, and this often causes local criticism, but opencast mining, as carried out in Britain, does not permanently harm the land."
    My constituent asks:
    "Do the same principles and the same code of restoration of land apply where the opencast operations are operated by private enterprise?"
    He is referring to the fact that at this opencast site of Church Hills in North Staffordshire the workings are being made by licensees under the National Coal Board. He goes on to say:
    "I express the sincere hope that representations will be made for the full restoration of the Church Hills and grounds and that the same will be successful, and that restoration will be implemented soon."
    In drawing attention to this matter and fully endorsing what my constituent says. I hope that the National Coal Board and the Ministry will take note of the ravages that have been made in an area like North Staffordshire, which has already suffered tremendously from the inroads of industry upon beauty spots and amenities. I hope that the very best will be done to restore this beauty spot, which is famous, at any rate for the young people in the whole of this vast conurbation.
    I should like to ask the Minister from what date, or when, does that part of the new Clause which concerns the restoration of land affected by the working of coal by opencast operations apply? Will it apply from the time that the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? That is to say, will it apply to opencast operations going on now and to proposals made later for land restoration, or the restoration of amenities that are necessary following present operations; or at what stage does the Board formulate its proposals for the restoration of land and when does the Minister consider them?
    The Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I am asking these questions about the site which my constituent has
    710
    mentioned, because I am wondering whether any benefit might be gained from this Clause in relation to this site. If the Clause is accepted and the Bill is passed into law fairly soon, will it benefit us at all in North Staffordshire in regard to existing opencast operations and existing schemes of land restoration? I shall be pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary can give me that information about the timing of the application of the latter part of the Clause.
    Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I should like to say a word on this new Clause on behalf of the National Trust, of the executive committee of which I am a member. The National Trust has in the past, not surprisingly, been somewhat disturbed at opencast operations and the threat of operations not only on land in which it is interested or which is in its ownership but also so far as amenities generally are concerned.
    The Trust is appreciative of the efforts which the Government have made under this Bill to preserve amenities so far as reasonably possible, and in particular the Trust will be glad to see the introduction of this new Clause which strengthens the amenity provisions of the Bill. The Trust is also grateful to the Government for having included it on the same footing as local authorities and statutory undertakers in the First Schedule of the Bill.
    There is, however, one question which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary and on which I should like an assurance. There is in the Second Schedule, paragraph 4, a statement which is open, I think, to more than one interpretation. The legal advisers of the Trust have read it and they fail to understand it very clearly. I must say that I certainly cannot understand it at all. It seems to me that there is a possibility that that paragraph nullifies the provision in favour of the Trust and local authorities in the First Schedule.
    Sir I. Horobin: Which paragraph is that?
    Mr. Robinson: I am referring to paragraph 4 of he Second Schedule which may modify paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. Possibly the construction of this is perfectly clear to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should be glad if he would either give an assurance that it does not in any way modify the earlier provisions,

    711
    or—if there is doubt about the construction of it—that he will have it looked at in another place in order to make the intention quite clear. I am perfectly sure that there is no intention to modify the earlier decision, but officers of the Trust feel that in fact it may do so. Possibly, at a later stage, the hon. Gentleman can give me the assurance that I need.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir I. Horobin: On the last point, which is a technical point and which I do not think actually arises on the Clause, I think I had better say to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that I will look into it carefully and have a word with him between now and a later stage if that is necessary. It need not detain us now because I have just looked at the Schedule and it certainly cannot affect this any way.
    The only thing to which I think I should make a short reference is the observation of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) opposite. The position, briefly, is this. Until the Bill becomes operative we are, of course, dealing with Defence Regulations, and, therefore, nothing with which we are dealing here can affect the matter one way or the other. But once the Bill becomes operative, all these provisions with which we are dealing in this Clause arise at the very first stage, because the Coal Board cannot work, or, as Clause 1 says
    "cause or permit any coal to be worked"
    until it receives authorisation. It is at the very beginning of the thing that these matters have to be taken into account, before the Minister gives his authorisation. Therefore, if I have understood the hon. Member's question correctly, I think the position is that until the Bill becomes law nothing we are discussing can improve or alter the Defence Regulation provisions. But once the Measure comes into operation these amenity provisions become operative at the very earliest stage before the National Coal Board can do or permit to be done anything which would damage amenities.
    Mr. Swingler: Does that apply to existing operations?
    Sir I. Horobin: No, it will apply only to operations under this Bill. All the ones going on now are taking place under
    712
    Defence Regulations and, for reasons explained upstairs, in order to prevent a loss of coal production, we have to go on for a certain time under Defence Regulations, because, otherwise, the National Coal Board would be in the impossible position of not being able to get the machinery working under the Bill and there would be a hiatus which would mean the loss of millions of tons of coal.
    Certain new sites are still being started off, as it were, under Defence Regulations in order to keep up the flow of necessary coal, but as soon as the transitional period is over and action by the Board begins to take place under the provisions of the Bill, then the preservation of amenity proposals which we are discussing in the Clause and elsewhere in the Bill will come into operation at the early stage before any damage to amenity can be done.
    Mr. A. J. Champion: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary assure my hon. Friend that the Church Hills site to which he referred will be restored under the code of restoration which was agreed in 1951, so that he need not fear that the whole thing will remain in its present devastated condition, but will, in fact, be restored? I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary will assure my hon. Friend and his correspondent about that.
    Sir I. Horobin: Yes, that is perfectly true. I thought that we were all reasonably aware of the great improvements made even under Defence Regulation procedure and that the land will, in fact, be restored under that procedure. All I want to make quite clear is that, so to speak, these improved provisions which we are putting into the Bill cannot be retrospective. They will operate only when the National Coal Board is operating under the Bill when it becomes an Act. However, I do not want to suggest that land will be left completely derelict or even as bady restored as years ago.
    Mr. Neal: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will absolve me from any desire unnecessarily to prolong this discussion on what appears to be a Clause which has the general acceptance of the House, but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question arising from his observations when he moved the Clause. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on coining the phrase "post-Franks era", because

    713
    this is a period in which public inquiries will be held to determine whether the Minister will grant an authorisation for opencast mining to take place.
    The Clause places important obligations upon the Minister. The Clause states that the Minister
    "shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features buildings or objects."
    So far so good, but in elaboration of this the Parliamentary Secretary told us that when the public inquiry had been held the report made by the inspector who conducted the inquiry—presumably this inspector would personally see the amenities that were in dispute and would report to the Minister—will be made available to every responsible person. In the past such reports have not been made available in detail. Indeed, many of them have never seen the light of day. All that have been made available to the public have been the bare facts as the inspector found them, but his advice to the Minister has never been made known to the public.
    Is the Parliamentary Secretary merely making a courtesy promise on behalf of his right hon. Friend, or is something included in the Bill which enforces this obligation? I cannot find anything in the First or Second Schedules which makes it obligatory for the report to be made available.
    Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There is no legal obligation in the Bill to do what I just told the House would be done; but, of course, the Government have already gone on record as saying that they are, generally speaking, in agreement with the Franks Committee recommendations. I have inquired carefully into this point, and, as in certain other matters our Ministry is concerned with, for instance, the Trawsfynydd nuclear inquiry and others, it is intended that with the Minister's decision there shall be available the inspector's report. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
    As I have risen again, I should like to say one thing which I ought to have said earlier to safeguard myself with regard to the special case to which reference has been made. I never think it right to give an opinion—I hope I did not—on a
    714
    special case, because, of course, I do not know. It is conceivable from what the hon. Member said that this would be one of those cases which is already going on and, therefore, would not be under the Bill. I cannot be taken to be expressing any opinion on the specific case. I am glad to see that the hon. Member is satisfied on that point, but it is just as well to make it quite clear. The general case remains as I put it to him.
    Mr. Swingler: The site to which I am referring is a National Coal Board site, but one which is being operated by licence. The proposals for land restoration have not yet been made, and I am interested to know whether such proposals for land restoration could be made under these provisions.
    Mr. Harold Davies: I appreciate that the Minister cannot answer hypothetical questions as to what will happen in the future, but he made it very clear that the action which is now taking place is taking place under the old Defence Regulations. Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill, in that it will afford increased opportunities for reasoned protests to be made before opencast operations commence. The Bill says that the Minister shall have regard
    "to the desirability of preserving natural beauty of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features …"
    In the Biddulph area of Leek there is a dispute about opencast operations at Knypersley Pool. The operations are being planned, and they will therefore be affected by two methods of procedure.
    If the Bill becomes law before the Board begins its operations, I gather that there will be more power for protests to be made against opening up the beauty spot. I sincerely hope that if the Clause is accepted by the House the Minister will give the maximum amount of attention to the gobbling up of the few amenities which exist in industrial parts, and will be able to hear more of the protests by local authorities in this connection. I hope that he will give them every opportunity to meet him, and that he will also meet the North Staffordshire anglers and others who are concerned with the amenities in one of the last beauty spots in this area.

    715
    I can assure the Minister that my colleagues who represent North Staffordshire constituencies and I will use every legitimate method to protest about the opencast development in the Knypersley Pool area. In the meantime, I hope that he will listen to the constructive criticisms of the people of North Staffordshire about Biddulph, in particular.
    Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary will have gathered from the speeches of hon. Members on this side of the House that we are appreciative of the new Clause. I rise only to make it clear that the present opencast coal operations of the Coal Board provide for the restoration of the land to the maximum extent possible, although under the Defence Regulations there is not the same protection as the Bill will provide.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was quite right to raise this matter, because it cannot be repeated too often that for years the ability to restore these sites has considerably improved. During the last weekend I spent a good deal of time in Northumberland, looking at restored sites, and apart from obvious things like the absence of trees which had been ripped up and not yet replaced, and fences and natural hedges, which had been replaced by wooden fences, nobody who had visited that spot before the opencast coal operations commenced would be able to see very much difference in the contours of the land.
    5.15 p.m.
    Now that we are enshrining authority for opencast coal operations in an Act of Parliament we have preserved for ourselves the provision that we lay down in connection with other nationalised industries and similar undertakings which have to use land in this or some other way, namely, that they must be responsible for restoring the land as best they can, with all the modern advantages that they now have. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that in recent years there has been no lack of desire on the part of the Coal Board, the local authorities, the National Farmers' Union, and all others concerned in the matter, to carry out a really first-class job of restoration. He would probably also agree that no country has as much know-how about restoration as we have. It is doubtful
    716
    whether any other country carrying out operations of this character would bother very much about restoration.
    I am sure that we all welcome the Clause. In Committee, hon. Members on both sides, including the Parliamentary Secretary, were adamant in their view that we must preserve the amenities of the countryside. The problem was to find a form of words to carry out our desires. The Parliamentary Secretary has done what he promised to do in Committee, and I accordingly welcome the Clause on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself. We hope that as the work proceeds we shall be able to do a good deal more restoration—particularly replanting, because what my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) says about trees and woodlands is not in the least exaggerated.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and adder to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON EFFECT OF COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)
    (1) The rights conferred by a compulsory rights order in accordance with subsection (5) of section four of this Act, or in accordance with subsection (3) of section five of this Act, shall not affect any of the rights mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section.
    (2) Subject to the next following subsection the said rights are:—

    (a) any right of support for any land not comprised in the order, or for any building or structure on any such land, or any right of action of any person in so far as it arises from the withdrawal of support to which he is entitled for any such land, building or structure;

    (b) any rights of any statutory undertakers, or of the body carrying on a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking, or of any river board or other drainage authority, in respect of any apparatus on, under or over land comprised in the order, being apparatus in respect of which, at any time since the granting of the authorisation referred to in the order, the Board have been entitled to serve a notice under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, applied by section twelve of this Act.

    (3) In relation to an opencast site order, the said rights also include the rights conferred by any agreement made by the Board and for the time being in force whereby (apart from this Act) the Board are required to leave any coal unworked.
    (4) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, the rights conferred by

    717
    a compulsory rights order as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section—

    (a) shall not affect any right of action of a person who is not a person directly concerned, and

    (b) in the case of a person directly concerned, shall not affect any right of action of his in so far as it arises otherwise than by virtue of his being entitled to an interest in or right over land, or in so far as it arises by virtue of his being entitled to an interest in, or right over, land not comprised in the order.

    (5) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the operation of subsection (4) of section four of this Act, or of subsection (2) of section five of this Act.
    (6) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section nothing in section four or section five of this Act shall be construed as authorising any interference with the exercise of a public right of way.
    (7) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (8) of section four of this Act, or in subsection (6) of section five of this Act, a person shall not be taken to be a person directly concerned in relation to a compulsory rights order by reason only that he is entitled to any such right as is mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section.
    (8) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, here shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945.—[Sir I. Hornbin.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This is a dull but important machinery Clause, which carries out one or two undertakings made in Committee. We have taken advantage of it to make a number of drafting changes, and also to cut out a certain amount of duplication in Clauses 4 and 5, which will somewhat shorten the Bill. After an introductory subsection, subsection (2) deals with the definition of certain rights which remain unaffected by any compulsory rights order. They are rights of support for land and certain important rights of statutory undertakers, such as sewerage undertakings, drainage authorities, and so on.
    The subsection makes it quite clear that the Board cannot withdraw support from neighbouring land; it must include in the order all the land which is likely to be affected directly by opencast working or indirectly by the withdrawal of support. It also makes it clear that the various statutory undertakers, or near-statutory
    718
    undertakers—in respect of whom we had a considerable discussion in Committee—must be dealt with by the Board under the special Clause 12, which gives them special protection in matters of parliamentary procedure. This point was raised by hon. Members on both sides in Committee. They said that it should be carefully considered, in fairness to those bodies which have important responsibilities of this kind.
    In subsection (3), I fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee dealing with agreements for the sterilisation of coal. We felt that it was right to draw a distinction. It would not be fair to the Coal Board to preserve in perpetuity, against any action for opencast coal, certain sterilisation covenants which the Board had inherited and which might have been drawn up 100 years ago before anyone thought of opencast coal. On the other hand, we did not think it was right that the Board should be entitled to override sterilisation agreements which the Board itself had made. The subsection deals with the matter along these lines.
    Subsection (4) is largely the result of a little interchange between the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Mac-Dermot) and myself on the question of nuisance. I am sure that he will be glad to see that we have redrafted the Bill to make it quite clear that we did not have the ludicrous position which might arise where the very persons most concerned might lose their right to action for nuisance because they were the persons directly concerned. We have made it quite clear that everybody still retains the right to action for nuisance in the ordinary way against the Board.
    The only other subsection to which I need draw attention is subsection (6), which has been inserted for the removal of doubt. We want to make it quite clear that nothing in Clauses 4 and 5 gives the Board a right to interfere with the exercise of a public right of way. There was a possible doubt there and we felt it wise to take the opportunity to put the matter right. This is a machinery Clause to carry out a number of undertakings and to make a number of tidying-up points. Subsection (8) is the Scottish application. I do not think that there is anything controversial in any way in the Clause.
    Mr. MacDermot: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not a controversial Clause, or that there would not appear to be any need for it to be controversial. I reserve comments on subsection (3) until we discuss the Amendment to it, but I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the consideration which he has given to the point I raised in Committee about action for nuisance by the owner of land part of which was taken. On considering the matter further, I am not really very certain that there was a great deal of substance in the first place in the point that I raised. The fact is that such a person will have the right to action for nuisance. It was probably preserved in the original wording, but the draftsman appears now to have put the matter beyond doubt and I am grateful for the attention which has been given to it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. Robens: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, at the end to insert:
    Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that the purposes for which those rights were conferred will not be prejudiced by the proposed opencast coal operations, he may at the time of confirming the opencast site order direct that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the order.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this is a machinery Clause, and it is not highly controversial, if, indeed, controversial at all. But we should be most careful that we do not lay down as part of our legislative process something which is unreasonable and which we might regret at a later stage. We have tabled the Amendment, therefore, to enable the Parliamentary Secretary to look once again at subsection (3) of the new Clause, which deals with agreements made by the Coal Board for the sterilisation of coal.
    The Parliamentary Secretary referred briefly to this matter and said that whilst old agreements which the Board had taken over when the industry was nationalised, some of which dated back 100 years, had by now automatically fallen away, the purpose of the subsection was to make sure that the Board, by reason of this legislation, did not escape its responsibilities under those agreements which it had made for the sterilisation of coal. In general terms, one would agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, and
    720
    one should not use legislation designed for one purpose for another and entirely different purpose.
    We felt bound to raise this matter by tabling an Amendment to give the Parliamentary Secretary a little time for reflection on what appears to us a common sense proposal, although I do not say that the words of the Amendment are necessarily the correct ones. The Parliamentary Secretary may agree that there might be a case, though I doubt whether it would occur very frequently, where the Board had agreed to provide support for a specific purpose but, when it came to dealing with the land for the purpose of opencast mining, the reason for the support might have disappeared because of the circumstances surrounding the extraction of the coal. In such a case, it would be foolish if a pocket of coal were left on an opencast coal site, to which the provisions of the Bill had been applied, and the coal was not extracted because it happened that the Board had agreed to sterilise the coal for some reason or another.
    An example which comes readily to mind is where an opencast site is astride a roadway and authority has been given for an alternative roadway to be made, either permanently or temporarily, thus enabling the Coal Board to take out the coal which was supporting the original roadway, because when it came to reinstating the roadway, in accordance with the Traffic Act and Ministry of Transport regulations, other materials would be put in to support it and the coal would be taken out.
    There are two such cases in my constituency. One is an A-class road and the other is a Class 3 road, both of which will be dug up. The Class 3 road will be restored, but it would be wrong to leave the coal which now supports it. As to the A-road, advantage is being taken of the opencast site to make a road diversion. It would be wrong to sterilise the coal to support a roadway which will not exist when the opencast operations have been completed. It may be that in these two cases agreement to sterilise the coal was made some time ago.
    On the other hand, there will be cases where the Coal Board has made an agreement, in the course of the normal working of a pit, and particularly a new pit, to sterilise coal which might be under farm

    721
    buildings. In those circumstances, the buildings might be taken down and re-erected, in which case the support of the coal which had previously been sterilised would not be required.
    I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his more expert knowledge of these matters, will be able to cite a number of cases where the Coal Board had honestly made an agreement to sterilise coal for the support of some object and where subsequently, in the course of operating a very large opencast site, that which the coal was supporting was to be removed and restored later on. In such a case, there is not much point in leaving the coal there and sterilising it.
    5.30 p.m.
    The only point of the Amendment is to enable the Minister, if he is satisfied about the purpose for which the coal was sterilised by agreement is no longer required and that the support and restoration can be carried out in other ways, to absolve the parties from the agreement to sterilise the coal. We do not seek to put the Amendment in to enable the National Coal Board to be relieved of any agreement entered into on a general scale, but the Minister must have power, where he is satisfied in conditions such as I have indicated, to relieve it of the obligations which it took on for an entirely different purpose.
    I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that there is a constructive viewpoint about the matters which I have described and that the words provide an opportunity for him to think about it. The words themselves are not terribly important, and we would not dream of pressing them if the Parliamentary Secretary thought it worth while to consult the Board about the matter. It might be able to give him a number of real cases. I hope that the Minister will seek in another place to take advantage of the opportunity of this Amendment, which would benefit not only the operation of the Bill but opencast coal working.
    Sir I. Horobin: While I appreciate the terms in which the Amendment has been moved, I hope that it will not be pressed.
    I want to make two points. The first is that we are dealing with the use of compulsory powers and not to relieve the National Coal Board of agreements into which it has voluntarily entered. In the
    722
    kind of case to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I would not think there would be the slightest difficulty of agreeing to bring the sterilisation agreement to an end. Just as it was voluntarily entered into, it could be voluntarily removed. We are dealing here with compulsory powers. We presuppose that somebody with an interest in the matter feels that he would be damaged by the agreement being brought to an end. It seems wrong in principle to use compulsory powers to relieve somebody from an agreement into which he has entered voluntarily.
    The second point is that the Amendment could have an almost indefensible result. It could be used to relieve the Board of the provisions of a sterilisation agreement which it might enter into in the future when it knows all about the provisions of this Measure, which would be absurd. We ought to rest on the principle that if people come together, are prepared to say that a certain agreement of this kind is obsolete and are agreed to get rid of it, by all means let thorn get rid of it. If somebody who benefits by an agreement is not prepared to agree because he would be damnified by its coming to an end, we should not use compulsory powers to enable him to escape from an undertaking voluntarily entered into. I see that a certain type of case might arise, but the case for rejecting the Amendment is very strong.
    Mr. Robens: I would only ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he had noted that this is a matter of Ministerial discretion. I would think that on going to a new site a new agreement might very well be made on the basis that the site was not to be worked for opencast coal, and that there might come an occasion when it was being worked for opencast and when such a sterilisation agreement ought to be set aside if the other party were unwilling to withdraw from the agreement. I would think it the height of folly to leave an area of coal sterilised while digging all around it merely because one party to the agreement refused to meet the situation with common sense. The Amendment gives Ministerial discretion where undue difficulty is met with on the part of the other party to an agreement.
    While I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the proposed

    723
    words, I would still think the Amendment worth while considering. When we consider this matter again, the Minister may well come to the conclusion that the Amendment is reasonable and may wish to include it in another form. Otherwise, could he indicate more definitely that the proposal is unworthy of further consideration? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not turn it down completely flat without further consideration. We could have a situation in which we would be confronted with folly that would not be to the advantage of either the Coal Board or anybody else. I hope the Minister can promise to give the matter further consideration after consulting the people engaged in the work.
    Mr. MacDermot: Could the Minister help us by giving an illustration on this point? His remarks were directed forcefully to the pros and cons of giving compulsory powers to either party to a voluntary agreement, but might there not be cases where a sterilisation agreement was voluntarily entered into by the National Coal Board not to give protection to the mineral owner, who was not affected at all by opencast coal working, but for a different purpose? It might be a case where the mineral owner would not suffer loss but desired to protect himself by the sterilisation agreement if the coal working took place. It seems unreasonable that he should have the power to hold the National Coal Board up to ransom and that opencast working in the national interest be seriously prejudiced.
    Sir I. Horobin: All I can say in answer to that interruption is that we have continuous observations on various operations from the National Coal Board, and we have no reason to think that this is a matter to which it attaches importance. In fact, we have not had any observations from the Board that it has long-standing sterilisation agreements. It cannot be very long ago, because the Board has only been concerned with this matter for ten years. There are many matters in the Bill on which the Board has very strong views, but this is not one of them.
    Mr. Robens: The Coal Board is not responsible for legislation; that is our task. It may be that the Board did not raise this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary. We can quite understand that,
    724
    but this is something which Parliamentarians observe. They have experienced it in their constituencies and they are responsible for legislation. There may be cases where it is in the national interest that this power should be reserved to the Minister, not to the Coal Board. I am asking whether the Minister has consulted the Board. This consultation is a two-way traffic and this is one of the things on which I should have thought he could satisfy himself, (a) that we were wrong, or (b), that he should do something about the matter.
    Sir I. Horobin: I did not misunderstand, but I was merely answering the point put by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot). I agree that these matters are appropriate to raise in the House. I was only saying that this particular trouble, if it is a trouble, had not been brought to our attention. This is the last occasion on which Amendments can be dealt with in this place. If the right hon. Member and his hon. Friend think that chapter and verse can be given in another place, well and good, but we have no evidence put before us to show that there is an overwhelming practical case to set against the very strong point of principle which I put to the House that we should not use compulsory powers given for a quite different purpose to enable anybody to get out of an agreement quite recently and voluntarily made.
    Of course, if a strong case could be put that there are a large number of these cases the proper procedure would be to move an Amendment, based on such a case, in another place. The onus of proof, surely, is on those who want to amend the Bill, especially at this late stage. I was very forthcoming in Committee in giving undertakings on a number of matters. That is the reason for the large number of Amendments we are considering today, but I do not think that I should go on giving further undertakings. If an Amendment is argued with a large number of cases, if they can be found—this is not a matter of vital importance one way or the other—no doubt it would be dealt with on its merits in another place, but I have no evidence so far which calls for setting aside a principle which, I think, is agreed to be a sound principle, that if a voluntary agreement has been come to the parties should stand by it.
    Mr. Robens: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is being rather forceful about this. It is true that in Committee he undertook to look at a great many things and, as a consequence, we have these Amendments on the Notice Paper. Will he also agree that, by being conciliatory and helpful, the Opposition, which have not a Civil Service to help them, nor the right to go to the Coal Board and ask for help, have probably saved him 30 or 40 hours of Committee work?
    5.45 p.m.
    This is exempted business and we can get along so much more easily when the Parliamentary Secretary meets us with some sweet reasonableness. What he is saying to me now is, "You go to the Coal Board. Make them undo their secrets and tell you all about it. When you have got that information, see someone in another place and ask him to put down an Amendment and have it argued. On the basis of that, we will discuss the matter." I am sure we could get on much more easily, and save a lot of time, if the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual courtesy and kindness, would do that for us. Why should he not have a

    New Clause.—(RECORD OF CONDITION OF LAND.)

    (1) For the purpose of facilitating the assessment of compensation under Part II of this Act, the Board shall cause records to be made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

    5

    (2) In the case of an opencast site order, where the Board have published, served and affixed notices under subsection (2) of section four of this Act, the Board shall cause a record to be made of the condition, as on the date of entry,—

    (a) of all the land comprised in the order, and

    (b) of any other land which, in relation to that order, forms part of a holding to which section sixteen or section twenty-eight of this Act applies:

    10

    Provided that, in relation to an opencast site order made in accordance with section six of this Act, this subsection shall apply as if paragraph (b) thereof were omitted.

    15

    (3) In the case of any compulsory rights order (other than any order made in accordance with section six of this Act) the Board shall, at the end of the period of occupation, cause a record to be made of the condition, as at the end of that period, of all the land comprised in the order.

    20

    (4) Any record of the condition of land made under this section shall be made in pursuance of a comprehensive survey of the land, in so far as such a survey can be carried out by inspection and without any operations involving the excavation of land or the making of borings therein, and shall include all such particulars of the land and of things in or on the land as are reasonably required for recording the results of such a survey.

    (5) Where the Board have caused a record to be made under this section they shall—

    25

    (a) in the case of a record made under subsection (2) of this section, within twenty-one days after the date of entry, and

    (b) in the case of a record made under subsection (3) of this section, within twenty-one days after the end of the period of occupation,

    30

    send a copy of the record to every person who is then known to them to be a person directly concerned.

    word with the Coal Board? He has only to pick up a telephone to get an audience with the Chairman, but it might take me weeks to get such an audience as I have not the authority which the Parliamentary Secretary has.
    I want to save the hon. Gentleman time. All I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary is whether he would look at this matter and consider whether there is anything in it. Then he could deal with it properly. We have done so well so far that it would be a pity if we started to argue on matters of procedure. This is a matter on which he could help us.
    Sir I. Horobin: We are considerably indebted for progress to the right hon. Member and, in view of what he has said, may I say that without any commitment I will take up the telephone and see what can be done.
    Mr. Robens: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    (6) If any person, to whom a copy of a record is sent under this section, gives notice of objection to the Board, within twenty-one days after the date on which the copy was sent to him, requiring the record to be amended in one or more respects specified in the notice, then—

    35

    (a) if all the persons whose agreement is requisite agree on an amendment of the record (whether the amendment is that specified in the notice of objection or another amendment in substitution for it), the Board shall cause the record to be amended accordingly;

    40

    (b) if no such agreement is reached, and the objection is not withdrawn, the matter in dispute shall be determined by arbitration.

    (7) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, the persons whose agreement is requisite shall be the Board, the person who gave the notice of objection, and all other persons to whom copies of the record were sent under this section.

    45

    (8) For the purposes of any arbitration under paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of this section—

    (a) the reference shall be to a single arbitrator appointed by the Board and the person who gave the notice of objection in consequence of which the dispute arose;

    50

    (b) except in relation to the appointment of an arbitrator, all persons whose agreement is requisite for the purposes of that subsection shall be parties to the reference.

    55

    (9) With respect to professional and other fees incurred by persons in obtaining advice or conducting negotiations with regard to any record made under this section, the Minister may make regulations requiring the Board, within such limits (whether as to descriptions of fees, or as to amount, or otherwise) and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to pay fees so incurred:

    Provided that no regulations under this section shall apply to any fees in so far as they form part of the costs of an arbitration under this section, or shall affect any power of an arbitrator with respect to any such costs.

    60

    (10) In the application of this section to Scotland for references to costs, and to an arbitrator, there shall be substituted respectively references to expenses and to an arbiter.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This appeared, on the face of it, to be an extremely simple business, but it has landed us in an extraordinary amount of complication. All we are trying to do is to ensure that people know what they are talking about when at various stages they talk about land. One would have thought that an easy thing to do, but upstairs and now we have found that it takes a remarkably large number of words. In this Clause we are seeking to strike out the existing Clause 10 and to put in another making a number of technical changes, and it also fulfils a couple of undertakings I gave in Committee on the question of records.
    In subsection (2) of the new Clause we deal with the condition of land at the date of entry under an opencast site order. This does not apply to storage site orders because, in the light of changes made upstairs, they can be made only on land which is already under requisition. There is no point in making a record of the condition of that land now; all that was
    728
    gone into at the time when the land was originally requisitioned.
    We make two changes as compared with the present Clause 10. We ensure that the record of condition shall cover all the holding and not just the land comprised in the order. That is because, as a result of Amendments made in Committee, some of the compensation provisions to protect the tenant in particular involve calculating values on certain assumptions which relate to the whole holding.
    The second change is to provide for a record of the land in the case of a limited order under Clause 6, orders dealing with easements, and so on because, under Clause 30, there is provision for terminal compensation on easements and similar rights have to be taken into account at the date of entry. The condition of the rest of the holding does not come into this calculation In this new Clause it is only necessary to record the condition of the land actually comprised in the order.
    Subsection (3) fulfils an undertaking of mine to provide for a record at the end of the Board's occupation of the

    729
    land. This is needed for the assessment of cost of works terminal compensation under Clause 21. I should point out that in the following subsection, which is entirely machinery, these records can only involve inspection. They do not give any right or call for boring or disturbance of the ground, or anything of that kind.
    Subsection (5) fulfils another undertaking of mine, which I think was generally acceptable, that these records should go to everybody known to be concerned without putting them to the trouble of asking for them. We have made a slight change for the benefit of the Board. As we are now asking the Board to make records of rather more land, it should have 21 days instead of the original 14 in which to send out copies.
    Subsection (8) makes a slight change in the Arbitration Act, 1950. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) will probably be interested in the change, and I think he will consider it a sensible one. I am advised that where matters go to arbitration under that Act, if any one of the persons concerned did not answer the Board's letter it would involve an expensive and complicated procedure to get an arbitrator appointed. We have made what seems to be a sensible provision, namely, that the person concerned in agreeing to the arbitrator should be the person who served the notice of objection on which there is to be arbitration. That will simplify, speed up and cheapen the procedure.
    The short intention of the Clause is to ensure as speedily, easily and cheaply as possible that everybody concerned gets a record of the condition of the land at all material dates.
    Mr. Champion: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there are here a lot of words to express a couple of fairly simple ideas. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the words are necessary.
    I rise merely to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having so scrupulously and carefully given thought to what was said in the Standing Committee and for having carried out completely the promises which he gave, particularly the promise in this case which I regard as of some importance. The provision that
    730
    the tenant affected should have a copy of the record without having to fetch it or to serve a notice upon the Board requiring it to send it to him is a simplification which will be welcomed by every tenant farmer concerned, for such a person probably would not be able to get legal advice easily or even cheaply.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 29, to leave out "send" and to insert:
    "serve a notice exhibiting".
    I hope that we may be able to consider, at the same time, the next four Amendments, in line 31, to leave out "to" and to insert "on"; in line 31, to leave out "sent" and to insert "served"; in line 33, to leave out "sent to" and to insert "served on"; and in line 34, after "notice", to insert "of objection" as they all go together.
    The object of the Amendments is to make more formal the procedure for sending a copy of the record to every person who is known to the Coal Board to be a person directly concerned. The Bill as originally drafted provided that anyone who wanted a copy of the record had to write and ask the Board for it. In response to a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), the Government have now accepted that the better course is to make it the other way round and put the responsibility on the Board to send a copy of the record to every person who, as far as it knows, is a person directly concerned.
    The Clause says:
    "… the Board … shall … send a copy of the record …"
    The first Amendment requires the Board to
    "… serve a notice exhibiting …"
    a copy. The reason is that if the phrase "serve a notice" is used it will import the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, which lays down in a well recognised form for lawyers—such words appear in many Acts—a definite procedure for serving a notice.
    Difficulties may often arise. The Board may have a last known address of a person which may not be that

    731
    person's current address. If we merely say that a notice must be sent, the person concerned may object that it was never sent to him because it was not sent to the address where he was now living. The Ninth Schedule provides for all that sort of thing. It provides for the way in which a notice shall be sent to a company—at its registered address or principal office.
    A case might arise where the Board believed that there was an interested party but did not know what his name was. It is difficult in those circumstances to see how the notice can be sent. However, the Ninth Schedule provides for that contingency by saying that the Board can address it to the person either by name or by the description "the owner or the occupier" and then send it in the prescribed manner to one of the addresses which will satisfy the requirements for the service of the document.
    That is the sort of thing that we have in mind in making our suggestion. We feel that it will avoid doubt and the possibility of future litigation if the notice is made a formal one, in the same way as a person who objects has to serve a notice of objection on the Board. The word "notice" imports all these formal provisions, whereas mere "send" does not.
    Sir I. Horobin: When I looked at the Amendments I was not clear what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and his hon. Friends. I was a little afraid that the intention might be that the notice should simply draw attention to the fact that persons concerned could set to work to obtain the notices. That would have been unacceptable. I am very glad that that is not the case.
    Speaking offhand, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a useful point here. If he is prepared not to press his Amendments now, I should like to consult my advisers and, if necessary, move an Amendment in another place. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot accept his Amendments as they stand, because this is a very technical matter, but I think that there is something in what he said.
    Mr. MacDermot: These are purely formal and technical points. In view of the Minister's assurance, for which I
    732
    thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO TELEGRAPHIC LINES.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act, none of the rights or powers conferred thereby or by any order made thereunder shall authorise any interference with any telegraphic line belonging to or used by the Postmaster General, or include any right or power to require such a line to be altered.
    (2) Where an authorisation has been granted under section one of this Act, and, for the purpose of enabling any authorised operations to be carried out, the Board require an alteration to be made in any telegraphic line of the Postmaster General, the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (8) of section seven of the Telegraph Act, 1878 (which provides for the alteration of such telegraphic lines in the case of work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament), shall apply as if the authorised operations were (within the meaning of that section) work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament, if apart from this subsection those operations would not be taken to be work so proposed to be done.
    (3) Where in pursuance of an order made under section three of the Acquisition of Land Act, as applied by section fourteen of this Act, a public right of way is suspended, and, immediately before the date on which that order became operative, there was under, in, upon, over, along or across the way to which the order relates a telegraphic line belonging to or used by the Postmaster General, the Postmaster General shall have the same powers in respect of that line as if the order had not become operative:
    Provided that this subsection shall have effect without prejudice to the provisions of the last preceding subsection.
    (4) In this section "telegraphic line" and "alter" have the same meanings as in the Telegraph Act, 1878.
    (5) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to the Acquisition of Land Act there shall be substituted a reference to the Scottish Acquisition of Land Act.—[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I do not think the Clause will detain the House long. It is for the comparatively unimportant purpose of preventing many telephone and telegraph lines from being pulled down. We have discovered that, in the process of applying this novel C.R.O. procedure to the already complicated land law of England, there may

    733
    be cases where telegraph and telephone lines are going along land which is a public right of way which may be affected by the provisions of the Bill, and if the right of way were affected the Postmaster-General would no longer have any right to have his poles there.
    6.0 p.m.
    It may well be, of course, that they will have to be removed, but there are special provisions, as I am sure everyone will agree there should be, for protecting him in that matter. This Clause is modelled on Section 117 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and all it does is to ensure that, where the Postmaster-General's lines are in this way affected, special machinery is laid down—and I need not detain the House to describe it—to make sure that proper notice is given to him, and proper protection, before his lines are interfered with.
    Mr. Robens: We have no objection to this Clause, but I must say that it is very new; new, in the sense that it was never referred to during the passage of the Bill through Standing Committee, nor was there any remote reference to it in the Bill itself. I do not complain about that. In the confused state of the Government's mind, with all the legislation they are churning out—and so overworking the Parliamentary draftsmen—small matters like telegraph poles do get mislaid and forgotten.
    The main point here is something which was discussed in Standing Committee; that a reference to any particular Minister meant a reference to all the other Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the attempts made by some of my hon. Friends always to include the Minister of Agriculture, when reference was made to the Minister of Power, to make absolutely certain that the Minister of Power would consult the Minister of Agriculture on matters referring to opencast workings. We finally agreed, though not easily, that the collective responsibility of Ministers was proved, and that, therefore, there was only the necessity to mention the Minister of Power in the Bill and that that would automatically include all other Ministers who would be affected.
    Having persuaded us to that effect, with all the ability that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary could command, we now have a Bill in which they have forgotten the Postmaster-General.
    734
    All I want to know is whether or not they will forget the Minister of Agriculture when the Bill is passed. How does it come about that the Postmaster-General, with all his telegraph poles, cables and the like—not small things to be put on one side and overlooked, but bulky things—was completely forgotten—indeed, if someone had not thought of it at the last moment, probably all telephonic communication in various parts of the country would have come to an end—and when it was impressed on us during the Committee stage to such an extent that we withdrew all our Amendments relating to the Minister of Agriculture on the assurance that the Minister of Power would consult all Ministers?
    We accept the Clause, but on this occasion we would like a word from the Paymaster-General as to whether we can now be assured that we can permit the Bill to go through without putting down a lot of Amendments in another place so as to include all the Ministers whom we want to include in joint consultation; whether we can from now on accept what was put to us with such force, that if we consult one Minister of the Crown we are consulting them all, where they have an interest. If so, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Minister who hawks telegraph poles around the country was forgotten?
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I will gladly respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation and apologise for the unfortunate omission of this provision from the Bill. I will not bandy words with him on this issue, but we certainly do apologise. It is clear that some provision must be made in relation to these telegraph posts, which are the property of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. I do not think that the general principle of collective Government responsibility is in any way impaired by the new Clause, or by the fact that we did not put in this particular provision at an earlier stage.
    I can cheerfully assure the right hon. Gentleman that, to the best of my knowledge and advice, the fact that this Clause is to be included does not invalidate anything said earlier about Ministerial responsibility by myself or my colleagues during the Committee stage.
    Mr. Ede: Did the Postmaster-General bring this to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or did that Department bring the position of the Postmaster-General to the notice of the Postmaster-General?
    Mr. Maudling: That sounds rather like the famous question about the chicken and the egg, to which I do not know of an answer.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1.—(AUTHORISATION OF OPENCAST WORKING OF COAL.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act".
    I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we could take, at the same time, the Amendment in page 1, line 13.
    The effect of these Amendments is to carry out an undertaking I gave to the Standing Committee on 25th February last to make clear a point raised by the Opposition to the effect that, in the Bill as it then stood, it was not clear that the Board could carry on on existing sites without authorisation. I said that we would make it quite clear that authorisation was not needed under Clause 1 for sites being worked at the time the Bill came into operation.
    The Amendments do this by replacing the general words
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act".
    at the beginning of Clause 1 (1) by specific references to Clauses 42 and 44. Clause 42 deals with sites that are being worked under licence by private operators, and Clause 44 deals with the transitional provisions to cover the point of sites being worked at the time when this Bill comes into force.
    I think, therefore, that these Amendments deal with the point raised by the Opposition and clarify what was, I admit, a little doubtful, perhaps, in the original draft.
    Mr. Robens: I rise only to welcome these proposals and to say that they emanated from a contribution made by Mr. Ronald Williams, whose sudden
    736
    death we so much deplore and whom we still miss so very much.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 13, at end insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of section forty-two of this Act and to the transitional provisions having effect by virtue of section forty-four of this Act.—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 3.—(COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, at the end to insert:
    (7) The Lands Clauses Acts shall not apply to the compulsory acquisition of rights by virtue of a compulsory rights order, or to the taking or retention of possession of land in the exercise of such rights.
    This is a drafting Amendment, designed to make it clear that the Lands Clauses Acts do not apply to the taking of land by means of compulsory rights orders under this Bill. This removes any possibility of argument that compensation on compulsory rights orders might be payable under the Lands Clauses Acts and not under the Bill. I understand that a specific provision is needed, because the opening words of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are:
    "This Act shall apply to every undertaking authorised by any Act which shall hereafter be passed, and which shall authorise the purchase or taking of lands for such undertakings, and this Act shall be incorporated with such Act."
    There might otherwise be some doubt as to whether the compensation on compulsory rights orders should be payable under the Lands Clauses Act. Clearly, the compensation should be governed by the Bill, and this is a drafting Amendment for the avoidance of doubt.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(EFFECT OF OPENCAST SITE ORDERS.)
    The following Amendments stood upon the Notice Paper:
    In page 5, line 42, leave out:
    "a compulsory rights order, being".
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker did not select that Amendment.
    Mr. MacDermot: Then I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I, too, was unaware of that. Had the Amendment been called I would have said that we were accepting it in principle, and were considering it before another stage of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not call it, but it is not complete without a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to insert "fifty-six".
    This Amendment gives effect to the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking in Committee on 20th March, and it increases the period of notice of entry under a compulsory rights order from 28 to 56 days.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, at the end to insert: "of any description".
    This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the Board's rights to occupy land under a production site order are those which they would have had if they had acquired a freehold interest in that land with vacant possession and free from encumbrances of any description. It is once again a drafting Amendment for more certainty.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out subsections (6) and (7).
    This Amendment is consequential on new Clause 3. Subsections (4) and (6) of the new Clause deal with the points covered by the subsections which are to be omitted.
    Amendment agreed to.

    "part of the land adjacent to such a building which, at that time, is occupied together with the whole or part of that building and either—

    (a) is within fifty yards from a part of that building, or

    (b) not being land falling within the preceding paragraph, and not being agricultural land, forms part of a garden, yard, court or forecourt belonging to that building".

    This Amendment fulfils an undertaking of mine to amend the proviso to Clause 7 (1) so as to prevent the Board working coal right up to one side of a house. This Amendment should be generally acceptable. It was felt that the original draft of the Bill was quite insufficient to protect the position of occupiers.
    Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 39, leave out "provisions of section six" and insert: "following provisions".—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 5.—(EFFECT OF STORAGE SITE ORDERS.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, to leave out subsections (4) and (5).
    This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders.) The points dealt with by the subsections now proposed to be omitted are covered by subsections (4) and (6) of the new Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 32, leave out "provisions of section six" and insert "following provisions".—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 6.—(LIMITED COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)
    Amendments made: In page 8, line 29, leave out from first "of" to "shall" in line 31 and insert:
    "subsection (4) of section (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders) of this Act".
    In line 32, after "land", insert "not".
    In line 34, after "right", insert "not".—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 7.—(PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM INCLUSION IN COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 36, at end insert:
    "a building whereof the whole or any part is".—[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out from "any" to the end of line 46 and to insert:
    This is an important Amendment to which I attach a great deal of importance. A great deal of trouble is caused because of the various interpretations which the courts have put upon the word "gardens". It was found very difficult to draft something which would protect roughly a house and garden, without

    739
    bringing in a whole lot of things which were not in the ordinary sense of the word—market gardens and so on, which were of quite a different type.
    6.15 p.m.
    Under this Amendment, in the first place we ensure that the Board cannot work right up to the side of a house, and in the second part of it we go even further in protecting the amenities of certain valuable large gardens round houses which are sometimes of great architectural importance. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is unfortunately not in his place at the moment, but on several occasions he has referred to Winstanley Hall, for instance. There are several houses of that type where there are large gardens which it will be generally agreed should not be spoiled. But they do not go in all directions equally. Therefore, it is necessary to try to provide a protection for them in addition to the radius, which prevents one from exceeding any point nearer than fifty yards. This is a valuable addition to the protection of amenities.
    Mr. Robens: Mr. Speaker, do you at this stage propose to take the Amendments to this proposed Amendment?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Robens: If so, would it not be desirable and to everybody's convenience if we took them all at the same time?
    Mr. Speaker: We have first got to agree to leave out the words which the Minister proposed to leave out in his proposed Amendment, and then there will be the Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted." On that I intended to call the first Amendment to this proposed Amendment.
    In answer to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, it appeared to me that the first Amendment, in line 2, leave out from "time" to "either" in line 3, and the third Amendment in line 5, after "paragraph", insert:
    "is occupied together with the whole or part of that building"
    went together. If the right hon. Gentleman can discuss all the Amendments together, I shall be very happy about it.
    Mr. Robens: With respect, I think you are quite right, Mr. Speaker, in saying
    740
    that they are two separate points, but the whole concerns one argument, as I think my hon. Friends and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. It might be to the convenience of the House if it were possible to have a general discussion on all these Amendments after which the Question could be put formally.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to include the Amendment in line 6, to leave out "garden"?
    Mr. Robens: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: We had first better agree to leave out the words which the Minister has asked shall be left out.
    Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Champion: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out from "time" to "either" in line 4.
    I understand that discussion is to take place on all the Amendments to this proposed Amendment, including those in line 5, to leave out from beginning to second "not", and in the same line to leave out:
    "and not being agricultural land".
    However, I shall confine my remarks to the Amendments in my name, namely, that which I am moving and the Amendment in line 5, after "paragraph", to insert:
    "is occupied together with the whole or part of that building".
    In moving his Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that it was designed to prevent land from being included in a compulsory rights order up to the edge of a dwelling which was occupied. I am not sure about this. So far as I can see, what this Amendment actually does is to exclude from a compulsory rights order dwelling-houses and land occupied by the occupier of a house up to a distance of 50 yards from the house.
    I am bound to agree that that Amendment is wholly reasonable. It is an Amendment that it is right should be made. But it seems to me to be quite unreasonable in so far as it provides no

    741
    protection at all for an occupier of a dwelling-house who does not occupy the land surrounding his house together with the house. I hope that I have made that point clear. It is possible to have circumstances in which land running right up to the edge of a dwelling is not in the occupation of the occupier of the dwelling-house itself.
    In the circumstances, it seems to me that where the land is in a different ownership the compulsory rights order could comprise land to the very walls of the house and the occupier of the dwelling-house would have only the safeguards contained in the Bill, that is to say, the right of support contained in the new Clause dealing with the general limitations of the effect of a compulsory rights order and, possibly, compensation for damage at common law.
    It seems to me wholly reasonable that a man should be safeguarded up to 50 yards from his dwelling, but it seems also to be wholly right and reasonable that a man should be safeguarded even if the land which abuts his dwelling is not owned by him. I imagine that this must be an oversight on the part of the Minister and that it can never be his intention that a compulsory rights order should be made in circumstances such as I have outlined. I hope that we shall have a favourable answer from the Minister. The matter must be of considerable importance everywhere where opencast mining goes on in built up areas, where, quite clearly, workings could come very near to dwelling houses.
    Mr. Oliver: I support the Amendment moved my my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). I was rather in favour of the Minister's Amendment. I thought it did substantially meet the point raised in Committee and, to that extent, so far as an occupier of a house was concerned with land on which an order had been made, the Amendment fulfilled the Minister's promise. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, however, has revealed what seems to be an oversight. It may well be that neither he nor I are reading the Minister's Amendment quite correctly, but it is possible to construe it, I think, so that an occupier of a dwelling-house could have opencast mining brought right up to his door, and, because he did not
    742
    occupy or have an interest in the land, he would have no remedy.
    The Amendment moved by the Minister provides a remedy for the person in occupation, but it provides no remedy for an unfortunate person who has no interest whatever in the land upon which opencast operations are continuing. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will say that we have misread his Amendment or, if we have not, that he will take the necessary steps to see that such a person is safeguarded from what would be an appalling nuisance.
    Mr. MacDermot: I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for having put down his Amendment. It is a brave attempt to grapple with the difficult problem raised by an Amendment we moved in Standing Committee, namely, how to ensure that opencast coal workings do not come closer than a reasonable distance to a dwelling-house or buildings.
    My hon. Friends have spoken particularly to the Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), which are directed to the point that the 50 yards limitation ought to be for the benefit of all, not only for the benefit of a person fortunate enough to own land within a 50 yard radius round his house.
    I wish to address a few remarks to the other Amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have kindly allowed us to discuss at the same time. The first of these is in line 5, to leave out from the beginning to the second "not". It is purely related to a drafting point and is put down in order to probe the reason for the words in paragraph (b),
    "not being land falling within the preceding para".
    It would appear that the intention behind those words is sufficiently covered by the short word "or" at the end of the previous line. If (a) and (b) are alternatives, I should have thought that the words we asked to be left out would be unnecessary.
    The other two Amendments, in line 5, to leave out
    "and not being agricultural land"
    and in line 6, to leave out "garden", are of more substance. I gather from what the Minister has said in moving his Amendment that the words "not being

    743
    agricultural land" were probably introduced with particular reference to the word "garden"—in other words, to exclude extensive market gardens. If that is the intention, with respect, it is something with which I would entirely agree, but I wonder whether the Minister has sufficiently considered the effect of those words on the other words in the Amendment,
    "yard, court or forecourt belonging to that building".
    I will take as an example a farmyard, perhaps a fairly extensive farmyard immediately adjacent to, and occupied with, the main farm buildings, but extending beyond the 50-yard radius. Surely, one would want the whole farmyard to be protected, but, if the words "not being agricultural land" are left in, it is not so protected. The same would apply to a court or forecourt. There may be buildings in a yard which are used for agricultural purposes. They should surely be protected just as much as a building used, let us say, for housing the farmer's Rolls-Bentley, or whatever his motor car may be. The garage for the tractor deserves just as much, if not more, protection. That is the object of our Amendment. It is to probe the Government's intention.
    The Amendment to leave out "garden" was put down primarily for probing purposes so that we should know what was the intention behind the use of this word. The Minister has already said something about it. We can understand that certain ornamental gardens attached to big country houses are something which anyone would wish to see preserved. Most of them are thrown open on occasions to the public and add considerably to the amenities of the neighbourhood. Equally, however, there are sometimes very extensive gardens attached to houses, walled gardens and so on, which are not occupied for agricultural purposes, which have no architectural or amenity merit, but which are very extensive in area. There might be occasions when the protection of those gardens would operate unreasonably against the Board in preventing it from working seams of coal lying under them.
    Perhaps it is a matter which could be dealt with by the elastic procedure of the Minister's directions, but we feel that, as drawn at the moment, the Amendment
    744
    in this respect is perhaps too wide, and in the other respects is too narrow.
    Sir I. Horobin: I think that it would be convenient if I dealt with the last points first. There is clearly nothing substantial between us here, at any rate. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) said, the Amendments in this case are put down either to probe the intention behind the Government's Amendment or to raise possible points of drafting.
    I should not like to express an opinion as to whether "agricultural land" would in its technical sense cover a yard or court, but that is a purely drafting point and we shall certainly look into it. I gather that in the light of what I have said already there is agreement that we should exclude gardens which are not the kind of amenity garden that we have in mind and which might extend over acres of raspberry fields, or something like that. Having done that, we are in agreement that we would wish to include amenity gardens even if they extend beyond 50 yards in a certain direction. I shall look into the purely drafting point and satisfy myself whether any change is needed.
    6.30 p.m.
    I am sorry to say that on the first and much more important point I am not able to satisfy the views that have been expressed, although I should like to very much. There is no question of oversight. The intention of the Amendment, which goes as far as we are able to go in this direction, is severely limited by the same principle that we had to discuss earlier, namely, that we must draw a distinction between persons who have an interest in the strict sense and those who have not. If the land concerned is land in which the owner of the house has no interest in that sense, then this is a risk which runs anyway.
    If a person carries out opencast mining operations for minerals, for instance, he has no power to stop the nuisance. I must be careful here. I am not using the word "nuisance" in the strict legal sense. If two people occupy precisely the same kind of house and overlook precisely the same kind of opencast site, one may be affected by the Amendment and the other not, because of the principle to which we have had to adhere throughout the Bill, namely, that we are doing our best to

    745
    ensure that anybody who has a right over land which the Coal Board is working and is damnified by what the Coal Board is doing shall be compensated. We cannot give rights against the Coal Board which do not run against any other operator. If anybody else can get town planning permission to dig a quarry or build a cement works on the borders of a person's land he has no power to claim compensation. We are not giving any right to compensation against the Coal Board which does not exist against a cement company or whoever it may be.
    All we are doing here—and it is as far as we feel we are able to go in a Bill of this kind—is to ensure that if damage is done to land over which a person has an interest in some way and that damnifies him on another part, although not the part taken, either compensation shall run or, as in this case, a person would be protected from it happening at all. The fears that have been expressed that some persons will not be protected by the Amendment are well founded. All we have been able to do is to ensure that where land is in the same occupation operations will not take place within 50 yards of the house, nor shall a garden in the ordinary sense of the word be destroyed in order to get the coal.
    I am sorry that we have not been able to go further, but if we did we should breach a principle to which we have had to adhere throughout the Bill.
    Mr. MacDermot: I should like to press this matter a little further because it seems to me that this is a misapplication of the principles to which the Minister referred. We are not dealing with compensation. Going back 100 years or more, one can see a distinction between the compensation that a person who is the owner of land which is affected may get and the person who is not the owner. But here the simple point is that we have already decided and agreed that when the land surrounding a dwelling-house which belongs to the owner of that dwelling-house is taken, it is in all circumstances unreasonable to take land which is nearer than 50 yards to his house.
    Why is it unreasonable? It is nothing to do with the fact that he is the owner of the land. It is unreasonable because it is recognised that the nature of these operations is so distasteful that it would
    746
    inflict a quite unfair hardship on the occupier of a house to have the land taken and have the operations brought any nearer to his house than 50 yards. If that principle is sound in respect of the man who owns both the land and the house, it is sound in respect of the man who does not own the land but who has a house within a 50 yards radius. His need to be protected is exactly the same. As the Parliamentary Secretary says, if one were dealing, not with the operations of the Coal Board, but with the operations of a person seeking to get planning permission to work a quarry, if he got his planning permission he would be entitled to go closer than 50 yards. But would that planning permission ever be granted? One very much doubts it, certainly not if it would produce the kind of unpleasantness that we all know is produced by opencast coal working.
    If the principle that a 50-yard limit should be the maximum for the owner is sound, then is not it sound and should not it be the maximum for everybody and should not the discretion of the Minister, when he confirms the order, be limited now by Parliament so that in no circumstances will authorisation be granted which will enable operations to take place closer to a house than 50 yards?
    Sir I. Horobin: The illustration that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has given emphasises the distinction. These are all matters which are material for the Minister to consider when he is considering whether to give an authorisation. Indeed, as we have tried to point out—and the point cropped up over and over again in Committee—the analogy of this authorisation throughout is with town planning. It is a town planning matter. It technically carries deemed planning permission. As the hon. and learned Member has said, it is unlikely in certain circumstances that town planning permission would be given to carry on operations next door to a house if the nuisance in the general sense were very great. If that is so, precisely the same considerations would have to be in the forefront of the Minister's mind in considering whether he should give authorisation.
    What we are concerned with is whether we should depart from general town planning principle, which is not to give wide, blanket refusals, but to consider each case on its merits, and whether

    747
    we should leave the Minister to consider ordinary planning considerations. But where the land is in the same occupation, then, for the reasons that we have heard over and over again, such as there being an interest and objection could have been raised, and so on, he is in a different position. Where he has no interest in the land he must rely on town planning considerations, and the town planning considerations come in when the Minister is considering whether to give an authorisation which carries deemed planning consent.
    Mr. Ede: Will the Parliamentary Secretary go a little further and say that the Minister will in fact take into consideration the points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) when these cases come before him? If we can be assured of that, our points might be fairly met, but the Minister was very careful not to go quite so far as that. During the past few years we have been able to preserve both individuals and the public at large from many eye-sores that used to be tolerated in the past. That has been the effect of town and country planning, which was started during the war by a Minister to whom I do not intend to refer in your presence, Mr. Speaker.
    One has been afraid in recent months that some of these feelings that we had during the war are now being whittled away. For a good part of the afternoon, the hon. Gentleman has kept repeating the mystic initials C.R.O. After some trouble, I found that in this connection they mean a compulsory rights order. In all my previous experience, they meant Criminal Record Office. I hope that the compulsory rights order will not be used to effect some criminal records in the matter of devastating the countryside unnecessarily. I hope that the Minister will be able to go just the little bit further that I have asked him to go.
    Sir I. Horobin: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, I think I can satisfy him entirely. These matters would have to be very carefully considered by the Minister. Indeed, one can go further. As we now must have a public inquiry, as the inspector must refer to all these things and the Minister will give reasons why he does or does not consent to the compulsory rights
    748
    order, with or without amendment, there is no doubt whatever that in practice this kind of consideration would have to be very carefully considered.
    We must, however, bear in mind the other side. Throughout the Bill, it has been a matter of balancing. The Coal Board is under an obligation to provide large quantities of coal and there are certain cases where substantial losses of coal might be involved. Therefore, a general blanket refusal of this kind to persons with no interest in the land would not seem to be proper. However, in considering the town planning balance of judgment, I should have thought it was quite certain that if a small amount of coal were at stake which could easily be avoided by remaining at a reasonable distance from a house of the kind in question, that would be a material consideration which would be bound to be present at the inquiry, bound to be referred to in the inspector's report and bound, therefore, to be considered by the Minister when giving or refusing his consent.
    Mr. Ede: Would the man who, in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), is in what has been called the second house, have the right of hearing at the inquiry?
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not think he is a person who would have a right. Nevertheless, once an inquiry is ordered, it is, I am advised, unusual to refuse reasonable requests. In any case, the town planning authority would have a right. This is a town planning matter. The local authority would have a definite right to be there and certainly would be there. Therefore, in the first place, it would be for that authority to press the rights or wrongs from the town planning point of view upon the Minister and his inspector.
    Mr. Oliver: Will the Parliamentary Secretary apply his mind to this? If it is a town planning matter and the town planning machinery is being employed, why specify the 50 yards in the Bill if the town planning authority would give the protection which the Minister suggests? The hon. Gentleman tells us that the town planning committee will consider all these things. Why include it in the Statute in respect of the occupier and leave the other

    749
    unfortunate man naked and exposed to all the vagaries of what might be decided? To put it another way, why protect the rich and neglect the poor?
    Sir I. Horobin: I hope we do not get drawn into that argument. This is nothing to do with the rich or the poor. The rich man might be unprotected—it might be Wentworth Woodhouse or somewhere of that kind—whereas the poor man might have a council house and his few yards of occupied land might be protected. We do not want any red herrings of that kind.
    6.45 p.m.
    We keep coming back to this distinction. There are certain of these people whom we can protect rigidly upon the grounds that they have an interest in the land. Therefore, the compulsory powers of the Board are taking something from them compulsorily to which they could object, town planning entirely apart. That is the distinction. Town planning or no town planning, when a person has an interest in the land, if the Coal Board does not have compulsory powers he can say, "I will not let you come within 50 yards of my house"—[Interruption.]—or, possibly, 100 yards if that was preferred. It is quite reasonable, therefore, to come to some agreement as to what is a reasonable minimum and write it in the Bill.
    The other cases, however, would have no such right. Anybody could have come up and done anything which was not an actionable nuisance right outside the window. Therefore, there must be the dependence solely on town planning protection, and that is what we do. That is the distinction. I confess that if one could have done it, I should have liked legally to protect everybody, but we have gone as far as we can.
    In the Bill, we are ensuring a specific protection for those who have a legal interest in the land. Therefore, we feel, it should not be taken away from them. We are not, however, giving to persons a right which they would not otherwise have had and which they do not have against anybody else. We do not propose in the Bill to give them a right against the Coal Board that they do not have against any other legal developer.
    Why should the Coal Board alone be put in a position of disadvantage which
    750
    is not shared by any other legal developer? That is our position. I do not say that it is an entirely happy one, but we are balancing one thing against the other and we have tried to draw the line as fairly as we can in the interests of amenity and in the interests of the Coal Board.
    Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary has missed the whole point. He keeps insisting that this is only a matter of protecting, as far as is possible, the legal rights of the owner of the land. It was never discussed on that basis in Committee. This is an amenity point concerning the right of people to live as peacefully as they can despite the opencast coal operations which go on in their midst.
    The whole of opencast coal operations take place in countryside which is also associated with council house development and dwellings. There is not a single hon. Member who represents a mining constituency where coal is found who has not come up against a case in which coal workings come right up against dwelling-houses. What we are seeking to do is to minimise as far as we can the inconvenience that opencast coal working brings about.
    It is no use arguing that those responsible for town planning can ameliorate this inconvenience, because if the town planners had their way in any area where opencast coal operations take place, they would never agree to any opencast coal workings at all. No elected representatives who are councillors or aldermen, and who sit on county, borough or town planning authorities would dare to give permission for opencast coal operation to take place if they were completely free agents. The only reason why, at the moment, planning permission will be granted under the Bill is that compulsory powers can be applied.
    Let us forget about town planning. Those of us who have sat on town planning committees know perfectly well that in normal circumstances, without compulsory powers, there is no town planning organisation anywhere which would give the right to do this opencast coal work. It is not, therefore, a legal matter at all. If the Parliamentary Secretary will cast his mind back to the Committee stage, he will remember that this emerged on an

    751
    Amendment put forward from this side which provided that houses should not be encroached upon within half an acre, or that a house should be left with at least half an acre of land. We explained, of course, that the half-acre could be entirely behind the house and that the workings could operate close up to the front door.
    This is no myth. I have seen and heard hundreds of operations which have been conducted within 20 yards of the front door. Whether it can be done depends entirely on the strata. We said at that time that there should be at least 50 yards around the house in order to provide some reasonable amenity for the people who have to live for five years or longer in these conditions; and these conditions have to be seen to be believed. What the Parliamentary Secretary has said is that if one happens to own the land about which we are talking one can have the 50 yards, but that if one happens to live in a house on either side of that boundary the operating works can go on virtually up to the doorstep because there is no provision about the 50 yards
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that we must leave it to the local planning authority, but he cannot say whether the local planning authority will, in fact, guarantee the 50 yards. He does not know. Surely, if it is right in common justice to say that, purely from the viewpoint of amenity—and this has nothing to do with damage, because the damage is done if one is within 50 yards; it is purely an amenity point—the owner of the land can, under the Bill, be protected, then the person living next door and on the border of that same land ought to have the same right in law.
    It should not be left to the local planning authority to determine whether it should be 50 yards or not, because, as the Parliamentary Secretary now says, it is not the position even under the Bill that what is said at the inquiry or the evidence that the planning authority will put forward will decide the matter at all, but that it will be decided finally after a public inquiry is held about compulsory powers. If this country gets very short of coal, as it was a few years ago, then the compulsory powers of the Minister will override every other consideration, as, unfortunately, it must.
    752
    We are asking the Parliamentary Secretary to get away from this idea of legality, because it is not the legality of the matter with which we are concerned. We are concerned that opencast coal mining operations should proceed with the minimum loss of amenity to those people who have to live within these operational areas, some of which are gigantic.
    We are asking the Government to give some relief and not confine the 50 yards to the owner of the land only, but extend it to those around the site, who ought to have the same consideration. That would not affect at all the views of the local planning authority on the matter, but at least the local planning authority would be unable to permit or to authorise digging operations within 50 yards of a dwelling house.
    That is the simple point, it seems to me. It is a reasonable point, and if the Parliamentary Secretary would read again the report of the Committee stage of the Bill he would see some of his own words:
    "It is monstrous—and if we can avoid it, it should be avoided—to leave a house perched on a pinnacle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 20th March, 1958; c. 352.]
    This had nothing to do with who owned the house. All that the hon. Gentleman said was that it was monstrous that a house should be left in that position.
    I beg the Parliamentary Secretary not to go on pursuing this matter as if it were a legal one. It is not; it is an amenity matter. If it is right that the man who owns the land should be protected and that he should not have to rely on the local planning authority for his 50 yards, it is also right that anybody who lives in such a house should have the same sort of protection under the Bill. That is what we seek, and I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have gladly accepted it.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: I should have thought that if, in the course of a few years, we found ourselves short of coal, we might be less concerned about amenities than we might be about the production of coal and the winning of coal from all possible sources. I have not taken part in the discussions on this Bill, either in the Standing Committee, of which I was not a member, or in the debates in this House today, but I was once Minister of Fuel and Power, and I had a great deal to do with opencast coal

    753
    operations. I recall the difficulties that beset the Ministry of Fuel and Power when we sought powers to proceed with opencast operations.
    Some of my colleagues may recall the occasion when there was considerable controversy in the country because we sought to acquire for opencast coal operations land at Wentworth Woodhouse, when Earl Fitzwilliam, who was the owner at the time and may still be in possession of the mansion and the land adjoining, sought to prevent us. I go further. Some of my colleagues sought to prevent us on the grounds that we were interfering with amenity. Why? Because we were interfering with this mansion, the gardens and the land adjoining. We were proposing on that occasion to undertake opencast mining operations almost up to the windows of the mansion, because there was a need for the coal.
    Conditions have changed since then, and it is extremely doubtful whether, at present or in the foreseeable future, we shall require to engage substantially in opencast coal mining operations. It may be that we shall provide ourselves with sufficient coal from deep-mined sources to enable us to carry on and in a few years to dispense entirely with opencast operations. I do not know; I cannot indulge in any crystal gazing.
    Mr. Rupert Speir Mr. Rupert Speir (Hexham) rose—
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not speak often. The hon. Gentleman might interrupt the thread of my discourse. I am easily distracted, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. Indeed, I have almost forgotten the next sentence I was going to say, but I am not going to forget the one after that, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
    Mr. Speir: Did the right hon. Gentleman yield to pressure?
    Mr. Shinwell: What I do say is that all this is very disturbing. I do not understand anything on the legal side of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has said that this is not a legal matter, but since I came into the House I have heard a great deal of legal jargon, the intricacies and subtleties of which I fail completely to understand.
    754
    It may not be a legal matter, but I have heard opinions which it seems to me might adversely affect the Coal Board. I am bound to say that it gives me considerable surprise to find the Parliamentary Secretary actually defending the Board and some of my colleagues seemingly, I will not put it higher than that, seeking to deprive the Board of some of its powers. This seems to me to be upsetting the apple cart. It is a complete reversal of our position.
    I also note this—and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not regard this as more than a mild digression—that recently there have been many criticisms of many kinds levelled at the Coal Board. Many indictments have been preferred against it, some of which may be substantially held, while others may be based on imagination or fiction. I would say to my colleagues that we have to be very careful not to allow too much criticism of the Coal Board, even by intellectuals on this side of the House.
    7.0 p.m.
    We must be extremely careful. The Board was our baby. Let us not forget that. While we must not allow it to become arbitrary in character, or possess arbitrary powers, we must nevertheless seek to protect it so far as we are able so long as it is necessary for it to engage in opencast coal operations. Let us not forget that there was a time when the Ministry of Fuel and Power was entirely responsible for these operations. That power was transferred to the Board, though not in my time. I should have preferred to keep it under the aegis of the Ministry, but that was what was done by others who perhaps had greater knowledge of this subject and were more highly intelligent than I can claim to be.
    It seems to me that if we had a guarantee—perhaps we might get an even more definite guarantee and assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary after more mature consideration—that not only those who possess land in the neighbourhood, but those who have certain amenity rights in the neighbourhood, are protected through the town planning authorities I should have thought that we might be satisfied.
    If this is a matter of penalising the Board by as much as a hair's breadth, no one will drag me into the Lobby in

    755
    support of the proposal. I want to make that clear. We had enough trouble when we were advocating the formation of the Board, and it has enough troubles on its plate at present. It must not be penalised in the matter of opencast coal operations and amenities more than is absolutely essential in the interests of the country. I want as much as anybody to see amenities preserved.
    It should not be forgotten that if opencast coal operations proceed within 50 yards, ten yards or even five yards of someone's dwelling—this is the old trouble in connection with farm property—the Board has an obligation to restore the land. In the ten years since opencast coal operations began, in spite of all the criticisms and the pessimistic predictions about the effect on amenities, hardly a tract of land where opencast operations have taken place has not been restored completely and to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.
    In those circumstances, we ought to be a little careful about the matter. I beg my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance which will satisfy us without seeming to penalise the Board.
    Mr. Speir: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the occasion when there was a threat to destroy Wentworth Woodhouse in order to extract coal by opencast methods. He did not tell the House what the answer was to the pressure put upon him as Minister of Fuel and Power at that time. It is my belief that he yielded to the pressure.
    Mr. Shinwell: I did not yield.
    Mr. Speir: Yet the right hon. Gentleman now tells the House that we ought not to pay any attention to amenity matters and should not by even one hair's breadth limit the powers of the Board in respect of opencast mining.
    If, when we were desperately short of fuel in the 'forties, we could pay attention to amenity, as I believe we did, and if, on another occasion when opencast operations were taking place on Town Moor, Newcastle-on-Tyne, it was thanks to the right hon. Gentleman that the work ceased at week-ends and night, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is the
    756
    person to come here and tell us that we should not have regard to amenities at a time when fuel is far more available than it was when he was in office.
    Anyone who lives in the vicinity of opencast coal mining operations suffers untold misery and hardship, and we must remember that the operations take place not only at week-ends and during the day but all night as well. Everything possible should be done to safeguard the interests of those living in the neighbourhood. I hope that the Minister will undertake to look at the matter further and ascertain whether an Amendment could be tabled in another place.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made a very powerful and eloquent speech, but at the end of it I remained a little doubtful what it was about. At one time he seemed to be defending the Coal Board on the ground that it was his baby. It was a very legitimate baby, but it has grown up now and is perfectly capable of taking its place in the world and standing up to criticism and defending itself against unjustified criticism.
    I do not regard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) as being any kind of an attack on the Board. He seemed to me to be making a very simple and narrow point. It had nothing to do with the Board and nothing to do with any question of lawyers, intellectuals, or anything of the kind. What he was saying was that since the Government apparently admit that if a man owns a house he ought to be protected in his enjoyment of it up to a perimeter of 50 yards, then for the same reason some protection ought to be afforded to a man who merely occupies the house without owning it. Are we to take it that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington would be in favour of protecting amenities within 50 yards for a landowner, but not for a tenant? That would be a strange rôle for my right hon. Friend.
    I hope that nobody on this side of the House will be disturbed by the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, but will vote for the Amendment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth was speaking, which seemed to be one of such elementary

    757
    justice that it is difficult to understand why the debate is continuing so long.
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not wish to stand in the way of any other hon. Member who wishes to address himself to the Amendment, because much of what has been said in recent speeches had nothing whatever to do with it. I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is under the disadvantage of not having read the Amendment. It has nothing to do with ownership. It deals with occupation.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I was talking about occupiers.
    Sir I. Horobin: Then the hon. Memmight have mentioned occupation. He never dealt with it at all. He mentioned ownership throughout.
    I am entirely in agreement with a great part of what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said. Indeed, I tried to make the same point. We have to consider how far in the Bill we can protect property, especially, and people's amenities. The position that we have taken up is that persons with an interest of occupation in both a house and land adjoining are in a different position from those who have no interest in the land concerned. Where they have that interest, where they occupy the house and occupy the land, we feel that it is possible to lay down special protection for them. Where they have no interest in the land, we feel that the National Coal Board should be in exactly the same position as any other legal developer.
    If a man occupies a house and has no interest it the land adjoining, then he has no legal right to interfere with any development which has obtained either planning consent, or, as would be the case here, deemed planning consent. We cannot see why the Coal Board should be put in a position different from that of any other developer. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington was making, and that is precisely what lies behind the distinction which we are drawing.
    As there were some red herrings about only protecting owners, I should make it quite clear that that is not in the least the point. There still seems to be some slight confusion about town planning. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)
    758
    appeared to be interpreting what I said and the meaning of our original Amendment as implying that the outcome must be dependent upon a separate decision of the town planning authority. That is not the case, and if I gave that impression I am very sorry.
    What I tried to say, and what I think I did say, was that the protection that these people must have is a town planning protection. However, under the Bill, these powers of town planning are transferred to the Minister. It will be he who, taking account of the need for coal and the need for amenity, which may vary, will give the authorisation, a decision which in effect is a town planning decision and which, in any case, a local planning authority might have given, if it had been a cement factory which it was proposed to build near the house.
    That is the point. It is not the case that the occupier of a house who has any interest in neighbouring land will be left to the mercies of a town planning decision. A town planning authority would not be in the same position as the Minister in drawing the balance fairly between the needs of the Coal Board and the need for amenities in the district. The position is that probably the man himself and certainly the local planning authority will have the right to appear and argue these issues at the public inquiry. The inspector will deal with it and the Minister will deal with it, and it may well be, and probably will be, that if only a small amount of coal is needed and there is no great demand for coal at that time the authorisation will not be given up to 20 yards, 50 yards or 100 yards, whatever the Minister decided on town planning considerations.
    What we cannot accept is that the Coal Board should be in any different position from that of any other developer in this matter. It must be free to do these things as any other operator would be allowed to do them, if the planning authority so decided. If the planning authority would not give this permission, we are arguing about nothing, because the Board would not be allowed to do it in those cases.
    We feel that the Coal Board should not be specially hindered in its statutory duty of trying to obtain coal. I cannot help the House any further, and if I have not persuaded hon. Members we must leave it at that. We have tried to draw a fair

    759
    and rational line between the needs of amenities and the need of the Board to fulfil its statutory duties, unhindered by handicaps which do not apply to other developers.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Edward Short: My law is a little rusty, but it seems to me that the Minister has based his resistance to the Amendment on a fallacy, or at any rate on bad law. The Government have inserted the figure of 50 yards, and, provided that an occupier of a dwelling-house occupies the land around (it, the opencast mining cannot come nearer than 50 yards from the house, but if somebody else occupies the land opencast mining can come to his doorstep.
    That means that the owner of Blagdon Hall, Lord Ridley, could not have opencast mining nearer than 50 yards from his house, whereas the occupant of a council house could have opencast mining on his doorstep. I have seen hundreds of houses perched on the edge of yawning chasms. Presumably, the Government have inserted the figure of 50 yards to keep opencast mining at arms' length from a dwelling house, provided that the occupant also occupies the land, because opencast mining is a very unpleasant operation. It is extremely noisy and continues day and night. It is extremely dirty, and the whole area is mucked up with mud in wet weather. It is also extremely dangerous.
    Before I was privileged to become an hon. Member, I had occasion to pass an opencast mining site twice a day, and I have seen stones flung all over the place. It is extremely dangerous, which is presumably one of the reasons why the figure of 50 yards was included. In other words, it is a nuisance—although that may not be the strictly correct legal term. Being a nuisance, the distance of 50 yards to some extent abates the nuisance for the occupier of the house.
    Throughout the last hour or so, the Minister has refused to accept our proposal, which provides a partial abatement of the nuisance to the occupier of the house who does not occupy the surrouding land. His resistance is wholly based on the argument that our proposal would breach an important principle of the law, that the Coal Board must be in the same
    760
    position as any other developer of land. I suggest that that is the wrong way to consider the matter. The Coal Board does not develop land in the same sense as someone who builds a house or factory develops land. In opencast mining, the Coal Board is carrying out a very unpleasant, nasty, dirty and dangerous operation and is in no sense developing the land—certainly not in the sense that the builder of a factory develops the land. On the Government's own case, opencast mining creates a nuisance, at least for the time being.
    There are many examples in law where a nuisance can occur on land and where the owner of the adjoining land has an action against the person causing the nuisance. A person who wishes to abate nuisance need not be the occupier of the land where the nuisance occurs. There are many examples of that. The right to ancient lights is one where the offending building may be on someone else's land and where the nuisance is to the owner of the adjoining land. Another example is that of noxious smells, and there are several others. In basing his resistance to the Amendment on that argument, the Minister is arguing bad law and is basing himself on a fallacy.
    Sir I. Horobin: Where there is a nuisance of the sort the hon. Member describes, all the rights remain to the offended party, so I do not see the relevance of the hon. Member's argument. If it is a nuisance, there is still the same legal remedy.
    Mr. Short: That is a quibble. The mere fact that the Government have inserted 50 yards shows implicitly that they regard opencast mining as some sort of nuisance and are willing to concede partial abatement of the nuisance if the occupier of the house occupies the surrounding land. If that is the correct interpretation, surely it is only common justice that the occupier of any dwelling house, whether he occupies the surrounding land or not, should have the same right of partial abatement—
    Mr. S. Silverman: The same protection.
    Mr. Short: —the same protection by having these operations kept 50 yards from him. I add my plea to the others that the Minister should promise to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary has not risen to say whether he will give consideration to this, and I take it from the nodding of his head that he is not able to do so. You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow us to discuss five Amendments at the same
    time. Therefore, as we wish to divide on this one, we will not move the others.
    Question put, That the words proposed be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 153.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES

    [7.20 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Godber, J. B.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mawby, R. L.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gough, C. F. H.

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

    Armstrong, G. W.

    Gower, H. R.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Ashton, H.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Balniel, Lord

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Barber, Anthony

    Green, A.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Neave, Airey

    Barter, John

    Grimond, J.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Batsford, B. C. C.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Page, R. G.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maidon)

    Partridge, E.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Peel, W. J.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Black, C. W.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Redmayne, M.

    Braine, B. R.

    Hope, Lord John

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Russell, R. S.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hurd, A. R.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Cole, Norman

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Speir, R. M.

    Cooke, Robert

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Storey, S.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Keegan, D.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Temple, John M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Leavey, J. A.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

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

    Vickers, Miss Joan

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

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Wade, D. W.

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    McAdden, S. J.

    Wall, Patrick

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Finlay, Graeme

    McKibbin, Alan

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Gammans, Lady

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Sir Gerald Wills and Mr. Bryan.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Mathew, R.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pentland, N.

    Albu, A. H.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Holman, P.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Allen, Scholefieid (Crewe)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Probert, A. R.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hunter, A. E.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Beswick, Frank

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reeves, J.

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

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Reid, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Janner, B.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Boardman, H.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Kenyon, C.

    Ross, William

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Short, E. W.

    Boyd, T. C.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Shurmer, P. L. E

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Lawson, G. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Snow, J. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    McCann, J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Coldrick, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Stonehouse, John

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Deer, G.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Mason, Roy

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Thornton, E.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Warby, W. N.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moyle, A

    West, D. G.

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

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Wigg, George

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Willey, Frederick

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Grey, C. F.

    Oram, A. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Owen, W. J.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Padley, W. E.

    Woof, R. E.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Parker, J.

    Hannan, W.

    Paton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hastings, S.

    Pearson, A.

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Peart, T. F.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    7.30 p.m.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, to leave out "and".
    I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we may also discuss the next Amendment, to line 16.
    These Amendments are important. I hope that we shall now get back to common agreement and that the Amendments will be generally acceptable.
    In the Bill as drafted, the C.R.O. may not relate to land covered by buildings, unless the conditions in the Minister's consent have provided for restoration and replacement. The Amendments propose to tighten that up by saying that the buildings must be restored before the
    764
    Board gives up occupation. That was inserted primarily in order to simplify the results of changes in compensation which dealt with tenant's improvements. The net result of this point was that the owner would have to pay in the first place and it was therefore very important to avoid putting the unfortunate owner in the position of having to find ready cash to a very large amount.
    We propose to get over that difficulty by an Amendment which would ensure that all the work would be done before the Coal Board gave up occupation, leaving only comparatively small items for which the owner had, in the first place, to pay the tenant.
    The Amendments have very considerable advantages for their own sake. I

    765
    think that in all parts of the House we shall be pleased that some of these restorations, where they apply to buildings, must be done at a much earlier date than would otherwise have been the case as the Bill was originally printed, and before the Coal Board gives up occupation. Instead of the owner being told, "You will in due course have your barn or pigsty restored," the buildings will, in fact, be there when he comes back into occupation. I hope that will be generally acceptable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 16, at end insert:
    "and
    (d) those conditions specified a time within which the restoration or replacement of the building was to be completed being a time not later than the end of the period specified in the order as the period for which the order is to have effect". —[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL, AND AS TO TIMBER, CROPS ETC.)
    Amendment made: In page 9, leave out lines 40 to 44.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Clause 10.—(RECORD OF CONDITION OF LAND COMPRISED IN OPENCAST SITE ORDER.)
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out Clause 10.
    This Amendment is consequential upon a new Clause to which the Committee agreed.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11.—(REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF CHATTELS FROM LAND COMPRISED IN COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDER.)
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, at the end to insert:
    "or belonging to a river board or other dainage authority and used by that authority for the purposes of their functions".
    This is one of a series of Amendments to give effect to my undertaking in Committee to give the same protection to the apparatus of river boards and internal drainage boards as is given to statutory undertakers.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(APPARATUS OF STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS AND OTHER BODIES.)
    Amendment made: In page 13, line 15, after "undertaking", insert:
    "and any reference to the appropriate Minister were a reference to the appropriate Minister as defined by this Act". —[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 21 and 22 and to insert:
    "(2) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, the provisions of the said section twenty-five shall have effect in relation to land which is for the time being comprised in an authorisation under section one of this Act—

    (a) subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of the preceding subsection, and

    (b) as if any reference in those provisions to the person carrying on a statutory undertaking included a reference to a river board or other drainage authority, and, in relation to a river board or other drainage authority, any reference to the carrying on of the undertaking were a reference to the performance of the functions of the authority.

    (3) Where any requirement is imposed by virtue of section twenty-five of the said Act of 1944 as applied by either of the preceding subsections, the provisions of sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of that Act (which relate to the powers, duties and obligations of statutory undertakers) and of the First and Fourth Schedules to that Act (which relate respectively to the procedure for dealing with objections under those sections and to the assessment of compensation) shall have effect in relation to that requirement (subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of this section, or, as the case may be, subject to those modifications and the further modifications specified in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection) as if it were a requirement imposed under the said section twenty-five as applied for the purposes of Part IV of the Act of 1947."
    Sir I. Horobin: This Amendment, with those to which I have already referred, is necessary to give effect to my undertaking to protect river boards.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 24, leave out from "provisions" to the second "in" in line 25 and insert:
    "referred to in the preceding subsections apply in accordance with those subsections."
    In line 40, after "1944", insert:
    "and to the First and Fourth Schedules to that Act."
    In line 42, after "1945", insert:
    "and to the First and Fourth Schedules to that Act."
    In line 43, leave out "the reference" and insert "references".
    In line 43, after "1947" insert:
    "and to Part IV of that Act."
    In line 44, leave out "a reference" and insert "respectively references".
    In line 45, after "1947", insert:
    "and to Part III of that Act."—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Clause 15.—(ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS FOR PURPOSES OF DRAINAGE OR WATER SUPPLY.)
    Amendment made: In page 19, line 33, leave out from the first "works" to the end of line 38, and insert:
    "and—

    (a) any right to maintain drainage works or water pipes in pursuance of an order made by virtue of this section shall include the right to remove those works or pipes, whether for the purpose of replacing them by other drainage works or water pipes or otherwise, and

    (b) any right to maintain drainage works on any land in pursuance of such an order shall, if the order so provides, include a right to discharge water from those works on to that land."—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Clause 18.—(ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COMPENSATION.)
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 22, line 40, to leave out from "with" to the end of line 41 and to insert:
    "the next following subsection.
    (4) Subsection (2) of the last preceding section shall apply for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section, so however that the appropriate circumstances referred to in the said subsection (2), in relation to any year for which annual value falls to be determined for the purposes of the last preceding subsection shall be taken to be the circumstances which would have existed, immediately before the beginning of that year, if—

    (a) the compulsory rights order had not been made and the authorisation referred to in that order had not been granted and no application had been made for such an authorisation;

    (b) the land constituting the remainder of the holding had been in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date, and had been available for letting with vacant possession;

    (c) all other relevant factors had been as they actually were immediately before the beginning of that year".

    The Amendment meets the point put to us by the National Farmers' Union. Hon. Members will recall that when we discussed the loss of amenity I pointed out that the annual value would take
    768
    into account damage done from annoyance such as we have been discussing earlier and therefore compensation would to a very great extent be paid for it.
    That was correct, but the National Farmers' Union pointed out that what we gave with one hand we were in danger of taking away with the other, which is not uncommon I am afraid in Government Departments. Under Clause 18, it may well be that the rent, having been reduced as the result of the loss of amenity, will mean a corresponding increase in profits, so that the farmers will get less compensation. That is obviously absurd and was not intended. As I explained to the Committee, what we intended was that they should receive compensation to the extent to which the annual value of their holdings was diminished by the opencast operations.
    The Amendment overcomes the difficulty by providing that when we calculate profit on the rest of the holding it must be assumed that the rent of the rest of the holding is calculated as though there were no opencast coal working going on. That simply gets over the absurdity that we give them compensation on the one hand and then say, "You have made bigger profits" and take it all back again on the other. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the common sense of the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 42, leave out "the last preceding subsection" and insert:
    "subsection (3) of this section".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION BY REFERENCE TO THE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE HOLDING.)
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 26, line 15, at the end to insert:
    "in the open market by a willing seller".
    The Amendment is put down to meat a point made in Committee by the Opposition. We were of the opinion that, as the Bill was drafted, the "value" would be the open market value. I undertook to look into the point, and on consideration of the matter with my legal advisers I took the view that there might be something in the Opposition point. It is worth while making the matter absolutely clear. There is nothing between us as to what

    769
    we want to do. We have put down the Amendment to remove all possible doubt whatever. I wish to thank the Minister for having adopted the point which we made. The Amendment wholly meets the point we had in mind.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 23.—(TENANT'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS.)
    Amendment made: In page 28, line 5, after "the", insert "settlement or".—[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 28, line 7, at the end to insert:
    Provided that—

    (a) any provisions of the Act of 1948 as to the giving of notice of intention to make a claim shall apply with the modification that the time for giving such a notice shall be any time not later than three months after the end of the period of occupation;

    (b) subsection (3) of section seventy of that Act (which relates to the time for settling such claims) shall apply with the substitution, for the reference to four months from the termination of the tenancy, of a reference to five months from the end of the period of occupation.

    This Amendment is a bit more complicated. It is, broadly speaking, for the protection of the tenant. Clause 23 (6) applies the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, about the making of claims by a tenant against his landlord for compensation on long-term improvements and the continuous adoption of a special system of farming.
    There are two provisions of that Act with which we have to deal. Section 70 requires a tenant to make a claim in

    >"or under that section as applied by section twenty-eight of this Act, shall accrue due on the date on which the contract to sell the property in question is made or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the date on which that contract was made".

    This fulfils an undertaking I gave to move an Amendment at this stage to provide that compensation for loss on forced sales would accrue due on the date when the losses are incurred and not, as the Bill is drafted, on the date of the compulsory rights order. In fulfilling the undertaking we have run up against a small difficulty which will be relevant if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is moved as it would affect the date on which the losses are in fact incurred.
    770
    respect of long-term improvements within two months of the termination of the tenancy. Section 56 requires the tenant to make a claim in respect of the continuous adoption of a special system of farming within one month of the termination. The tenant cannot get on his land until the Board has got off the land and two months after it has got off the land is different from two months before it comes on to the land, when he has time to prepare his claim. Therefore we have extended the period during which he can make these claims and put it after—as it obviously must be—and not before the Coal Board gives up occupation. This is not a matter of principle, but of commonsense adaptation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 28, line 36, leave out "and fifty-six" and insert "fifty-six and seventy".
    In page 28, line 40, leave out "and fifty-six" and insert "fifty-six and sixty-eight".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Clause 30.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF EASEMENTS AND OTHER RIGHTS.)
    Amendment made: In page 35, line 2, at end insert:
    Provided that this section shall not apply to any easement or other right which consists of any such right as is mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders) of this Act.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Clause 33.—(TIME WHEN COMPENSATION ACCRUES DUE.)
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 37, line 29, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 30, and to insert:
    We have chosen the date on which the contract of sale is made as something definite. That is a matter which may be argued if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is called.
    We have attempted to fulfil the undertaking which I gave to protect the occupier who suffers a loss on a forced sale by making the date on which it accrues due the date when it was incurred. It obviously is the proper date at which it can be determined.
    Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out from the second "the" to "or" in line 4 and to insert "property in question is sold".
    First, I thank the Minister again for having taken one of the points we raised in Committee and for putting forward this Amendment. The point involved is a small one. It concerns what is to be the date from which interest on compensation for loss by a forced sale should be payable. I think that is the only point of substance which is involved. As originally drawn in the Bill, it was to be payable as from the operative date. We pointed out that cases might occur where a forced sale might take place many months after the operative date. It did not seem right that the Board should pay interest before the loss was incurred. The Minister promised to submit an Amendment which would be equally effective, more obscure, but at least satisfactory to all concerned. Speaking for myself, I am convinced only that he has succeeded in fulfilling one-third of that three-fold promise, because it seems more obscure.
    7.45 p.m.
    The point is whether the interest should date from when the contract was made or when the property passes under the sale. The intention of our Amendment is that the interest should run from the date when the property passes. I will seek to illustrate by an example. Imagine a farmer owning a combine harvester and, as we are told is likely to be the case, the Board enters into possession at the end of, or immediately after, the harvest season. In those circumstances, the farmer would probably arrange to dispose of his combine harvester at or about the date of entry, at the end of the harvest.
    He may have made a contract to dispose of it before the harvest began. In the meantime, he will not only have used the combine harvester to bring in his own harvest, but in all probability he will have hired it out, as farmers often do,
    772
    to other farmers at high rates in order to help gather their harvest. If the interest is to date from the date of the contract he would be getting double compensation, or compensation for a loss he had not suffered. We feel, therefore, that as a matter of justice the right time from which the compensation should date is when the loss is actually incurred, when the property passes under the contract.
    I gather from the Minister's words a few moments ago that there may be certain drafting difficulties about this. In framing our Amendment it was our intention to follow the ordinary principle of the Sale of Goods Act which, I think I am right in saying, is that a contract of sale becomes a sale at the time when the property passes. The words which we use are
    "the date on which the property in question is sold"
    and "the date of the sale". We intend that to mean the time of the passing of the property.
    If the point which we have made is taken, I shall be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment for the Government to rephrase it in words which they think more satisfactory.
    Mr. Robens: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir I. Horobin: I think that the most useful thing which I can say is that I understand that there is little, if anything, of substance between us. I was advised that there was a doubt in certain cases when the date of the sale would be. We wanted something specific. The contract must be dated, which disposes of that point. Without giving any undertaking, perhaps we could look at this point again and, if it is thought desirable to make a change, it can be made in another place.
    Mr. MacDermot: We shall be quite content to leave the matter in that way, for the Government to look at it again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 36.—(ENTRY ON LAND.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 39, line 27, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:

    (a) for any purpose in connection with, or preparatory to, an application for an authorisation under section one of this Act or the making or confirmation of any order under Part I of this Act; or

    (b) (where an authorisation under section one of this Act has been granted) for any purpose in connection with, or preparatory to, the carrying out of any authorised operations or the performance of any functions under Part I of this Act, not being a purpose for which a right of entry is exercisable apart from this paragraph; or.

    This Amendment is necessary because the purposes for which the Board is empowered to enter land under Clause 36 (3) are not held to cover all the purposes for which it may, in fact, need to exercise that power if the Bill is passed. I can give one or two examples of things which are not covered. They include the conduct of informal negotiations with local authorities, the preparation of maps and plans which have to accompany the application for authorisation and the recording of the condition of the land. The Bill as at present drafted does not cover those purposes.
    The Amendment is of fairly general character. We considered for some time whether it was possible to specify all these various purposes, but we found it impossible, in practice, to do so and we thought it better to draw up this more general Amendment. The list would have been fairly long and there might have been a danger of omitting some important points.
    The Coal Board has, however, given the Government an assurance that it will be very careful in its use of these powers and will always try to make entry by agreement with the owners and occupiers before resorting to compulsory powers. When the Board enters land under this Clause it is only for the purpose of survey; it is not allowed to take borings or to sink trial pits. For that the Board has to have the direction of the Minister under Clause 36 (1).
    If by any chance the Board causes damage or disturbance it will be liable to pay compensation under Clause 36 (7). This extension of the purposes—it is not an extension of the power—is necessary to carry out the procedure of the Bill, and in the light of what I have said I
    774
    hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 39, line 38, leave out from "with" to "this" in line 40 and insert
    "any of the provisions of the First, Second or Ninth Schedule to".—[Mr. Maudling.]
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in line 45 after "thereon" to insert:
    "or while remaining thereon".
    This Amendment carries out an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary on the question of the authorisation of people to enter on land and of their producing evidence of their authority. The Bill as drafted provides only that a man should produce his evidence of authority on entry, and once he is on the land he cannot be asked under the Bill to produce his authority. It was pointed out in Standing Committee that this was inadequate.
    Under the Amendment a man who enters on land and remains on it will have to produce his evidence of authority if challenged at any time. I suppose that it introduces a certain risk that people may constantly be asking for evidence of authority, but, in practice, this risk is very remote. This is a proper protection for the citizen, and I hope that the House will accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 40, line 1, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to insert "forty-two".
    This, again, is put down as the result of an undertaking given by my hon. Friend that he would consider whether local planning authorities should be given more than 28 days' notice of prospecting projects in their area so that they would have adequate time to decide whether to issue a direction under the town and country planning general development order. That undertaking affects primarily the order amending the general development order which the Minister of Housing and Local Government is now preparing. To be consistent, however, it seems desirable to provide in the Clause that the notice of entry for the owners and occupiers of land which is entered for prospecting under compulsory powers should also be increased to 42 days, and this is done by the Amendment.

    775
    During the discussions in Standing Committee my hon. Friend undertook to ask the Coal Board for a specific assurance that it was the Board's intention to make administrative arrangements to notify other local authorities of prospecting projects. I can inform the House that the Coal Board has told us that it is willing to notify all local authorities, except parish councils, in whose areas this prospecting will take place, at the same time as it gives its formal notification to the local planning authority under the general development order. That, again, meets wishes expressed in Standing Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 40, line 6, leave out from "purpose" to end of line 7 and insert:
    "of affixing on land any notice in accordance with any of the provisions of the First, Second or Ninth Schedule to this Act". —[Mr. Maudling.]
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 40, line 11, after "therein" to insert "(a)".
    This Amendment should be taken with the following Amendment, in line 14. Together, they fulfil another undertaking given by my hon. Friend to the effect that the Board cannot enter on to land owned by statutory undertakers for opencast prospecting if those undertakers object, except with the authority of the appropriate Minister. This point was put to us in Standing Committee and we thought that it should be met. We feel that it has been fully met by these two Amendments.
    Mr. MacDermot: The acceptance of this Amendment by the Government has, I understand, given great satisfaction to the undertakers, who were most concerned and who had approached us in the first place—in particular, I think, the water authorities. Once again, I should like to thank the Government for having taken the point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 40, line 14, at end insert:
    "and
    (b) if the land in question is held by the persons carrying on a statutory undertaking, or a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking, or is held by a river board or other drainage authority, and those persons or that authority object to the proposed operations on the ground that the
    776
    carrying out thereof would be seriously detrimental to the carrying on of their undertaking, or, in the case of a river board or other drainage authority, to the performance of their functions, the operation's shall not be carried out except with the consent of the appropriate Minister".
    In line 30, at end insert:
    (10) Any reference in this section to Pant I of this Act, or to the First or Second Schedule thereto, includes a reference to the provisions of any enactment as applied by the said Part I, or by that Schedule, as the case may be.
    In line 31, leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 37.—(CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION PAYABLE BY BOARD.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 41, line 16, to insert:
    "or under section (Record of condition of land) of this Act".
    Though this is a small Amendment it has a substantial effect. It provides that disputes about payment by the Board for professional fees incurred by a person having a direct concern in the record of conditions shall be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 41, line 18, at the end to insert:
    "or
    (c) as to the amount of the quarterly payments payable in accordance with subsection (2) of section thirty-three of this Act in respect of any such compensation as is mentioned in that subsection".
    This Amendment, again, is tabled in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Standing Committee. In this case, the undertaking was to amend the Bill so as to make it quite clear that disputes about the reasonableness of the quarterly advance payment of annual compensation which the Board is required to make and under Clause 33 (2, a), can be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
    Amendment agreed to.—

    Clause 40.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MORTGAGED LAND AND OTHER SPECIAL CASES.)
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, in page 43, line 27, to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
    (5) In the application of this section to Scotland—

    (a) for references to a mortgage, to a mortgagor and to a mortgagee there shall be

    777
    substituted respectively references to a heritable security, to a debtor in a heritable security and to a heritable creditor;

    (b) for references to the first mortgagee there shall be substituted references to that heritable creditor whose security has priority over any other heritable securities secured on the same interest; and

    (c) for any reference to the application of a sum as if it were proceeds of sale there shall be substituted a reference to the application of a sum as if it were the price realised on the sale by a heritable creditor of land subject to a heritable security.

    This is the first of a number of Scottish Amendments with which I do not think the House need be unduly delayed in considering. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House were Ito mention that the Amendments in page 51, line 45, and in page 52, lines 1, 5, 14 and 18 are all consequential, and perhaps I may be permitted to move them formally when we come to them.
    The Amendment now before the House is intended, really, to tidy up the Clause. A heritable creditor in possession is dealt with under Clause 40 (5), and a heritable creditor not in possession is dealt with in Clause 48 (6), and by the artifice of the draftsman we have now brought them both into Clause 40 (5). As a result, the party interested will be able to receive compensation direct from the Coal Board.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 41.—(CROWN LAND.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 44, line 10 at the end to insert:
    Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the validity or operation of an order, or the exercise of any power, as against any person having, in or over the land in question, any interest or right other than a Crown or Duchy interest.
    Under Clause 41 (2), compulsory powers cannot be used against land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest except with the consent of the appropriate Government authority. It has occurred to us that the case may occur where there is a Crown interest in land comprised in a compulsory rights order, and an interest of which the Board was unaware. It does not seem reasonable that this fortuitous circumstance should enable the owner of some private interest to claim that a compulsory rights order is not valid against him because it can be proved that the appropriate Crown authority has not consented. This new proviso prevents such a private owner of land from doing
    778
    that, and I therefore think that this is a reasonable Amendment.
    Mr. Speir: Perhaps the Paymaster-General could say a word about the effect of this Amendment on dedicated woodlands. I understand that they will be covered by this and the next Amendment. Dedicated land is land which the owner has covenanted with the Forestry Commission not to use for any other purpose except that of growing timber. I understand that the Bill does not exempt dedicated woodlands from a C.R.O., but that it can be made subject to a C.R.O. provided that the Forestry Commission agree to such procedure.
    It seems to me that the position might arise in which the owner who has dedicated his woodlands would be opposed to the making of a C.R.O., whereas the Ministry of Agriculture, acting for the Forestry Commission, might agree to a C.R.O. I wonder who would have the final say in such a situation?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that that point will probably arise more conveniently on the next Amendment, when I shall be glad to answer it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 44, line 43, at the end to insert:
    (5) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply in relation to land which is subject to a right restrictive of the use thereof, being a right the benefit of which is annexed to land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest, or (not being so annexed) belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, or belongs to a government department, or is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department, as those provisions apply in relation to land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest:
    Provided that those provisions shall so apply with the necessary modifications, and, in particular, as if the proviso to subsection (1) of this section were omitted, and, in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the last preceding subsection, any reference to land belonging as therein mentioned were a reference to a right the benefit of which belongs, or is annexed to land belonging, as therein mentioned.
    I can now deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), on the question of forestry dedication covenants. There was some discussion on this in Standing Committee, when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that forestry dedication covenants gave the grant of an interest in

    779
    the land and that, therefore, under Clause 41, a compulsory rights order could not be made on land subject to a covenant, except with the consent of the Forestry Commission.
    Since my hon. Friend was advised to that effect, we have given some further consideration to the subject, and further learned advice indicates that there is some doubt about it; that while forestry dedication covenants give the Forestry Commission a restrictive right over land, they do not necessarily give it an interest in the land. It is not clear from Clause 41 as it stands whether that prevents the Board from over-riding restrictive rights held by the Crown, if those rights do not constitute an interest.
    It is obviously undesirable that, quite apart from the rights of private owners, the Board should be able to over-ride the restrictive rights of the Crown, so that the effect of the Amendment is to extend Clause 41 to cover restrictive rights over, as well as interests in land. This, of course, would mean—and this is the answer to my hon. Friend—that a compulsory rights order could not be made against land over which the Crown has a restrictive right, except with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority. In the case of forestry dedication covenants, this would be the Forestry Commission. The effect of the Amendment would be that the Forestry Commission would be in a position to say "No", but not the owner of the dedicated woodlands.
    That was the position under the Bill as it was, and the effect of the Amendment is not to change that substantive position but to clear up the legal point, over the definition of which some doubt has arisen. The effect is really to make the position as we actually understood it to be when the Bill was passing through Standing Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 45.—(PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)
    Mr. Neal: I beg to move, in page 46, line 11, at the end to insert:
    (a) in the case of an opencast site order where the Minister is satisfied that

    (i) works of restoration have been in progress for not less than five years and have been carried out without unreasonable delay, and

    780

    (ii) substantial works remain to be carried out in order to secure the restoration of land comprised in the order;

    this subsection shall not prevent the extension of that period for a further period not exceeding three years.
    I want to express the willingness of the Opposition to facilitate business. It would be quite easy for us to have a protracted discussion on this subject, but I will move the Amendment as briefly as is consistent with clearness.
    It should not be difficult to convince the Minister that the period for restoration foreshadowed in this Clause will not always be adequate to satisfy the farmer or the agricultural experts that adequate restoration has been made. It would be easy for my colleagues and I to draw upon our technical and personal experience in these matters to prove that it is impossible to say that five years is enough for any known piece of land to settle after extraction.
    In the different opencast sites, different thicknesses of seams are being extracted, and different kinds of strata are being met. The result is that the amount of restoration is bound to be varied in the different places, and what we are asking is that the Minister will, where it is found necessary, extend this period. We hope that the Minister will be as amenable as he has been previously and will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Maudling: I would be very glad if I could accept this Amendment, phrased and put forward in such moderate terms, but I shall have to advise the House not to accept it, and I will explain my reasons for doing so.
    This involves extending the period over which compulsory powers may operate, and it is the Government's belief that it is important to keep the time during which compulsory powers operate as short as possible. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in Standing Committee, gave an undertaking in careful phrases, as he always does, to consider whether there was an overwhelming danger that restoration might be scamped if a compulsory rights order could not be extended beyond ten years. We feel that the case cannot be made out unless there is an overwhelming danger.

    781
    Since my hon. Friend gave that undertaking we have carried out a detailed survey of the time taken to restore and carry out the five years' post-restoration treatment on sites since the 1951 Code came into operation, and it has shown that agricultural treatment—and this is mainly agricultural land—took more than five years in about 100 cases, often on only a small area of land and not on whole sites. All but eight of those cases were where certain special factors were at that time operating. Therefore, we do not feel that those cases present an overwhelming argument.
    The agricultural treatment of restored sites will be carried out by the agricultural Departments as agents for the Coal Board, and my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for those Departments are quite satisfied that they will be able to complete the agricultural treatment within five years, in all but a mere handful of cases. Even in these exceptional cases they will be able to get the treatment so far advanced that the owners and occupiers should be able to complete it, and, of course, they will be compensated for expense reasonably incurred.
    After much careful survey and thought by the agricultural Departments, we do not feel that the overwhelming case to which my hon. Friend referred has been made, especially as the cost of works basis for terminal compensation now ensures that restoration will be continued after the end of the Board's occupation. Therefore, having given a great deal of thought and study, we do not feel that the case for extending beyond the ten years has been made out, and consequently I must advise the House to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Robens: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not felt able to accept the Amendment. I recognise that we discussed this matter at great length in Standing Committee and I would not want to go over all the argument again. On this side of the House we pay a tremendous amount of attention to the question of restoration. We are not asking the Minister to extend all these orders; we are asking him to provide that in the exceptional circumstances—and he has now given us figures which show that there are exceptional circumstances—he can use his discretion.
    782
    I should prefer to see the restoration completed before the land is handed over. I think that my hon. Friends who have taken a deep interest in the agricultural aspect of this matter will agree with me when I say that it is far better that the land should finally be handed over in as complete a state of restoration as possible rather than that it should be handed over in the knowledge that the restoration has not really been completed, leaving it to the good sense of the tenant or the owner to complete it.
    8.15 p.m.
    If we had been arguing that the ten years was not sufficient, which was the argument in the Committee, and if we had wanted complete extension for all the orders, I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. But that is not the case. We are merely saying that he should have the discretionary power to extend these orders for a period not exceeding three years in order to effect proper restoration.
    I feel that we must press this Amendment to a Division if the right hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot give any undertaking on the matter, because, in our view, restoration is so highly important that in these circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Minister to have reserve powers for the few extra years where restoration can be carried out adequately and completely, rather than turn the land back again to the owner or tenant before it has been completed. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take these discretionary powers to himself.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Paymaster-General's reasons for rejecting this Amendment are somewhat misconceived, as he based his whole argument on an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would look to see whether there were overwhelming reasons to support the Amendment which we have been discussing in Committee. But that was a very much wider Amendment than this, and we have deliberately put forward what we feel to be the very minimum that can be asked and which we feel should reasonably be granted on this point.
    Earlier, we were envisaging a power in the Minister to extend in every case the ten-year period for the operation of

    783
    the compulsory rights order for a further five years. But what this Amendment is directed to is the case, which we are advised occurs, and which the Paymaster-General's statistics confirms do occur, namely, where the restoration which normally is not expected to take more than five years unexpectedly turns out to require six or seven or possibly even eight years. They are exceptional cases, but where those cases occur we feel that the reasonable course is to allow the Board to complete the work of restoration and not to compel it to hand back the land in a partly restored condition, without having finished the job, so that it is left to the owner to complete the restoration, and to claim compensation based on the diminution in value at the time when the handover takes place, with
    this hypothetical deduction for the value of the future cost of works payments.
    I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is not in his place now, as he would find that we are attempting to deploy such intellectual resources as we have at our command on this occasion in support of the Board. We feel that this is a case where undue hardship and cost will be imposed on the Board if in those exceptional cases that do occur from time to time the Minister is not given the power to extend the period of the order for this limited period not exceeding ten years.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 194.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES

    [8.20 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, E.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Holman, P.

    Probert, A. R.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pursey, Cmdr, H.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Beswick, Frank

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Reeves, J.

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

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Reid, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Janner, B.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Boardman, H.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Kenyon, C.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Ross, William

    Boyd, T. C.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Short, E. W.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Lawson, G. M.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Alton)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Champion, A. J.

    McCann, J.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Chapman, W. D.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Coldrick, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Snow, J. W.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Stonehouse, John

    Deer, G.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Diamond, John

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mason, Roy

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thornton, E.

    Edelman, M.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Moody, A. S.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moyle, A.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    West, D. G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Willey, Frederick

    Gibson, C. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Oram, A. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Grey, C. F.

    Owen, W. J.

    Woof, R. E.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Parker, J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Peart, T. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hastings, S.

    Pentland, N.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. J. T. Holmes.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Gower, H. R.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Aitken, W. T.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grant, W. (Woods'de)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Ashton, H.

    Green, A.

    Neave, Airey

    Atkins, H. E.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimond, J.

    Nicholson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Barter, John

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Batsford, B. C. C.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Gurden, Harold

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Page, R. G.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Partridge, E.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Peel, W. J.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Black, C. W.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Profumo, J. D.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Hope, Lord John

    Redmayne, M.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Braine, B. R.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

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

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Bryan, P.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Russell, R. S.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Sharples, R. C.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Shepherd, William

    Cole, Norman

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Speir, R. M.

    Cooke, Robert

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Storey, S.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Keegan, D.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lambton, Viscount

    Temple, John M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Dance, J. C. G.

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

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

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

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebona)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    McKibbin, Alan

    Wall, Patrick

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Webster, D. W. E.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gammans, Lady

    Mathew, R.

    Woollam, John Victor

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Mawby, R. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Godber, J. B.

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

    Mr. Gibson-Watt and

    Goodhart, Philip

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Mr. Chichester-Clark.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Clause 47.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 47, line 2, at the end to insert:
    "appropriate Minister" in relation to a statutory undertaking has the same meaning as in the Act of 1947, in relation to a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking means the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and in relation to a river board or other drainage authority means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    786
    This Amendment is made necessary by the fact that Clause 12 applies the procedures of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, to the apparatus of sewerage undertakers and drainage authorities. It is necessary, therefore, to say in the Bill who are the appropriate Ministers for sewerage undertakings and drainage authorities. The

    787
    appropriate Ministers-are the Minister of Housing and Local Government for sewerage undertakings and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for drainage authorities in England and Wales. In Scotland, the Secretary of State is to be the appropriate Minister in both cases.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 47, line 11, at the end to insert:
    "drainage authority" has the same meaning as in the Land Drainage Act. 1930.
    This Amendment provides that the words "drainage authority" shall have the same meaning as in the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 15, at end insert:
    "functions" includes powers and duties, and references to the performance of functions shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Maudling.]
    Mr. Maudling: There is on the Notice Paper an Amendment in my name, in page 47, line 19, to leave out from "minerals" to the end of line 20 and to insert:
    "has the same meaning as in the Act of 1947".
    Since this Amendment was put down, further doubt has arisen on a legal point, and I therefore do not propose to move it.
    8.30 p.m.
    I beg to move, in page 48, line 1, to leave out "by sections four and six" and to insert:
    "in relation to opencast site orders by section four and in relation to storage site orders by section five."
    This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of the new Clause dealing with storage site orders.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 48, line 3, to leave out from "has" to "of" in line 4 and to insert:
    "(subject to the provisions of sections (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders) and six of this Act) the meaning assigned to it in relation to opencast site orders by section four and in relation to storage site orders by section five."
    This is a drafting Amendment and is consequential on the new Clause dealing
    788
    with the general limitation on the effect of compulsory rights orders.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 48, line 6, at the end to insert:
    "river board" has the same meaning as in the River Boards Act, 1948.
    This Amendment provides a definition of "river board", which is the definition in the River Boards Act, 1948.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 48, line 13, leave out "has the same meaning" and insert:
    "and 'statutory undertaking' have the same meanings."—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 48.—(GENERAL APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)
    Amendments made: In page 49, line 37, at end insert:
    "appropriate Minister" in relation to a statutory undertaking has the same meaning as in the Scottish Act of 1947 and in relation to a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking or a river purification authority means the Secretary of State.
    In line 44, after "undertakers", insert "statutory undertaking". — [Mr. Maudling.]
    Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 50, line 12, at the end to insert:
    (3) For any reference to a river board there shall be substituted a reference to a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
    This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment bringing the apparatus of river boards within Clause 12.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 50, line 38, to leave out "section fifty-seven" and to insert "sections fifty-seven and fifty-eight."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I beg to move, in page 50, line 43, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 22 on page 51 and to insert:
    Provided that for the purposes of section twenty-two of this Act any improvement on the holding for which the landholder or the crofter would on the termination of his tenancy be entitled to compensation under the Landholders Acts or the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, as the case may be, shall be treated as a separate holding, and any compensation payable under the said Section in respect

    789
    of the improvement shall be payable to the landholder or crofter as if he were the owner thereof; and sections twenty-three and twenty-four shall not apply to any improvement in respect of which compensation is so payable.
    Under the Acts governing the tenure of crofters and landholders, the crofter or landholder by whom a permanent improvement is executed is put more or less in the position of "owner" of the improvement. It is intended under the Bill to treat him as such and to entitle him to receive direct from the Board any compensation due for damage by opencast operations done to an improvement executed by him. This was provided for in the Bill as originally drafted, but as a result of Amendments to the general compensation provisions during Committee stage, the Bill as it stands may enable a crofter to obtain compensation both from the Coal Board and from his landlord in respect of the same items. The Amendment puts this right.
    Mr. Ede: The noble Lord the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says that this Amendment puts the matter right. How does it do that?
    Lord John Hope: It is a subtle point, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of this carefully drafted Amendment any crofter who tries to obtain compensation twice would find that he was stopped by the Amendment from doing it.
    Mr. Ede: This Amendment is to the disadvantage of this greatly distressed section of the public.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 51, line 34, to leave out "an authorisation under section one of this Act" and to insert:
    "a compulsory rights order".
    It might be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment and the following one in line 39 were considered together.
    Subsection (5) of the Clause makes provision for immunity against breach of contract where a feuar is under an obligation under his feu charter. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that that applies only where there is a compulsory rights order. It is quite unnecessary where a voluntary agreement is entered
    790
    into, because it would be entered into with the superior owner also.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: in page 51, line 39, leave out from first "the" to end of line and insert:
    "occupation, or use of that land in the exercise of rights conferred by the order". —[The Lord Advocate.]
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 51, line 40, to leave out from "is" to "to" in line 41 and to insert:
    "payable by the Board under section twenty-two of this Act or under that section as applied by section twenty-eight thereof".
    I think it would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time the next Amendment, in line 42, and the subsequent Amendments in page 52, lines 11 and 13. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that the superior is put in the same position as an heritable creditor and is able to receive his compensation direct from the Coal Board. This will not apply in voluntary cases but only in cases of compulsory rights orders.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 51, line 42, leave out from beginning to "being" in line 44 and insert:
    "a compulsory rights order by reference to the diminution in value of the land".
    In line 45, leave out "or a heritable security".
    In page 52, line 1, leave out "or the heritable security".
    In line 5, leave out from "occupation" to "and" in line 7.
    In line 11, leave out "receive from the owner" and insert:
    "claim (but without prejudice to the making of a claim by he owner) and to receive payment from the Board".
    In line 13, leave out "paid to him" and insert:
    "which, apart from this subsection, would be payable to the owner".
    In line 14, leave out from "excess" to end of line 15.
    In line 18, leave out from "discharging" to "as" in line 20 and insert:
    "such part of the feu duty or ground annual."—[The Lord Advocate.]

    First Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING AUTHORISATIONS UNDER SECTION ONE.)
    Amendment made In page 53, line 11, leave out from "for" to "in" in line 12 and insert:
    "the purpose of enabling operations which (if the authorisation is granted) will be authorised operations to be carried out". —[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 53, line 35, after "situated", to insert "and in the London Gazette".
    This Amendment and the next, in page 55, line 30, together fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee that notice of the Board's application should be published in the London Gazette.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 55, line 30, after "situated", insert:
    "and in the London Gazette".
    In line 44, at end insert:
    10. For the purposes of the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and of the provisions of paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land Act as applied by the last preceding paragraph, the first publication of a notice shall be treated as taking place on the date on which the notice is first published in accordance with those provisions in a local newspaper, or the date on which it is first published in the London Gazette, whichever is the later date.
    In line 46, after "district", insert "to the London Gazette".
    In line 48, after "district", insert "to the Edinburgh Gazette". —[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Third Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF COST OF WORKS.)
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, in page 59, line 45, after "work" to insert:
    "and of the estimated expenses of carrying out the work".
    Perhaps it would be convenient to consider this Amendment with the next Amendment, in page 60, line 3, at the end to insert:
    3. Any dispute arising or deemed to arise between the Board and a person giving notice under the preceding paragraph as to the expenses which may reasonably be incurred in carrying out any work, may be referred by that person to the Lands Tribunal for determination before the work is carried out. For the purposes of this paragraph, a dispute shall be deemed to arise if, within two months of the giving of the notice, agreement has not been
    792
    reached between the Board and the person giving the notice as to the expenses, if any, which may reasonably be incurred in respect of any work referred to in the notice.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that would be convenient for the House.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am much obliged. This is the more substantial Amendment, but the two are linked.
    This is a last-ditch attempt to wring a limited concession from the Government on what we consider to be one of the most important points of the Bill which remain to be discussed. We attempted in Committee to persuade the Government of the merit of a number of Amendments directed to this problem, but without success. The problem arises from the fact that, during the Committee stage, the Government substantially withdrew the greater part of the compensation provisions in the Bill as originally drafted, and substituted new provisions making radical alterations, not only to the Bill as it stood, but I think to anything that has gone before in the law of compensation.
    What the Government did was to say that the owner, at the end of the period of occupation, should not have to choose between a diminution in value payment and a cost of works payment, but should be entitled to both, the diminution in value payment being reduced by the extent which the valuer might think reasonable having regard to his prospect of recovering compensation for cost of works.
    In general, we on this side agreed with the alterations. We did so recognising that they were an exception, but recognising also that opencast coal operations are in themselves exceptional in nature, that the damage which they do to land is exceptional and that the national interest in having that land properly restored is exceptional. These were the considerations that led us in our broad approach to agree with the new Clauses submitted in Committee, but we felt that they were open to certain very serious objections indeed.
    The principal objection was that at the end of the period of occupation, the extent of future cost of works payments was completely open and at large—open as to amount and as to time. There was no limit in time after the end of the period of occupation in which the landowner could come forward and say to the Coal

    793
    Board," Now, 10 or 20 years after the period of occupation, we are going to do further works of restoration and we want you to pay for them." Equally, no ceiling was placed on the amount that was considered reasonable.
    Our Amendments directed to these points failed, so that what we are seeking to do now is something far more limited. It is to overcome the point, which is perhaps the third objection, which is that there is complete uncertainty as matters stand at the moment, both for the Board and the landowner, whether any future works of restoration that may be done will be considered to be reasonable and will qualify for compensation.
    8.45 p.m.
    This is something which could work equally hard against the landowner as against the Board. A situation might arise when a landowner was contemplating doing further work of restoration. The Board might take the attitude that it was not reasonable to do it; that is, that the cost of the works would far outweigh any benefit to the land which would result. What is to happen then? If he goes on and does the works, the landowner does them at his own risk, at the risk that if the Board refuses to pay the compensation in the end and he goes to the Lands Tribunal, the Tribunal will uphold the Board and decide that it was not reasonable to do the works. The landowner may have incurred a heavy cost, but will get no compensation.
    Putting it the other way round, the landowner may through fear of the result refrain from doing the work, and yet he may have been right all the time in the sense that if he had persevered the Lands Tribunal would have found for him. As matters stand, there is no way in which that issue can be resolved before the works are undertaken. The works have to be done first, and then the arbitration on the dispute follows.
    The Amendment provides that if a dispute arises between the Board and a landowner as to the reasonableness of carrying out any works, the dispute may be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination before the works are carried out. Both parties would then know where they stood. This is a limited Amendment. It is far less than anything for which we asked in Committee. We feel that it is eminently reasonable, and
    794
    I hope it will commend itself to the Government and the House.
    Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir I. Horobin: The Amendments deal with a very important point. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and his hon. Friends will feel that throughout the stages of the Bill we have tried at the expense of very considerable work and effort to meet constructive suggestions, and I am happy to tell the hon. Member that I shall be able, I hope, to meet him considerably more than half way on these Amendments.
    As the hon. Member says, the Amendments are directed to a portion of a very important, difficult question which exercised us much in Standing Committee. Broadly, they attempt to provide that notices which a person has to give to the Board shall include an estimate of the cost and that, if there is any dispute, the dispute shall be justiciable before people are committed. The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that, as is nearly always the case, the words of his Amendments are not satisfactory, but I am happy to tell him that in another place we shall be moving Amendments which will completely meet his point about the estimate and will go a long way to meet his point about making it possible to decide the reasonableness before one embarks on the works.
    As to why his method of dealing with the second difficulty is not acceptable, I am advised that this is where we have to protect the Board. There can be a dispute about whether the work should be done and there can be a dispute as to whether the cost is reasonable. The second dispute cannot be determined until the work has been carried out. Estimates of expenditure and actual expenditure may differ very considerably. Consequently, it would be wrong to settle the matter beforehand and then put it outside the power of the Board to complain that the final cost was, perhaps, five times as much as the estimate. We shall not be able to meet completely the second of the hon. Member's points, but for a reason which will commend itself to him. We shall be moving Amendments which will show that we have recognised the force of what he has been putting to us.
    Mr. MacDermot: Is it contemplated that the estimated cost will nevertheless be taken into account in deciding questions of reasonableness, although it will not be binding on final assessments of compensation?
    Sir I. Horobin: Yes. Supposing that the estimated cost is very great, that would be a matter to be taken into account in deciding whether it was reasonable, but it would still be open to the Board at a later stage to say that the claim for compensation was unreasonable, because in fact the cost had been so very much more.
    This might be a convenient moment to announce the result of an examination, which I promised to undertake, of another part of this tangled problem, namely, the possibility of limiting the Board's liability to pay cost of works compensation where it trails out for many years ahead. We have been discussing this at length with the Board and considering it very carefully, and we shall be proposing an Amendment in another place which will limit the Board's liability to works of restoration which are carried out within fifteen years of the end of the Board's occupation of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order.
    There will be exceptions to that fifteen years for woodlands and orchards, which obviously can never be restored in that period, and also in the case of the special problem of repair damage caused by settlement itself, usually to make sure that that was due to the Board, but which might occur years and years later. It is our intention that these Amendments will have the effect of cutting off the tail of small disputable claims against the Board which might go on for years and years and cause much administrative inconvenience and expense to the Board. I hope that that will be acceptable to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Finally with this tidying-up operation, we are again checking the drafting of Clause 21 and the Third Schedule to make sure that there are no small loopholes which will allow obviously absurd claims to succeed. I hope that the party opposite will feel that we have genuinely attempted to meet the case which they have argued.
    Mr. Robens: Of all the speeches the Parliamentary Secretary has made today,
    796
    this is the sweetest in our ears, since it came somewhat as a surprise and since we had given up all hope of being able to see an end to the Board's liability. Because of the vigorous arguments which we had in Committee, we put down these Amendments to deal with a very small portion of what we wanted.
    What the Parliamentary Secretary said was sound common sense. It was in line with the whole tone of the Government's behaviour on this Bill which has been that when matters have been brought to their attention and they have felt that a suggestion was in the general interest, they have always been prepared to consider the matter. In this case they have done remarkably well and we very much appreciate the work which has been done. We recognise the great difficulty in dealing with matters of compensation of being perfectly fair to everybody concerned in the transaction. What the Parliamentary Secretary said was of tremendous satisfaction to us all, and on behalf of the Opposition I thank him for his personal contribution, which I know has been great.
    Mr. MacDermot: In view of the most comforting assurance given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Sixth Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION PROVISIONS TO SPECIAL CASES.)
    Amendment made: In page 73, line 44, after "sale", insert:
    "in the open market by a willing seller".[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 75, line 24, at the end insert:
    Provisions as to compensation under section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership)
    16.—(1) No compensation shall be payable under subsection (2) of section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership) of this Act for any year for which the interest of the owner of the relevant land is held subject to, and with the benefit of, a tenancy which was subsisting immediately before the operative date of the compulsory rights order in question, unless the rent payable under that tenancy for that year is a rent which is subject to a liability to be reduced in consequence of that order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by that order, or is a rent which has been so reduced in pursuance of such a liability.
    (2) For the purposes of the preceding subparagraph the rent payable under a tenancy shall be taken to be subject to a liability to be reduced as therein mentioned if, under the terms and conditions of the tenancy or under any enactment applicable thereto, the tenant is entitled to require that rent to be so reduced, or is entitled to require the question whether the rent should be so reduced, or generally what rent should be payable under the tenancy, to be referred to arbitration or to any court or tribunal; and the reference in that subparagraph to a rent which has been so reduced in pursuance of such a liability shall be construed accordingly.
    17.—(1) No compensation shall be payable under subsection (2) of the said section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership) for any year for which the owner of the relevant land is entitled to compensation under subsection (2) of section thirty of this Act in respect of a right to which this paragraph applies.
    (2) This paragraph applies to any right which fulfils the following conditions, that is to say,—

    (a) that it is a right restrictive of the use of the whole or part of the land comprised in the compulsory rights order in question;

    (b) that the benefit of the right is annexed to the relevant land, or to that land together with other land, or (if the benefit of the right is not so annexed) that the right is exercisable by a person who is the owner of the relevant land; and

    (c) that the exercise of the right, in relation to any land comprised in the order, could (apart from the order) have prevented that land from being used for the purposes which, in relation to the authorisation referred to in the order, constitute the authorised purposes.

    18. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of this Schedule any reference to the relevant land shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) of section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership) of this Act.
    This is almost entirely consequential on the new Clause "Compensation for depreciation of land in the same ownership". It simply defines two sets of circumstances where it is important to exclude double compensation. I think that at this late stage the House will not wish me to go into detail. Obviously, it is necessary to make sure that double compensation is not paid.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 75, line 43, leave out "during" and insert:
    "on or after the operative date of a compulsory rights order and before the end of".
    In line 47, leave out "of the period of occupation".
    In page 76, line 1, leave out "the" and insert "a".
    In line 24, at end insert:
    17. Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) of the last preceding paragraph shall have effect (with the necessary modifications) in relation to compensation under paragraph 4, paragraph 5 or paragraph 12 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act as they have effect in relation to annual compensation in respect of a holding to which section sixteen of this Act applies.
    In line 42, after "Act", insert:
    "and of the Fifth Schedule thereto".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

    Seventh Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 77, line 32, to leave out sub-paragraph (3) and to insert:
    (3) Subsection (5) of section twenty-three of this Act shall apply for the purposes of subparagraph (1) of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes mentioned in that subsection; and subsection (6) of that section shall apply in relation to the last preceding sub-paragraph as it applies in relation to subsection (2) of that section.
    This fulfils an undertaking to correct a drafting mistake upon which both we and the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) took preliminary shots without success.
    Mr. MacDermot: I think that this is a case in which the Minister can legitimately claim that his Amendment is effective and satisfies everybody.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 82, line 29, after "obligations", insert "or restriction".
    In line 31, after "performed", insert "or observed".
    In line 35, at end insert "or restriction".
    In line 36, after "performed", insert "or observed".
    In line 37, leave out "the obligation" and insert:
    "or observe the obligation or restriction".—[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 83, line 36, at the end to insert:

    PART V
    Special provisions as to business, professional and other tenants

    18.—(1) The provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall have effect where any of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order is land which, immediately before the operative date of the order, was subject to a tenancy to which Part II of the Act of 1954 applied; and any reference in this Part of this Schedule to a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies is a reference to a tenancy which—

    (a) immediately before the operative date of such an order, was a tenancy to which Part II of that Act applied, and

    (b) comprises the whole or part of the land comprised in that order.

    (2) In this Part of this Schedule "the Act of 1954" means the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and "business" has the same meaning as in Part II of that Act.

    (3) Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 12 of this Schedule shall apply for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of that sparagraph.

    19.—(1) As from the operative date of the order and so long thereafter as the tenancy continues and the order continues to have effect, so much of the land comprised in the order as—

    (a) is comprised in the tenancy, and

    (b) immediately before the operative date was occupied by the tenant for the purposes of the relevant business (or for those and other purposes) or was occupied by a person employed by the tenant for the purposes of the relevant business, and

    (c) is not for the time being so occupied by the tenant or by such a person, shall be treated for the purposes of Part II of the Act of 1954 as if it had continued to be so occupied.

    (2) In this paragraph "the relevant business" means the business by reason of which, immediately before the operative date, the tenancy was a tenancy to which Part II of the Act of 1954 applied.

    20.—(1) For the purposes mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph, in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies, paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of section thirty of the Act of 1954 (which specify certain grounds on which a landlord may oppose an application for a new tenancy) shall apply as if any reference to the termination of the current tenancy were a reference to the end of the period of occupation.

    (2) The said purposes are—

    (a) the purposes of the operation of subsection (6) of section twenty-five of the Act of 1954 (which requires a notice by the landlord terminating a tenancy to state whether the landlord would oppose an application for a new tenancy, and, if so, on which of the grounds mentioned in section thirty of that Act he would do so) in relation to the service of a notice under the said section twenty-five at any time on or after the operative date of the order in question and before the end of the period of occupation;

    (b) the purposes of the operation of subsection (6) of section twenty-six of that Act (which enables a landlord, where the tenant has requested a new tenancy, to give notice that he will oppose an application for a new tenancy, and requires him to state on which of the grounds mentioned in section thirty of that Act he will do so) in relation to the service of a notice under that subsection at any such time;

    (c) the purposes of the operation of the said section thirty and of section thirty-one of that Act (which relates to the dismissal of an application for a new tenancy where the landlord successfully opposes it) in relation to the determination by the court of an application for a new tenancy, where that application falls to be determined at any such time.

    21.—(1) Where an application made under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954 (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) falls to be determined by the court at a time when the current tenancy is a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies (being a time on or after the operative date of the order in question and before the end of the period of occupation) and on that application an order for the grant of a new tenancy is made under section twenty-nine of that Act, the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect.

    (2) If it falls to the court to determine the rent payable under the new tenancy, the court shall determine that rent as if the compulsory rights order had not been made, and as if so much of the property comprised in the current tenancy as is comprised in the compulsory rights order were in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date.

    (3) If it falls to the court to determine any of the terms and conditions of the new tenancy (other than any term or condition as to the rent payable thereunder) the court

    shall determine those terms or conditions as if the compulsory rights order had not been made; but, in so far as any such terms or conditions of the new tenancy impose an obligation or restriction in respect of land comprised in the compulsory rights order, the court may suspend the operation of that obligation or restriction during the period of occupation.

    (4) If the new tenancy continues until after the end of the period of occupation, the landlord or the tenant may, by notice in writing served on his tenant or landlord, demand a reference to the court of the question whether any of the terms and conditions of the tenancy (including any term or condition as to rent) should be carried, having regard to the state of the land and other circumstances existing at the time when the reference is determined by the court:

    Provided that the court shall not entertain such a reference unless the proceedings are begun within twelve months after the end of the period of occupation.

    (5) On a reference under the last preceding sub-paragraph, the court shall determine what variations (if any) should be made in the terms and conditions of the tenancy, as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, and the date (not being earlier than the end of the period of occupation) from which any such variations are to take effect or to be treated as having taken effect; and as from that date the tenancy shall have effect, or, as the case may be, shall be treated as having had effect, subject to any variations determined by the court under this paragraph.

    22.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect, in the case of a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies, where an application under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954—

    (a) is made by the tenant before the end of the period of occupation, but falls to be determined by the court after the end of that period, or

    (b) is made by the tenant within twelve months after the end of that period, and the landlord opposes the application on grounds consisting of or including any of the grounds specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of section thirty of that Act (which relate respectively to the state of repair of the holding and to the tenant's use or management of the holding during the current tenancy).

    (2) If the court is satisfied that the matters to which the objection in question relates are attributable to a change in the state of the land resulting from the occupation and use thereof in the exercise of rights conferred by the compulsory rights order, the court, in so far as it considers it reasonable to do so in the circumstances, may disregard those matters in determining whether to make an order for the grant of a new tenancy.

    (3) The provisions of the last preceding sub-paragraph shall be without prejudice to the operation of paragraph 14 of this Schedule in relation to things done or omitted during the period of occupation.

    23.—(1) In relation to an application made under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954 (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) which falls to be determined by the court at a time when the current tenancy is a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies (being a time on or after the operative date of the order in question and before the end of the period of occupation) section thirty-seven of that Act (under which a tenant is entitled to compensation from the landlord if an order for the grant of a new tenancy is precluded on certain grounds therein mentioned) shall apply subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.

    (2) In subsection (1) of that section—

    (a) the reference to paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of section thirty of that Act shall be construed as a reference to those paragraphs as modified by subparagraph (1) of paragraph 20 of this Schedule;

    (b) the reference to quitting the holding shall be construed as a reference to the termination of the current tenancy.

    (3) In subsection (2) of that section, for any reference to the rateable value of the holding there shall be substituted a reference to the amount which would have been the rateable value of the holding on the material date if—

    (a) the compulsory rights order in question had not been made, and the authorisation referred to in that order had not been granted and no application had been made for such an authorisation, and

    (b) so much of the land comprised in the order as is comprised in the current tenancy had remained in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date of the order.

    (4) Paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (5) of that section shall not apply; but—

    (a) the amount which, in the circumstances mentioned in the last preceding subparagraph, would have been the rateable value of the holding on the material date shall be taken to be the value which, in those circumstances, and apart from any exemption from assessment to rates, would on a proper assessment have been the value to be entered in the valuation list as the annual value of the holding; and

    (b) the provisions of subsection (5) of that section as to the determination of disputes, and as to appeals, and the provisions of subsection (6) of that section (which authorises the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to make rules as to procedure) shall apply in relation to any dispute or reference relating to that amount as they apply in relation to any such dispute or reference as is mentioned in those provisions.

    (5) The modifications of the said section thirty-seven specified in the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply without prejudice to the operation, in relation to that section, of paragraph 19 of this Schedule.

    (6) In this paragraph "the material date", in relation to an application under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954, means the date of the landlord's notice under section twenty-five of that Act or under subsection (6) of section twenty-six of that Act, as the case may be, and "annual value" has the same meaning as in section thirty-seven of that Act.

    This is a very long Amendment, but it deals with a quite simple point. It is only complicated because it is within the very complicated Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. The whole purpose of this is to protect the position of the non-agricultural tenant whose tenancy falls in during the operation of a C.R.O. The 1954 Act entitles the tenant in certain circumstances to obtain a court order renewing his tenancy, and this Amendment provides that when land is subject to a C.R.O. the court must act on the assumption that it was in the same physical condition as it was immediately before the operative date of the order. There are a number of other technical modifications with which I do not think I need trouble the House.
    The point is to ensure that the tenant can get his compensation without damaging the position of the landlord and to direct the court how it is to act when determining the rents and other terms and conditions. There are certain provisions where the terms of the tenancy have become inapplicable and the court can suspend or vary them in the case of necessity.
    Perhaps I should draw the special attention of the House to paragraph 23, because we might get an absurd position there. Under the 1954 Act, for a number of purposes, the rateable value is made the criterion for compensation. The rateable value of the land while it was being used for opencast would bear no relation at all to what it was intended to be, a measurement of the tenants right. Therefore, we have had to put in special provisions to deal with that point.
    The whole thing boils down to this: a non-agricultural tenant must be protected when his tenancy falls in during the occupation of the Board. The Amendment
    804
    simply takes up the various points which arise in applying the 1954 Act in those circumstances.
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 97, after "If", to insert "and in so far as".
    Is it your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 99, to leave out from "court" to "disregard" in line 100, and to insert "shall"?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss the two Amendments together.
    Mr. MacDermot: It is only right to point out that this part of the Seventh Schedule is another example of a tendency prevailing within the Government. One of my right hon. Friends pointed out that the Paymaster-General appeared to have been left out of account when the Bill was being drafted, and Amendments were produced at a late stage on his behalf. Here is another matter which is completely new to our discussion. It was never raised at any previous stage, but at the last moment someone has apparently suddenly realised that the provisions of the Bill seriously affect the granting of a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
    This is entirely in keeping with the way in which the Bill has been handled from start to finish. It does not surprise us in the slightest to find out that at this late hour a new provision, running to 146 lines, is being moved by the Parliamentary Secretary in a manner which has become very familiar to us. We shall not be very surprised, when the Bill comes back from another place, if our Notice

    805
    Paper contains several pages of further Amendments.
    The Amendment which I am moving and the one associated with it are directed to quite a small point. The Bill provides that where a tenant makes application under Section 24 for a new lease and the landlord opposes that application on the grounds, in whole or in part, that either the state of repair of the holding or the tenant's management were not what it should have been, then, if the court is satisfied fiat these objections and the matter to which they relate are attributable in whole or in part to the exercise of rights under the compulsory rights order, the court must, in so far as it is reasonable to do so, disregard those matters.
    The Amendments would have the effect of not leaving this matter to the discretion of the court, but of making it mandatory. If the default of the tenant under the terms of the holding have been caused by the operation of the compulsory rights order we cannot envisage circumstances in which it would be reasonable to take those matters into account in so far as they are attributable to the operation of the order. The Amendments would have the effect, in so far as these matters are attributable to the exercise of the rights, that the court shall disregard them in determining whether to make an order.
    Mr. Oliver: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir I. Horobin: Before I briefly comment on the Opposition Amendments to the proposed Amendment, I think that, without being drawn too far, I ought to reply to the preliminary observations on the late stage at which the Government Amendment has been put down. Whilst not in the least dissenting from the view that it would have been better if it had been appreciated at an earlier stage what an appalling problem the Bill would be from a technical point of view, I should say that this particular difficulty has always been quite clear to us in the Department, but, as the length of the Amendment shows, it has been extremely difficult to do something which it was quite obvious would have to be done.
    Therefore, rather than hold up the production of the Bill, which the Coal Board badly needed, while that was being
    806
    sorted out it was thought better to produce the Bill and bring this in when the technical drafting had been worked out. There was no doubt that we should have to protect this type of tenant, but it was simply a question of the complicated legal drafting.
    I come to the small point raised by the Amendments to the proposed Amendment. There is a great deal to be said on all sides. On the whole we think it better to leave the discretion in this matter to the court. The court will hear the case and, if satisfied that a breach, whatever it is, arises out of a change caused by the Board it can disregard it. It is left entirely to the court. I should have thought that, on the whole, that was the best way of doing it, rather than to put a restriction on the court's discretion in the matter. It is not a point of vital importance one way or the other and I would advise the House to leave the Bill as it is.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Seventh Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AND IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)
    Amendment made: In page 84, line 14, at end insert:
    (g) Part V shall be omitted.—[Sir I Horobin.]

    Ninth Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO NOTICES.)
    Amendments made: In page 88, line 32, leave out "authority sending it" and insert:
    "person by whom or on whose behalf it is sent".
    In line 39, leave out "authority" and insert "person".
    In line 40, at end insert "or other document".
    In line 44, leave out "furnished that authority with" and insert "given".
    In line 52, at end insert:
    4. The preceding provisions of this Schedule shall not apply to any notice for which a method of service is prescribed by regulations under this Act, except in so far as any of those provisions are applied by those regulations.—[Sir I. Horobin.]
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
    9.10 p.m.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    At this late stage I do not think that the House will wish for a long disquisition on this Bill, but I think it would be proper first to say that we have now reached the stage when we can see the general form of a permanent, decent code for the working of opencast sites other than by the remains of war-time emergency Regulations.
    I have said that I very much doubt, in the light of experience, whether it was appreciated on what an enormously complicated task we had embarked when the Government took up the extremely attractive, and I think in principle sound and valuable, but very novel conception of granting compulsory temporary rights in land rather than relying on compulsory purchase. It was a very ingenious idea. I can claim no credit for it; it is one of the few things in the Bill which remain from before I was suddenly called upon to deal with it. Nevertheless, in the light of experience I frankly think that it put a task on the draftsmen which it was impossible for them to carry out as satisfactorily as we should have wished in the time available. With the good will and co-operation of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of the Standing Committee we have, I think, very greatly improved the original draft, and it would be worth while if I very briefly drew the attention of the House to the main changes which have taken place while the Bill has been passing through the House.
    I could make an enormous list. Even on the Report there were over 100 Government Amendments, and I shudder to think how many there were in Standing Committee. First, we have substantially met the main point raised by the Opposition on Second Reading about the Board's compulsory powers over land used for stocking grounds. While we did not go the whole way, I think we have met much the bigger half of their point and of the Board's difficulties in this connection.
    808
    Leaving aside a number of important things like special provisions about trees, we have made two major changes in respect of amenities. The Clause which we have dealt with this afternoon, based on the Electricity Acts, deals with amenity questions when authorisations are being considered, and we have also this afternoon dealt with an Amendment protecting the curtilage of houses and gardens from excavation.
    We have increased the period of notice of entry for prospecting to the great advantage not only of owners and occupiers but also of local authorities, who have important matters to consider. We have also greatly extended the number of persons entitled to receive those notices. Lastly, we have completely re-drafted the compensation Clauses, to the great advantage not only of the owner and the occupier but also of the restoration of the land. There has been a great extension of cost of works. We have thus dealt with many legitimate anxieties of local authorities in matters such as playing fields and recreation grounds and we have dealt with compensation for allotments and market gardens.
    In particular, I promise not to deal in more than a passing reference with the thorny subject of mineral compensation which those who were in Standing Committee will remember at one stage took four pages of the Order Paper to deal with one Government Amendment. I will not go through all that now. At any rate, we have greatly improved the compensation for minerals. These are all quite substantial improvements. The Bill is a very different and better Bill because of them, and I think that the trouble that has been taken has been well worth while.
    The opportunity did not arise at any time during Report, so I should now like to take the opportunity to make a statement on an extremely important and contentious and difficult matter. On the question of going back over land that has been previously affected, I can give a slight reassurance to hon. Members interested.
    After this discussion in the Standing Committee on the question of re-entry on to land previously requisitioned I made a detailed survey of all the new sites likely to be available for production in the next three years. This survey

    809
    showed that new sites containing about 35 million tons of coal would be available, and that if there were no re-entry on to land previously requisitioned under Defence Regulations, about 10 million tons of this coal would be lost. In these circumstances, to prevent the Board from making C.R.O.s on land previously requisitioned would involve putting at risk an unacceptably high proportion of future output. The Board might still get some of this coal by agreement with the landowners and occupiers, but without compulsory powers in the background we could not rely on that.
    The Government, therefore, cannot amend the Bill, but it is already our policy to avoid re-excavating land which has previously been excavated except in those cases where the land was worked in the early days of opencast, and re-excavation to a greater depth will now yield a substantial tonnage of coal. The Government and the Board propose, if this Bill goes into operation, to extend this policy, and the Minister—the House will forgive my reading from my brief, but the statement is important—will not confirm compulsory rights orders against the wishes of the owners and occupiers of land which has been previously requisitioned for opencast coal operations unless there is a really substantial tonnage of coal at stake.
    I hope that hon. Members will feel that that statement goes quite a way towards meeting the very genuine points that have been made about the hardship caused by the Board going back over land a second or third time. I do not think that the House would wish me to say more. I am sure that this Bill is essential if we are to have opencast mining at all. I think it is a much better Bill than it was when it was introduced and that, in many respects, it marks an advance on corresponding legislation, certainly in the matter of compensation. I commend it to the House.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. Robens: I shall not detain the House very long because, after the many hours we have spent in Standing Committee, one feels that one has wrung the subject dry. Obviously, from the moment we determine to continue opencast mining by other than the Defence Regulations, we find ourselves led down a path—a labyrinth, really—of legislative
    810
    procedure. I am bound to say that I do not believe that this Bill could have emerged as it has now without the co-operation of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the Paymaster-General in giving very careful attention to matters raised from this side of the House and of the Standing Committee. We, on our part, have always recognised when we have reached the stage when no further concessions could be wrung from an unwilling Minister, and at that stage we have desisted, rather than spoil the atmosphere in which the debates on the Bill has been conducted.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) will be very pleased indeed by the statement that the Parliamentary Secretary has now made; that only in exceptional circumstances, and where there is, in fact, a very large tonnage of coal involved, will the Ministry agree to give the Board authority to enter on to land that has already been requisitioned for opencast coal. I feel that my hon. Friend's very deep and moving speech on this subject has had a considerable effect and has impressed the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The Government have been very reasonable in meeting the important matter which was raised earlier about disposal points and stocking grounds. Throughout the whole of the consideration of the Bill, both in Committee and in the House, there has been unanimity in wanting the very best possible restoration.
    We must not think for a moment that this Bill alone has created a desire for adequate and proper restoration. I am perfectly certain that, from the moment that opencasting was devised as a method for producing coal under very difficult circumstances during the war, the agricultural interests and those who were producing the coal were anxious to have the best kind of restoration—the agricultural interests for the specific reason that they had to use the land when the contractors had gone.
    I have found that, with very few exceptions, contractors themselves have been anxious for efficient restoration because they could see opencast coal mining lasting for many years, as indeed it has done, and they knew full well that unless they were able to help in the proper restoration of the land, public opinion would stop opencast mining, no matter what was

    811
    the cost to the country in the loss of coal. We could never envisage a situation in which hundreds of thousands of acres were to be disturbed and ruined for agriculture in the future. Therefore, there has always been this incentive on the part of the Coal Board, contractors, Members of this House, Ministry officials and all those associated to try not to spoil the amenities as far as this is possible, and to restore land to the very best of their ability.
    I believe that perhaps this Bill has performed one other good purpose. It has once again focused the attention of all of us on this very big operation that is still going on and that is still an awful nuisance to a lot of people, and has forced us to look once again at restoration and the provision of the amenities when restoration has been completed.
    As to compensation, I think that the approach has been to provide adequate and fair compensation in justice to all, and I believe to that extent we have succeeded.
    It has been a real pleasure to have served in the consideration of this Bill because of the constructive spirit that has been displayed by all hon. Members who have wanted to make this legislation serve the purpose for which it is intended.
    9.23 p.m.
    Sir Albert Braithwaite. Having been in this venture from the very inception, I feel that tonight, having given opencast legislative form for the first time, I should say a word or two.
    I appreciate many of the difficulties that this operation has caused, but I want to stress the great value that it has been to the nation, particularly in the war years when we had many problems. It must be some satisfaction to the Father of the House, who was then Minister of Mines, that he gave us sanction to go ahead with the scheme at a very difficult time. Now that the technique of getting this coal is so well known to us, it can be won in a way which causes the least disturbance.
    I am sure that this Bill, with its compensation Clauses, will make it a great deal easier for the national Coal Board to negotiate its arrangements with the various people who have to be consulted before a site can be worked upon. I
    812
    hope that it will still be a useful part of Britain's economy. I lean to the view that coal is the basis of our island's prosperity and that nothing else we have is as valuable to us.
    I am sure that there will come a time when the marketing arrangements of our coalfields will again return us the full amount that we used to have in the past. I was horrified only this week to receive a letter from a friend who visited Southern Ireland and to learn that the Southern Irish are buying their coal almost exclusively from Poland, when they sell practically all their products in this country. These are things which should be examined very carefully and sorted out. It is on the balance of payments in Europe, through coal, that we can finally stabilise our position and have far more certainty than we have had in the past.
    I want to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and his ability in directing the Bill, at very short notice, through the Committee stage. As the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has said, it has been a complicated Bill. It could be nothing else. In some parts of it, I felt that the Government were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but I suppose it had to be so in order that all the legal jargon should be put into the Bill to give the necessary protection. Not being a lawyer, I could not understand half the things which were said in this connection upstairs.
    I wish the Bill a really good reception in the country. I hope that it will do much to minimise some of the discontent and irritation which opencast working has caused, and I hope that it will make a contribution to our future economy worthy of the time the House has spent upon it.
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. T. Brown: At this stage, I should like to say a word or two in appreciation of the attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General. As is well known, I have from time to time spoken very strongly, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend that I have spoken from deep conviction, and I hope that they do not take it personally. Having lived in my constituency and seen some of the ravages of opencast mining, I have spoken

    813
    strongly, as hon. Members well understand, about certain activities which have been taking place since 1941.
    I am delighted that the Government have introduced a Clause dealing with amenities. This has been a very sore point with me and with many people in the division I have the honour to represent. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) occupied a position similar to that now occupied by the Parliamentary Secretary, he came and looked at the ravages caused by opencast mining. The hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary has been to visit the place and he, too, knows something of the ravages of opencast mining. As a result of our persistence and persuasion in Committee, the Government have introduced the amenity Clause which we have accepted today. As one who has fought long and hard for the protection of our woodlands and the amenities of mining areas, I am very grateful to the Government for conceding the point.
    I hope that we have, through the Bill, made it possible for much better restoration of ravaged land to be carried out. It is a step in the right direction. In years gone by, it was a headache, a heartache even, to the farming community, and I hope that the provisions in the Bill will mean that far better restoration of the land will be carried out.
    There is also in the Bill a new compensation Clause. That in itself is another step in the right direction. I was also delighted with the concluding statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that the Government have now given consideration, through our persistency and doggedness, to the question of second and third visits to sites which have already been visited. That again is a step in the right direction. After all, one can understand and accept the disturbance once and it may be that one can understand the disturbance twice. But when the Coal Board comes along three and four times to disturb the farmer and his farmland, this breaks the hearts of the farmers. I was glad to hear tonight that the Government will give serious consideration to the matter before they give permission for a site to be visited three or four times.
    I have followed the Bill from 22nd January through all its stages and I have
    814
    never failed to attend when it has been considered. I do not say that in a boasting manner; it was because of my profound interest in the protection of parts of this country which have hitherto been sadly neglected, particularly from an amenity point of view. We are not delighted with opencast mining, but with the approach that has been made by the Ministry to the many things that we have suggested.
    The Bill cannot destroy or eliminate the bitterness which has been created, but if it is rightly applied—and again I mention the regional officers and residential engineers—it will bring a high degree of contentment to those who have to face the consequences of what opencast mining means. I do not say that I welcome the Bill with open arms, but I am satisfied that it will go a long way towards creating a degree of satisfaction where hitherto bitterness has prevailed.
    9.33 p.m.
    Mr. Speir: I realise that at this stage there is not much hope of getting any more concessions from the Government in this House, but I should like to ask for one or two more definite assurances before we part with the Bill, and I shall be surprised if we do not find some more concessions are granted in another place.
    First, however, I should like to congratulate the Government on their courage in bringing this Bill forward and, by so doing, dispensing with still more Defence Regulations. By introducing this Bill the Government have demonstrated the importance which they attach to dealing with both property and individuals in a fair, open and democratic manner. I should like to pay my tribute to the Paymaster-General and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the very kind and helpful way with which they have dealt with Amendments which have been put forward by both sides of the Committee.
    Having paid my brief tribute to the Ministers and the Government, I must make it clear that in the north of England opencast operations by any method, whether under the Defence Regulations or under statute law, remain hideous and horrible. They cause great hardship and a great deal of inconvenience to those who directly suffer from them as well as

    815
    to those who live in the neighbourhood. However good the terms of compensation may be—and I grant that they are better under this Bill than they have been hitherto—the fact remains that the agricultural community would like to see opencast operations abolished altogether—and as soon as possible. As I have said before, if opencast operations took place in the home counties near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) or near where he lives, there would be such an outcry that they would soon be abolished.
    Unfortunately, it is mainly in the industrial areas, and still more so in the mining areas, which have already paid such a heavy price for deep-mined coal, that these operations take place. They continue at the cost of the loss of good agricultural land, of considerable damage to amenities and much personal suffering. The Bill, let us get it quite clear, authorises these operations to continue for another twenty years.
    In view of the agitation which the Conservative Party in the past has undertaken against opencast mining, we ought to be ashamed at bringing forward this Bill now, especially today, when the fuel situation is much easier than it was in the war or in the immediate post-war conditions. The prolongation of opencast mining can be justified only if it can be shown to be overwhelmingly in the national interest and if my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General can give an assurance on behalf of the Government that the utmost care will be exercised in authorising all opencast operations, and that, in particular, full weight will be given to the planning and amenity interests.
    I am a little afraid that now that the Bill is very near to becoming law, the Government and the National Coal Board may think that they have been given the green light to rampage all over the country. The Board may take the view that Parliament has given its blessing to a go-ahead wherever the Board thinks there is any coal which can be obtained by the opencast method and that it has a charter to produce the maximum amount of opencast coal—and to do so regardless of the damage which may be done to our amenities.
    816
    Admittedly, we are still short of fuel and we still will require coal in large quantities for many years to come, but I do not think that the nation at this stage needs or desires coal at any price and regardless of the damage which is done thereby to the countryside. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, on behalf of the Government, may accept that opencast sites must still be selected with the utmost care and that a real regard must be paid to the preservation of amenities.
    As the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) have both emphasised, we must still pay considerable attention to improving the code of restoration, particularly concerning drainage and the replanting of both trees and hedges. One has the impression that the drains are chucked back far too quickly and far too casually and haphazardly. Far too often when visiting these sites, one sees that wire and concrete posts have taken the place of hedges and trees.
    Much as I dislike the Bill, I have not opposed it and I do not now oppose it, for it is an improvement on the Defence Regulations. I hope, however, that the Government can give a definite assurance that when the Bill becomes law, it will be operated in a careful and statesmanlike fashion and that the interests and views of both local authorities and individuals will be given the utmost consideration.
    9.38 p.m.
    Mr. Oliver: Whatever advantages and improvements we have made in the Bill, I am sure that there are very few Members who represent mining constituencies or who live in mining areas who would not like to see the very last of opencast mining. It would give me great pleasure to move the rejection of the Bill if it would bring to an end the evils associated with the obtaining of coal by the opencast system. I know that is not possible, and I recognise that one thing which this Bill will do is to bring some order into the approving and planning of the restoration necessary in respect of land on which this work has been undertaken.
    It will also give an opportunity to all the parties interested and to all the parties which wish to oppose, if they have any representative capacity, to do so when authorisation is sought to use certain

    817
    land for this purpose. I know of no interest that may be excluded under the Bill, and this, in my view, will be a great improvement on the existing arrangements. One particular effect, as the last speaker has said, is that we shall be saying goodbye to the Defence Regulations and putting this work under a Statute of this House, which is a step in the right direction.
    Another improvement is that, in connection with the planning of operations, all the local authorities, whether county-councils, borough councils or county district councils, and persons interested, whether as owners, lessees or occupiers of land, will have an opportunity of being heard when the inquiry is held in respect of an authorisation. This will certainly eliminate a great deal of the ill-feeling which has emanated from opencast working.
    Despite what the Minister has said, I profoundly regret that it is necessary to go back on sites which have been previously worked. In constituencies like mine and those of some of my hon. Friends on these benches, in which coal has been obtained since about the time of the Industrial Revolution and where coal is almost everywhere, not only have people suffered considerably from mining subsidence over the years, but almost every part of the constituency has been assailed, and is likely to be assailed, as the Ministry of Power will know by the number of letters which it receives from the local authorities.
    While we dislike opencast working of coal very much indeed, we have to welcome the arrangements which are embodied in this Bill. I, too, wish to pay my tribute to the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power for the very cordial way in which they have taken some of the criticisms made against them. They have had to bat on a wicket which they would no doubt have prefered not to have been defending. Therefore, I welcome the Bill in the sense which I have described, and I hope that by its operation a great deal of the ill-feeling which has manifested itself in the past may be eliminated.
    9.43 p.m.
    Mr. Roy Mason: It is not my intention to delay the passage of this Bill in its final stage unduly. I opposed this Bill very vigorously in Committee,
    818
    and, in fact, I am opposed to opencast mining in any form, but, if it is to continue, I welcome the form of this Bill in so far as it is putting an end to operations under the Defence Regulations.
    I also welcome the extension of individual freedom in the degree of protest which is allowed in this Bill, and also the provisions regarding the consideration that will be given to paying adequate compensation, but particularly I welcome the degree of planning which is now required. On the question of the position of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in this matter, I should like to ask the Paymaster-General how that Department is to fit in when this Bill is in operation. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has more knowledge of this matter and has a special department formed to deal with planning matters throughout the country. I should like to see the Ministry of Power and the National Coal Board making more use of this Department of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in dealing with this aspect of the matter.
    In regard to compensation, I must say that a lot of people will never be compensated for the way in which they are affected, and I am particularly reminded of a small village near my own constituency, and this must be true of many mining areas and their inhabitants. They cannot be properly compensated for the noise of the blasting and the nuisance and the dust and dirt which settle down on them from these operations. The old people suffering with their nerves as a result of the blasting continually going on around them and students having their examination chances jeopardised cannot be properly compensated. It will be interesting to see how the Ministry of Power and the Board will deal with this aspect of compensation, for it will have to be considered. That is why I welcome, first, the degree of protest allowed and, second, the fact that compensation will have to be considered before the operations start.
    I welcome the attempt within the Bill to regularise opencast mining. There is already enough spoliation in mining areas. On Second Reading, the Paymaster-General gave some figures when he referred to the number of acres being churned up by opencast mining, relating them to the nation's agricultural acreage. That was a false picture, and

    819
    it was misleading to the House, because the opencast mining takes places in mining areas and the acreages in those districts which have been taken into consideration are not those of the nation. As has been said, it is true that there is no opencast mining in the Home Counties; there would be a great protest if opencast mining took place in Southern England.
    We have enough spoliation as it is without allowing the process to continue unnecessarily. I should like planning control extended in the hope that there would be some development in mining areas. I have witnessed the extension of spoil heaps. They are called muck stacks in Yorkshire, bings in Scotland and pit heaps in Lancashire. I should like to see "spoil heaps" as the universal term. I should like to see the Ministry of Power and the Board using planning authority, the experience of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the experience gained in the restoration of land following opencast coal mining operations, to get rid of the mountains of slag and other spoil heaps.
    For these reasons, I welcome the Bill in its present form. I am against opencast mining, which I regard as a disruptive, mongrelised form of coal mining, and there is a tendency for it to continue, particularly if people are seeking authorisation to continue towards the end of the ten-year period. With some reservation, I welcome the form which the Bill takes and the compensation and planning measures which will flow from it. Nevertheless, I hope that opencast mining will cease within the ten-year period.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. Albert Roberts: Like other hon. Members, I have seen the countryside defiled by opencast mining, but I knew that the country needed coal. It is as if we were passing from military law to civil law. When the Bill was introduced I welcomed it. Indeed, the Opposition as a whole welcomed the Bill to such an extent that they have used all their energies to improve it.
    Something has been said this evening about the National Coal Board. It should be put on record that we support the Board and the mining industry. If coal is necessary for the well-being of the nation and its people, and for other
    820
    countries, too, then opencast coal mining should continue without our jeopardising those who work in the deep pits. But I want to add a word of warning. A great deal of competition is taking place among contractors. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, but the recent code of restoration is not being adhered to.
    Quite a lot of trouble will arise unless the Coal Board and those responsible for opencast mining face their responsibilities fairly and squarely. There is a case in my constituency—with which I shall probably have to deal—which will involve many thousands of pounds because the Board has not carried out a verbal agreement.
    While welcoming the Bill, those responsible for it must fulfil its obligations. It may be a successful Measure, because opencast mining will die a natural death—and the Bill has a life of only ten years. I conclude by paying my tribute to the Paymaster-General and to the Parliamentary Secretary, and also to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have given much time and thought towards making this Bill workable.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: I had the honour of joining the Committee consideration of the Bill in midstream, due to the sad and untimely death of our friend, Ronald Williams. When I read through the Report of the earlier part of the Committee proceedings and saw with what knowledge, thoroughness and care he had examined those parts of the Bill, it seemed to me that the Minister would be less than human if he did not feel some compensation in that loss in that the Bill has now had a much easier passage, in some ways, as a result of the absence of Ronald Williams.
    Substantial changes have been made in the Bill, to some of which we have not been able to give that thorough attention which they deserve. The compensation provisions include important and radical departures from the general practice in compensation matters. I referred to those earlier today. It is right to place on record that we on this side of the House regard those changes as being very special provisions directed to very special circumstances. The fact that we agreed to them in this case does not

    821
    mean that we consider that they could or should in any way be considered a precedent for any future legislation dealing with compensation. The compensation provisions are unusually generous, but we thought it right, because of the overriding national interest in insuring proper restoration of agricultural land, that they should be included, and those considerations have guided us in accepting these provisions.
    I conclude by saying how pleasurable I found my task in Committee. At times, the work of opposition is very frustrating when one feels that one is getting nowhere, but in this case we have had in essence a non-controversial Bill, a Bill dealing with a matter which none of us likes. All of us were endeavouring to make the Bill as effective and as workable as we could. It has certainly been gratifying to see what attention the Government have paid to the points we have raised, and the many concessions which they have made to our point of view. I join in paying my tribute and expressing my gratitude to the Government for that attitude.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. Neal: The Bill which we are discussing today is very different from that presented on Second Reading. Drastic changes have taken plaice in Committee. Few Bills have suffered such mutilation and changes at the hands of their authors. Perhaps we ought not to complain about that, because our Parliamentary procedure provides for a Committee stage to take a second look at legislation which may have been hastily devised and imperfectly drafted.
    I said on Second Reading that this was a Bill of good intentions, but that the good intentions were so enshrouded in mysterious legal nomenclature that the goodness was difficult to find. The good intentions remain, but so does the complicated nomenclature. Indeed it has been supplemented during the Committee stage to an extent which has confounded a layman like myself. I think that the Bill, even now, is at once a lawyer's windfall and a layman's pitfall. It is difficult to understand what the draftsmen have been aiming at in some of the Clauses which were agreed to during the Committee stage, some of which I shall perhaps have an opportunity to mention later.
    822
    If the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) were to reflect on the work that has been done in this industry, he would find it difficult to believe that over 150 million tons of coal have been extracted from the earth without the aid at all of these complicated legal entanglements.
    All my life I have been associated with deep mining in one way or another. To that extent, perhaps, my prejudice is understandable. So far as I am concerned, I would rather end opencast coal mining than mend it. But while there is a proved need for the supplementation of deep-mined output, a Bill of this nature is very necessary to remedy many of the shortcomings of the past fifteen years.
    There are many people who believe that this Bill should be refused a Third Reading by reason of the amount of the stocks of coal which there are in the country. I do not want to embarrass the Minister by going into those figures. I say that, whatever the stocks of coal at the present time, if opencast mining is to be continued, if only on a limited scale, there is need for a Bill of this kind.
    Those people who have to suffer the inconvenience of opencast operations, whose daily life is disturbed, whose business is incommoded will feel that this Measure is an ambulance towards recovery. The Deputy Chairman of the National Coal Board, in a public utterance recently, was arguing in favour of the continuance of opencast mining and on that occasion he said that this country could not afford to scorn the methods of coal production that were operating in wealthy countries like the U.S.A. and Russia. The analogy was not a very good one. It is precisely because opencast working is so very different in these crowded islands that the necessity for this Measure has arisen. Here land is scarce and valuable and we have to restore it as nearly as possible to its former state of production. In many cases, sites are so contiguous to dwelling areas that the loss of amenity and inconvenience is greater in this country than it has ever been in those countries where they can get opencast coal without troubling about restoration at all.
    Provision of the kind which this Bill offers is only elementary justice. Indeed, if the parties in this House were to change sides it would be necessary to

    823
    find some permanent solution of this problem even then. For that reason, as my right hon. Friend indicated, we shall not divide the House at the end of this debate. To us on this side of the House the most welcome provision in the Bill is that which provides for public inquiry. Indeed, this outstanding democratic diversion from the past abolishes the arbitrary right to enter land and exploit its outcrop seams without the consent of the interests concerned.
    Under the Defence Regulations of the past, owners were not allowed to question the right of the practice to enter, the tenants and their interests were inadequately considered and there was no opportunity of presenting their objections. I should have thought that every hon. Member of this House associated with mining has at some time or another found a victim of opencast mining who has come to him to present his case to the Minister.
    Under the Bill, circumstances will be more difficult. First of all, the National Coal Board will have to publish in a newspaper for two successive weeks details of any site it intends to excavate. It will have to serve a notice on the local planning authority of its intention to work certain areas, and if objection is made by the interests concerned there must be a public inquiry. Of all the advantages of the Bill, the public inquiry is the best.
    We have not had some of the pungent speeches against the Government from their own side that were made during the Second Reading. I am glad that we have not had a repetition of the charge that too much power is invested in the Minister. Protests were made that the Minister of Power was being invested with powers that formerly belonged to three Ministries and the suggestion was made that a public inquiry should decide whether a site should be worked or not. I am in favour of a public inquiry, but we could not leave to it the responsibility of deciding whether a site should be operated or not. The Minister of Power is responsible for providing the nation's energy; to him must belong the final right to decide where a site should be excavated.
    There are eighteen compensation Clauses in the Bill. They provide compensation for loss of annual value, for the cost of removal, for the cost of works,
    824
    for diminution in holdings, for short-term improvements, forced sales, easement of minerals and many other things. Scarcely one feature of loss is left out of the compensation provisions. I would pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not often find myself in agreement with him, but he has certainly carried a heavy burden of responsibility during the progress of the Bill and he has done his best to meet our suggestions on compensation.
    Farmers in particular are pleased with the compensation Clauses. Up to recently our post-bags were filled mainly with protests from one organisation or another about the inadequacy of compensation, but there has been a strange silence over the past few weeks which seems to indicate that farmers are satisfied with the compensation Clauses. We could not afford to allow farmers to be disgruntled and dissatisfied. I appreciate that they have not rendered any conspicuous electoral support to the Labour Party, but they are a section of the community whose services are vital to our economy and whose exertions should not be invalidated by the operation of another Act. When the Bill comes into operation there will be fewer complaints from farmers than we have had during the past fifteen years. At any rate, nobody will be able to claim that where food production has been hindered the loss has not been adequately compensated.
    A good deal has been said about restoration and I do not want to labour the point. In the past there has been a lot of undue publicity about imperfect restoration. The technique of restoration has been improved and we hope that under the Bill it will be further improved. We cannot always replace the bounty of Providence but it cannot be denied that in some instances fertility has been improved by modern methods of restoration. The compensation for loss of value provided for in the Bill should ensure even better restoration. Because it is incumbent on the N.C.B. to pay compensation for the loss of value, that should be a greater incentive to the Board to restore land to its former value wherever possible.
    We join with the Minister in commending this complex and complicated Bill. We are glad to have taken a share in improving its original provisions. We shall welcome the time when its operation is no longer necessary.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. Maudling: It appears to be the general view of the House that this Bill has been substantially improved in the course of its Committee stage and to that improvement hon. Members on both sides of the House here and in Standing Committee undoubtedly contributed.
    Our proceedings were very much saddened at an early stage by the death of Ronald Williams, to whom I should like to pay a personal tribute. His death came as a very great shock to me and I know that it was a great sadness to all of us, on both sides of the House.
    May I also pay tribute to the remarkable work given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Bill? He came to it at short notice and carried the whole weight of the discussions throughout the Committee and Report stages. I am very grateful to him, as I am sure the whole House is.
    Opencast mining remains a disagreeable necessity. It is still a necessity, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) have pointed out, but it is certainly disagreeable, as the hon. Members for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) have also pointed out. The improvements created by the Bill will place the operations on a statutory basis rather than on Defence Regulations; secondly, they provide proper terms of compensation; and, thirdly, they ensure closer control of planning and authorisation and carrying out of restoration activities by the National Coal Board.
    I would assure the hon. Member for Barnsley that there is the closest possible co-operation between my noble Friend the Minister of Power and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in all these planning matters and in procedure leading up to deemed planning permission. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham that I entirely accept, on behalf of the Government, all that he said about the importance of considering amenities. We shall certainly ensure in determining, where any particular opencast operation is authorised, that full consideration shall be given both to amenity and planning considerations. Permission will not be given
    826
    unless the demand for coal and availability of coal on any particular site is so great as, in the opinion of the Government to outweigh the amenity conditions, which will be fully examined under the provisions of the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend will find that there will be more hedges and fewer fences, and certainly fewer concrete posts in future.
    I am glad that the Bill has been received in the House on the basis and in the atmosphere in which it has been discussed. I think that it is a good thing to get away from Defence Regulations and on to a proper statutory basis. So long as this disagreeable necessity for opencast mining continues, I am sure the country will find it continuing on a better basis under the Bill than under the previous system.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  POLICE, CARMARTHENSHIRE AND CARDIGANSHIRE (AMALGAMATION)
  10.9 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I beg to move,
  That the Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire Police (Amalgamation) Scheme, 1958, a Draft of which was laid before this House on 24th April, be not made.
  Before I go into the general merits of this amalgamation scheme between the two counties, I wish to say that we have two causes of complaint against the Home Secretary as to the manner in which the Scheme was brought into being. When the House considered the Police Act, 1946, an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), then Home Secretary, that before permitting a compulsory scheme the first step would be a conference in which the local authorities whose forces the Home Secretary desired to be amalgamated would be consulted. The purpose of that was that the Home Secretary should put before the local authorities concerned the reasons why he thought it necessary to have a combined police force for that area. It was a very admirable, very sensible and very democratic procedure, but it was not followed in this instance.

  827
  In fact, no consultations took place at all or were even suggested by the present Home Secretary. That was a breach of the undertaking which was given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. I believe that it is true to say that consultations took place in other amalgamations. They took place, for example, in the case of Mid-Wales and Gwynedd. I have no doubt that they took place in other instances outside Wales.
  Not only were local authorities not consulted in this instance but the very first intimation which they received that an amalgamation was even contemplated was from the newspapers. I submit that that was adding insult to injury and that the manner in which the Home Secretary treated the authorities in this respect was very cavalier indeed, to say the least.
  I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) will make it very clear that the proposed amalgamation is opposed not only by Carmarthenshire but also by Cardiganshire. It is in no sense a marriage of convenience. It is a union at the point of the pistol. I ask the Government to remember the song, "You can't get a man with a gun." This is not the best way to go about a scheme of amalgamation.
  The Home Secretary says that this is being done in the interests of efficiency. With the permission of the House, I should like to examine that claim for a moment or two. First, is this area which he has chosen for amalgamation a workable one? Carmarthenshire has many qualities. I will not dilate upon them at the moment, but amongst many other qualities is the fact that it is the largest county in Wales, with a circumference of 160 miles. If Cardiganshire were added it would mean that the distance by road from the southern boundary to the northern boundary would be about ninety miles. To make matters worse, the bulk of the population in Carmarthenshire is at one extreme end, while the bulk of the population of Cardiganshire is at the other extreme end, in Aberystwith. It therefore seems to me that it is hardly a workable area.
  The Home Secretary may say that there are other police areas as large or larger in other parts of the country, but there
  828
  are few, if any, with such totally inadequate bus and train services as this area. I ask the House to realise that it takes an hour longer to get from Aberystwith to Llanelly than it takes to get from London to Cardiff. Moreover, it is not so uninterrupted a journey. I have counted twenty-five stops between Aberystwith and Llanelly. It is hardly what I would call an easily accessible area. Had the Home Secretary come to this area last winter when the roads were sometimes impassable, I think he never would have dreamed of bringing this Scheme before the House.
  I maintain that conditions such as these are bound to impair the efficiency of the police force. The personnel will be spreadeagled over this vast area. That is not to speak of the difficulties facing the members of the Standing Joint Committee. If a member travels from Borth, in Cardiganshire, to Carmarthen-shire for a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee, he cannot make the return journey in one day, but will have to stay the night on the way.
  When one considers efficiency, one cannot underestimate the all-important human aspect in this or in any other service. The views of the force on this amalgamation were taken, and out of about 150 men and women in the force, 146 were against it. Three were in favour. Those three came from Cardiganshire, and were attracted, no doubt, by the prospect of membership of one of the most efficient police forces in the kingdom. Three or four were new recruits who, perhaps, felt a little nervous about expressing their opinion.
  No police force can be efficient unless its members are contented. Dissatisfaction is bound to have an effect on their efficiency and morale, and in the Carmarthenshire Police Force there are many reasons for dissatisfaction, for a sense of insecurity and of uneasiness, all caused by the Scheme contained in the Statutory Instrument now before the House.
  Another point is this. Every member of the Carmarthenshire Police Force knew perfectly well, when he signed on, that he might be moved from one area to another in the county, but, under this amalgamation, he has no guarantee that he might not be sent to an area in which, on his original entry, he had no wish to work.

  829
  Another very important matter is the widows' and orphans' fund. By their own efforts, the members of the Carmarthen-shire constabulary have raised a widows' and orphans' fund which is worth about £30,000, and from which each widow receives 25s. a week. I think that the force is entitled to know what is to happen to that fund. Is it to be specifically earmarked for the men who belonged to what was the Carmarthenshire Police Force, or is it to be dissipated amongst the Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire forces? The police are also greatly concerned whether promotion will be on a county or on a force basis. All these matters have given rise, and will continue to give rise, to a great deal of dissatisfaction, of insecurity and uncertainty, none of which will contribute to the efficiency of the force.
  On one thing there is complete unanimity, and that is on the efficiency of the Carmarthenshire Police Force itself. That was made abundantly clear at the recent inquiry, when Mr. Nelson, who conducted the inquiry, reported specifically that the Carntarthenshire Constabulary is a most efficient force, supported by an effective standing joint committee. That view was emphatically endorsed by the Home Office.
  Not only are they a very fine body of men, but the force is very well equipped. It has specialised departments—a criminal department, a traffic department, training and welfare and photographic departments, and it has just had a large new police headquarters built at a cost of about £77,000. The housing conditions would, I think, compare extremely favourably with those of any other forces in any part of the country. It is, in fact, very proud of its housing record.
  Another very important test of efficiency is the record for indictable offences cleared up, as compared with the number that became known to the police. I should like to give the figures from 1948 to 1956. Those figures vary from 81 per cent. to 76 per cent. Those are remarkable figures in themselves, but they are even more remarkable when one compares them with the figures for the rest of the country which show percentages in 1954 of 49 per cent. and in 1956 of 47 per cent., while Carmarthenshire shows a figure of 76 per cent. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is an impressive record and entitles
  830
  them to say that they are a very efficient force.
  The reward for this initiative and progress and these high standards is that their individuality is to be merged and they are to be made to pay through the nose for the amalgamation, because in the Scheme the Home Secretary—I was about to say "in his wisdom," but I think I should say "in his unwisdom"—has provided that the cost of the combined police authority is to be based on rateable values, which will mean increased costs to the County of Carmarthen. It will mean an increase of £2,750 on their present rate in 1958–59 and it will rise to £6,000 in 1960–61.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman may say, "We need not worry unduly about that; there is to be a review in three years", but that review must of necessity be based largely on the same figures. I do not see how the Home Office can get away from that. Before that time the County of Carmarthen will have borne more than £13,000 in additional police costs, of which Cardiganshire is to be relieved. I understand that Cardigan does not complain about that. I am sure that the people there will not misunderstand me if I say that it is very much in character that they should not. The "Cardi" is the Aberdonian of Wales. But sitting as we do on the Carmarthen-shire side of the fence, we worry very much. We think it is extremely unfair that they should have to suffer this extra burden not because of inefficiency but because of the efficiency of the force.
  This basis of assessment was not the only basis for which the Home Secretary could have opted. He could have made the allocation, as has been done in the case of Gwynedd and Mid-Wales, half on the basis of weighted population and half on rateable value. They would have been prepared to compromise on that basis.
  Why was not the Home Office prepared to operate on that basis as it has done in other areas? If a county has got a special case for consideration, it is Carmarthen-shire, because it has the third highest rate in the whole of England and Wales. Therefore, Carmarthenshire has a special case. On grounds of equity and efficiency of the administration of the police force, not only in Carmarthen but in Cardigan as well, I hope the Home Secretary will think again and will think this time to better purpose.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: I beg to second the Motion.
  With the exception of certain of her concluding remarks, I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is to reply for the Home Office. It is particularly appropriate that he should be given this task, because we have had only one debate on an amalgamation since the passing of the Police Act, 1946, and, on that occasion about seven years ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman valiantly championed the cause of little Rutland, which the Home Office then desired to have swallowed up by Leicestershire. In a few moments, I shall be citing some of the arguments he then used in his efforts to save Rutland from that fate.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was joined in his efforts by the present Attorney-General. I shall be referring to his arguments. I hope that, before the end of the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will come here to repeat the arguments he then advanced in favour of Rutland. I am pleased to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs in his place. I feel sure that, after what happened in Rutland, the right hon. Gentleman will not stand by without putting in a word in favour of the sentiments of two counties within his jurisdiction.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to the efficiency of the Carmarthen-shire Police Force. She was fully entitled to do so because, at the inquiry into the amalgamation conducted by Mr. Nelson, not a shadow of evidence was given at any stage to suggest that Carmarthenshire had other than a thoroughly efficient force. It is only right, in the circum-stances, that I should indicate to the House what evidence was given about the state of efficiency of the police force of the County of Cardigan. It would be a grave disservice to the members of that force if the impression went out that any reflections were made upon their honour or integrity. The chief witness called by the Home Office to deal with the question of the efficiency of the Cardiganshire force was Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Tarry. This morning,
  832
  I re-read the evidence he gave at the inquiry. Mr. Tarry has carried out Her Majesty's inspections of this and the Carmarthenshire force since 1951. I say nothing about Carmarthenshire. The hon. Lady has dealt with Carmarthenshire adequately.
  Her Majesty's Inspector has never made a single adverse report about the police force of the County of Cardigan. He admitted at the inquiry that its operational work had at all times been efficient, with no question whatever of a period when that was not so. The hon. Lady gave figures about the detection and prevention of crime. The position in relation to Cardiganshire in this respect is the same as it is in Carmarthenshire. Our figures for crime detection are substantially higher than the national average. Our figures for crime prevention are substantially higher than the national average.
  It is sometimes suggested against small forces that they do not provide full opportunities for promotion within themselves. The figures for Cardiganshire show that promotion prospects are far better than the national average. That was a specific matter dealt with at the inquiry, and it was quite clearly elucidated that promotion prospects in Cardiganshire were well above the average to be found in the forces of this country.
  Cardiganshire, in contrast to most forces, has had no difficulty in recruiting, and recruiting suitable members. Mr. Tarry agreed that training arrangements were satisfactory. I could go on in the same vein. All the evidence of Mr. Tarry relating to his inspection of this force throughout the period from 1951 to the time when he was giving his evidence was that this force was operating with complete efficiency.
  In March, 1956, events occurred which led to inquiries, which undoubtedly ultimately led to the Home Office taking the action which it has taken. I shall not go into the circumstances which arose in March, 1956, other than to say this. The two inquiries—the Scott Henderson Inquiry and the Phillimore Inquiry which followed—were both inquiries which were requested by the police authority in the County of Cardigan; so that whatever came to light as a result of those inquiries,

  833
  came to light as a result of inquiries requested by those responsible for police administration in the county.
  Whatever may have happened in March, 1956, certainly did not relate to the behaviour of the rank and file of the police force, because it was conceded in both inquiries that the rank and file of the police in Cardiganshire had behaved in an impeccable manner. One thing, however, which was conceded at Mr. Nelson's inquiry relating to amalgamation was that whatever the position had been for a short period in 1956, by the time the inquiry was being held the state of the Cardiganshire force was, with one possible exception, to which I shall refer, perfectly efficient.
  Let me indicate that by reading one question and the answer given at the inquiry. The witness who was then being examined was Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, who was being examined by counsel on behalf of Cardiganshire. He put to Mr. Tarry this question:
  "May I take it that accordingly you are now of the view that Cardiganshire has, subject to the fact, which I will came to, that it has not yet a chief constable, resumed its former efficiency which you regarded as existing unbroken up until 1956?"
  The answer to that question was "Yes"—that is to say, it had resumed its former efficiency which had existed unbroken up until 1956. The answer was:
  "Yes. There is a very big 'if' about this, because of the vacancy of the chief constable."
  That is to say, at the time that this inquiry was held, the only allegation of inefficiency which Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary could make against the Cardiganshire police force was one which related to the appointment of a chief constable.
  Of recent months, there have been troubles—I shall not refer to them—with chief constables in many parts of the country. No one can suggest that the troubles which have occurred with regard to chief constables have anything to do with the size of the force with which they have been concerned. There is nothing whatever to suggest that there is any greater likelihood of trouble with chief constables or the hierarchy in a police force in a small one as contrasted to a large police force.
  I have indicated the views of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. The Home Office, at that inquiry, placed great
  834
  reliance upon what Mr. Phillimore had had to say in his report, and particularly upon one of his phrases when he talked about the deficiencies being "ineradicable" in a small force. He went on in the same report to say that he did not doubt that "under a strong chief constable Cardiganshire could be efficient and may readily attain a corporate spirit which is perhaps less easily instilled into a larger force".
  The whole basis of the evidence of the Inspector of Constabulary was that there would be difficulty in getting a chief constable for a force of this size. That is an absurd suggestion. The Inspector of Constabulary concerned was appointed a chief constable from the rank of inspector, and I refuse to believe that there are not inspectors and superintendents in the police forces of the country who are perfectly competent persons who would be prepared to take on the task of chief constable of a force of this kind. If the police forces of the country cannot produce one man of suitable experience to take over a force of this kind it is a very sad reflection upon them.
  The Home Office referred at the inquiry to restoring confidence and discipline in the force. As one who lives within the county, I would say that there is certainly no question today of any necessity of restoring the discipline and confidence of the Cardiganshire Police Force, and if the Home Office makes any suggestion that there is not adequate discipline and confidence in the force at the moment, I should like it to indicate it. If there has been any suggestion during the last twelve months of lack of discipline or lack of confidence within the force, it behoves the Home Office spokesman to indicate what he has in mind in that respect.
  The Home Office witnesses also referred at the inquiry to the need to restore the confidence of the public. The confidence of the public in the county in which the force operates had never been lost by the rank and file of the force and was quite unaffected by the complications which arose in March, 1956.
  The noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen referred to the absence of any consultation or conference. I associate myself with what she had to say in that respect. The attitude of the Home Secretary in this regard is in marked contrast

  835
  to the assurance given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he was Home Secretary and, perhaps even more important, contrary to his actions in relation to the amalgamations with which he was concerned. Before amalgamation took place—I am dealing only with the cases which were controversial in one form or another—in the case of Mid-Wales a conference was held, I believe in Mid-Wales.
  With regard to Cheshire and Chester, there was a conference. What is particularly relevant is that when the then Home Secretary, in 1949, proposed the Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire and Pem-brokeshire amalgamation there was again a conference. When this amalgamation was proposed, the first that Carmarthen-shire knew about it and the first that Cardiganshire knew about it was what those authorities read in the daily newspapers.
  I referred to Pembrokeshire. The attitude of the Home Office towards that county has certainly been somewhat peculiar. What I have to say about Pembrokeshire in this respect is my own personal view. At the inquiry conducted by Mr. Nelson, the Home Office said that amalgamation of the three counties was better than amalgamation of the two. While I am opposed to amalgamation, if amalgamation of Cardiganshire is inevitable, I would far sooner see amalgamation of the three counties than the amalgamation which is proposed.
  The argument for leaving Pembrokeshire out of the amalgamation was very strange. It was that Pembrokeshire was opposed to it. It did not matter that Carmarthenshire was opposed to it. It did not matter that Cardiganshire was opposed to it. The Home Office paid deference to the view of Pembrokeshire and was prepared entirely to ignore the views of the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan.
  If this amalgamation is forced on the two counties, it will be introduced in the most unfavourable climate. Both counties will enter it nursing a grievance. The hon. Lady has referred to the financial grievance of Carmarthenshire. That is not a grievance which I share. The remedy for that grievance is for the Scheme to be rescinded. If it is suggested that the Scheme will place a financial burden on Carmarthenshire, the
  836
  remedy which Cardiganshire suggests is that the circumstances which will give rise to that maladjustment should not be allowed to occur.
  I can advance a number of arguments to show why this financial arrangement is the right and proper one, if the amalgamation has to take place, but the Home Secretary has had Cardiganshire's views in this respect, and I shall not repeat them. If there is to be amalgamation, then I have no quarrel with the specific financial arrangements which are planned.
  It is the normal arrangement and follows the lines of the other eight amalgamations which have taken place. It is the arrangement which has applied in five of the cases. That applied in two would place a greater financial burden on Carmarthenshire and in one case only would the arrangement produce a result which would be beneficial to Carmarthen-shire. This is the method which has been adopted for the amalgamation of fire brigades and is the normal one used for the amalgamation of local government services.
  Here are two authorities, one substantially larger than the other, being forced against their will to amalgamate. What is happening in effect is that the larger is swallowing the smaller, and doing it against its will. Nothing is more unpleasant for the swallowed and the swallowed than the action of swallowing something which one does not want to swallow. That is the position, and Carmarthenshire will regard this amalgamation in that light—and I do not make any complaint about it.
  Carmarthenshire has a satisfactory unit at the moment. It is the largest county in Wales and the set-up is perfectly satisfactory. Now it has to have added to it another very wide and extensive area which it will regard as an unwanted appendix, a complication to its communications with the added difficulty that it has a grudge in relation to the financial operations.
  Cardiganshire will have six representatives out of 22 on the committee controlling the joint police force. I do not complain about the proportion, but the fact is that it will cease to have the slightest say in the control of the police force which operates in its area. It will hardly be worth while going near the meetings, which will take place outside its county, in Carmarthen. On a previous

  837
  occasion the Under-Secretary used these words, and I pray them in aid in this debate. He quoted this passage in the debate on 20th February, 1951, in relation to the amalgamation of Leicestershire and Rutland Police Forces:
  "The administrative control of the police of a district is an ancient democratic right. … That democratic right should not lightly be taken away."
  He went on to say:
  "The local responsibility for police for the supervision of a county police force should not be separated from the general responsibility for local government."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1215–6.]
  If the Home Secretary has his way, this amalgamation will take place immediately before a review of local government and local government boundaries. If this amalgamation were part of a general operation to amalgamate a number of small forces in the country, it would be less open to objection, but there are in Scotland a large number of forces—at least a number of forces, "large" is not the word to use—which are substantially smaller than the Cardiganshire Police Force. I wish to refer to what the present Attorney-General had to say in that same debate. I am disappointed that he is not here to repeat his arguments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "The only words which the judge could find for his conclusion.…"
  That was the judge who carried out the inquiry and who was equivalent to Mr. Nelson—
  "having approached it. I think, from quite a wrong angle, is the smallness of the force and the slowness of promotion".
  He went on to say:
  "These arguments are not, in my view, sufficient to justify this scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1230.]
  Here we have a scheme which is opposed unanimously by the Standing Joint Committee of Cardiganshire, opposed by the police forces concerned and opposed by public sentiment. What is true of the County of Cardigan is equally true of the County of Carmarthen. I urge the Home Secretary to consider whether he should force on these two counties an amalgamation in which the prospects of healthy and wholesome co-operation are endangered by the existence of many difficulties.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: I wish to say a few words in support of this Scheme and to lend a somewhat different voice to the debate from the voices which have been raised so far.
  In his conclusion the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said that the Scheme was contrary to the sentiments of the people and of the police force in Cardiganshire, and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) said that it was also contrary to the wishes of the people of Carmarthenshire. I would point out at the outset that when the efficiency of a police force is in issue, it is not solely the concern of the people in the area where the problem arises but is a matter of acute public interest. The public generally are extremely concerned about the efficiency of the police in all parts of the country. If, as sometimes happens, some inefficiency is shown in the administration of a force somewhere in the country, it is the police in Britain in whom the public confidence is lost.
  I therefore submit to the House that the real test here is not what is felt by the people in Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire; it is, what is the existing standard of efficiency in the police force in Cardiganshire? We know the standard of efficiency in Carmarthenshire, and we should ask ourselves, if those two forces amalgamated, would the standard of efficiency over the combined area be raised? In my view it would.
  We in Wales—and I speak from experience—have police forces which are comparable with any police force in Britain, and we are proud of that. I know that everyone here connected with Wales is anxious that that standard should be general. I think that if there were this amalgamation of the two forces, we should be on our way to making that standard of efficiency general.
  I said that I speak from some experience, because I have had considerable contact with an amalgamated police force in Wales—that of Gwynedd, where three counties were amalgamated. I can personally testify to the fact that there has been great efficiency as a result of the amalgamation of those three counties. We have had another amalgamation in Wales—that in Mid-Wales, where Brecon, Radnor and Montgomeryshire were amalgamated against their will.
  Mr. Ede: A conference was held, presided over by myself when I was Home Secretary. It is true that of the three counties who came there, two were opposed to the amalgamation. We had a discussion during the morning. We adjourned for lunch, and after lunch I was assured that all three were in agreement with the Scheme, and no opposition was made to it thereafter.
  Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience whereas I speak from hearsay in the matter. I thought that it was a compulsory amalgamation. If I am wrong, I apologise. I know that there was opposition to the amalgamation initially. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman's charm won round the opposition.
  Perhaps I may now say just one or two things about the observations of the two speakers who have preceded me. The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen quite rightly said that Carmarthen had already in existence a most efficient police force. There is no doubt whatsoever about that—a most efficient police force, and a first-class chief constable, and a very good Standing Joint Committee. Nothing detrimental has ever been suggested, of course, against that force, but, in my submission, the Carmarthen people should think of this, not as a Carmarthen matter but as a police matter, and should ask themselves whether they, with their efficiency, could take in Cardiganshire, and whether the general overall effect would be increased efficiency. One knows that they have their own personal pride in their county and their own pride in this excellent force which has existed for so long, but I would suggest that in this matter they should subordinate their own feelings to the common good, because I think that common good will result from this amalgamation.
  In that respect, I would pray in aid what was said at the inquiry by the Chief Constable of Carmarthenshire himself—although I cannot remember, of course, his exact words. He was called on behalf of the objectors, but admitted, in cross-examination, that, having regard to the size of Cardiganshire, manifest benefit in efficiency would result if the Cardiganshire force were amalgamated with that of Carmarthen. That is what was said by that chief constable, who,
  840
  we all hope, will soon be the chief constable of the joint amalgamated area.
  As to whether the amalgamated force would be workable, the hon. Lady herself knows the Gwynedd area. She will know, for instance, the distance from Aberdovey to the north of Anglesey. That is a distance far greater than the journey to which she referred—Aberyst-with to Llanelly—and probably a much more difficult one. Nevertheless, evidence was given at the inquiry by the Chief Constable of Gwynedd that the administration of the area was very effective, so I do not think that the hon. Lady, or other people from the County of Carmarthen, need worry as to the workability of this scheme. It is a far more workable one than Gwynedd, and the Chief Constable of Gwynedd testified to the excellence of the arrangements there.
  The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has given the House extracts from the speech of—
  Mr. Bowen: The evidence.
  Mr. Thomas: I beg pardon—extracts from the evidence of Mr. Tarry, who was one of the witnesses at the inquiry. Mr. Tarry, the Inspector, Mr. Armstrong, another Inspector, Lieut.-Colonel Williams, Chief Constable of Gwynedd, and the Deputy Chief Constable of the Mid-Wales Constabulary, all experienced people, all testified from their own experience that it would be to the advantage of police efficiency in Cardiganshire if the force there were amalgamated with that of Carmarthen. Each one of them said that.
  If I may say so, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman put his case extremely well for his county, but I did not feel that he was thinking from a very broad point of view but purely from his county's point of view. The position, as I see it, must really be considered alongside the history of Cardiganshire. I do not want to go into that at length, but let us remember that Cardiganshire has the smallest county police police in the whole of Britain—
  Mr. Bowen: No.
  Mr. Thomas: I am sorry—in England and Wales. In just over ten years, through its Standing Joint Committee, it brought disciplinary charges against two of its chief constables.
  Mr. Ede: And proved them.
  Mr. Thomas: A situation arose in 1946 which, I submit, could not have arisen in a force which was large and efficient. The situation was serious. It was, in fact, a deplorable one and public confidence in the police went down greatly as a result. There is no doubt that it would be extremely difficult for the force that exists in Cardiganshire today to emerge completely unscathed from the situation that obtained. It is important that police efficiency should be maintained, and the only possible way in which this can be done is by this Scheme going through and the two forces being amalgamated.
  11.1 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), and I would appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw this Scheme for three reasons. I will not argue about the principle of amalgamation being right or wrong. There are circumstances in which, in Wales—as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) rightly said—the amalgamation of police forces, resisted and feared at the beginning, has now been accepted, and looking back everyone says that it was to the advantage of the people and the police.
  I wish to put three reasons to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Home Secretary to show why I believe they should withdraw this Scheme. The first is that the local authorities believe that the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when Home Secretary, has not been carried out, and that that is a breach of faith. The House assented to the Police Bill under which this amalgamation is to take place on the then Home Secretary's assurance that before a scheme for compulsory amalgamation was imposed upon a number of forces who objected to it, there would be consultation.
  The second reason is that if there is to be an amalgamation of forces in this area of south-west Wales—and I would not reject that for a moment—let it be an amalgamation which is determined solely by considerations of efficiency, and arrived at after full consideration. If
  842
  the Home Office were now actuated solely by the desire to get an efficient police force, is this the scheme they would put forward? We are entitled to an answer. If it is felt desirable that the police forces in the three adjoining counties of Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire be linked up for the purpose of efficiency, on grounds of principle I would not object, and that is what the Home Office themselves proposed. Why have they dropped it? Why did they do so at a time when circumstances favoured the amalgamation of the three—when the Chief Constable of Pembrokeshire had retired? At this very moment, the Home Office have given consent and approval to the appointment of a new Chief Constable for the Pembrokeshire Police Force.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was Home Secretary, he put forward a proposal for the amalgamation of the forces of the three counties. He had a consultation with them. I am afraid that the lunch provided in Carmarthen was not of the right quality, and the result was that the scheme was still objected to. My right hon. Friend carried out his pledge to have a conference, and the result of the conference was that the Home Secretary dropped the scheme. But that was the scheme to put forward. This Scheme is not determined by considerations of efficiency. If it were so determined I am sure the Home Secretary would agree that the original proposal was the one to adopt.
  This is the wrong time to bring forward this Scheme. I am not entering into discussions about what went wrong in Cardiganshire. The circumstances in which it is proposed to amalgamate these forces are these. We are proposing to amalgamate these forces because something went wrong in Cardigan. It is the wrong time to do a thing of this kind—to begin with this joint police force in circumstances in which everybody says that one is a first-class police force and the other one is hitched on to it because something went wrong and it is not efficient. Those are not auspicious circumstances in which to start an amalgamation scheme. They are the worst possible circumstances in which to start a Scheme of this kind.
  The Home Secretary will know that we have had discussions with him upon

  843
  this matter. The suggestion was made to the Home Secretary, which I hope he will consider, to withdraw this Scheme without prejudice to its being reintroduced in a couple of years' time, in the course of which time the Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committee and Police Force will have had an opportunity of putting behind them the events of the past. Then let the matter be reconsidered, not in this atmosphere which is wrong and poisonous, when everybody says, "The reason why we are doing this is that the Cardiganshire Police Force had something wrong with it; the chief constable was condemned for some reason." That is amalgamation in the wrong spirit.
  The Home Secretary will be well advised to withdraw this Scheme. The Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committees and both police forces are opposed to this Scheme. The local authorities are against it. If they were opposed to it for parochial reasons I would not support them. I support them because this Scheme will not make an efficient police force. I ask the Home Secretary to withdraw this Scheme and bring forward a considered scheme based on grounds of efficiency. Speaking for myself, I would not oppose it then. I oppose it now because from every standpoint it can only be forced, and I do not believe that in these matters force ought to be adopted.
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I shall not stand long between the Joint Under-Secretary and the House, but my name has been mentioned on several occasions during this debate and, as the Home Secretary knows, I spoke to him about this matter when the cloud was no bigger than a man's hand, some time ago.
  There is undoubtedly at the moment in this country grave disquiet about what has happened in some of the police forces and when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and previous Home Secretaries have been questioned about provincial forces, the proper answer is, "They are independent police authorities, over which I have very little control". Therefore, the efficiency of those forces must depend to a very large extent upon the courage—and I use that word advisedly—of the standing joint committees,
  844
  watch committees and other authorities in dealing with suspected indiscipline and inefficiency inside a force.
  Everyone knows—or at least everyone who has been a member of a standing joint committee, or a county council, or who has been a county justice—of the difficulties of dealing with the discipline of police forces. I know it, because I was a member of a standing joint committee for nearly thirty years. Now let us not forget that Cardiganshire had the courage—the courage—when accusations were made against the Chief Constable, to investigate them themselves and then to call in Mr. Scott Henderson and a superintendent of police from the West Riding of Yorkshire. They found that the action of the Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committee was correct and that the Chief Constable should be given the opportunity of resigning. This was communicated to the Home Secretary, who did not reverse the verdict, but reduced the penalty to a reprimand.
  Now, I do not know how one reprimands a chief constable. We can reprimand a Minister, but for anyone who serves on a standing joint committee to be asked to reprimand a chief constable is something past my understanding. I say that a standing joint committee which has had the courage to do what Cardiganshire has done is one which ought to be congratulated and ought to be supported. I know of no grounds for suggesting that the public authority for the police in Cardiganshire has fallen down on its job. I am not so certain about the Lord Lieutenant, although I must not discuss him here. Neither do I understand why the person who accused the Chief Constable had his name, when it reached the top of the roll for High Sheriff, not pricked because he was told he was a controversial figure. If one is to do one's duty in public life, there must be occasions when one must be controversial and to be controversial on a standing joint committee is one of the highest tests of courage.
  I regret, too, that this amalgamation is for two counties only, because when two counties as dissimilar in size as Cardiganshire from Carmarthenshire become associated, the association in the end must appear to be annexation. Three counties should be brought in, because with three one could so arrange representation

  845
  by agreement that no one county could outvote the others. That is the reason for the success in Mid-Wales and in Gwynedd. Those three authorities have to meet jointly and cannot rely on one to rule the roost. There is no similarity here with the Rutland case. There the total was only 20 policemen and there was no chance of promotion for anyone for ten years at least, short of sudden death.
  I do ask the Home Secretary to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and to withdraw this Scheme. Let him have a conference between the three counties in an effort to arrive at the most efficient arrangement.
  11.15 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have a great fondness and respect for the Welsh people. In this difficult and delicate matter, I know that my right hon. Friend has been most conscious of local pride and feelings in the two counties.
  It may help if, first, I remind the House of the statutory background to the matter, because, although the circumstances surrounding this particular amalgamation have no precedent, it is, in fact, part of a process which has gone on since the right hon. Member for South Shields invited Parliament to pass the Police Act, 1946. Under that Act, there were three kinds of amalgamation—automatic, voluntary and compulsory. The automatic amalgamations were of all the non-county borough forces, which, immediately on the coming into operation of the Act on 1st April, 1947, merged with their neigh-bouring county forces.
  That applied in every case except Cambridge and Peterborough. Voluntary amalgamations under Section 3 have led to six amalgamation schemes involving 14 forces, including the one referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), the amalgamation of Anglesey, Caernarvon and Merioneth in making the combined force of Gwynedd.
  There are then the compulsory amalgamations, and of these there have been three before the present one. Those three schemes involved seven different forces, including the Mid-Wales force of Brecknockshire, Montgomeryshire and
  846
  Radnorshire. Those amalgamations left Cardiganshire with the smallest force in England or Wales, less than 80 strong. In spite of the fact that it was the smallest force, until 1955 Cardiganshire constabulary was undoubtedly efficient within the limits of its size and resources, as Mr. Nelson found. In 1956 and 1957 came the unhappy circumstances involving not only the Chief Constable and several senior officers, but their relationship with certain members of the Standing Joint Committee. They, as the House knows, were the subject of several inquiries by experienced Queen's Counsel.
  If I may say so, I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who moved and seconded the Prayer, did so in very temperate terms, hearing in mind the local feelings aroused. They refrained, and I wish to refrain, from rubbing salt into old wounds by referring in detail to any of the unhappy circumstances. Nevertheless, one must stress the findings of those inquiries which are relevant to the issue of amalgamation. Mr. Scott Henderson, in January, 1957, heard the disciplinary charges against the Chief Constable. He said that the question arose whether it was in the public interest that such a small police force should continue to function as a separate unit.
  Mr. Phillimore, who was appointed soon afterwards to inquire into the administration and efficiency of the Cardiganshire constabulary and the state of discipline of the force, found that it was not functioning efficiently and that, in the light of the circumstances which had arisen and the personalities involved, the faults which he had found in this small force were ineradicable.
  I will quote what he said at page 17 of his Report, his concluding words, because they are very forceful. This is relevant to the very point which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made about not doing anything now—about postponing action. He said:
  "To leave mutters as they are today would be unfair to the bulk of the force, who have carried on loyally and efficiently throughout the period of about nine months during which their Chief Constable and consequently the whole force has been the subject of criticism. It would also be unfair to the public, whose confidence in their police force has inevitably and rightly been seriously affected."

  847
  Those findings necessarily compelled my right hon. Friend to consider what should be done.
  Let me concede at once that if no trouble had arisen with regard to Cardiganshire or its Standing Joint Committee, the question of amalgamation might never have arisen. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan paid me the rare compliment of quoting something which I said in this House seven years ago, when the Rutland-Leicestershire amalgamation was afoot. The answer to the hon. and learned Member, however, is that nothing had ever happened in Rutland, or, so far as I know, in any of the other small forces, comparable with what happened, alas, in Cardigan, but that if any such events had occurred in Rutland or in any of those small forces, the Home Secretary of the day and the House would at once have been put on inquiry what to do, in just the same way as my right hon. Friend was put on inquiry.
  Mr. Bowen Mr. Bowen rose—
  Mr. Renton: I have a lot of ground to cover to answer all these points by half-past eleven, but I will do my best.
  Therefore, I say that in the face of these reports something had to be done. What was done? The first step was that my right hon. Friend asked the Standing Joint Committee of Cardigan to consider some form of voluntary amalgamation with a neighbouring county; but the Committee unanimously declined to do so. This left my right hon. Friend with no option but to consider a compulsory amalgamation. Both geographically and to get the best helping hand available, Carmarthenshire seemed to be the obvious choice.
  It has been suggested that Pembrokeshire should have been brought in as well. Indeed, the right hon. Member—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: It was the Home Office who suggested that Pembrokeshire should be brought in.
  Mr. Renton: That is perfectly true; and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), having considered the suggestion, did not pursue it.
  848
  The point with which we are faced tonight is whether the addition of Pembrokeshire was necessary to secure the efficiency of the proposed, or a proposed, combined authority. Mr. Nelson found that a combined authority consisting of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire would be efficient and we accept his findings. I shall have more to say about that presently.
  My right hon. Friend having informed both counties of his proposal to form such a combined authority, then appointed Mr. Nelson in accordance with statute, to hold a local inquiry. It has been suggested by several speakers this evening that there was a breach of an undertaking given by the right hon. Member for South Shields on the Report stage of the Police Bill, in that no conference was held before amalgamation.
  We should remind ourselves of the words of that undertaking. I have the exact words with me. It is a fairly lengthy quotation and I will faithfully paraphrase it. The words can always be checked afterwards. That undertaking was that before promoting a compulsory scheme if a voluntary scheme was not submitted, the first step—I emphasise "the first step"—would be to hold a conference with the police authorities of the forces which the Secretary of State might desire to amalgamate, to put before them his reasons for setting up a joint police force. It is a fact that no such conference was held in this case. As I shall show, there were special reasons which justified my right hon. Friend in not holding one.
  I agree that the letter of the undertaking of the right hon. Member for South Shields was not complied with, but I do not agree that there was any breach of the spirit of it. In fact, my right hon. Friend did very much the same as the right hon. Member for South Shields did in the Leicestershire and Rutland case, when the right hon. Member certainly did not comply with the letter of his own undertaking.
  There was no conference with the two police authorities when that compulsory scheme was prepared and put forward in 1949, and no meeting was proposed before the right hon. Gentleman decided to give formal notice to the authorities of his

  849
  intention to proceed. When he sent formal notice to the authorities of the scheme which he proposed, they were invited to offer any comments or suggestions on the scheme and were told that the Secretary of State would be prepared to discuss any such comments and suggestions; but the authorities did not avail themselves of this opportunity for a meeting. I mention that only because it has been said that there was a conference in the Rutland case, whereas there was not.
  What happened in this case? The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen said that there was no conference even suggested. If she will turn to page 9 of Mr. Nelson's Report, to the last sentence in paragraph 13, where a Home Office letter of 3rd July, 1957, is quoted, she will find these words:
  "In order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether any useful purpose would be served by discussion of the question of amalgamation it would be helpful if you would furnish him in the first instance with a brief statement of the points which they wish to raise."
  I would have wished, to answer this quite fully and fairly, to make various other quotations from the correspondence on pages 8 to 10 inclusive of Mr. Nelson's Report, but I am prepared to leave it to the House. Hon. Gentlemen who have interested themselves in this matter will know—
  Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order.
  Mr. Renton: May I finish the sentence? I leave it to the House to consider, on the basis of that correspondence and the circumstances of this case, whether any such consultation was likely to serve any useful purpose.
  Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Under-Secretary has very properly said that he has more quotations which he is not able to read because of the shortness of time. There are other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. As the debate has been proceeding for less than an hour and a half, and it is an important matter and we are complaining of being rushed, may I ask whether you would be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to use your powers under Standing Order No. 95A (2), which says that if Mr. Speaker considers that a question is of importance
  850
  "because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion … he shall interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting …"?
  Would you be prepared to do that, as some of us have important questions to ask about the future of the police officers themselves who will be concerned in this amalgamation and about whom nothing has been said by the Joint Under-Secretary in his reply?
  Mr. Speaker: My view is that this is a matter on which I should put the Question at half-past eleven. As regards the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I think he could properly elicit the information that he wants by question and answer in the usual way.
  Mr. Renton: The final inquiry into the proposed amalgamation scheme was carried out by Mr. Nelson, and he heard evidence from both counties and recommended that amalgamation should take place in accordance with the draft Scheme. He found that the Cardiganshire force had not been restored to full efficiency—this is the answer to the question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the conditions in the force in the last twelve months—and, after giving due weight to local pride and historical and other considerations, he found that these considerations did not outweigh the need for amalgamation.
  As to the question of the feelings in Carmarthenshire, I should tell the noble Lady, particularly on the question of cost, that if one compares the police expenditure of the two counties over the last ten years it will be found that it is in the proportion of 75 per cent. to 25 per cent., and that that approximates very nearly to the rateable values on which it is proposed to divide the expenditure in future, because the rateable values are also approximately 75 per cent. to 25 per cent.
  As I now have to conclude, I would just say this. The question is whether it is in the public interest that in this small county we should let things drift and hope for the best, or whether we should take the advice given as a result of three impartial and careful inquiries and join that police force with a larger and more efficient one. I ask the House

  851
  to endorse the view and the findings of Mr. Nelson and the decision of my right hon. Friend because I feel that it will be realised that it is in the interests of Wales.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95 A (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 123.

  Division No. 153.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bonham Carter, Mark

  Grimond, J.

  Ross, William

  Brockway, A. F.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Stonehouse, John

  Diamond, John

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Wade, D. W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Watkins, T. E.

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Foot, D. M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Pearson, A.

  Lady Megan Lloyd George and

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Probert, A. R.

  Mr. Bowen.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gower, H. R.

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

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Ashton, H.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Page, R. G.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Green, A.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Partridge, E.

  Barter, John

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Peel, W. J.

  Batsford, B. C. C.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Bishop, F. P.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Redmayne, M.

  Body, R. F.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Braine, B. R.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hurd, A. R.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Bryan, P.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

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

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Kaberry, D.

  Temple, John M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

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

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Wall, Patrick

  Deedes, W. F.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Webster, D. W. E.

  Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Mathew, R.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Mawby, R. L.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fisher, Nigel

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

  Woollam, John Victor

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gammans, Lady

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Mr. Gibson-Watt.

  KENYA (PRISONERS, LOKITAUNG)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: This debate arises out of a letter published in the Observer on Sunday, 8th June. The editor of the paper obviously thought the letter important as he gave a whole column to it on the centre page of the paper and pushed all other letters on to another page. The letter started with the words:
  "We, political prisoners of Lokitaung, are desirous …"
  The first question I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is: are the five gentlemen who appended their names to the letter political prisoners? Are they detainees under the Mau Mau regulations or people responsible for the whole organisation of Mau Mau who have been sentenced, have appealed and had their appeal rejected? In other words, can they be defined as political prisoners?
  The letter goes on to list a number of complaints. Some of these complaints are probably similar to those which might be listed by any convict in any prison who could get the publicity of world coverage through one of the main British newspapers. They complain that they have no visitors. They complain that they are not visited by prison visitors or by the visiting committee.
  Some days after this the Government of Kenya announced in the Legislative Assembly a reply to these complaints, and that was repeated by my right hon. Friend in reply to a question from me in cols. 26 to 28 of HANSARD of 11th June. The Kenya Government pointed out that the prison is about 600 miles from where the prisoners live and that, therefore, they are not likely to get many visitors, and, indeed, that no request for permission for visiting has been made. They say that the prisoners have been visited by justices and by senior officers of the Prisons Department. The next question I want to ask is: how often during the past eighteen months has this prison been visited by senior officers of
  854
  the Prisons Department or judicial officers of the Kenya Government?
  They complain of a delay with mail, which is answered by the Kenya Government saying that if the prisoners did what they were told and put their address "c/o H.M. Prison Headquarters, Nairobi," where the letters are censored, it would prevent letters from being sent from the writer to the Lokitaung prison, then sent all the way back to Nairobi for censoring and then sent back to the prison. They complain about food and about illness, and the reply was that a balanced ration was available, that there is a resident medical officer in the camp and that there has been no serious illness.
  The complaints with which I have dealt are those which, as I said earlier, one would probably get from any convict in any prison if one gave him publicity to publish his grouses. The serious complaints are: first, that they have been beaten. The words were:
  "We have been beaten in the most brutal manner."
  Secondly, they complain that for five months they were kept on a ration of four gallons of water a day, which in that climate would be intolerable, and that in April the ration was cut down to two gallons. They say that some time in April they were told to draw their water out of a well which was entirely insanitary while the six Europeans in the camp continued to use the good well.
  The Kenya Government pointed out that there had been rationing because there was a drought, but denied that any person in the camp was treated any differently from any other and said that the ration was about ten gallons a day.
  I will read the leading sentence from the concluding paragraphs of the letter which appeared in the Observer on 8th June:
  "It now appears to us that it is the intention of the Kenya Government to starve us to death, and to this we say we are prepared to fight for our human rights up to the end and we shall never give up our national struggle, for which we would gladly sacrifice even our very lives."
  The final paragraph begins:
  "We consider this the most brutal and inhuman treatment even compared to the Nazi concentration camp."
  This letter contains direct accusations against the Kenya Government and against the District Commissioner, who

  855
  is referred to in the letter by name—Mr. C. L. Ryland.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend several questions in this respect. Does he consider and does his Department consider that this letter is a genuine letter from Lokitaung Prison? The Observer, in a further article last Sunday, said that the letter it received was neatly written on air letter form, dated 27th April and post-marked Nairobi, 29th May. I understand that some hon. Members have received similar letters. Is it a fact that convicts can send up to 15 letters out of this prison without that being known?
  What steps were taken by the newspaper to check with the Colonial Office the accusations in this letter? After all, they were very serious accusations. There was a direct accusation against the Kenya Government and the district officer concerned. I feel that if Dartmoor convicts got together and wrote a letter attacking the Governor of Dartmoor and the Government, any paper, before it published that letter, would take great care to find out whether there was some basis for the accusations. Why should there be a different standard for Kenya?
  Finally, on this point, may I ask my right hon. Friend what he can do to clear the name of the district officer, who is now being defamed in the Press. He is a man who is doing a most difficult job in an extremely unpleasant part of the world, as those who know the Northern Province of Kenya will testify. What can he do to clear, indeed, the good name of the Civil Service throughout the Commonwealth? Surely, they must be protected from this form of attack, particularly if it is proved to be based on untruths.
  This letter has been received with wide-spread interest in this country, and, of course, much more so in Africa itself. On the Monday after its publication, I received a letter from a constituent. It is very short, and I should like to read it to the House. It says:
  "Dear Major Wall,
  May I draw your attention to the following letter, cutting enclosed, in this morning's Observer.
  As you will see, the letter is undated, but already the men have been without water for four days.
  It seems that swift and decisive action is necessary."
  856
  I quote that to show the impact that a letter printed in a paper like the Observer makes on people as they think that it is true, and, therefore, think that the accusations against the district officer and the Kenya Government are also true—
  Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that the Government of Kenya instituted an inquiry into this letter before it was published in the Observer?
  Mr. Wall: My right hon. Friend will no doubt deal with that. My information is that this letter was published, and given widespread publicity. Most hon. Members received a circular letter from the Movement for Colonial Freedom of which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is the chairman—and, as I see from the letterhead, Canon Collins is the treasurer.
  Mr. James Callaghan Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East) rose—
  Mr. Wall: I would like to finish my sentence. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the responsible gentlemen concerned—a Member of this House and a Minister of the established Church—troubled to check these facts with the Colonial Office or with any other Government Department—
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me, so perhaps I may make a comment. May I tell him that I received a copy of this letter nearly a fortnight before it appeared in the columns of the Observer? I then attempted to find out whether it was an authentic letter—I took no step to publish it at all—by communicating with Nairobi. Subsequently to that, I received a letter signed by these persons, and coming from the prison. Only then did I take any action at all, and I took the correct action of referring it to the Minister and asking him to make an investigation. All the circular asks is that we should have an impartial and independent inquiry into these charges.
  Mr. Wall: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up that point, because I warned him that I would make it. My question to my right hon. Friend has been answered. The hon. Gentleman says that he took up this matter with the Colonial Office—
  Mr. Brockway Mr. Brockway rose—
  Mr. Wall: Perhaps I could leave that to my right hon. Friend, when he replies.
  Mr. Brockway: In case there is any misunderstand ing—
  Mr. Wall: That is what I wanted to find out—whether the hon. Member for Eton and Slough did, in fact, take the trouble to check all these matters with the Colonial Office. He has said that he did, and my right hon. Friend will no doubt give his side in due course—
  Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Wall: I know that my right hon. Friend wants as much time as possible to clear up these points, which are extremely important, and I should like to give him sufficient time.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not his information that the Government of Kenya were warned of these allegations, but, in his answer on 11th June, the Colonial Secretary said:
  "Because certain allegations regarding conditions in a prison in the Northern Province, which accommodates a few Mau Mau convicts, have been given fairly widespread publicity …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1958; Vol. 589, c. 26.]
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman really should read the answers he gets.
  Mr. Wall: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting rather muddled about what I said. I asked my right hon. Friend whether the Observer had gone to the Colonial Office and said "We have received this letter. Can you tell us whether these allegations are likely to be true, as we want to publish them?" I also asked whether the hon. Member for Eton and Slough had taken similar action, and he told us he did, so that has already cleared up one point.
  It is the job of the Government of Kenya to clear up these matters themselves. If we cannot let our colleagues there look after these things it shows that we place very little trust in the multiracial Government of that country. May I thank my right hon. Friend for coming here to answer this debate personally, because I believe that it has stirred up enormous interest here and in Kenya. It is vitally important to get this matter straight. It is my belief that those who so often take a delight in trying to show that men who are our kith and kin, and perfectly normal people in this country, behave, as the letter says, like Nazis when they find themselves in Africa, have based
  858
  their assumption on a document which is full of falsehoods, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will join with the Kenya Government in rebutting these disgraceful allegations.
  11.51 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for raising this subject and giving me an opportunity to answer his questions.
  If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and others are indignant because I rise so soon I would remind them that on all these occasions, as a rule, I do my utmost to cut short my remarks to enable the widest number of hon. Members to take part in the debate. But there has been such misrepresentation on this matter, and so many short speeches by way of intervention, that I do not think it is unreasonable that the few minutes that remain should be taken up by me in defending the honour of the Administration of Kenya and of individual officers in particular, and in reminding the great organs of the public Press of the generally accepted rule in this House that hon. Members make themselves responsible for the accuracy of information that they disseminate. If this is true of hon. Members here, I cannot think why it should not also be true of national newspapers.
  The letter referred to appeared in the Observer on 8th June. The Chief Secretary of Kenya made a statement in Kenya on 11th June, and I gave a Written Answer to a Question in HANSARD on 11th June. I first heard of the letter from the prison at the end of May, when I was approached by a responsible newspaper, which asked for the comments of my Department, before they published this particular letter. No doubt in doing that they lost a journalistic scoop, but they retained the respect of their readers.
  I sent this letter off at once to the Governor of Kenya, but he had, in fact, long before the letter was published, already begun a thorough investigation. The reason for this was as follows: he had had made to him a preliminary report on 16th May about the closing of the main water point in this prison on 25th April. From this preliminary report he realised there was some misapprehension

  859
  among the prisoners—the convicts at this prison; they are not detainees—about the precise circumstances of the closing of the main water supply.
  So, on 22nd May, the Governor decided to institute an inquiry into the matter by a senior administrative officer. Shortly afterwards, however, a copy of the letter was sent to the Governor by the editor of a vernacular newspaper in Kenya. In view of the allegations in this letter, the Governor extended the inquiry to cover all matters raised in the letter, and the existing administration and other arrangements in the prison.
  The investigating officer, who holds first-class magisterial powers, is the Under-Secretary in the Kenya Ministry of Defence. He visited Lokitaung at the end of May and was preparing his report when the letter was published in the Observer in London. In other words, the fact that some prisoners had complaints was brought to the Governor's notice on 16th May, through the general chain of administrative responsibility, by the officers responsible for administering the prison.
  The Governor felt that there should be an investigation into the situation by the senior officer of the central Government well versed in the problems of prison management, but not himself responsible for prison administration, and I would stress that point. The letter which reached the Governor from a local paper some days later caused him to direct that that inquiry should cover in detail all the allegations made.
  After the publication of the statement by the Chief Secretary of Kenya and of my Answer in the House of Commons, the line of attack on this matter appears to have changed. The letters that come in, inspired no doubt by the original letter in the Observer and one other source of equal irresponsibility in this matter, do not assume that the charges are true, but they take it for granted that an inquiry of this kind is not an adequate inquiry. They are saying, no doubt, that perhaps the charges are not true. But they are saying, "How could you believe the word of the Government of Kenya?"
  These sorts of charges are lightly made by people who are constantly urging me in this House to extend the number of
  860
  recruits into the Colonial Service and to paint, as I am entitled to paint, and glory in painting, the Colonial Service as a career which fine men ought to be glad to follow. Yet they are prepared to take it for granted that inquiries by men of this kind cannot be relied upon. I indignantly repudiate this line of attack.
  An administrative officer, proud of his service and anxious that the truth should always prevail, without which there can be no real pride in the service, is charged with an inquiry. He comes to certain definite conclusions. Had he come to any other conclusions, or had he the least shadow of doubt in his mind that there was a case for a judicial inquiry, he would have been the first to recommend the Governor that such an inquiry should be held. But he showed—and I am convinced that he showed conclusively—that there was not a shred of evidence to justify a judicial inquiry.
  My hon. Friend asked me whether these are political prisoners and, as one hon. Member suggested earlier last week at Question Time, whether they are detainees. They are not. They are convicts convicted after the ordinary processes of law, four of them convicted of assisting in the management and being members of an unlawful society, Mau Mau, deeply dyed in that monstrous movement and with responsibility for innocent lives on their hands, and the fifth one convicted of the then capital offence of consorting with persons illegally possessing firearms, but in prison now, because of his age, instead of being executed as he would have been at the time.
  There are five main allegations in this spurious document. The first is unspecified brutal beatings; the second is inadequate rations; the third is shortage of water and a discriminatory system of rationing under which Europeans had some privileges denied to Africans; the fourth is shortage of proper medical attention; and the fifth is refusal of visits by their relatives and the absence of official visitors. These allegations were all fully disproved by the inquiry and the results were summarised in the statement made in the Kenya Legislative Council and my own Parliamentary Answer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice has asked whether there is any truth in the allegations. The only true facts are as follows. The convicts

  861
  are held at Lokitaung, which is some hundreds of miles from Kikuyuland. Turkana is a closed district, and nobody may enter or leave it without a pass. It is true that all letters are censored and that only one letter may be sent or received each month; but that is ordinary prison administration and applies to prisoners of all races, whatever their offence. At Lokitaung this year there was a water shortage, and it affected people of all races.
  The other allegations are simply false, or are so exaggerated as to amount to complete misrepresentation. For example, prisoners said that they had suffered for five years from brutal beatings. The facts are that, on investigation, one said that he had been struck once by a prison warder, but he gave no specific details, and it might be added that there is a regular medical inspection at least once a week. This revealed so signs of ill-treatment over the period of imprisonment.
  The prisoners also said that their rations were inadequate, and that they were kept without vegetables or fruit and were, therefore, prone to deficiency diseases and losing their eyesight. What are the facts? They have a medically controlled and balanced diet, including meat and elements specially designed to guard against deficiency. They eat vegetables grown in the prison area, and their general health is certified as good. One convict had to have surgical treatment for an eye disease, and one other may require spectacles. He will get them if the medical officer says that they are required.
  What is the sum total of their ill-health? They pictured themselves as all being deprived of water, and restricted first to four gallons a day and then two gallons, and then none at all. For five months they had been unable to bathe. They said that they were directed to a polluted well, all clean water being reserved only for Europeans.
  What are the facts? Up to this year there was no shortage of water, but this year there was a drought. Like all other persons of whatever race or colour at this remote station, the convicts were rationed to about 10 gallons each a day, the amount which, in fact, they had used before rationing was imposed. When the rains started, the officer in charge closed the normal water point for six days for maintenance and repair.
  862
  During this period, everyone, European or African, who required water to supplement rain water was directed to draw it from a well which had been polluted, but which had recently been cleaned, repaired, and certainly was fit for human use. When the usual well was reopened, the rationing ended and the convicts, like everyone else, could draw the water they required. The prison has been regularly inspected; it has a medical officer residing within a hundred yards, and he visits the prisoners once a week. The convicts are in good health, and their allegations are unfounded.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice also asked how many times senior officers visited the prison. The answer is that during the last eighteen months visiting justices have made seven visits to Lokitaung. In the same period, the prison has been visited by senior prison officers on nine occasions, in addition to regular monthly visits by the Prison Officer in charge of Lodwar Detention Camp, who visited it regularly between January, 1957, and April, 1958, and other senior officers have visited Lokitaung on four occasions. Dr. Anderson, of the Africa Inland Mission, and Bishop Obadiah Kariuki, accompanied by the Prisons Department chaplain, visited Lokitaung Prison early in April and also in July, 1957. Furthermore, the visiting committee which went to Lodwar Detention Camp took the opportunity to visit Lokitaung Prison on two occasions in 1957.
  My hon. Friend asked me whether any attempt had been made by the Observer to check the accuracy of these charges before they were made. The answer, as far as my Department is concerned, is that no attempt of any kind was made to check up on the accuracy of these charges, and the facts were given wide publicity. A body which calls itself the Movement for Colonial Freedom also circularised all Members of Parliament and made no inquiries in its capacity as that body from my Department. These untrue stories—
  Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. That letter was sent out by the organisation of which I am chairman. I sent the document to the right hon. Gentleman and asked him to make an investigation.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These untrue stories have been spread throughout the country and had been taken as true by many people who are rightly concerned for the good name of our administrators.
  I deeply resent the irresponsible way in which these false charges have been disseminated. I hope that the true facts will receive full publicity so as to redress the injustice done by these utterly unwarranted allegations against Mr. Ryland, the district officer of Lokitaung, and the Government of Kenya.
  Drawing from this encouragement, if encouragement it can be called, many people are now saying of the League of Colonial Freedom and of similar bodies that there should now be a general inquiry into all Kenya prisons. They are relying on the short memories of some of our fellow citizens. An inquiry was held when there had been rather similar charges late in 1955 into the prisons and camps.
  The inquiry was carried out by Mr. Heaton, a member of my Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders, who found that the morale and discipline of the prison staff were good and the inmates well fed, well clothed and well housed. The report, which was a full vindication of the Kenya prison service, was published as a White Paper by the Kenya Government and a copy was placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
  It is significant that the charges dry up as soon as the truth is known, except in the minds of those people who are constantly pleading the need to do justice
  864
  to the Africans, totally ignoring the need to do justice to people of our own race under very great strain.
  A further inquiry was made in 1957 by a delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was given full opportunity to see every prison and camp in Kenya in which Mau Mau were held, wherever it wished to go. Although the delegation did not go to Lokitaung, it inspected no fewer than 52 prisons and camps, including a comparable establishment at Lodwar, in the same district of the Northern Province. The delegation recorded in a published statement its considered opinion that all had been done, and was being done, to respect the accepted international principles concerning the custody of detainees and convicts. In view of this, I see no reason whatever, especially since these allegations are untrue, to hold another general inquiry into conditions in Kenya prisons.
  I would like the conclusion from what I have said tonight and what, I feel, is the general sense of the country to go from here to our fellow citizens and people of all races in Kenya who are attempting to build up a non-racial society in East Africa; that we trust the Administration of Kenya, that when mistakes have been made they have been the first to see that they are thoroughly ventilated and that grievances are removed, and that we refuse to regard irresponsibility as truth.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nuclear Power Station (Snowdon National Park)
  Nuclear Power Station (Snowdon National Park)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Ice Cream
  Ice Cream
  Fishery Limits
  Fishery Limits
  Pests Act, 1954 (Traps)
  Pests Act, 1954 (Traps)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Cardiff
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Cardiff
HOSPITALS
  Craig Hospital, Pontypridd (Additional Consultant)
  Craig Hospital, Pontypridd (Additional Consultant)
  Royal Gwent Hospital (Fatal Accidents)
  Royal Gwent Hospital (Fatal Accidents)
  Lewisham Hospital (Emergency Arrangements)
  Lewisham Hospital (Emergency Arrangements)
  Regional Boards (Cotton Textiles)
  Regional Boards (Cotton Textiles)
  Medical Staffing (Working Party)
  Medical Staffing (Working Party)
  West Cornwall (Emergency Cases)
  West Cornwall (Emergency Cases)
  Mental Health Tutors
  Mental Health Tutors
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Committee on Prescribing (Report)
  Committee on Prescribing (Report)
  Warwickshire (Part III Accommodation)
  Warwickshire (Part III Accommodation)
  National Health Service (Publication)
  National Health Service (Publication)
  Morphine and Heroin Addiction Committee, 1926 (Review)
  Morphine and Heroin Addiction Committee, 1926 (Review)
  INDONESIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS AND SHIPPING)
  INDONESIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS AND SHIPPING)
  UKRANIAN REFUGEES (PROPAGANDA)
  UKRANIAN REFUGEES (PROPAGANDA)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION (MULTIPLE NATIONALITY)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION (MULTIPLE NATIONALITY)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Butter (Retail Sales)
  Butter (Retail Sales)
  Manchester Corporation Bill (Select Committee's Report)
  Manchester Corporation Bill (Select Committee's Report)
  Lanark, Carluke and East Kilbride (New Industry)
  Lanark, Carluke and East Kilbride (New Industry)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Refugees
  Refugees
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Customs and Excise Reports (Cost)
  Customs and Excise Reports (Cost)
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M.S. "Ausonia" (Refits)
  H.M.S. "Ausonia" (Refits)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
  United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  Passports (Applications and Issues)
  Passports (Applications and Issues)
SOMALILAND
  Somalis (Senior Posts)
  Somalis (Senior Posts)
NIGERIA
  University, Nsukka (Plans)
  University, Nsukka (Plans)
TANGANYIKA
  Electoral Arrangements (Review)
  Electoral Arrangements (Review)
SIERRA LEONE
  British Council Building, Freetown
  British Council Building, Freetown
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  London Area (A—D Directory)
  London Area (A—D Directory)
SCOTLAND
  Police Force (Resignations)
  Police Force (Resignations)
  Auldhouse School, Lanarkshire
  Auldhouse School, Lanarkshire
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read 2a, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE LATE EARL FORTESCUE
  2.35 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have deeply distressing news to convey to the House, as many of your Lordships will know: that is, that the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, died on Saturday last, thus depriving us of a dear friend and a valued colleague. In the short time available I have tried to discover what would be most suitable to the House, and I propose that we should pay tributes to Lord Fortescue to-morrow, at the beginning of Business. I believe that that is agreeable to noble Lords, except that I understand that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has told me that he will be unable to be in the House to-morrow, probably would like to say a personal word to-day.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the permission of the House I would just say a personal word on the very sad news that we have had. To me, personally, it is an absolute loss. Negotiating with Lord Fortescue, as we have done through "the usual channels." one could not but be struck by his great personal courtesy and—what will be an especial loss to Her Majesty's Government—his imperturbability in every situation. He and Lady Fortescue were hosts to myself and my wife while I was paying
  858
  a political visit to the West Country last October, and it seems almost unbelievable that to-day we have to mourn the loss of both these gracious and very great persons. I shall leave it to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to pay a more adequate tribute to-morrow on behalf of all my friends.

  THE PRINCESS LOUISE HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: 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 the Minister of Health is now in a position to give his decision on the future of the Princess Louise (Kensington) Hospital for Children.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, this matter concerns a proposal made to my right honourable and learned friend the Minister of Health by the Board of Governors of St. Mary's Hospital and debated in your Lordships' House last year. The proposal was twofold: first, that for a temporary period during adaptations of the maternity unit at St. Mary's Hospital two wards at Princess Louise Hospital should be used for maternity patients; and second, that thereafter the Hospital should become a hospital for adults.
  My right honourable friend has considered this proposal very carefully in the light of the views of the hospital authorities concerned, of the University of London and St. Mary's Medical School, of the Royal Borough of Kensington and other interested bodies, of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and of the other Members of your Lordships' House who took part in the debate to which I have referred. He has had regard also to the terms of a restrictive covenant attaching to the land on which Princess Louise Hospital stands, which limits the use of the building to that of a hospital for children with maternity wards, and also to his obligations under Section 6 (4) of the National Health Service Act, 1946.

  859
  All these considerations have led my right honourable and learned friend to the conclusion that he would be justified in approving the temporary use of two wards for maternity patients, but that he should not approve the long-term use of the Hospital for adults but should review the future of the Hospital again towards the end of the period of temporary use for maternity purposes.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, which at least means that the plan for complete conversion of the Children's Hospital to adults use is not to be gone on with immediately, may I ask him to give some indication of the total number of beds to be used for mothers, and for how long? And will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that such partial use will be related solely to the period required for the rebuilding of St. Mary's Maternity Department?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first question, I would say that thirty-nine cots in the two wards to be converted are to be removed and there will be provided in place twenty beds for mothers. It is anticipated that the period will be for about two years after the work of adaptation has been completed; and it is expected that the Board of Governors will begin adaptations this year. The answer to the noble Lord's third question is, Yes; but, as I have already explained, the future use of the Princess Louise Hospital will be reviewed towards the end of the period of temporary use of the two wards for maternity purposes.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in view of the indefiniteness, not to say rather evasive nature, of my noble friend's reply, I would ask him for an assurance that this plan of the Ministry is not just a way of doing by the back door that which a recent decision of a Scottish court has made it difficult for the Ministry to do by the front door. Will my noble friend either accept or deny that suggestion?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I think I have explained that my right honourable friend has an open mind. He has no desire to prejudge the situation which may exist when the maternity unit
  860
  at St. Mary's Hospital is ready for occupation. I am not aware that the decision made by the Scottish court, to which the noble Lord has referred has any bearing on my right honourable and learned friend's decision.

  THE WITHHOLDING OR WITHDRAWAL OF PASSPORTS
  2.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: 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 the protection afforded by the possession of a valid British passport is the normal right of a British-born subject either in the United Kingdom or the Colonies; and for what, if any, reasons it is held that a passport can be withheld or withdrawn.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the protection of a British-born subject does not derive from the possession of a passport but is the exercise of one of the normal functions of a sovereign State. No British subject has a legal right to a passport. The grant of a United Kingdom passport is a Royal prerogative exercised through Her Majesty's Ministers and, in particular, the Foreign Secretary.
  The Foreign Secretary has the power to withhold or withdraw a passport at his discretion, although in practice such power is exercised only very rarely and in very exceptional cases. First, in the case of minors suspected of being taken illegally out of the jurisdiction; secondly, persons believed on good evidence to be fleeing the country to avoid prosecution for a criminal offence; thirdly, persons whose activities are so notoriously undesirable or dangerous that Parliament would be expected to support the action of the Foreign Secretary in refusing them a passport or withdrawing a passport already issued in order to prevent their leaving the United Kingdom; and fourthly, persons who have been repatriated to the United Kingdom at public expense and have not repaid the expenditure incurred on their behalf.

  861
  In the Colonies the prerogative is exercised by the Governor as the representative of the Queen, and the policy and practice of Colonial Governors in issuing or withholding passports follows broadly the lines of the United Kingdom policy.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that very clear reply. May I ask him this question: how does the Foreign Secretary make up his mind whether the withholding of a passport would meet with the approval of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I should imagine by his own judgment, my Lords.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, have we got to the stage now when the Government governs by its own judgment? The question I am asking is: what about the power of Parliament?
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether be is aware that in Cyprus many passports are withdrawn, although no charges are made against the individuals concerned?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I do not think there was anything in my reply which said that any charges bad to be laid in order to withdraw a passport.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, how in that case can you find a man guilty unless you try him?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, there is no suggestion of guilt in the withdrawal of a passport, the issue of which is a Royal Prerogative.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, in the event of the Minister's exercising the power to withhold a passport because in his judgment that would meet with the approval of Parliament, does he subsequently take steps to confirm that it is the view of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I have no example of that in mind.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, this is very obscure. Are we really to understand that the Foreign Secretary sits and says, "In my judgment Parliament will support me in refusing a passport to Mr. A, and therefore I do it"? What I am asking is this: what steps does he take to confirm his estimate of the Parliamentary wish?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as I replied to the noble Viscount's original question, the Foreign Secretary obviously uses his own judgment as to whether he considers he will, or will not, have the support of Parliament. Obviously, if he subsequently proves not to have the support of Parliament he will be in an awkward position; therefore he would not take steps about which he was not reasonably certain. However, if the Foreign Secretary did, in fact, take such steps, there is nothing to prevent a Member of Parliament from putting down a Question subsequently which would, presumably, elicit an answer one way or the other.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would Parliament have the power to reverse the decision which was made proprio motu, on his own judgment, by the Foreign Secretary?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if Parliament decided that the Foreign Secretary had overstepped his prerogative, I imagine, though I will not commit the Foreign Secretary in any way, the Foreign Secretary would re-exercise his prerogative on the ground that he had made a personal misjudgment.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I hope some opportunity will be given to elucidate this extremely obscure constitutional position.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, does the noble Earl imply that the sole right to decide whether a passport shall or shall not be granted rests with the Home Secretary, and the only action open to one aggrieved would be in fact to defeat the Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, that is a very difficult but not unknown process.
  LORD KILLEARN: Would not the noble Earl agree that it is an extremely wise and salutary thing that the Secretary of State should have this discretion in regard to passports? Surely that is the common-sense point of it.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: Would not the noble Earl also agree that in fact all this does is to give to the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary the powers

  863
  which are given to a Government under emergency powers during a state of emergency?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question: is he aware that what is in people's minds is the undesirability of our following the American precedent, where the withholding of a passport is a definite act of State.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, this process has been going on for many years. The number of passports withheld annually is one or, at the most, two, as against the many millions which are issued.

  PARK LAND IMPROVEMENT BILL
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Park Lane Improvement Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROET): My Lords, as a native of Central London, I have particular pleasure in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It will enable the London County Council to put in hand a road improvement which is most pressing and which will be the largest single road work in Central London for over fifty years. The scheme is, even so, only one of several which the London County Council are carrying out in London on a large scale, with the approval and assistance of the Government, and with the object of removing congestion from roads which were never designed for all the traffic that clutters them up to-day.
  May I remind your Lordships of some of these schemes? The Elephant and Castle is being entirely reconstructed. The Notting Hill Gate widening will get rid of one of the smallest bottlenecks of traffic to and from the West—incidentally, not one of the largest bottlenecks, as it is usually illogically described. A new
  864
  system of control will soon begin to operate at Hammersmith Broadway, where traffic will eventually be further helped by a new flyover on the Cromwell Road Extension leading to London Airport. St. Giles' Circus is to be partially reconstructed, and the Corporation of the City of London have also begun work on their scheme for Route 11 in the City.
  More ambitious than all of the other London schemes is that for which this Bill provides. Hyde Park Corner is the busiest junction in the Kingdom, possibly in the world. In 1956, 91,000 vehicles passed—or lurched—through it in twelve hours. At times it becomes stagnant with traffic. Not only that, it is often a test of a driver's patience and ingenuity to get through the junction at all, and roads ought not to make such demands upon those who use them. At Marble Arch. which is also very congested, 65,000 vehicles were counted in the same period, and Park Lane itself is often solid with the traffic—it certainly was twenty-five minutes ago.
  The London County Council's scheme is designed to remove this congestion. Its leading features are to be found in the Explanatory Memorandum prefixed to the Bill and do not, I think, need re-stating by me. It would really be simpler to adjourn this debate and hold it round the models in the Royal Gallery, but I understand that there are slight constitutional difficulties in the way of doing so. Incidentally, I should be vastly obliged if the noble Lord who has removed from the models one bus, two plane trees and the south side of Curzon Street would kindly put them back, because the models are at present under my charge.
  The aim of the scheme is to provide very much larger roundabouts at the Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch junctions, so as to give traffic more room for manœuvre, to drain off the Piccadilly-Knightsbridge traffic from Hyde Park Corner by building an underpass beneath it, and to convert Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive in Hyde Park into complementary one-way roads. Except for controlling access to and from Mayfair, traffic lights will be abolished throughout. Although this is an elaborate and extensive scheme, it would normally have been possible for the London County Council to carry it out under their own general powers, but the scheme has to incorporate small portions of Hyde Park and the

  865
  Green Park. These can only be given up by the Crown under the authority of Parliament. Hence this Bill.
  My Lords, may I dwell on this point? There is not one of us who does not prize the Royal Parks. None more so than I, who have lived half-way between Hyde Park and Regent's Park for almost all my life. I can assure your Lordships that, had it been possible to devise an effective solution to the traffic problem without having to encroach on the parks, the Government would never have agreed to this trespass. As it is, your Lordships will have seen from the models, and from the outline plans which I have had prepared, how little, in fact, of the parks is to be taken.
  Before it was decided to approve the present scheme a Working Party was set up by my right honourable friend the former Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, to investigate whether it was at all possible to produce a scheme which would leave the parks untouched. The London County Council, the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Road Research Laboratory, the Metropolitan Police and others were all concerned in this study. The conclusion reached was that no scheme could reconcile the demands of traffic, amenity and finance half as well as the scheme now embodied in the Bill. All the rest were open to objections of one sort or another, and there was none which would not have meant an alteration to some part of the landscape. The next best, for instance, would have required the removal of the Decimus Burton Screen at Hyde Park Corner, and in any case it would have been a less effective solution to the traffic problem.
  The net loss of grassed or planted areas in the two parks will, in fact, be no greater than four or five acres. We all wish that it could have been none. This scheme will also, inevitably and unhappily, involve the loss of a number of trees. No one can regard this prospect, too, as anything but a most regrettable sacrifice. But, if we are going to take the congestion of the roads in this part of London as seriously as it deserves, we have to decide between preserving the free flow of traffic at the expense of some trees or preserving those trees at the expense of the flow of traffic. The Government have decided, after great
  866
  deliberation, that there is no escape from this sad result. As my noble friend Lord Perth told your Lordships on Wednesday last, about sixty forest trees will be lost to the two parks, and some thirty-five smaller trees. This is certainly a small number, in comparison with the 3,100 or so trees in the whole of Hyde Park and the Green Park, but it never can be small enough. It may be possible to reduce the number even further, and I can give your Lordships an assurance that not one more tree will be cut down than is absolutely necessary.
  A great deal of thought has been given by the London County Council to the landscape treatment of the new layout, and they have consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission. I am in duty bound to bring to your notice that the Commission oppose the scheme in principle, on the grounds that any encroachment on the Royal Parks ought to be resisted. Since, however, a decision in favour of the scheme has been taken, the Commission have most helpfully commented on certain points of landscape design, and modifications have been made, or are being considered, in the London County Council's plans.
  I should like to mention, if I may, one piece of advice which has been particularly valuable. The Commission suggested that the surface of the new roundabout at Hyde Park Corner should form a logical link with the character of the parks on either side. Your Lordships will have seen from the model that the dominant feature will be a grassed expanse suitably planted with trees. I think your Lordships will agree that this will be a great improvement on the irregular and bleak concrete islands there at present. The processional route will, of course, be preserved, both here and at Marble Arch.
  The new islands at Marble Arch call for a slightly different treatment, since they will form what the planners call a terminal feature, but once again a grass expanse will predominate. Both these places, as well as the central reservation between the Park Lane carriageways will naturally remain open for the recreation of the public. It will be necessary to move one or two of the smaller memorials and statues, including Byron and the Cavalry and Machine Gun memorials, but, wherever possible, they

  867
  will be re-sited in the vicinity. The Decimus Burton Screen will be left untouched; pedestrians will still be able to go through it, but it will be closed to vehicles. The Wellington Arch and the Wellington Memorial will stay as they are.
  It would clearly be unsatisfactory to leave some of the lodges at the various gates into Hyde Park along Park Lane isolated between two carriageways of fast traffic. Two of the lodges (those at Cumberland Gate and Grosvenor Gate) are of great historical interest, and they will be moved a short distance and preserved inside the new boundary of the park, which will in future run along the western side of what is now the East Carriage Drive. The lodges at Stanhope ate, which are of much less importance historically, will be removed altogether.
  Two features of the new layout are of particular interest. The first is the underpass between Piccadilly and Knightsbridge. We are sometimes asked why Her Majesty's Government do not do more to encourage the building of underpasses in London, when they have been built with such success on the Continent, notably in Brussels. The answer is that the reason more underpasses are not built in London is not for want of encouragement, but for lack of opportunity. Underpasses need streets with enough space to accommodate their approaches, and the places in London where the carriageways can be made wide enough without tremendous expense are very seldom the places where traffic would benefit from them. For example, it would be prohibitive to build either a north-to-south or an east-to-west underpass at Marble Arch. At Hyde Park Corner, however, we have the opportunity, as well as the best of reasons, for putting some of the traffic underground, and the L.C.C. have wisely included an underpass in the scheme.
  There has been a good deal of comment on what the capacity of the underpass should be. When the Bill was first published it provided for an underpass with one traffic lane in each direction. That would probably have been sufficient for ten to fifteen years at least. But my right honourable friend and the London County Council ultimately decided that it was better not to under-insure but to make certain now that there would be sufficient reserve capacity for as far ahead
  868
  as anyone cared, or dared, to look. The Bill was therefore amended to provide for two lanes, each in a single tunnel, in each direction.
  The effect of the new layout will be to provide Hyde Park Corner with a substantial reserve capacity, taking the surface roads and the underpass together, at the peak hours. The reserve capacity at Marble Arch will also be greater. Should it, however, eventually prove necessary, it will be possible to increase the reserve capacity here at Marble Arch by restoring traffic light control at Great Cumberland Place.
  The other feature I want to mention is the arrangements for pedestrians. Obviously, traffic flows more freely, and pedestrians cross roads more safely, if the twain shall never meet. What is proposed here is to fence off the islands at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, and along the central reservation in Park Lane, and to provide twelve subways at suitable points to let people get from one side to the other in safety. Several of these subways will give access to Hyde Park, and they will also allow people to get on to the islands and to most of the central reservation in comfort. In nearly every case the subways will be served by ramps. This should be of great comfort to members of the "Pram Pushers' Union," whose life on a hot Sunday round Marble Arch is liable to be nasty, brutish and short—and I speak from painful personal experience.
  My Lords, the Bill which provides for these matters does not, I think, require much comment from me. The leading provisions are annotated in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is really a Bill to enable the London County Council to carry out the works listed in Clause 1, which are the main works, and those in Clause 3, which are subsidiary. Clause 4 permits the London County Council, with the consent of the Minister of Works, to enter upon and use such land in the parks as they may require for the works. The limits within which the London County Council are to work are shown on the plans deposited with the Bill. Your Lordships will notice that the power given in Clause 4 is only a right of entry to do certain things. This reflects a proposal of the Crown Estate Commissioners that, although land will be lost to the parks, it shall not be lost

  869
  to the Crown—in other words, the freehold title of the Sovereign to the land will not be affected. This arrangement was graciously approved by Her Majesty in giving her consent to the Bill.
  If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, the Government expect to move Amendments at a later stage to provide for the protection of the British Transport Commission and certain statutory undertakers and on one or two minor matters. My Lords, I ask you to give this Bill a Second Reading and a quick passage through its remaining stages, so that we can now all get on with the job. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with his usual clarity and good humour has presented this Bill to the House so clearly that I do not think any of us will be under any misapprehension as to what is going to happen. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that this matter has had a great deal of thought. If my memory serves me correctly, it was in December of last year that the Second Reading of this Bill took place in another place, and it has been substantially amended there, to its great benefit, in Standing Committee. Therefore, many of the criticisms levelled in another place cannot, I think, be levelled in your Lordships' House.
  On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I welcome this Bill, although I must say, in fairness, that one or two of my colleagues have some reservations, as I have myself. However, in total, I would congratulate the Government. I think this is a bold and imaginative scheme, and I shall watch with the greatest interest the outcome of this experiment of an underpass. I should have been bitterly opposed to the scheme in its original form, providing for only a dual carriageway; but now that it is to have two tunnels, with two carriageways each, I think it may be adequate for the future.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft has given us statistics. The trouble with our road policy for this last fifty years has been that we have never had enough wisdom to look far enough ahead. We
  870
  have wasted millions and millions of pounds through making our roads too narrow and then widening them foot by foot, with the advent of different Chief Engineers at the Ministry of Transport. This Bill does give us a chance of saying that, once this is done, then at least for twenty-five years we shall not have much to grumble at. One of the chief criticisms I have heard is that in having such a bold scheme as this, at, as I think the noble Lord said, and as is common knowledge, the worst traffic spot in this country, if it cures this great bottleneck at Hyde Park Corner it will only create another down at Knightsbridge or somewhere else. But that is true all over this country; and if we wait until we can widen every length of road right over the country, we shall never get any improvements in our roads. I know of no place where a bold widening of the road has not meant a bottleneck; and I know of hundreds of places in this country where four carriageways merge with abruptness into two. But is that any good reason why we should never have a four-carriageway road, or never start one?
  So, my Lords, I welcome this Bill, although I have one or two reservations on which I should like the noble Lord to give me an answer. From my observations and studies of the question of London traffic—and I spent some time in the Ministry of Transport—I can say that this is only one small part of the problem. Do not let it be thought that, with all the schemes the noble Lord has mentioned—those at Kingsway, the Elephant and Castle and so on—we are going to make a very great imprint on the total problem. This is a contribution. The one thing to which I would ask the Government to give serious consideration is the resuscitation of the idea—which we shall have to do at some time—of a roadway right round London, with limited access, to see whether we cannot drain off from our thickly trafficked spots the through-traffic which at present goes through London because it cannot find its way round.
  The noble Lord, I think, has given some figures of the commercial vehicle traffic that runs through Hyde Park Corner. There must be some way of creaming off that traffic. I am hoping that with the experiment, and with the lessons we shall learn we shall have the

  871
  imagination to go on building underpasses, which in my view are far better than flyovers, especially in urban areas; and flyovers, in my view, are far better than roundabouts. I think the roundabout has been proved to be a traffic congestor and not an easement, unless it is large enough. I remember that in the last unfortunate strike—I think it was a railway strike—I saw some pictures taken from a helicopter of the roads just outside London, and the greatest congestion was at the roundabouts, because of the degree of weaving across the line of traffic that has to take place.
  My Lords, I am not going to criticise the proposals in this Bill as they stand. There are one or two questions I want to ask the noble Lord, and I want to make one or two suggestions. I want to ask him: is it intended that parking of vehicles shall be prohibited in the East and West Carriage Drives? If we want four traffic lines, if it is necessary to have that width of road, if it is necessary to encroach upon the parks, then let us encroach upon them to move the traffic and not to garage it.
  The next point I want to make is that I view with concern and sharp criticism the decision, if it is a decision, of the London Transport Executive not to use the underpass for buses. I am tempted, in all good will, to ask who is the dictator of London traffic—the Minister of Transport, the L.C.C., which is the highway authority, the Westminster City Council or the London Transport Executive? If Sir John Eliot is capable of learning any lesson at all, he is capable of learning the lesson of the last three or four weeks, that it is not traffic that has congested London; it is the buses. I think that the buses should be made to conform to a plan of traffic and should not be a law unto themselves. I know that I shall be subjected to criticism of neglect of the pedestrians when I say that we should have bus stops further away from Hyde Park, but in my view it means only re-routing the bus services.
  When you are trying to solve a huge problem like the traffic problem in London you cannot expect to have a bus stop right outside your front door, nor a Tube station. I should have thought it would be a matter of grave concern and
  872
  action by the Minister to see that the traffic did conform to a pattern which will cause the least possible congestion. What is the good of spending a sum which I understand will be between £5½ million and £6 million—that is the cost to date: Heaven knows what it will be before the scheme is finished!—and then having almost as much congestion with omnibus traffic? I go from your Lordships' House to Paddington station, and if I want to go there during the rush hour I have to allow myself, in a taxicab. twenty-five minutes, in order to be certain of catching my train. Since the bus strike I have done it in seven minutes and eight minutes, and all that time is made up around Hyde Park Corner.
  The next question I want to ask the noble Lord concerns pedestrian tunnels. Again I know that I am raising a controversial point, but I think it better to raise it, so that it can be discussed. I think it is quite a correct thing to have these tunnels. They are to be placed at points that will allow pedestrians to cross two carriageways in Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive. Do the Government not think that the time has arrived when they should try an experiment in control of pedestrians and prohibit the crossing of these eight traffic lines—that is what it means—by methods other than going through the subways? I would prohibit the crossing of these roads except by these subways. The noble Lord says they are going to put up railings. What are they going to be like? Will they be like those hideous things that surround Trafalgar Square and the hideous things around Parliament Square? I hope that some of the noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who is intensely interested in the question of amenities, would not consider that a lot of galvanised iron tubing right the way down these carriageways will add to the amenities.
  Now I should like to come to this question of amenities. I have followed what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said in the Question and Answer, and I shall listen with the greatest respect, as I always do, to what he has to say this afternoon. I know that some of my own colleagues would fight this Bill on the principle of encroachment on the Royal Parks. I myself do not like it; but you have to pay a price for the traffic in

  873
  London; you have got to pay a price to have the traffic of London move a bit more quickly. The congestion costs industry, and therefore the country, millions and millions of pounds. While nostalgia may prompt opposition to encroachment on the Royal Parks, I think perhaps that carrying this sense of antiquity to the extreme is not always wise—because, after all, anything that is old is not of necessity beautiful, as some of us have borne in upon us every day of the week. I am quite prepared to leave it to the L.C.C. and the Ministry—not necessarily the Royal Fine Art Commission, because to me they are not the safeguard of beauty—to make that layout, as the noble Lord has said, a thing of real beauty. Woodland naturalness is only in some cases an excuse for untidiness. I can see that if the work is done properly the amenities will not suffer. I remember the outcry against the Pitlochry Hydro-Electric Scheme. If ever there was any man-made thing that added to the beauty of Pitlochry it was the Pitlochry Hydro-Electric Scheme after it had been finished.
  That brings me to my next point. I want the noble Lord to tell me, if he will, what is the timetable of construction of this scheme. If we are going to tackle the road problem of this country, whether it is by the Hyde Park Scheme or any other, we have got to knock some sense into the administrative delays that have abounded with every scheme ever put forward. There was another road scheme that interested your Lordships so much that you devoted a whole afternoon's debate to it. That was the ring road around Oxford. We had Government assurance after Government assurance that it was priority No. 1 and that they would move it forward with the utmost rapidity. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, himself, just about a year ago, gave your Lordships an assurance that it would be started this year. All the local authorities were asked to expedite their arrangements, to get all their plans ready for going out to contract; and those plans have lain on the Minister's desk since January. It is now June, and the Oxford Western By-pass will not be started this year.
  Why this circumlocution? Every month that the delay goes on the cost goes up by about a quarter of a million pounds, until it gets to the stage when the Treasury will say, "We are sorry, but
  874
  we cannot go on with the scheme. It is now going to cost too much." The real reason why it has cost too much is the dilatoriness and circumlocution that goes on between the Ministry of Transport and the local officials, and the shuffling of papers and this, that and the other. I am not going to ask the noble Lord to answer that point, but I bring it up this afternoon because, before the Recess, I am going to put down on the Order Paper a Question for him to answer in detail; so I warn him of that now.
  What I want to ask the noble Lord now is: if Brussels can build in eighteen months a three-tiered underpass with an overhead road a mile long costing £14 million, why does it take us four years to accomplish a smaller scheme? If noble Lords want to know the reason why the cost for all these road projects is so high, I can tell you that it is because of the interminable officialdom and red tape which surrounds them. If you gave a contractor the job of getting on with the Hyde Park Scheme and paid him, not for how long it took but, if I may use the phrase, for how long it did not take, you would get it done much more quickly and cheaply. I ask the noble Lord this question: what assurance can he give the House that Londoners are not going to look for four years upon a site at Hyde Park Corner such as can be seen at the junction between the Great West Road and the Chiswick High Road? Any of your Lordships may go down and see the works that are going on there in regard to a relatively small flyover. The battlefields of France never looked worse; and it goes on year after year. Many of your Lordships have seen that scene of horror. Can your Lordships imagine that staring your Lordships in the face at Hyde Park Corner for four years? I ask the noble Lord: what is he doing to see that we do not suffer that fate?
  My Lords, perhaps I may ask one last question—this is the only real question I have to ask on the Bill. I now propose to give the noble Lord an opportunity to throw back in my face a lot of what I have said, because I want to ask him why, in Clause 7 (2), there is put into the Bill some arbitrary language which I cannot quite understand. Perhaps he will save me the trouble of putting down an Amendment on the Committee stage by explaining it to me now. Recently we have heard a lot about the wickedness of

  875
  landlords, but this Bill gives the L.C.C. the right—I use my language in general terms—within fourteen days of the passing of the Bill to evict all the tenants from all the property that has to be pulled down. My information is that there are forty-two of them, some of them small shopkeepers. If I could use a colloquialism, I should have thought that fourteen days is "a bit quick". I should have thought that sixty days' notice to quit would be more appropriate.
  The wording of the subsection is:
  "At any time after serving a notice to treat in respect of any land an interest in which may be acquired compulsorily under the said section six, but not less than fourteen days after giving the owner and occupier thereof notice of their intention to exercise the powers of this subsection, the Council may enter on and take possession of the land. …"
  Perhaps we could be a little more generous. After all, if this is going to take four years I do not suppose that all the bundles of red-taped documents will be tied up for quite a considerable time; so another, say, sixty days instead of fourteen days might be more reasonable in order that they may find alternative accommodation. The L.C.C. cannot treat until this Bill becomes law, and within fourteen days they can evict the tenants. That is the only point of detail I have to raise on the Bill, and if the noble Lord can answer me now it may avoid the necessity of my putting down an Amendment on the Committee stage. For myself—I think I can say that I speak on behalf of the majority of my colleagues on this side of the House—as this Bill is politically not controversial, we wish it well. I wish that we could see the completion of the scheme within a reasonable length of time.
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down, to this extent: this matter is not politically controversial as between the different Parties. But that does not mean that it is not intensely controversial. I hope, if the House will bear with me, to give reasons, which some noble Lords may find convincing, why this Bill should not receive a Second Reading to-day. I am grateful to my noble friend who introduced this Bill for having provided us with the model which he promised in answer to the Questions which I put
  876
  last week. I am also grateful to him for having arranged for civil servants from the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Works to show me and some other noble Lords who were particularly interested round the principal areas concerned, in order to explain the nature of the proposals on the spot.
  I think the most remarkable feature of the debate so far has been the assumption that, if we sanctioned this scheme, it would do a lot of good. I hope in the course of my remarks to disabuse your Lordships of that illusion. I oppose the Bill and propose to group the grounds which I wish noble Lords to bear in mind under three heads—namely, the injury which the scheme will do to the Royal Parks; the wrong diagnosis of need on which the Bill is based; and, lastly, but by no means least, the mistaken belief that the solution proposed will work.
  May I start with the injury to the Royal Parks? I would remind the House that, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport explained on the Second Reading in another place, it is what is done in the Royal Parks that accounts for the fact that this Bill is being brought before Parliament at all. There are, as has been said, lovers of the Royal Parks in all quarters of the House. I myself am a great lover of these Parks, but I am not going to suggest for one moment that other noble Lords, wherever they sit, have not the same affection for them. I would, however, mention two facts which I think the House will wish to bear in mind in considering what is being done to the Royal Parks. At the time of the Second Reading debate in another place, there was at any rate some doubt about the precise attitude of the Royal Fine Art Commission. That doubt has been set at rest by a statement which the Commission published on December 19 of last year, after the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. May I read the second paragraph of that statement?
  "From its inception in 1924, the Commission has attached the greatest importance to the preservation of the Royal Parks and has on several occasions resisted suggested encroachments on the perimeter. The present proposals, based on traffic considerations, constitute the largest encroachment ever suggested. The Royal Parks are a unique feature of London and one of its main attractions both for those who live there and for visitors from other parts of the country and from abroad. Their value has increased enormously as the

  877
  built-up areas of the metropolis have extended beyond them, and hitherto no sacrifice of immediate practical convenience has been considered too great to preserve them intact. There is a grave risk that if an encroachment of this kind is once permitted, further demands will follow from time to time, which, if accepted, would whittle away the splendid series of open spaces."
  That is the view of the Royal Fine Art Commission, a body to whom this House sometimes pays some attention.
  The other matter which I would bring to your Lordships' attention is the remarkable speech of my right honourable friend Mr. Nigel Birch, the former Minister of Works, in another place on April 30 of this year. He expressed the hope—which repeat—that this Bill will receive the most careful examination by this House. He condemned the Bill utterly, and the importance of his speech was recognised not merely on his own side of the House, for a tribute was at once paid to it by Mr. Anthony Greenwood, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. There are two things to remember about the former Minister's speech. In the first place, I am convinced that this scheme would never even have been embodied in a Bill had my right honourable friend remained the Minister of Works. The second matter is that my right honourable friend had available to him, at the time he was a Minister, memoranda and information which have not been made available to this House.
  On the question of injury to amenities, Mr. Birch mentioned that fifty of the finest and largest plane trees would be felled at the outset. I have found, in discussion with various noble Lords, that the greatest of all the injuries that this scheme is going to do is not known to them at all: it is a new injury, I think, introduced since the time when the Bill received a Second Reading in another place. That injury is the appalling destruction of plane trees on the north side of Green Park, next to Piccadilly, rendered necessary. I believe, by the widening of the original proposal for the underpass.
  My Lords, I wonder whether the House has considered why it is that these Royal Parks—one of the glories of London, and, indeed, of our country—have survived for so long. It is not because encroachments have never before been proposed: it is because the Ministers responsible have always thought that the Royal. Parks were something that should
  878
  be fought for at almost any cost. Does anybody suppose that, if these encroachments are permitted, that will be the end of the story? These are not the only threats to the Royal Parks, even at this moment. I could mention other threats, if the Minister of Works is prepared to yield, made to different Parks by the Minister of Transport and by others. Does anybody suppose, if this scheme is adopted and, as I hope to show, will not work in its present form, that then, if it is proved to be necessary to have great car parks in the neighbourhood, there will not be an irresistible demand for great car parks in or under Hyde Park, whatever may be the sacrifice of trees? There are some who think it monstrous that there is not a great helicopter station in London. Are your Lordships quite certain that there will be no demands for such a station in the Royal Parks? Once the Ministers concerned think that the Royal Parks are expendable, there will not be an early limitation of the uses for which it will be suggested that they, or bits of them, might be expended.
  I venture to draw attention, because I find it so enlightening, to what was said in another place on the reason why there are to be no underpasses at Marble Arch. Since they were remarks made in the present Session, I must not quote them but must paraphrase them. I will paraphrase them fairly closely. The reason why there is to be no underpass at Marble Arch is that an underpass there would be very costly and would involve heavy demolition in the Edgware Road. I am not joking—that was the reason given. What will be thought by posterity of a Parliament that thought the expense of demolition in the Edgware Road so obviously more important than the destruction of the amenities of Green Park?
  The cost in amenity is great. In both Houses it has been suggested that this is the biggest single improvement since the creation of Kingsway in 1905. It is true that this is the largest scheme; but, of course, to create Kingsway in 1905 it was not necessary to abolish public open spaces, and it was not necessary to ruin great amenities. The cost in amenity of the present scheme is very great. The cost in money is enough to provide eighteen miles of a new motorway. That gives the House some idea of the cost involved. But, my Lords, let me say to Her Majesty's Government at once that

  879
  I am one of those who agree in wanting better roads and facilities for traffic. I admire the energy which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is showing in so many directions. But I believe that here he is making, or has made, a mistake that would be obvious to all Members of this House, or a great many of them, if they would spend a day in doing as I have done, reading through all the documents in the case.
  I pass from the destruction of amenity to the diagnosis which I say is at fault. It has been said quite truly that this is the busiest junction in the whole country. The figure of the 1956 police census has been mentioned—91,000 vehicles in a twelve-hour day. It certainly is the busiest junction, if we judge by the volume of traffic; but, as every experienced motorist in London knows, it is nothing like the worst junction. It is not one of those places where one is likely to be badly held up and certainly does not compare with a dozen other examples which will occur to any motorist who uses his car in London.
  In regard to delay, not only does it not compare in seriousness with a great many other traffic interruptions with some of which—I want to be entirely fair to Her Majesty's Government—the present Minister is proposing to deal, though he does not propose to deal with all, but it is incomparably less bad than some of the worst examples outside London. I speak on the morrow of a great traffic jam. I wonder what will be the thoughts of motorists who last night took two hours to negotiate two miles at Staines when they learn that it is proposed to spend more than £5;¼ million on a scheme at Hyde Park Corner, not to remedy a serious existing obstruction comparable with many others but to provide a scheme of traffic which, I believe, the greatest traffic engineers in the world have pronounced to be unworkable.
  That brings me to the third objection to this Bill. Even if Hyde Park Corner constituted the main problem and deserved the first priority, even if it were right to sacrifice parts of the Royal Parks for an adequate and permanent solution of the traffic problem at this point, the fact remains, in my submission, that the scheme authorised by this Bill will not work. I shall give my views as to why it will not work though I know noble
  880
  Lords will agree with me that, in order to ascertain whether or not it will work, it is not my views that they particularly want to hear but the views of the Road Research Laboratory. They, after all, are the experts. The Road Research Laboratory, who have conducted experiments on this matter, have advised Her Majesty's Government—and we are not even given the papers or told what their reports were. In fact, that information was refused when I asked for it last week.
  In the interval between my Question last week and to-day I have done my best to consult some of the experts. I know that the points I now raise will not take by surprise my noble friend the Minister in charge of the Bill, because I gave him notice of these points in my supplementary questions last week. I referred to a note that had appeared in the Observer giving weighty criticisms of this scheme which are so far unanswered. One of those with whom I have spoken over the week-end was permitted by the Minister concerned to see some of the reports of the Road Research Laboratory; and some of the points that appeared in their report on the experiments they had conducted were made known by the gentleman I have mentioned to Dr. Feuchtinger of Ulm, who I believe is perhaps the most distinguished road engineer now alive. In any event, he is visiting this country this month, to address a research group of another place interested in these matters, and I believe he will be very well known not only to Her Majesty's Government but to those of my noble friends who are expert on this matter of roads. He is officially consulted by many other Governments outside his own country and is at present the adviser on very important works in the Netherlands and elsewhere.
  What astonishes me is that, though we in this House are so often accustomed to pay tribute to science and to talk of the need for consulting technicians and technologists, too often great schemes are proposed in which we absolutely fail to act in accordance with those principles. I have often been most impressed, when travelling in the United States of America and on the Continent, by the fact that in certain respects they are much more advanced than we are here in road improvements. I agree with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on that matter. He

  881
  is entirely right in saying that a roundabout itself can be the scene of the greatest congestion and of traffic being brought to a standstill. After all, I would remind noble Lords that we already have a roundabout at Hyde Park Corner. Nor are underpasses always the solution. In fact, neither provides a universal solution.
  I do not want to trouble the House with many examples of the jargon used by these traffic experts, but I must mention two conceptions that are of some importance. The first is the great difference between the possible or maximum capacity of a roundabout and the practical working capacity of that same roundabout. There are a great many traffic problems that cannot be solved at all by the use of roundabouts. The limitation on what is possible in the way of "weaving" depends directly on the volume of traffic. I believe that the view held in the United States of America, where they have a great deal of experience of these matters, is that it is impossible at a roundabout to have traffic "weaving" without signals if the vehicles are passing at a rate greater than 1,500 vehicles to the hour. At this junction, even with the use of the enlarged underpass, the volume of traffic will be many times that amount. The best calculation that I can make, on the figures last published by the Ministry of Transport, is that this underpass at Hyde Park Corner for the east—west traffic may take 14 per cent. of the volume of traffic.
  London Transport have already expressed their determination not to use it for the buses. I am not going to comment on the little dispute, or the great dispute, between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and London Transport; but, of course, one of the grounds of the objection of London Transport is the amount of interchange from one bus to another that takes place at this point. I am not necessarily defending their decision, but I am giving their ground. But if I are in the least right on the volume of traffic that will be taken by the underpasses—and it is these underpasses which cause the greatest injury to amenity—then that will still leave a volume of traffic, even if traffic does not increase, attempting to "weave" at this series of roundabouts which is greater than can be accommodated, according to the views of
  882
  the most distinguished traffic engineers in the world.
  I notice with great interest that my noble friend, in introducing this Bill, said that the whole of this scheme—I think he said with the exception of entry from Mayfair—was going to be controlled without traffic lights. I am certain that what he told the House he believed to be a fact, but I venture to make the confident prophecy that he is wrong. If any noble Lord has gained the idea from the model that, when this scheme has been adopted, traffic is going to move continuously and smoothly round these various roundabouts, without traffic lights, he is deceiving himself. Lights will certainly have to be used to introduce what is called (in the horrible jargon of the experts) "directional channelisation". I do not defend the jargon, but it means that you control the traffic, not by a roundabout, but by a system enabling the traffic to move rapidly in the direction in which it wishes to go. Perhaps I might quote the expert conclusion accepted in the United States, which is this:
  "… It is possible for a signal-controlled intersection having proper design of channelisation to carry much more traffic than a traffic circle "—
  that is what they call a roundabout. The conclusion continues:
  "Indeed, properly combining traffic signals and channelisation may possibly provide the same service as a grade separation "—
  that is, having a separation of levels.
  My Lords, I say that, should this House pass this Bill, it will be demonstrated very quickly that the traffic cannot flow unless traffic signals, by lights, are adopted. My noble friend may then say, on the supposition that I am right about that, "If that is found to be the case, then we can introduce traffic lights." But that is not really an answer, for this very simple reason. If the need for lights were recognised generally at the outset, then the layout for traffic at this point would be quite different from the layout proposed under this Bill; and it might well be one that would be much less destructive of amenities.
  The Minister said in another place that a perfectly sound technical case could be made for saying that the underpass should not be built at all. Nevertheless, since he said that, he has doubled the size of the underpass, and I am not necessarily

  883
  opposing that, if there is to be an underpass at all. But I beg this House not to pass this Second Reading to-day, but to insist that an opportunity shall be given of hearing expert views on the matter and of reading the reports the Traffic Research Laboratory have made to Her Majesty's Government, instead of blindly sanctioning this unique destruction of the Royal Parks.
  My Lords, I believe that this Bill, if carried, will constitute a disastrous precedent by encroaching on the Royal Parks; it will effect an immediate injury to amenity, and it will waste a vast sum of money and result in a wholly inadequate improvement in the flow of traffic. Of course, I know how many people will find it difficult to believe that what I say is true, for this reason: that anything that has even the label of doing something for traffic is accepted as desirable without any consideration of what the effect will, in truth, be. My Lords, I do not know how many noble Lords remember some of the errors in formal logic which used to be taught to those who studied the logic of Aristotle and other systems, but may I give an example of a fault in logic that is to-day very prevalent? From the true premise that some traffic improvements injure amenity, very many people draw the quite illogical conclusion that anything that injures amenity must benefit traffic. My Lords, I would assure the House that that is undoubtedly an error.
  I know that angry young men sometimes command attention; I know that the position of an angry old man is generally considered to be ridiculous; and I am aware, therefore, that my plea for London—the city that I love, which I would do almost anything in order to preserve—may strike some people as old-fashioned and blind. But I assure them that, if they will study this matter, they will probably come to three conclusions: first, that the price we are asked to pay for this scheme is very great indeed; secondly, that this scheme is prompted by a wrong diagnosis of the problem; and, thirdly, that when we have paid the price we shall not get the advantage which alone might make it worth while.
  3.57 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken with deep sincerity, and in some of what he says I am sure he
  884
  has the sympathy of the whole House. None of us would wish callously and in cold blood to encroach on open space in London, where it is so much needed, still less on the Royal Parks; and I personally have great sympathy with the point he put forward that, if one permits this, one might be able hereafter to make an equally good case for something else. I will ask him to look at this matter from the point of view of the citizen of London. Here we have a problem. I do not know whether he would suggest, by comparing the traffic congestion at Staines with that at Hyde Park Corner, that there is not a problem at Hyde Park Corner. Those who use Hyde Park Corner as frequently as I do will have no doubt whatever that it has one of the most serious traffic blocks in London, and, furthermore, that it is one of the most dangerous points. It is the business of those who are responsible for dealing with the traffic of London to do something about it.
  The noble Lord, with all his talk, gave us no suggestions as to what should be done, except possibly that we should do something about Staines, with which I fully agree. But this is not a week-end problem; it is a daily problem which faces the citizens of London, and I submit that we are not dealing with it too soon. I was a member of the London County Council before the war, and I remember that Hyde Park Corner was one of the problems that we were trying to deal with even at that time—1937 and earlier. My noble friend Lord Latham was there with me and he will know that we spent hours and hours over this problem of Hyde Park Corner. Everybody has tried to find the solution which would be some alternative to taking four or five acres off the Park. I can assure the noble Lord that this scheme is not the first idea. It was never thought that the problem of Hyde Park was an easy matter to negotiate, but this is the simplest way of solving it. Every other alternative was considered and now we are faced frankly with the choice—and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, cannot get away from this choice—either we carry out this scheme or something like it, or we do nothing worth while about traffic congestion at Hyde Park Corner.

  885
  Recently the London County Council have acquired between thirty and thirty-five acres of space in that area of London, at Holland Park, which is quite close to Hyde Park. This is a factor which is worth taking into consideration, because the people of London want open spaces. I agree that there is a certain sanctity about the Royal Parks, but to the Londoner thirty acres of open space at Holland Park available to him is at least as advantageous and beneficial as four to five acres of Hyde Park. For many years the London County Council have been seeking to develop open spaces all over the County with the view of providing people on the outskirts of London as well with open spaces. Therefore, this is not by any means a net loss of open space. Every year there is a net gain.
  In life one has to hold the balance. When I was Minister of Town and Country Planning I was constantly up against this problem. Somebody wanted to do something which, on the face of it, was highly undesirable but which, on the other hand, was wanted to solve a problem which would otherwise not be capable of being solved. I had to make a decision. I could not solve the matter by making a speech in Parliament. Here, at long last, a decision is being made. I would make one appeal. I have seen the model—and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that I have not taken the bus that is missing. I do not think any Member of your Lordships' House would have taken it. There have been visitors about the place as well as noble Lords. From the model, the scheme looks an attractive proposal.
  I am sure that the Government and the London County Council will take heed of the words of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and see that it is really made one of the great amenities of London. We can make even a road an amenity. It is true that ninety-three trees will be lost, but, after all, trees have a limited, though long, life, and in the natural order of things these trees would have gone in any case. They are going sooner than they otherwise would. I hope that we shall replace them with an equal number of trees, or even more trees, and in the end we shall not have lost an amenity but gained a new amenity. I am sure that we can do this. I know that the Government and the
  886
  London County Council will do all that they can to make this an attractive feature of the new London which is being built. I am not going to deal with the traffic aspect, with which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, dealt. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, is going to follow me and he and other noble Lords are much more competent to deal with that aspect; but I thought that I would say a word on the question of amenity.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I put my name down to say a few words in this debate, first, because I thought that there was going to be some opposition to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Man-croft, and secondly, because, having lived on and off in London all my life, I have a great love for the city, as we all have, and therefore have a great interest in this measure. I can sympathise very much with the views set out so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Conesford, but I think that we ought to look at the matter in proportion.
  The size of Hyde Park is 373 acres, to which have to be added about 220 acres or so of Kensington Gardens, and there are the Green Park and St. James's Park which together add up to another 80 or so acres, not to mention Regent's Park and the new Holland Park, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, Battersea Park in another district and Victoria Park in the East End. London is very well furnished with parks, and it is also a source of great pride to us that there are so many more open spaces, which I have not mentioned, which perhaps do not merit the name of "Park". I do not know of any other city in the world that I have visited that is so well furnished with green and open spaces, except perhaps Paris, with the Bois de Boulogne. This measure proposes a net decrease in our park space of four to five acres out of the hundreds of acres I have just mentioned.
  I went and looked at the model in the Royal Gallery and afterwards, yesterday, I went and looked at the ground itself. I think that the Marble Arch will positively be improved by this scheme. The Marble Arch is now a nasty, arid, circular bit of tarmac. At the speakers' forum there is more tarmac. I should have thought that few trees will need destruction at the Marble Arch, and I think that the layout

  887
  of the new roundabout proposed, when it is mature—of course, it will look hideous for four or five years—will be a positive improvement on what is there at present.
  When we come to Hyde Park Corner, a few trees will be lost for the time being. I love trees, just as does anybody else, but they are not sacrosanct. They are only vegetables, which grow to their full maturity, eventually die and have to be cut down and uprooted. Some people get a kind of worship of trees. For some years I was chairman of the garden committee of the square in which I lived. There was one huge plane tree in a corner of that square—a very fine tree, but it rendered life miserable for the inhabitants of about half a dozen houses who lived immediately round it, because it obscured all light from them and branches poked into their windows. Some of them came to me and begged me to have the tree cut down. So I got the sanction of my committee, with the greatest difficulty—your Lordships would not believe the amount of abuse I had from the inhabitants of the square as a whole who were not affected by this tree. Indeed, the contractor who felled it for me told me that his forester, when up on top of a tree in the corner of another square, cutting away, suddenly found himself faced with a gun pointed at him from the top window of one of the houses and the threat that he would be shot unless he got down. He got down and reported the fact to his boss and the boss went to inquire about it, and found that the offender was no less a personage than one of Her Majesty's counsel at the Bar.
  That has rather taken me off the track. I do not think the destruction of amenity on the whole will be so great as is feared by my noble friend Lord Conesford. We shall lose the beautiful Hamilton Garden, which has been such an added attraction to the park; it will be seriously interfered with, although not entirely destroyed. On the whole, when we look at the matter in proportion, I do not think the loss of amenity is a reason for opposing this Bill.
  I now come to the actual traffic itself. My noble friend Lord Conesford says that Hyde Park Corner is not all that bad for traffic. I agree with him there. I go round Hyde Park Corner, I suppose, on an average about six times a week, or
  888
  perhaps even more, at various times of the day and evening, and I would say that the actual going round Hyde Park Corner is not all that bad. Where the delay occurs is in the approaches to Hyde Park Corner. At Constitution Hill, if you happen to be going home at about six o'clock in the evening, you find there is a queue almost up to Buckingham Palace and it takes you a great deal of time to get through. Similarly, coming up from Wilton Place there are occasions when the traffic is extremely bad. This scheme, in my view, is designed not so much to improve affairs at Hyde Park Corner as to improve them between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch. Up Park Lane many delays occur. If you wish to turn off anywhere into Stanhope Street or into Brook Street there are many delays; if you are coming down Park Lane, there are traffic lights and policemen and many delays. In my view, the most important part of this scheme is to secure a flow of traffic from north to south.
  I feel that the present roundabout at Marble Arch is a very bad one. The Cumberland Hotel ought never to have been built where it is without the entrance being recessed, as is that of the Westbury Hotel in Conduit Street, which gives no additional trouble in consequence. The entrance to the Cumberland Hotel was not recessed, and there are all day long and far into the night taxis, luggage and passengers disembarking, which very much increases the congestion in Great Cumberland Place and, in my view, makes that roundabout worse than Hyde Park Corner. I am sorry to hear that there is to be no underpass treatment at that junction, and I hope that it may not be too late to reconsider the point.
  Another area which was mentioned in the debate in the other place was down towards Wilton Place and Sloane Street where the road narrows. A bottleneck occurs there, and one frequently finds that if one has successfully negotiated Hyde Park Corner one is held up for a long time, particularly in the evening, at Wilton Place. I hope that efforts will be made to improve that position. It was suggested in the other place that the pavement to the south might be narrowed to about four or five feet. I think that suggestion is worth considering, because the pedestrian traffic at that particular point is, on the whole, not congested. Another

  889
  suggestion is that Wilton Place should be made a place where there is no right turn. A third suggestion is that Albert Gate should be permanently closed. All of these seem to me to be important suggestions, well worthy of consideration, in order to get a free flow of traffic in that particular bottleneck, so that the improvements that we achieve at Hyde Park Corner shall not be frittered away when you get down towards Sloane Street.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I would remind him that the scheme for the new Bowater building at that corner contains a big double traffic road into the Park, which we hope will meet many of the objections the noble Lord has just raised.
  LORD BLACKFORD: I am aware of that, and it will be interesting to see what effect it has, although somehow I think the bottleneck may still be there and may still need treatment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke about car parking, and asked: "Are cars going to be allowed to park along this new road?"—and he hinted, in fact, that they certainly should not be allowed to park there. My noble friend Lord Conesford said: "If this encroachment on the Park is permitted, where is it going to end? There is no doubt that people will want to use other parts of it as a car park." Between those two, how are we going to reach some agreement? Car parking is here, whether we like it or not, and it will increase, whether we like it or not; and something must be done for the car parker. I submit that there are parts of Hyde Park which could be used as a car park without decreasing the amenities or destroying a single tree. For instance, as a small boy I used to ride frequently in Rotten Row—I am speaking of about the year 1895. In those days, Rotten Row was full of riders every day. How many people ride in Rotten Row to-day? I should have thought that it was a very small number, and those who do largely consist of small parties of children learning to ride.
  890
  The top part of Rotten Row, close to Hyde Park Corner, has no trees on it. I submit that there is plently of room there to make a car park which would take several hundred cars and thus enable the owners of those cars to take a train from Hyde Park Corner to their destinations further East. Similarly, I have for a long time thought that Rotten Row at the Marble Arch end is practically unused by riders and is really wasted space. Nobody can say that a sandy track is a thing of beauty, and, heaven knows! nobody can say that a car park is a thing of beauty; the one is the same as the other; nevertheless, the one is useful, while the other no longer is. Therefore, I submit that that part of Rotten Row between Marble Arch and towards Victoria Gate might be used as a car park, and people who parked there could take the train from Marble Arch further East. Those are slightly controversial points which I fear will not be agreed to by my noble friend Lord Conesford. But we have to face the unpalatable fact of cars and car parks, and something will have to be done about them. Apart from that, I support my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and I hope that this Bill will obtain a Second Reading with the full approval of your Lordships' House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, we have arranged to interrupt business at this point in order to deal with Leave of Absence questions. There are still a number of noble Lords who wish to speak on the Bill before the House. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Mancroft might make some inquiries to ascertain whether it is felt that we should continue with this Bill later to-day, or adjourn the discussion until to-morrow, and I can move something to that effect at a later stage. In the meantime, I should like to move that the debate on this Bill be adjourned.
  Moved, that the debate be adjourned.—(The Earl of Home).
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  PEERS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  4.18 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME had given Notice of his intention to move to resolve, That the Standing Orders of the House for the conduct of public business be amended by leaving out Standing Order 21 and inserting the following Standing Order:
  Leave of Absence
  21. (1) Lords are to attend the sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence, which the House may grant at pleasure; but this Standing Order shall not be understood as requiring a Lord who is unable to attend regularly to apply for leave of absence if he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can.
  (2) A Lord may apply for leave of absence at any time during a Parliament either for a session or the remainder of the session in which the application is made or for the remainder of the Parliament.
  (3) On the issue of Writs for the calling of a new Parliament the Lord Chancellor shall in writing request every Lord to whom he issues a Writ to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence or no.
  The Lord Chancellor shall, before the beginning of any session of Parliament other than the first, in writing request

  (a) every Lord who have been granted leave of absence ending with the preceding session; and

  (b) every Lord who though not granted leave of absence, did not during the preceding session attend any sitting of the House (other than for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance)

  to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence or no.
  A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being requested to do so may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament.
  (4) A Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not to attend the sittings of the House until the period for which the leave was granted has expired or the leave has sooner ended unless it be to take the Oath of Allegiance.
  (5) If a Lord, having been granted leave of absence, wishes to attend during the period for which the leave was granted, he is expected to give notice to the House accordingly at least one month before the day on which he wishes to attend; and at the end of the period specified in his notice, or sooner if the House so direct, the leave shall end.
  The noble Earl said: I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Business on the Paper.
  Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee on the said Business.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in the proposed new Paragraph (1), after the first word "Lords" to insert, "both Spiritual and Temporal." The noble Viscount said: I have put a number of Amendments on the Paper because the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when this matter was raised the other day, said that it would be most inconvenient if matters were raised without notice; so by the courtesy of the Clerks I put the Amendments down on Friday and they were circulated. The first one I shall deal with in detail in a moment, but I want to make this general remark. These Amendments are framed in a sort of chain, a catena; they all relate to one another. The general effect of them is to show that the plan which is proposed by the Swinton Committee is totally incompatible with the Writ of Summons which we all receive. That is the general purpose of the Amendments. The Amendments themselves I can deal with in sequence.
  As a journeyman working in your Lordships' House, I should like to thank the noble Earl for reviving Rule 55 for the purposes of this debate. It is a very ancient rule of this House which dates back to 1620. I will just read the operative words:
  "To have more freedom of debate, and that arguments may be used (pro and contra), Committees of the Whole House are appointed, sometimes for Bills, sometimes to discuss matters of great moment."
  I believe that that will very much assist debate, and the noble Earl can be well assured that I shall not attempt to prolong the debate, because the art of opposition is not to make long speeches in attack but to promote long speeches in defence.
  The first Amendment I have to move is about the Lords Spiritual. I ask the Government, is it intended that whatever practice we set up for dealing with the absence of Lords Temporal shall apply in exactly the same way to the Lords Spiritual? The reason I ask the question is that if you read the Report of the Merthyr Committee you will find that the Report all the way through deals with Peers—Peers are to do this and Peers are to do that. A Lord Spiritual is not a Peer; he is a Lord of Parliament; and

  893
  therefore I became a little suspicious—or rather not suspicious, but inquiring—when I observed that in the Merthyr Committee Report no mention was made of Lords Spiritual but merely of Peers. On the other hand, the Standing Order which is proposed to your Lordships to-day speaks of "Lords", and "Lords" undoubtedly do include the Lords Spiritual. Therefore, my Amendment can be easily disposed of if the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is going to reply for the Government, can say that the Lords Spiritual will be treated in exactly the same way and be required to give exactly the same explanation of their absence as Lords Temporal.
  There is nothing new about this, and there is nothing disrespectful. Moreover, I should be the last person to suggest that the Lords Spiritual are not fully engaged in their diocesan work; I know that that is the explanation of their absences. But, at the same time, there is a very long history of struggle, of the Crown in the first place, to enforce attendance in your Lordships' House, and it would be a very great pity if a large and very important section of this House were omitted from the scheme. Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl or the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he can clear up this matter. The last time this matter was seriously tackled, I believe, was in 1841, in the trial of Lord Cardigan, but I do not know much about that. The real case worth reading is the trial of Caroline, the Bill for the degradation of the Queen in 1820. There is no doubt that in that case the Lord Chancellor was determined to enforce the Writ of Summons, and the gist of all my Amendments is to show—I will come to that later in the debate when we have the "Second Reading" discussion—that the effect of this scheme is to degrade the Writ of Summons in favour of some private arrangement which we make among ourselves. That is not the way in which the matter was treated in the past.
  THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount pleaded with me to make this a Committee stage. The noble Viscount is now, as I understand it, himself making a speech which he says he is going to make on "Second Reading" later. I hope he will stick to the Committee stage on individual Amendments.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I certainly will reserve what I have to say. I have no desire to diverge. I thought it extremely relevant that it should be made clear that the Lords Spiritual have always been included in these arrangements. I shall therefore merely content myself, in order to put myself strictly in order, because I must refer later to this matter again, with saying that this is what the House resolved in 1820:
  "Resolved, That the Lord Chancellor do write a letter to the several Peers and Prelates of the House in the following terms"
  and then was set out the Resolution; I shall read it when it is in order—
  "and that a copy of the said Resolution do accompany the same."
  It maybe that the Amendment can be withdrawn at once, so long as I am assured that the position of the Bishops is going to be exactly the same as the position of the Temporal Lords in this matter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (1), line 1, after ("Lords") insert ("both Spiritual and Temporal").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE EARL OF HOME: I should always desire to give the noble Viscount immediate and absolute satisfaction. In this case I can. There is no need for this Amendment, as the word "Lords" in Standing Orders undoubtedly covers both Temporal and Spiritual Lords.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then the noble Earl can assure me that the same procedure in the way of communication and reply and publication of names, and so on, will be adopted for the Lords Spiritual as for the Lords Temporal?
  THE EARL OF HOME: Exactly the same.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved in paragraph (1) to leave out "at pleasure" and insert "upon cause shown". The noble Viscount said: There seems to be a peculiar weakening in this paragraph from the position previously taken up by the House. The date given to the Standing Order is 1889, but nobody seems to know how it got there. However,

  895
  Standing Order No. 21, as it is to-day, states that
  "Lords may obtain leave of absence at the pleasure of the House upon cause shown "—
  that is to say, the House could not just do as it pleased but had to be satisfied that there was cause shown. Therefore, the purpose of my Amendment is as follows: I leave out "at pleasure", but I do not mind whether it comes in or not, because it has no particular meaning, or no restrictive meaning, so long as the words "upon cause shown" are inserted. If the Government are willing to insert that Amendment, then I can at once cease speaking.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (1), line 2, leave out ("at pleasure") and insert ("upon cause shown").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Viscount the immediate satisfaction that he got on the last Amendment, and I hope he will bear with me if I follow him into one or two of the historical researches which obviously have occupied his leisure so profitably. It is quite true that the words which he wishes to add occurred in the older Standing Orders, and in the proceedings that Queen Caroline took in 1820 the House, as I think he was beginning to tell us, resolved
  "that no excuse be admitted save liability from age "—
  that is, being of the age of 70 years and upwards, a provision which would be a great depriver to this House in the case of the noble Viscount this afternoon—
  "or from sickness, or from having been out of the Realm in foreign parts or on account of the death of a parent, wife or child, and that every Peer absenting himself from age or sickness do address a letter to the Lord Chancellor stating upon his honour that he is so disabled."
  But in the proceedings in the time of Lord Cardigan, in 1841, the Lord Chancellor was requested to write letters to all Lords to acquaint them that the House expected their attendance on certain dates, and certain Lords sent in excuses. I think I ought briefly to condole with my noble friends on the various indispositions of their ancestors. At that time the Earl of Home said that he
  "cannot in his state of health travel from Scotland at this time of year."
  896
  In relation to my noble friend Lord Perth, the Lord Strathallan said:
  "He is in Scotland and cannot take so long a journey in this inclement season without endangering his health."
  The predecessor of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, just said "Illness". The noble Lord, Lord Stourton, just said "Gout"; and the predecessor of the then Lord Seaton, with the military terseness and discipline that one would expect, just said, "Unable to attend", as did a number of other noble Lords. That is the background of the historical position.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Not the full background. The Lord Chancellor has omitted the other column in the return. There are three or four pages of this return in the Journals of the House saying what penalties were inflicted when the excuse was not accepted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, but I thought that at the moment we were considering the excuses. I assure the noble Viscount that I am charged with that information as well, but I will leave it to him to make that point. But I must proceed to the present position.
  The Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Merthyr considered whether it was any longer necessary or expedient that Peers should give reasons in their applications for leave of absence, and they came to the conclusion that the normal reasons for which, in modern times, a number of Peers did not attend the House, were set out in paragraph 20 of the Swinton Report. Perhaps I may trouble your Lordships with just a sentence of that paragraph, because I think it is most relevant—the noble Viscount will find the paragraph in question at page (viii) of the Report. After setting out the change in the number of Peers—and, if I may take the relevant years, in 1800 there were 150, in 1830 363, and in 1955, 846, which shows the difference in the size of the House—the Swinton Committee went on to say:
  "The Committee have felt obliged to recognise that at present, out of so large a number, there must be many who are unable to attend, either because they are fully occupied with other important duties, or because they feel themselves unfitted for parliamentary work, or for reasons of age, health or expense. Recognition of the undoubted fact that many Peers are thus debarred or prevented from attending the House is not, in the view of the Committee, to be taken as a criticism of such Peers."

  897
  These are the reasons which commended themselves to the Merthyr Committee, and, in view of those reasons, I consider, and I ask the House to accept, that it would really be embarrassing and undesirable for those reasons to be stated.
  I put this in all seriousness to the noble Viscount, because he knows, and I know, of cases where it has been expense. I do not think one ought to dwell on that. We are living in very changed conditions from the times that the noble Viscount has been considering, and I think it would be batter if that were not demanded and that we should proceed to accept the recommendation of the Merthyr Committee, that reasons be not disclosed.
  There is just one other point I should like to make with regard to that matter. The Merthyr Committee say at paragraph 3 (8), at page 4:
  "That while leave of absence would normally be granted automatically on application, it requires to be formally granted by the House."
  The paragraph then goes on to say that the action should be recorded. Then it was suggested that the next paragraph of their Report should be quoted in the Lord Chancellor's letter to the Lords of Parliament. I will read that paragraph to your Lordships because it will be a matter that we shall have to refer to in this discussion. It says:
  "The Committee have given much consideration to the question of whether there should be a closer definition of. 'regular attendance'. The Committee considered that this was neither possible nor desirable. They recognise that this must be a matter for individual interpretation. But in framing the Standing Order the Committee have taken account of the position of Peers who are engaged whole time in the professions and in industry and of others who have extensive commitments in local government or in other voluntary work. They realise that these are unable to devote more than a partial service to the House. They recall that such Peers have in the past made valuable contributions, based on their own knowledge and experience, to the work of the House in Debates, it the revision of the Bills and in Private Bill and other Select Committees. They believe that the House would be reluctant to lose the services of such Peers and that Peers in this position need not feel themselves under any obligation, in consequence of their inability to attend regularly, to apply for leave of absence"
  I fully agree, and I should be willing to include that paragraph, which I think would be most helpful, in the letter which I send off if the Standing Order is approved.
  898
  On the general point, the Swinton Committee have given the reasons very fully—I need not go through them again—why this House is entitled to adapt its procedure for giving leave, which is excusing absence and which it has exercised certainly for 333 years, to modern conditions; and it is entitled, in my view, to grant leave without cause shown, as was the intention of the two Committees which this House set up. Therefore, in view largely of the quotation from paragraph 20 and what I have said on it, I would ask the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I think the Lord Chancellor has completely made the case that I am trying to advance before the House. He has shown us that the Writ of Summons is nothing at all—that we may get it in the most insistent, terms and that, because somebody has written a paragraph saying that people are engaged in business, or that there are so many Lords you cannot expect them to do their duty, or 800 cannot do their duty in the way that 300 may do it—here I am being driven into the Second Reading speech that the noble Earl, Lord Home, complained of, because I am following the Lord Chancellor—the whole basis of the House should be altered.
  I am riot in favour of the rigid enforcement of the Writ of Summons, because it has broken down. I would not support the House of Lords as it is, for one moment. I want to clear the site; but that is not the point. The point is that this is an attempt to substitute for the Writ of Summons a number of reasons which I find are really quite unworthy and are, in fact, revolutionary. If no reasons are given, but the list is simply presented, I do not know what will happen. I believe there is to be a list published, but no one will know why the Members are absent or for how long. The words: "If he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can", but there is no definition of "reasonably can". If a man is in business and he says, "I have to go to China for two years, but I shall come as often as I reasonably can", how is that to be considered? The House retains no sort of control. With great respect, I could not possibly accept the Lord Chancellor's appeal. I do not, naturally, intend to ask Members to go into the Lobby,

  899
  although I hope that we shall have an opportunity of voting on some Amendments which will be moved under more reasonable auspices, but I shall insist on this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I intervene for only one moment to remind noble Lords that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was a member of the Swinton Committee. He was a most helpful member of that Committee and was deeply interested in it, but he never took any exception to the Report which the Swinton Committee made and which, as this House knows, was a unanimous Report which has been approved. We went into this matter very carefully in the Swinton Committee, as indeed it was carefully gone into by the Merthyr Committee. That Committee included learned Law Lords as well as perhaps the greatest authority on Parliamentary procedure of our time, the late Lord Campion. We had not the slightest doubt that it was clearly competent for the House to grant leave of absence; that it was the duty of those who could not attend to apply for leave of absence; and that it was well within our powers and would be a satisfactory compliance with the Writ of Summons in the circumstances of to-day if people who could not attend regularly attended as often as they reasonably could. We deliberately set out in paragraph 20, to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred, the reasons for which Members of the House would be likely to, and could reasonably apply for, leave of absence.
  Surely nobody can doubt for a moment, that the House has a right to make a Standing Order about leave of absence. In fact, we have had one for years in the Standing Orders. Equally, nobody can have any doubt that we can vary the form of that Standing Order about whether people should state in terms their reasons, or that reasons can be stated for them, as they are in the Standing Order. I remind the House of that only because I think that noble Lords can be satisfied that it is well within their competence.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl has repeated the Report in interesting terms, and he is quite right when he says that I was a member of his Committee. I admit that in the early days of the
  900
  Committee I had hoped, for certain family reasons of my own, that there might be an escape for my own heir; but I did not attend the concluding sessions of the Committee. I was abroad. Therefore, when the vote was taken that this be the Report, I was not there, and I will take up the position of one who has fallen from grace. However, it is quite irrelevant.
  What the noble Earl is saying is that we have the right to grant leave of absence; but I wish we could have more information regarding Standing Order 21. It has been claimed that we have a right to grant leave of absence upon cause shown. What does this mean? It means that if there is the right to grant a leave of absence, by and large, which overrides the demand of the Writ, surely it strikes at the very root, the foundation, of this House. Therefore, to say that we have always had the right to grant leave of absence is doubtful. This Amendment seeks to clarify what is the root objection to this Committee's Report. It is that it is substituting for a feudal House of Lords, which I do not support, something which is a Committee House of Lords; a closed corporation in which Members among themselves meet and decide who is entitled to come and who is not. That is revolutionary. I am afraid that this is a Second Reading speech again, but it will crop up on every one of these Amendments. Therefore, on this Amendment, with great respect, I shall raise my voice in support.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE had given notice of his intention to move, in paragraph (1), after "proposes" to insert: "bearing in mind the terms of his Writ of Summons". The noble Viscount said: I cannot see how this sort of business can be reconciled. It is being mixed up with solemn assurances which are demanded in the Writ of Summons. The words are given to us, and it is possible simply to say: "I am sorry; I have a board meeting and I cannot attend this morning." I have put this Amendment down, but I do not insist on it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Viscount does not wish to move the Amendment?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No.
  4.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to add to paragraph (3):
  "the terms of this letter shall follow precedent and be reported to the House".
  The noble Viscount said: The Lord Chancellor anticipated what I was going to say on this Amendment by reading Lord Eldon's letter. It was a pretty stiff letter, but he read it. No excuse, disability of age, and so on; but we have had it. He demanded a reply, and the replies to him, and to previous letters of the same kind, were recorded in the Journals of the House. Some excuses were accepted, and some were not. It may be a good reason to do away with all this, but it cannot be done simply by a decision of the Committee of the House. It must be based either upon legislation or upon some alteration of the Royal Prerogative. That is the reason why in my Amendment I include the terms of the letter. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would favour us with a copy of the intimation that he intends to send out. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (3), line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  LORD SALTOUN: I think the noble Viscount has proved too much. He has emphasised the terms of the Writ, and they are very extreme. The noble Viscount, although he is here very often, is not here every day, and I think that he must himself take the terms of the Writ with a certain grain of salt. In fact, we all find it quite impossible, under conditions of modern life, to be here every day. Yet the terms of the Writ are very extreme. I suggest, as I say, that he has preyed too much, and that if the terms of the Writ were meant to be taken literally they would long ago have been modified.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Could the noble Lord find a minute or two to address himself to the Amendment which I have moved, which is that the terms of the Lord Chancellor's letter should be published?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say to the noble Viscount that I think that he has raised an important point, and I am prepared to accept his Amendment in this form—to add to paragraph (3):
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House"
  902
  May I just say why I put it that way—because the Amendment implies that such letters from the Lord Chancellor have always been reported. This is not in accordance with my researches, and therefore I do not like the words "in accordance with precedent" when they are not strictly accurate. I want to be absolutely fair to the argument of the noble Viscount. At certain times, as he has pointed out, the form of the letter has been laid down in detail beforehand, and if the House would bear with me I should just like to give the result of my researches into this matter.
  The most usual form of entry was:
  "Ordered that letters be written by the Lord Keeper to the absent Lords."
  That wording I have actually taken from 1705, but the terms of the letter were not reported. Occasionally the Order was more detailed. I read this because it is interesting to show how the House did attach conditions to the Order. I take one entry of March 11, 1678:
  "Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled that the Lord Chancellor do forthwith write letters to all the Peers and Prelates and Members of the House who have not attended the House of Peers since the beginning of this Parliament requiring the said Lords to come and attend His Majesty's service in the House of Peers intimating in the said letters that such of the said Lords as are within 50 miles of this place do give their said attendance within one week after the receipt of the letters to them respectively sent; and that those Lords who are at a greater distance from this place give their attendance here within a fortnight."
  Then it goes on to deal with age and sickness.
  So far as I can find out, on ten occasions an Order was made for a letter to be written in specific terms—for example, the letter about Queen Caroline's Bill in 1820. These are the only letters of which the terms are recorded. In all the other numerous cases they were not, and no letter was subsequently recorded. The letter which I propose to write, if the House decides in favour of this Standing Order for the purpose of bringing leave of absence into effect during this Parliament was submitted to, and examined by, the Merthyr Committee, and secured their approval. It is all conditional, of course, on the Standing Order being approved. I shall, if I am directed to send it, gladly report this first letter—that as the letter which is dealt with in the next Motion on the Paper—and, for the future, my

  903
  directions are clear in the Standing Order. I shall write the letter in accordance with them. I shall, in accordance with my Amendment to the noble Viscount's Amendment, if he is prepared to accept it, report it to the House; and then, if anyone does not like the form of my letter, that matter can be raised.
  That is with regard to the future, after the Standing Order has been approved. I should also undertake—and I hope your Lordships will find it reasonable—to submit to the Supervisory Committee, a draft of the letter which I propose to write at the beginning of each new Parliament, and I am sure that my successors will be equally glad to do so. The first letter, therefore, has been before the Merthyr Committee; I shall submit any other letter to the Supervisory Committee, and I shall report to the House the letter I have sent, so that the House may have both anticipatory and subsequent method of seeing what I have done.
  I hope that the noble Viscount will take the view that I have tried to meet his point, because, even with the noble Viscount in the House and delighting us with every speech, the idea that we should have perhaps a two-day debate, making this House a drafting Committee, on the letter which I send out, is a prospect which appalls me, and I am sure appalls the House. I hope the noble Viscount will think that I have met him fairly. I suggest that we agree on this variation of his Amendment:
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not quite understand what the Lord Chancellor said. Did he say that the Merthyr Committee had published the terms of his letter?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. I said that I had shown a draft to the Merthyr Committee, so that they would see the sort of letter I had in mind. But I pointed out that it was entirely conditional, because, of course, this House has not yet approved the Standing Order. But I wanted the Committee to know what sort of letter I had it in mind to send out; and they think that it is the right sort of letter. As I said, that letter has been before the Merthyr Committee, and
  904
  I propose that in the future the letters should be submitted to the new Supervisory Committee, so I think I am meeting the spirit of the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am very grateful. I accept the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor to my Amendment, but why is this matter so secret? Why should the letter be submitted to the Merthyr Committee and then to this other Committee? Why cannot we know what the Lord Chancellor is going to say to Members of this House? Surely we can be told the terms of the letter? Are they lengthy?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know if the noble Viscount heard what I said. I said that I thought it would be undesirable, and intensely boring, for this House to form itself into a drafting Committee—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —in order to occupy perhaps two days in debating word for word the letter I am to send out. There are certain things which it is convenient to do through a Committee of the House, and if noble Lords have any observations to make on my draft letters they know me well enough to know that I shall be pleased to make any improvements in those letters.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not want to pursue this aspect, but on this business of working through a Committee, we had an example the other day of someone saying that because a Statutory Order had passed through a committee, your Lordships need not debate it. That idea is a mistake. Power resides in this House, and inasmuch as I attach enormous importance to the terms of the letter and the replies made to it, and the action taken on those replies, I consider that it is a constitutional point of the first order. I should therefore like the terms of the letter to be disclosed. If that is not possible, I will say "No".
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Viscount accept my variation of his Amendment, which goes some way to meet him?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the Lord Chancellor to read it again?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The words are:
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then presumably the letter can be discussed in the House, in which case I accept the Amendment to my Amendment. I believe that it meets my point and I gratefully thank the noble and learned Viscount.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before we leave this Amendment and the paragraph to which it refers there is a point that I should like to raise with the noble and learned Viscount, although it is rather awkward because I do not know if I am in order. The noble and learned Viscount is going to write a letter to every Peer asking each whether or not he wishes to apply for leave of absence
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We do not know what he is going to say.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It says that much on this Paper. Apparently the noble and learned Viscount takes the initiative. He does not wait for a noble Lord to say that he is occupied and cannot perform the duties of the Peerage. Taking the initiative, he asks each noble Lord: "Do you want to have leave of absence?" And the terms of this letter—although the noble and learned Viscount has undertaken to submit it to the House, presumably before he sends it—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble and learned Viscount did not say so.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It seems to me that if the noble and learned Viscount proposes to submit the letter after he has sent it there is not much point in it. Can he answer that now, because if we are not to see the letter before it is sent, I suggest that there is no point at all in seeing it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have submitted to the Merthyr Committee—
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Is it in the Report?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not. I have submitted a form of letter to the Merthyr Committee, and they have approved it; and that seems to cover us
  906
  for the first occasion, which is really the one concerned in the next Motion. I feel that it is more convenient that what is really a matter of drafting should be dealt with by a Committee; but the terms of the letter will be reported to your Lordships' House, and it will then be possible for any noble Lord to raise a point if I have gone wrong. But, of course, it will also be possible (and this is a point which your Lordships have to bear in mind) for anyone to answer my letter saying, "I do not apply for leave of absence," in which case the whole scheme will not apply to him. That is why I say that it is, in fact, a voluntary scheme.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment, surely the Peer has simply to say "I do not apply for leave." He need not say that he has some reason for not applying.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then what has become of the Writ? What happens if, having received a Writ from Her Majesty the Queen, I inform the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that I do not intend to obey?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Obviously I am speaking indistinctly: a noble Lord can say, "I do not apply for leave of absence", and then the scheme does not apply to him at all.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But he has to attend.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am very much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount. I agree that this is not something to draft in this House. I am on the question of principle—what, in principle, the letter is going to say: and I am surprised that an initiative is taken under this scheme. Here are Members of Parliament, Peers who have the duty to attend Parliament, and it seems odd that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, of all people, should say, before they have a chance to come to the House, "Would you like leave of absence?" That is an odd thing to do. It is odd that if a Member of Parliament seeks to escape from his constitutional obligations, perhaps because he cannot carry them out for some reason, the initiative craving leave of absence should not be on him. He should rot be, as it were, invited—

  907
  and perhaps incited—by the Lord Chancellor to ask for leave of absence.
  What happens if a Peer feels slightly affronted by receiving this letter—as I believe I should feel—and does not answer it? This document says:
  "A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being requested to do so may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament."
  Who decides whether he "may be granted" leave? It seems to me that nobody has the right to give him leave of absence against any intimation from him that he wishes to receive it. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will say that this is a Second Reading speech, but it comes immediately upon the question of the text of the invitation to apply for leave of absence, and I thought that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount might care to develop the matter a little here.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I add a word? This again is a matter which the House has already twice debated and decided. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is not arrogating to himself some special right without the authority of the House to communicate. I do not know whether the noble Lord attended all the earlier debates—
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: No.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I do not know whether he attended the debate in which your Lordships' House carried a Resolution adopting the ten paragraphs of what is called the Swinton Report and directed the Standing Order to be made—which was all that the Merthyr Committee did. Paragraph 33 (b) which the House has already approved in terms says:
  "That a communication be addressed to all Members of the House at the beginning of every Parliament, stating that if they desire to be relieved of the obligation of attendance they should apply for leave of absence, either for the duration of the Parliament or for any shorter period, and further that they should state in reply to such communication whether they do or do not desire to apply for leave of absence."
  That has already been approved by this House and all the new Standing Order does is what the House resolved some months ago to do—that is, to say to the Committee: "Will you please draft a
  908
  Standing Order in terms carrying out what we have now instructed you to do." The noble Lord is really starting a complete mare's nest, because in writing this letter the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will only be doing in writing what your Lordships have already instructed should be done.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl has forgotten already the first words of his own Report, that
  "It is not our business to say what ought to be done but what can be done."
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: Of course I have not at all forgotten that, and I am not referring to what was merely said in the Report. I am referring to the decision taken by this House, which passed a Resolution saying: "We approve of the Swinton Report and we instruct the Merthyr Committee, and we decide that that should be carried into effect by a Standing Order; and we instruct the Merthyr Committee to present us with such a Standing Order." Of course our Committee do not decide what the House should do. Our Committee told the House what it could do, and then the House considered the Report and said, "We think this is a good and practical Report; we wish it carried out, and we so instruct you.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am surprised that a former Member of another place can make such a speech. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that a Report cannot be approved "globally" in that way. We must have put before us something to which we can move Amendments and examine clause by clause. Of course the House approved it in general.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: The House did not in the least approve it in general. Really, the noble Viscount must not mislead the House, either wilfully or by accident. The Motion before the House was quite specific: "That this House approves certain sections of the Swinton Report "—naming those sections—" and directs that that be carried out by Standing Order."
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It may allay the noble Earl's heat if I remind him that my question was asked, in all sincerity, of the Lord Chancellor, and it is the Lord Chancellor who has been courteous enough to answer it. The second point is that the noble Earl was

  909
  a Member of another place long enough, as I was, to learn that on the Committee stage on any business one is fully entitled to seek certain assurances.
  LORD GIFFORD: May I raise one point for clarification? As I recollect it, the original wording was:
  "A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days … shall be deemed to have asked for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament."
  Is that not so?
  5.11 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very anxious that there should be not the slightest doubt on this point. My noble friend Lord Swinton is correct as to procedure, and if the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will look at the next Motion on the Paper (I am anticipating it. but I want to keep the matter in order) he will see that my noble friend Lord Home is to move:
  "That, for the purpose of giving effect to the above Standing Order during the present Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall forthwith send a copy of the Standing Order to every Lord to whom he has issued a Writ of Summons to this Parliament and who has not during this session attended a sitting of the House (except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) … and shall request every such Lord to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence for the next session of this Parliament or for the remainder of this Parliament or whether he does not wish so to apply. If a Lord fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being required to do so he may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament."
  We shall be considering that Motion in a moment. If the House passes it, I shall send out accordingly the letter I have undertaken to send, because that is the first procedure. That letter, which is the letter that has been considered by the Merthyr Committee, will be reported to the House. The last thing I want to do is to keep any letter from the House; but I think, as I have said (I am sorry to repeat it), that in all quarters of the House noble Lords would be intensely bored if we got into a drafting session on the Amendment. I hope I have made the position clear.
  Lotto WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It was clear, and I am the last to want to deal with a draft. The point raised by the noble Earl was completely wrong. The important point has been altered since we received the Committee's Report, and it is that point on which I wish to speak.
  910
  The Report from the Select Committee, Paragraph (c), states:
  "that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded as having applied for leave of absence".
  That is very different from the present wording which is put forward: that a Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days "may be granted" leave of absence. Does that mean that the Lord Chancellor has discretion? If he has not got discretion, who has it? And what does "may be" mean, if not "may be"?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is at the House's discretion. That was put in to answer a point raised in one of our earlier debates. It was suggested that it was bouleversement, on giving leave of absence, to say, "If you do not apply for leave of absence, or do not say you do not want it, then you get it." So the form was altered into a permissive form, so that the House could, despite the fact that the noble Lord had not answered, not deem him to have applied for leave of absence and not put him on the leave of absence list. It means that if he communicated to the House and said, "I have not answered because my letters have gone astray," or, "I have been pressed. Would you communicate my desire?" the House has the discretion not to put him on the list.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: That is very important. I am indebted to the Lord Chancellor. It means that if someone does not answer he will not have leave of absence imposed upon him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. It is at the discretion of the House to grant leave of absence, but the House can decide either way.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does it mean that we are going to revert to the old practice of the seventeenth century, when individual cases were dealt with? There may be a case of recalcitrance: someone is angry and says, "I am not going, and I am not answering your letter." What do you do then? The Lord Chancellor says that it will be for the House to decide. Will an individual case be brought forward that Lord X, not having replied to the Lord Chancellor's letter, shall be excluded from attendance for the remainder of the Parliament? Is it individual, and is it in effect mandatory?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not mandatory. Would the noble Viscount look at paragraph 3 (2) of the Merthyr Report. That paragraph reads:
  "That the communication mentioned in paragraph (b) should be issued by the Lord Chancellor and that Peers should be requested to reply to it within twenty-eight days of its issue; and that a further letter be sent by the Lord Chancellor to any Peer who fails to reply within this period, stating that unless within a further period of seven days he notifies his desire to the contrary he will be considered to have applied for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament."
  On that, the original Standing Order was framed. The point was developed that we did not want him to be automatically deemed to have applied for leave of absence, but we wanted it left to the discretion of the House, so that if he raised the point, or if someone else did, the House could say, dealing with the individual case, that he would not be considered to have applied for leave of absence and would not get it. It was to give more flexibility and to protect the individual all the more.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is a very interesting prospect. It means that people who do not apply may get leave automatically, and then you go on to say that if a man complains that he has leave of absence without asking for it, then the House has to decide. I do not know how long it is since this House took the case of Lord "So-and-So" and decided whether he should have leave of absence. It must be a long time ago. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would tell us something about that historically.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We shall have a full opportunity of discussing the position on a subsequent Amendment. On this Amendment I have gone far towards meeting the noble Viscount, and he has said he will accept my form, so we will deal with this point and consider the others later on.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In that case I will not insist on my original form.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I put the Amendment as amended.
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to—namely, to add to Paragraph (3):
  "The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House."
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I ask one question on the proposed Standing Order 21 (1)? It says:
  "… proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can."
  This is my second visit to the House this year, and I should like to know—
  THE EARL OF HOME: Would the noble Marquess mind raising this point at a later stage? I do not think this is quite the place at which to raise this particular point.
  5.20 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in Paragraph (4), to omit expected". The noble Viscount said: This word "expected" is a very interesting word. I have read Standing Orders very often and I read them through specially to find out whether the word "expected" occurred, and from start to finish it does not—because they are Standing Orders. "Expected" would be a suitable word for a Companion to the Standing Orders, advising noble Lords on what to do and what not to do; but what sort of Order is it that says that a noble Lord is "expected" to do something and provides no sanctions if he does not do it? Therefore, I should like to know whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has any objection to the omission of the word "expected," which appears to be entirely alien to the character of Standing Orders and to be taking away with one hand what it professes to give with the other. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (4), line 1, leave out ("expected").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE EARL OF HOME: There was a choice of words before us at an earlier stage of these proceedings. The House has no power to prescribe that a Peer should not attend. Therefore, the Standing Order deliberately uses the words "is expected", so as to avoid any implication that we want to order a Peer. The idea is to establish a convention. The question at the earlier stage was whether the word used should be "should". My noble friend Lord Saltoun objected to "should" as being too mandatory. I have never been sure myself, possibly like the noble Viscount, of what is the difference between "should"

  913
  and "is expected." It so happened that a number of my colleagues and I were talking about this, when the Prime Minister reminded me of an extract from the old Army Manual, which will probably be familiar to your Lordships, and which reads:
  "Officers of field rank on entering balloons are not expected to wear spurs."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: There is another quotation:
  "England expects every man to do his duty."
  THE EARL OF HOME: I am bound to say that I wobbled between the word "should" and "is expected." On the previous occasion the majority of your Lordships felt that we should use the term which was less mandatory, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. I "should expect" that he would not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, this discussion is very relevant to the Amendment which I propose to move later. I do not think that it would be convenient for me now to say anything about the use of the single word "expected". If I say nothing, it is because I reserve what I have to say on that point until we come to my Amendment.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: On the advice of an ex-Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.23 pan.
  LORD WRENBURY LORD WRENBURY had given Notice of several Amendments to paragraphs (4) and (5), the first being in paragraph (4), after "House" to insert "for the purpose of voting and speaking". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, as all my Amendments deal with much the same point I will speak on them altogether. I cannot see any reason why a Peer should be prevented from sitting in your Lordships' House; so long as he is prevented from speaking and voting unless he is a regular attender. It is obvious, I should have thought, that it is very much in the interests of the House that a great many Peers should not either speak or vote, for various reasons. I have always taken the view that younger Peers would do much better to bide their time until they had experience which would be of some use to the House, and I cannot help feeling that many people have
  914
  come to the same conclusion. I think that they would be wise to wait for a number of years. How much more palatable their advice will be with ripe age and a few grey hairs!
  I think that if Peers are not allowed to sit in this House, certain anomalies follow. Peeresses will be permitted to sit and listen to debates; the eldest sons will presumably be able to sit on the steps of the Throne; and visitors will be allowed to sit in the Strangers' Gallery. It would be an extraordinary position, I think, if a Peer were not allowed to attend the House. Furthermore, I think—and this is the whole point of my Amendments—it would benefit the House if younger Peers were to become familiar with what goes on in the House so that they can be of use later.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I wonder if I may reassure the noble Lord …
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order! The noble Lord is making a maiden speech.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
  LORD WRENBURY: I am very anxious that no difference should be made between working and non-working Peers. It seem to me that, if this scheme goes through, that will be the result, although it does not specifically say so.
  I feel that tradition is capable of springing up more quickly in these surroundings than anywhere else, and the danger is that it will become taken for granted that there are certain professional Peers, who do their duty and turn up regularly, and certain Peers who do not do so. It is perfectly true that the remedy lies with a Peer himself, but my own view is that for some of them there is more virtue in staying away than in attending. I am still thinking particularly of those who are either in professions or in business, where often it is not possible, especially if a noble Lord is in the position of an employee, to make arrangements for attending, certainly not for attending regularly, unless "regularly" means something very different from what we all take it to mean. It is not good enough to say that the Peers to whom I refer are not going to be in a position to make some useful contribution to the work of the House. They

  915
  may well be able to do so in future. All credit to them if they now say that they are not in a position to make a contribution of much value, because they are either in training or not in a position to do so; because in a few years' time they may be in that position.
  So far as I can see, the Merthyr Committee's recommendations take account of the fact that valuable contributions have been made by Peers who are not elevated from another place or professional politicians in some other way. I believe that people drawn from all walks of life can usefully attend, and I feel that they should not be debarred from the educational, and I should say pleasurable, opportunities of attending debates in this House until they reach a particular stage in their careers. Certainly I gain a great deal of pleasure from listening to speakers here, and I think it would be a mistake to stop that process of education. I once attended a party in this House and at the end of it a Peer came to me and said: "Do you often attend the House?" I said: "As a matter of fact, it is very difficult for me to attend, because my office closes at quarter to six." He then said: "You are exactly the sort of person we want. The Benches in the House become so empty round about that time, the more people we can get to attend then, the better." If that view is seriously held, then it is illogical to say that noble Lords may not attend debates. That is the point I have in mind.
  I think it might go even further. Once there is this dichotomy between working and non-working Peers, I think there will rather to devolve on those who attend be a temptation for Peers' privileges regularly, as opposed to those who do not. I admit that it does not say so, but I can see tickets for the Trooping the Colour and various other ceremonies going to those who attend regularly. I should have thought that that point was worth considering, because the whole essence of this scheme takes it for granted that it is a virtue to attend the House as regularly as possible. The purpose of my Amendments is to recognise that in many cases it may be a virtue to stay away, not because a Peer is old or infirm, but because he takes his job seriously and does not feel in a position to make a worthwhile contribution until he knows
  916
  it properly. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Paragraph (4), line 2, after ("House") insert the said words.—(Lord Wren bury.)
  THE EARL or HOME: I am sure your Lordships will hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, having taken his courage in his hands and made such an excellent maiden speech, will come and address us often, and that we shall see and hear him as often as he can reasonably get here. I rather think that I agree with most of the noble Lord's objectives. He wants the young Peers to come here and be able to make a contribution to our proceedings; and I think all your Lordships would wish to see that. He does not want the House to become hardened into a hard core of regular attenders, without any dilution from outside of those who have experience of outside interests and outside work. We should certainly agree with that, too. But I do not know whether the noble Lord has realised what would be the effect of his Amendment. What he is really asking is a special form of leave of absence for a Peer who in fact he wishes to be present. He really wants this young Peer to be present and to be able to sit here and learn wisdom from all he hears round about him.
  I am bound to confess that for a long time I was attracted by the theory of the two Writs: that there might be a Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak, and another Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak and also to vote. I think that only one other noble Lord was attracted by the idea, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and therefore I dropped it. I do not really think it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, as he would do by his Amendment, to create a type of Peer, a creature unknown in Parliament before, who would simply sit here and never speak or vote. I do not believe—and I have given the matter further examination—that we can really divorce sitting and speaking and voting. Therefore, I cannot encourage the noble Lord to think that I can accept the series of Amendments he has put on the Paper—and I take it that he is discussing them altogether.
  I would say, however, that I am perfectly certain that the words of the Standing Order need not discourage any

  917
  young Peer in business from coming to this House. The interpretation of as often as he reasonably can" in such a case would possibly be no more than once or twice a Session if the young Peer was exceptionally busy. I should like to make it clear at this point that I feel there is nothing in this Standing Order which would prevent such a young Peer from coming, and that "as often as he reasonably can" would be interpreted by the rest of his Peers as "as often as he can fit it into his career outside the House".
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This would seem to be a convenient moment to ask the noble Earl what happens to a man who gets leave of absence and turns up. Where does he sit? Is he entitled to go about the House? Can he come into the House? What is "inside the House"? Is it below the Bar, or above the Bar?
  A NOBLE LORD: In the bar!
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Can we have some explanation about the position of the disinherited Peer?
  THE EARL OF HOME: The joke of the noble Lord behind me was so good that I could not hear what the noble Viscount said.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was making a practical point. In the other place, when a man who has not taken the Oath appears (it happened to me once, by accident), he can be told that he is subject, under information, to a forfeit of £100 a day. What happens to a Peer who has been told that, willy-nilly, he is on leave of absence and who says: "I should like to go down to the House"—perhaps because he has friends there? Does he sit in the Gallery? Does he sit on the steps of the Throne? I only ask this for information.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think a question is to be asked on this point later. I believe the answer is that the Merthyr Committee considered the point and felt that such a Peer should have all the facilities of the House; but if he attempts to go into the Chamber, then he has to take the Oath before he can sit.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not see how you can take the Oath without attending a Sitting. A noble Lord takes the Oath, but he has a leave of absence, being in possession of the Oath. He then sits on the steps of the Throne. Is he
  918
  allowed to do that? I do not know. I do not believe that anyone has given thought to this matter at all; they have put the whole thing into a basket and shaken it up, because they wanted to get the scandal of the absent Peers dealt with, and I think they have made the case worse.
  THE EARL OF HOME: Some thought has been given to this matter, and I feel quite certain that a Peer who takes the Oath will not be able to sit in the Chamber although he will be able to sit on the steps of the Throne. I speak subject to corroboration, but I feel reasonably certain that that is correct.
  LORD WRENBURY: I cannot quite see why. Quite clearly, the object is not to save space. These seats are so much more comfortable than the steps of the Throne, and I cannot see why one should not sit in them.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: Perhaps I can answer that question—and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, on his speech. We on the main Committee did consider this point carefully—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, will, I think, confirm it. It really arose on whether "speech" and "vote" could be treated as separate things. That was really the proposal of the late Lord Exeter, which was debated in this House some years ago. We came to the conclusion, advised by Lord Morton of Henryton and others, that it was not possible to make a distinction between the speech and the vote. Therefore I think the short answer to the noble Lord is that it would not be possible by a Standing Order—it would require an Act of Parliament—to create the two new kinds of Peers which my noble friend the Leader of the House has suggested, the non-vocal Peer and the vocal voting Peer. That certainly could not be done by the House by its own Standing Order. But the whole object of the Report of the Committee was that those who could attend occasionally—and I hope everybody who attends this House will not think he has got to make a speech whenever he attends—of course would not apply for leave of absence, and that would apply to the noble Lord, who, when he receives the Lord Chancellor's letter, will say, "I am going to go as often as I can "—and I hope that it will be fairly often.
  LORD WRENBURY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS VISCOUNT SIMONDS rose to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Standing Order, to leave out paragraph (4). The noble and learned Viscount said: I should like, if I may, though I do not immediately follow the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, to add my congratulations to those of speakers who have spoken, and I do so because I remember as a young counsel more than fifty years ago trembling before his grandfather and receiving much kindness from him.
  I move the Amendment which stands in my name. I am encouraged to do it by the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, looking at me, said that he hoped to take part in a Division moved under more respectable auspices. I shall give him that opportunity. The Amendment that I move is to omit paragraph (4) of the proposed Order.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to ask whether it would be convenient for him that we should discuss his two Amendments together, and then he can decide whether to move them.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: If the House accepts my view of paragraph (4) probably little discussion will be necessary on paragraph (5). On the other hand, if it rejects my view of paragraph (4) I do not think I shall bother to move paragraph (5).
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, permit some of his camp followers to vote against paragraph (5) if they like?
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I will give the noble Viscount the opportunity of taking part in two Divisions. My Amendment proceeds on the footing that paragraph (1) of the Standing Order is accepted, and there has been no Motion to delete it. Therefore, I am dealing in paragraph (4) with a Lord who under that Order has to attend the sittings of the House or, if he cannot do so, obtain leave of absence. That is, of course, mandatory. I am omitting the people who, for one reason or another, do not come within that because they are within the proviso and
  920
  do not require to get leave; I am dealing only with people who have obtained leave.
  Before I come to what I have to say myself, I want to say this. My noble friend Lord Salisbury has been prevented, quite unavoidably, from coming here today. He regrets it very much because he wished to put his views upon this Amendment before the House. He called me out of the House the other day. We had a long discussion and he asked me to put his views before the House. I think your Lordships would all desire to have the views of the noble Marquess who, I suppose, more than anybody in this House is imbued with its ancient traditions and anxious for its future, and whose wisdom and counsel has guided us through so many years.
  What the noble Marquess wished me to say was this. First, that his views broadly—and I use his very words—coincide with mine. Let me say that I hope I am pretty well word perfect in this, because I am anxious not to misrepresent in any way what falls from a noble Lord whose influence is so great. I asked him to commit it to writing; and although I cannot make his speech in this House I can tell you as accurately as possible what are his views. His views are, first of all, these: that leave of absence given by this House on the authority, the delegation, of the Sovereign, cannot override in importance the peremptory terms of the Writ. Therefore, if any Peer, notwithstanding that he has leave of absence, yet finds unexpectedly that he can take his place in this House—it may be that for some strong reasons of conscience he feels impelled, whatever his other obligations, to come here and take his seat—he should, notwithstanding that the period of absence has not expired, be entitled to do it without any moral stigma (these, again, are the noble Marquess's words) attaching to him.
  The words in paragraph (4), "a Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not …", convey to him, as they do to me, a moral flavour, and he feels most strongly that those words ought to find no place in the Standing Order. They do, of course, to some people, apparently, not convey any moral flavour, and to those persons the words are not objectionable; but if they suggest in any way a moral stigma, the flavour that the Peer who comes is doing something that

  921
  he ought not to do, then to the noble Marquess, as to me, they ought to find no place in the Standing Order of this House.
  It is only right that I should go on to say, and this again is what the noble Marquess told me, that in view of the concessions which the noble Earl who leads the House had made in attempting to meet the objections of the noble Marquess and many of his friends, though he could not vote for the new Standing Order he did not propose to take any part, if he had been here, in the Division. That is out of friendship and loyalty to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. But his last words were these. He said, "I hope you will make it absolutely clear that a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons has a right to attend which is not to be qualified or nullified by any action of the House." Those are his words as near as I can recollect. I think they must have great weight with all your Lordships, even though, as it appears, contrary to what I understood was to be the position, a Government Whip has been issued in this matter. That is nothing to do with me, except to say that I sit on the Cross-Benches and am unmoved by Whips from one side or the other.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think we have had three debates in this House deliberately without a Government Whip, but there must come a point where a Government must make up its mind.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I quite agree. I understood—and this is relevant to something the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said more than once—that this matter was down for consideration on Committee in order that we might have the opportunity of moving Amendments, and it seems to me to be worth nothing that on previous occasions noble Lords have made speeches or, indeed, committees hive reported. We are here to consider now whether this should be the Standing Order of the House. If we are told "It is no use saying that", I really do not know why we have a debate at all.
  I believe that if I were a good advocate I should leave the matter with the indication of the noble Marquess's views to the House. But I do not think that he would wish me to do that, and so I will, with your Lordships' permission, somewhat elaborate (though it is nothing more) what the noble Marquess has said.
  922
  I think that all your Lordships would at once see how the last words that I used—that the right of a Peer to attend and speak and vote, should not be qualified or nullified by any action of this House—in effect repeat what the Swinton Committee itself said. I thought the most salient point in the whole of that Report was where it said that it is not legitimate for the House, under the guise of granting leave of absence to a Peer, in effect to deprive him of his right to sit and vote. What else do you do when you say to a Peer, "You have got to get leave of absence. You can get leave of absence only for a term, which may be the rest of the Session or the rest of this Parliament; and when you have got that leave you are not to come back except upon three "(now one) "months' notice."
  I use the words "are not to come back." The words in the Standing Order, as amended, are "is expected not to come back." That is an Amendment to the original form of the Order" should not come back." I have not heard from anybody—I suppose I have not had the opportunity of hearing from anybody—what the difference is between those two things. It is quite clear that to many people there is a significant difference. There is not to me, although, of course, there may be to others. There is not to me any more than there was, and I suppose still is, to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: Not merely to me, but the whole of my Committee.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I am choosing the noble Earl because I attach so much weight to what he says. What the noble Earl said was—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1063:
  " There is not the least doubt that the word ' should ' has, in fact, the same legal interpretation as ' is expected '."
  I am happy to agree with him. I am the more happy to agree with him because I am not agreeing with him in a good deal, and he has been rather sharp with me at times, although I hope that sixty years of friendship will stand the strain. But whether the words are "is expected" or "should," it is quite clear, I would suppose to anybody, that those words are put in with some intention. What is the intention? Are they

  923
  not intended to deter the Peer who, during the period of his leave of absence, finds he can come back? Why else is he told that he is "not expected"? As I say, it is possible for a different view to be taken; but that that view is taken will appear very clearly.
  Now I venture to cite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I do so not only because his speeches on their merit carry so much weight, but because I know that he speaks for a representative and respectable body of Peers. What the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said was this—I quote from column 1020:
  "It was precisely for this reason that the proposed Standing Orders have been drafted, so that a Peer who had obtained leave of absence would be unable to attend the House and vote without giving three months' notice."
  I think, if I may say so, that Lord Teynham is quite right. But that is not the view accepted by everybody, because consider what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr said.
  LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? What I intended to indicate was—and I think the noble Viscount will agree—that the whole question is entirely one of a voluntary basis, and therefore a noble Lord is not in any way prevented from coming back to the House.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I will deal with the question of a voluntary basis later. As the noble Lord has challenged me on that, I must point out that he goes on to say that it becomes a Standing Order. What he said was:
  "As your Lordships know, in the past, for many years now, we have never had any trouble about the breaking of Standing Orders. On the other hand,"—
  observe how military the noble Lord is—
  "I suggest we should remember that it would in fact be possible for a Resolution to be moved in the House for ' contempt' should a Peer break a Standing Order".
  Then he refers to a Report of the Select Committee.
  I cannot doubt that many noble Lords, on being told that they are not expected to attend the House, would regard themselves as under a moral obligation. I cannot help reminding the noble Lord who sits on my left that he has immortalised himself by saying that he would rather commit any offence against the law
  924
  than break a Standing Order. What is the position of the Peer who is told that if he comes to this House before his period of absence has expired he is breaking a Standing Order, and, in the view of Lord Teynham, a Resolution may be moved to commit him for "contempt"? Who can doubt but that that has the same force as has summoning Black Rod and telling him to exclude a Peer who is breaking a Standing Order?
  In view of that, how very unreal it is for the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who takes quite a different view, of course, of the meaning of the words "is expected", to say what he said in the House. What Lord Merthyr said will be found at column 1048 [Vol. 208] of the OFFICIAL REPORT. There he said:
  "If there is one thing that I particularly want to say this afternoon, with considerable emphasis, it is that there is not a word in this Report which will in any way, if it is adopted, take away the rights of your Lordships' House or the Members thereof."
  He goes on to say that he wants to emphasise that point particularly because he is differing from me. Then he says:
  "I believe that this question is vital, and if I thought for one moment that this Standing Order did take away a right which has been enjoyed by your Lordships' House for centuries I should not be standing here supporting it or proposing it. But in fact I have no doubt whatever that it does nothing of the kind."
  How can that be said? In the one case, if there is not this Standing Order, a noble Lord is as free as air to come into the House. Pass this Standing Order and he is under the menace that he may be committed for contempt. At any rate, if he is not committed for contempt he comes under the severe condemnation of this House because he is breaking a Standing Order, and then the noble Lord may find his rights are taken away. In one case he is a free man; in the other he is in bondage.
  Which is the right view? I do not think it much matters which is the right view, if there is such a thing as a right view when you are construing words of this kind. What matters is that to many people it must appear plain that these words do restrict their right to come into this House. If they take that view—and it is a reasonable view to take—it cannot matter that other people take a different view. Therefore, such words as these

  925
  ought not to find any place in a Standing Order of this House. If one person can sensibly say, "I have my Writ. It is true that I have leave of absence and that might affect my duty, but it does not affect my right and I propose to come", and he is told: "No, you are not expected surely that cannot be a constitutional exercise of the rights of this House.
  When I spoke on the last occasion it was somewhat early in the debate, and I said then, with all sincerity, that I had not seen any effective answer to the constitutional point which I then raised and indeed, raised on a previous occasion, many years before I occupied the Woolsack. I said, with all sincerity, that if the Lord Chancellor, who I presumed would answer me, could convince me, I would willingly withdraw. My Lords, I can only say, with great respect and perhaps sorrow, that I was never less convinced by anything than by the speech of the Lord Chancellor on that occasion. Apart from frequent citation of authorities, which, I venture to suggest, was not what the House wanted as much as reason, the noble and learned Viscount made two material contributions to our debate. The first is contained in Hansard, Vol. 208, col. 1073, when the noble and learned Viscount was answering a point that I had made. He was good enough to say that the point which I had made really did "not become any the stronger however often it was repeated". I am sorry if I trespassed too much upon his patience. He said:
  "That is the view of the noble and learned Viscount. My view is that it does not deprive anyone of the right to sit and vote but lays down the manner in which that right shall be exercised. That is the difference between us."
  Then Hansard reports that several noble Lords cried "No, No." That does not surprise me. It is said that a noble Lord can come to the House and be told: "You are not expected; you cannot come and sit and vote," and the noble and learned Viscount says that that is a way of directing the method in which he shall vote! It is a curious way of directing the method in which he shall vote during the next three months. The method of directing that Peer how he is to vote is, apparently, to tell him to get out. With great respect, I cannot help feeling that if the noble and learned Viscount reflects upon that argument, he
  926
  will think that it is hardly worth while putting before the House. To tell a Peer that he cannot come and that he is not expected to come is equivalent to excluding him and depriving him of his vote.
  The other contribution which the noble and learned Viscount made is prefaced by reminding Members that the Lord who has obtained leave of absence has done so under the direction of the House. That is the Order which I read at the opening of my speech. A Peer having obtained leave of absence, it is suggested that some sort of scheme is entered into as a result of which he is bound by any other conditions, lawful or unlawful, which the House chooses to impose. The noble Viscount is reported at column 1076 of Hansard as saying:
  " … if a Peer voluntarily comes into a scheme like this, then he should not be able to give up and return to the House without some period being involved, and that that period should be of some length of time. That is a condition on which one gets into a scheme."
  Those noble Lords who were present may remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, intervened and said to his noble and learned friend that his conception was slightly different. A Peer comes into the scheme because under the Standing Order of this House he does what he is told to do. He has asked for leave of absence. He is told that he must get leave; he gets leave and then he is told, "You have entered into a scheme and you must stay away for as long as we want you to stay away." That is an argument which ought not and cannot, in my submission, weigh anywhere.
  I simply want to emphasise what to me seems so clear, namely, that when such words as "are not expected", "should not", "ought not", or whatever they may be, are used, it is in effect placing a grave obstacle in the way of a Peer who wishes to do his duty. I do not see how it can be done. When we say that a Peer is not expected, let us be more vivid about it. He comes with his Writ prepared to do his duty and anxious to exercise his right, but the Lord Chancellor says, "You may be anxious and willing, but I do not expect you." It will not hold water. Therefore, I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which will exclude

  927
  this threat and leave the House in the position in which it ought to be of seeing that noble Lords obtain leave of absence when they apply and, having obtained it, stay away just as long as they feel they cannot do their duty and exercise their right.
  I have found frequently in this debate the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton occurring. The noble and learned Lord is most anxious at the earliest possible moment to make clear what he intended when he took part in the Committee proceedings of this House, and I hope that he may be allowed to do so at an early stage.
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: This proposed Standing Order is, of course, founded on the leave of absence scheme which appears in the Swinton Report. I was a member of the Swinton Committee but I have not taken part in the previous debates which have dealt with this subject because I did not wish to speak either for or against the leave of absence scheme. But I feel that I ought to say something in this debate, because, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, says, my name was referred to frequently on the last occasion when the Standing Order in its original form—it has of course undergone a change—was debated.
  I should like to start by reminding the House of one paragraph in the Swinton Report. It is paragraph 21 and reads as follows:
  "The Committee gave most careful consideration to a number of proposals all of which, in the view of the Committee, would have had the effect of derogating, in greater or less degree, from the right conferred upon a Peer by his Writ to attend and take part in the proceedings of Parliament."—
  Then other proposals were mentioned, and the paragraph continues:
  "All these proposals would, in the view of the Committee, contravene the principle laid down in the Earl of Bristol's case and would therefore be ultra vires."
  After mentioning certain other proposals the paragraph concludes:
  "It was further suggested that the House might make use of its power to regulate its own procedure and to order what might be called its domestic arrangements, in such a manner as to exclude Peers who did not regularly attend All those expedients, in the view
  928
  of the Committee, would amount to the exclusion, or partial exclusion, of a Peer from the House, and would not be within the power of the House to enforce."
  May I couple with that, just to emphasise it, a short portion of paragraph 29, to which the noble Viscount. Lord Simonds, also referred:
  "the Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be legitimate for the House, under the guise of granting leave of absence to a Peer, in effect to deprive him of his right to sit, speak and vote."
  Now, my Lords, in view of these passages, when I read and considered the scheme set out in paragraph 33 of the Report, containing the words:
  "Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend,"
  I felt no doubt that it could not have been intended by this scheme to impose any bar or restriction whatsoever on a Peer who was on leave of absence if he felt that he ought to come back to the House while he was on leave of absence. There was no restriction on him whatsoever. I interpreted the words "is not expected" somewhat in this way. Let me picture a Peer who is on leave of absence coming back. A Member of the House says to him, "We did not expect to see you here" but he replies, "Well, I felt that I should like to take part in this debate, and so I have come." Now that, to my mind, is a perfect answer. If the words are that he "is expected not to attend", they are words of expectation, and I interpreted them as a natural expectation which might or might not be fulfilled.
  But when the Standing Orders were drafted I found that the words "expected not to attend" were altered to "should not attend." I ventured, with some hesitation, to approach the Leader of the House on that subject and express the hope that possibly the words might be altered back to the words of the Swinton Committee—" is expected not to attend." To my mind, the two phrases are different, and I ventured to observe that, if there is no difference in meaning between the two of them, why alter the words of the Swinton Report? I do not say that it was because of this request of mine in the least, but it is a fact that the present Standing Orders go back to the words "is expected not to attend". Now, to me these words still mean, as they meant when I concurred in the Report of the Swinton Committee, merely a matter of

  929
  expectation. The view that I take, and have always taken, is that any Peer on leave of absence is perfectly free to come and sit and speak and vote at any time, and I gather from what the Leader of the House has already said this afternoon that that is the view of the Government.
  In these circumstances, and having made the proposal which was ultimately accepted, I do not feel that I can possibly vote for the Amendment which is being proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, but I do feel that if there are other Members of the House to whom the words "is expected not to attend" have a different meaning or a different flavour, then this suggested Amendment raises a very serious question for consideration.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I would say that in spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, it was quite clear that the Select Committee were anxious that Peers granted leave of absence should give reasonable notice before returning to the business of the House, and this view has already been accepted by the House in previous debates on the matter. As I have pointed out already in a reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, the whole scheme is on a voluntary basis, and all the House is being asked to do is to regulate its procedure. I personally do not think it would be right that a Peer who is on leave of absence should be able to come back to the House at a moment's notice because he might see something on the Order Paper that interested him. I suggest that it would be quite contrary to the whole spirit of the wishes of the House which have already been expressed in previous debates and also by the Report of the Select Committee.
  I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, considers that although a Peer might be on leave of absence and might never have even attended the House, he should in fact still be able to attend as soon as lie sees some particular matter on the Order Paper. Now, I do not think that that can be right. I personally am still of the opinion that the period before which a Peer should come back after he has asked for revocation of his leave of absence should be not less than three months, because if the period is much shorter a Peer might come back and debate the last stages of a Bill in which he has not taken an earlier
  930
  part. I feel that this would be against the general wishes of the House.
  On the other hand, I am prepared to accept the compromise of one month's notice that has been set down in the Amendment to be moved later by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and I hope it will work out all right and not produce any of the unfortunate occurrences that I have mentioned. I would repeat, in order to emphasise it, that this House is the High Court of Parliament and is quite within its right to lay down its procedure. I would also remind your Lordships that the whole of this scheme is on a voluntary basis.
  6.18 p.m.
  LORD HANKEY: I shall speak for only a few minutes, because I make no pretence of being an expert on this question: I brought almost a virgin mind to it. But when I heard my noble friend's speech the other day I was tremendously impressed by it. Perhaps I may quote another extract, from the beginning of the speech, instead of the one at the end of the speech which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, quoted. It is in these words:
  "Whatever the expediency of these Standing Orders may be, they violate in a most flagrant way the principles of our Constitution so far as they relate to the right and duty of a Peer to attend and speak and vote."
  Like the noble Viscount himself, I heard all the remaining speeches, and I have been over them most carefully to try to discover if that was completely countered; and the conclusion I reached was the same as his own, though I never had a word with the noble Viscount about it. It is not for me to say what the facts are. I am an old Clerk of the Privy Council, though I do not think that this particular problem ever came my way. But I do feel this: that if there is a doubt about a great principle—and I do not say which side is right—it would he wrong to found a Standing Order on it, and I think that is what the noble Viscount believes has been done.
  So much for the question of law. Then there is the great question of expediency—whether or not the House might not lose valuable advice at a critical moment. My memories go back a long way, but even in comparatively recent times I can remember the late Lord Wavell—not the first Earl, but the second—coming home from Kenya and taking part in a debate,

  931
  and impressing the House tremendously. Had this rule been in force, the noble Earl, being out there in the Army, might well have asked for leave of absence, so that he would have been unable to attend; or it might have been very difficult for him to do so.
  I remember another case—and there is one other noble Lord in the House who should also remember it—where a noble Lord came into a debate of less general interest than that. It was a debate on the quality of bread. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, came home at equally short notice. Nobody knew that he was to take part in the debate, but he jumped up and made a most decisive speech on the subject. I believe that there are cases when that might happen. For about twelve years I had to go to Egypt every year, which involved absences from the House of from five weeks up to some three months. There was no question of asking for leave, of course—perhaps it would not have been necessary: I do not know. I used to tell the Clerk of the Parliaments that I was going to be absent and leave an address, and that seems to me much simpler than all this "red tape" and procedure. From the legal side and from the side of expediency, therefore, I support strongly the deletion of paragraphs (4) and (5).
  6.23 p.m.
  LORD SOERS: Perhaps I may intervene just for a moment, as a very junior Member of your Lordships' House. There seems to have been a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether or not the words in these two paragraphs really impose a moral obligation not to attend. I must admit that when I first read them that was my impression. I felt that one would have to be very careful in asking for leave of absence, because thereafter one would be banned from attending the House for a certain period. I may have misinterpreted the position, but I do not suppose I am the only one who has done so. And if that is not intended to be the meaning of the paragraphs, what then is the purpose of including them? Otherwise, they seem to have no significance at all.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I had proposed to make my maiden speech at a later stage this afternoon; and I still
  932
  hope, with the leave of the House, to be allowed to speak then. But I am probably the only person present who is seriously considering applying for leave of absence. I have come some hundreds of miles to listen to this debate in order to clear my mind—though I must say that it is not very much clearer. I have heard one eminent legal Member of your Lordships' House say that here the word "expected" means that one must not come; and I have heard another say that it means one can come whenever one likes. I hope that we may have a little enlightenment upon that matter.
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like to congratulate the son of a very old friend, and one who is himself an old friend, on his very brief maiden speech. It was of a kind which will naturally make us anxious to hear him again. We had some spirited exchanges the last time we debated this matter on precisely the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton; and at that time we were told that "should" and "expected" meant the same thing. Since that time the Standing Order has been amended to include the word "expected", and if that means what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, suggests it means, then I am perfectly happy with that word. If not, I am bound to say that I shall not be happy.
  I do not feel there was very much weight in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, about a Peer who has not attended the earlier stages of a Bill suddenly deciding to come and speak on the last stages. I remember a case in the 1930s where a Peer who had not attended the earlier stages of a debate intervened on the Third Reading; and, although he did not get his way, he did in the end get alterations made to the Bill which made it acceptable in Scotland—which otherwise it would not have been. An intervention on Third Reading may be very effective and very useful to your Lordships. My feeling on this matter is reinforced by what my noble friend Lord Hankey has just said. The example he gave of the late Lord Wavell is one which I feel sure will have a strong effect upon us because of the affection we always had for that noble Earl. I hope that we are going to get a proper interpretation of this word "expected" this afternoon.
  6.27 p.m.
  VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: I have not taken part in all these debates so far, and I should not have intervened to-day but for the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton. I would begin by saying, in the absence of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, that he, a very learned and profound lawyer, has made the point that we are doing some vital damage to our Constitution. But I have always noticed that in the proceedings of our Parliaments we do not normally pay great attention to profound principles, which are generally observed by their omission.
  I cannot believe that there will appear at the Bar of this House a queue of learned, profound, wise and witty noble Lords, all with a tremendous message to deliver, which a hard-hearted Lord Chancellor, representing the House, will not permit them to deliver. In practice, the position is that there are in this House a number of Peers—we may know some of them—who never attend and never intend to do so. There are a number of Peers who come occasionally, when they can, and who do not intend to give up their right. I believe it might be made plain from the Government Benches that if a noble Lord intends to attend the House, perhaps only once a year, or even more rarely, he should not apply for leave of absence. I feel that if that were done it would be a great help.
  I cannot quite follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, because, with great respect, in the Report of the Select Committee it is stated, in paragraph 33 (c), on page 12:
  "that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded as having applied for leave of absence, unless he attends to take the Oath within one month of the beginning of a Parliament."
  Having already said that they should attend regularly or apply for leave of absence, the Report says, in paragraph 33 (d):
  "that Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend until their leave of absence has been terminated by their giving such notice as may be prescribed by Standing Order."
  Here I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds: I consider that a moral duty is placed on a noble Lord who has applied for leave of absence not to come within one month. But looking
  934
  at it within the context of the practice of this House over many year, the size, as well as the duties of the House, and the way in which some noble Lords, for reasons which are perfectly good, never attend and never intend to attend, I do not think we are making a great breach in the Constitution. I do not believe we shall deprive ourselves of the counsel of noble Lords who have and will come because they have something to deliver. Taking the context as a reasonable practical man who has profound respect for the working of our practical Constitution, I must say that I cannot follow the noble Viscount into the Lobby.
  6.30 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, said that this matter had been discussed on several occasions, and I do not want merely to repeat arguments that I have put before. The noble and learned Viscount gave his evidence to the Swinton Committee, who heard other witnesses and decided against his evidence. The House then considered the Report of the Swinton Committee, and approved it on December 12. They then welcomed the Merthyr Report on April 24. The matter has been so fully threshed out that I do not want to go over again matters which I have developed before, or, simply from the point of view of justifying my own position, to continue the argument on points which have now become of less importance. But I ask your Lordships to consider this matter dispassionately, forgetting what view has been taken of one's own views, and objectively, with only the interests of the House in mind.
  I think that what we have been apt to forget is that, basically, this scheme does not purport, nor can it purport, to affect the legal right of a Peer to sit and speak and vote in your Lordships' House. He can do that. Whatever the scheme says, he can come in. If the occasion arose where he came in and said, "I have not given notice, but this is the reason why I came—" I am sure that he would be listened to by the House.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would his vote be valid?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. That is the fundamental misconception which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has had throughout this debate.

  935
  You cannot affect the validity of his entry or his vote. Even the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, has never put his argument on that basis, I believe—I give him the opportunity of interrupting me again if I am wrong, but I understand he has never put his argument on that basis.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount is clear that there is no question of a legal point. I think that matter was carried a bit too far. I did not say that Black Rod could be summoned to exclude; but what I did say was that the methods which had been used were as forcible a deterrent as would be the threat of physical expulsion.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What the noble and learned Viscount says covers the case. I did not say there was a legal bar; what I said was that there is a moral bar.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that the noble and learned Viscount is saying substantially the same. Let us take the first point and make sure that everyone including the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is now convinced that there is no legal bar.
  Then we have to consider the next point: whether there is a moral bar. I listened with great care to what my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton said in his intervention, and I hope that I am putting it rightly. I have tried to consider the words used, but when one is listening to a number of speeches in the course of debate one has not got the best opportunity to think out words. However, this is what I believe is the position: that the words on the Order Paper express how the House would expect its Business to be conducted. I do not think there is any difference between what I say and what Lord Morton of Henryton has said. It is very difficult to eliminate, or to say whether one ought entirely to eliminate, the element of volition in the word "expect", because there is always an element of wishful thinking about every one of us. But I think I have put it correctly and that it is what my noble friend said.
  The question is, how the House would expect its Business to be conducted. In
  936
  that sense, you would not expect to see the person there. And when the House expresses how it would expect its Business to be conducted, it cannot avoid entirely (and I hope I am being completely frank with Lord Morton of Henryton) the element of what it would like to see. I do not think it is possible in these circumstances and in this context. That is the position which we have to face. I am quite sure, for reasons which I have given over and over again, that the House is entitled to say how it would expect its Business to be conducted; and I should have thought, again, that to endeavour to elevate that to a moral stigma is making a debating and not a real point. It is perfectly proper for the House corporately to announce its expectations. If someone does not fit in and fall in with those expectations, then it is a matter for him to consider what view he takes of his own conduct. That is the position and. as I say, I think that it has been unduly magnified, perhaps in order to get it under the admirable umbrella of Lord Salisbury's words.
  The next point I want to make clear is a point that was raised by my noble and gallant friend Lord De L'Isle a moment ago. That was on what I may call the practical aspect of this matter—namely, when can a Member say that he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can? I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord De L'Isle, that if a Peer says, "I hope I shall attend once, twice or three times in a Session," and that this is his view of how he can act with regard to what he has to do, then that comes within the words of the Standing Order. In case anyone thinks I am saying that merely in answer to what Lord De L'Isle has said, I would remind him that my noble friend Lord Home said exactly the same thing half an hour ago, in answer to Lord Wrenbury. That is a considered opinion, and I hope that my noble and gallant friend will take it as such, as we have both said it on independent occasions this afternoon.
  The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, complained of my speech on the previous occasion, because I had made too many references to the Committee—as he said, consulting authority and not dealing with argument. It is only fair to remind your Lordships that one of the

  937
  many accusations made by the noble and learned Viscount was that he had not had any of his submissions to the Swinton Committee adequately considered, or adequately considered to his own satisfaction. I felt it only right, since he had made that charge, that I should refer to the various sections of the Report of the Swinton Committee which dealt with the points which the noble and learned Viscount raised in the debate. The points were dealt with in the eleven paragraphs of the Report which has been specifically approved by your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Viscount has not returned to, but he has not abandoned—and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has taken it up—the suggestion that this matter is unconstitutional and contrary to the law and custom of the Constitution. Apparently equally as the noble and learned Viscount did not convince the Swinton Committee, I, in turn, have not convinced him. That is a fate that befalls everyone who advances a legal argument in every circumstance.
  I still consider that the view which I venture to put forward has substance. It falls into these two parts: that there is an undoubted right of this House to regulate not only its procedure but also its method of functioning. As early certainly as 1621 this House exercised the right to excuse Peers for non-attendance. In the 1620s it exercised the right to allow leave of absence, and it has been exercising these rights every since. I was taken up for raising the question of proxies. I cannot see the relevance. The right of voting by proxy was considered to be an inalienable privilege of peerage, and was so stated; and this House proceeded on that basis. The time came when the House wanted to dispense with the habit of voting by proxy. While accepting that it was an inalienable privilege of peerage which could be taken away only by Act of Parliament, the House decided that it would suspend voting by proxy, and although there is a method by which that suspension could be abrogated, we have kept the suspension going for a hundred years, and voting by proxy has ceased to be part of the mechanism of this House.
  I still say—and I put forward my views with great diffidence, in view of the contempt which they have earned from the noble and learned Viscount—that everything points to the fact that we have a
  938
  power to regulate how Members of the House shall sit, vote and speak, subject only to this: that we cannot deprive them of their right. Nobody suggests that we are depriving them of their right, in the sense of law. I suggest that by saying how we expect the Business of the House to be conducted we are not indirectly trying to do what we cannot do directly, and therefore I feel of the same opinion that I have always expressed—that we are within our constitutional rights.
  It was said that I was wrong to suggest that there could be some sort of bargain. When one criticises, however vehemently, it is important that one should quote the whole of what has been said. What I said was that there are two elements: first, no legal deprivation and, secondly, a voluntary scheme into which any Member of your Lordships' House can come if he chooses. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, if a noble Lord does not want leave of absence at all, he is not in the scheme; but if he wants to come into the scheme, then it seems to me sense, and it does not seem to me to have any immoral element, that he should abide by the expectation of the House as to how its Business should be carried on. I will not take this matter any further. Those are my views. They are—exactly like those of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds—unshaken by the argument that I have heard. I would ask your Lordships to consider that we have now, I think, given a full answer on a very important matter. I do not regret any of it. I only apologise if I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before the noble and learned Viscount leaves the point he made to me, I would ask him this. He says that if a noble Lord does not come into the scheme, then he is not part of it: but what happens if he does not answer the letter and is deemed to have come into the scheme?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If he does not answer the letter and is deemed to come into the scheme, a Peer has three choices of conduct in front of him. The first is to say that his legal right is to come to the House and that he asserts his legal right. He can come and give an explanation of the matter according to his temper.

  939
  The second is to say that he asks the Supervisory Committee who, I assume, would have a right—
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Would they?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Whatever Committee the House appoints, I should have said, assuming that the Supervisory Committee is the Committee the House will appoint to deal with it. I am not avoiding the noble Lord's point at all. A Peer can apply to the Committee and say that he wants to come back in a lesser period than that of one month and give his reasons. His third choice is to give a month's notice under the Standing Order. So he does not do so badly, from a practical point of view.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but I should like to add something to the debate on the Amendment now before the House and I shall limit myself to that. I was a member of both Committees that have sat and I supported the general scheme, and I support it still, but I confess that I have some doubts about the paragraphs which have been challenged by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds. As regards the word "expected", I well remember the long discussions we had in Committee on the possibility of finding some sanction for this proposal other than a legal sanction which would deprive Peers of their hereditary or other rights, and the word "expected" was taken, I think by all of us, to imply a moral obligation. It was practically equivalent to saying: "We shall not have a legal contract with these Peers, but there shall be a gentlemen's agreement. and one of the non-attenders who has signed a letter asking for leave of absence will not treat it lightly and nevertheless come to the House just as he might have come if he had not signed such a letter." We want to get rid, if possible, of the regular non-attenders, if only to improve the constitutional appearance of the House.
  I hope that this experiment will be made, and that it will succeed. But whether it will succeed or not, to my mind, will depend largely on the answer which the House gives to-day on this very point: what is a Peer "letting himself in for" if he signs this self-abnegation document? What I want to
  940
  do, in the few observations I shall address to your Lordships, is to ask the Government how they think the scheme will work in practice in certain eventualities; and the eventuality I have in mind is that one of the crises in politics that occur in the course of every generation may suddenly burst upon the country—it may be international politics; it may be that suddenly there is a danger of war. Suppose there are 100 Members who have signed an undertaking of nonattendance, what is to happen to them, in those circumstances? Are they to say: "We are sorry, but we feel deeply upon this as a matter of conscience and mean to come"?
  Then the question arises: would this Standing Select Committee which is to be appointed to supervise the general arrangements with regard to leave of absence be empowered to act in such a case? Would they be able to recommend to the House that the whole of these leave of absence undertakings should be suspended in view of the urgency of the situation? Suppose it is not a question of international politics, but of domestic politics, and there is an unforeseen crisis, some economic or financial situation of the greatest importance; are we to leave it to this Supervising Committee—which, by the way, is to consist of the Whips of the three Parties—a body which is to decide perhaps on releasing or not releasing 100 votes in an imminent Party Division, to decide whether the House should be recommended to suspend these votes of abstention? It may be said: "The Member who has signed this has brought it upon himself. He need not have signed it, and he ought to realise what might happen." If this Resolution is passed, and the Standing Order is made, and next week or next month the letters go out, what will be the attitude or the demeanour of individual Members who are hesitating with their pen in their hand to say whether or not they are going to ask for leave of absence? A great many would say: "In ordinary circumstances, I have no intention of attending—I never have attended; I am not a House of Lords' man and do not mean to attend—but I certainly do not mean to deny myself the right of exercising the privileges of my Peerage"—in

  941
  circumstances such as those that I have sketched out.
  I want to encourage Peers to sign these letters if they are in doubt; and want this experiment to succeed. But in those circumstances, I do not want the signatories to feel that they would be accepting too great a disability. In an earlier stage I think the recommendation was that a Peer should have to give three months' notice of his desire to terminate his leave of absence; and now it is to be one month. I should like to ask the Government to answer my specific point of how this is expected to work out in the given circumstances of crisis—I have not come to any conclusion in my own mind; there may be advantages on both sides—and, if it is not satisfactory, whether it might not be better to make the period much shorter than one month, or perhaps to leave it to the Peer to take action immediately without any preliminary period at all.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I must say I am rather concerned, having listened to the debate, as to the direction in which we are going this evening. The reply which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, made to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, was very persuasive, but in the course of his speech it seemed to me to stand out that we were dealing with the question of the amendment of, and the future observance of, Standing Orders of this House; and it left the impression upon me that he, at any rate, would agree that the question of the Standing Orders of this House is one for this House and for this House as a whole. All the steps which have led up to the present position, from the moment of the presentation of the general principle to the House by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, up to the present time, have not seen any attempts in the various sections of the House to throw a spanner into the works in general in its consideration. Members of all Parties have taken part in the various stages, and especially in the two Committees which dealt with the matter, but in the whole of that procedure it seems to me to have been desired to retain within ordinary recommendations made to the House the principle that all sections of the House have the right to have a completely free opinion and to
  942
  present it in the House even to the point of a vote.
  I understand that to-night, while I was out in the tea room, it was made perfectly clear that at certain stages in this debate, at any rate, it is intended to use the Government Whip to carry the Motion on the Paper. In view of the case submitted by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, and, in particular, the wise presentation just made to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, out of his great experience, it would be most undesirable to come to a decision on this matter tonight on a Party Whip vote. I am not thinking merely of trying to make—as I seem to understand from one or two phrases in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Front Bench opposite—a sort of more respectable constitutional appearance of an action of this kind. The only real merit in coming to an amendment of this kind of Standing Orders must be to ensure more efficient management of the general business of your Lordships' House. I am not sure if one could say that you make a House more efficient by particularly excluding some people that you do not want to come. I do not think that that is the way to deal with an Assembly of this kind.
  I am particularly concerned about the vote that is going to be taken now upon this Amendment, for it will largely affect the vote upon the main proposition to be put later, because of its influence upon future, and perhaps very near future, impending political changes. Whatever is decided, I want, if possible, this matter to be decided by a free vote of your Lordships' House. If this is going to be carried by a Party vote, then we must have some guidance given concerning the propositions put by the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, and the kind of crises that may arise. After I have listened to that very able and experienced Parliamentarian, I can begin to visualise all sorts of things arising, and we shall have to consider very carefully indeed if we are going to have this kind of camouflage amendment to the Standing Orders of the House of Peers by means of Government Party Whip vote. It is pretty good guidance, in one direction at any rate, on the things I have in mind.
  I rise at this stage in the debate to put these questions to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. Do you insist upon

  943
  using the Party vote? If you do, then we shall want a great deal more debate on it before we vote. That is the first proposition. Secondly, how do we view the future progress for to-day's Business set down on the Order Paper? Because if we make, it may be, a decision against the view of the Simonds Amendment, if I may so call it that in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount, then the debate upon the main question is obviously going to be much more protracted, much more detailed in argument: it must be so. Therefore I should like to know, first, are you going to put the Government Whip on for this vote on this Amendment? That is important. Secondly, how are you going to deal with the rest of to-day's Business, because if this discussion is going to be much more prolonged, I think I ought, on behalf of the Opposition and all those people who want more and adequate consideration of the matter, in view of the points raised in the debate, to ask for postponement of this debate to another day.
  THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, has, I think, imported probably a little unnecessary Party feeling into this matter. After three debates without any indication from anywhere as to what the House should decide, or any lead, I thought we ought to put a suggested Standing Order on the Paper. If the noble Viscount would like a copy of the Whip I sent out, I think it was to say that a very important debate would take place on this day, and therefore we suggested that a full House would be a good thing. But there is no Party vote. I do not intend to put the Party Whip on this. I thought, after all this time and after three debates, and after we have talked the subject inside out, that I should not be giving a lead to the House if I did not suggest that it was time to come to a decision on a Standing Order.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The last thing I would wish to do would be to misrepresent even the intention of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, but I understand that in the course of exchanges between the noble Viscount, Lord Simonds, and someone else on the Government Front Bench, it was understood that the Government Whip was issued and would probably be
  944
  operated. If that is not so, may I withdraw what I said about the Whip?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I would not ask the noble Viscount to withdraw anything. A perfectly normal Whip was sent out indicating that it was an important debate and there might be important decisions. But I do not intend to put on the Government Whip. I think it is a matter for the House.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I am sure the noble Earl has forgotten but a two-line Whip was sent out and at the end of it it said:
  "Divisions may be challenged and your Lordships' attendance in support of the Government from 4.15 onwards is urgently requested."
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is it not a fact that matters of Standing Orders and the interpretation of them are, by long custom, a matter for the House and not for the Government at all?
  THE EARL OF HOME: They are a matter for the House, but there must come a point when one cannot waste the time of the House any longer, and we really must put some concrete, solid proposals before the House for consideration. On these Amendments it is perfectly true I sent out a Whip indicating that it was an important debate and asking for the support of noble Lords. I hope some noble Lords of all Parties will give support to this proposed Standing Order. This particular Amendment, I think, raises a matter of principle on which Members of the House should vote as Members of the House. Therefore the Party Whip will not be on. Nevertheless, I think I must say this. I hope I am as jealous a guardian of the Constitution as anybody, and although I am a comparative newcomer in this House. nevertheless I assure your Lordships that I would never consciously do anything which would weaken or impair the right of a Peer to do his duty in this House. I should like to make that absolutely clear. It has seemed to me that we are really making a little heavy weather on this Standing Order. There is no attempt to prevent a Peer from exercising his right to Sit.
  LORD KILLEARN: May I interrupt? I am thinking of something the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, which was rather minatory. It has a bearing on this

  945
  question—in my mind, a very considerable one. Lord Teynham used what seemed to me rather threats if a Peer did use his right of coming back and voting. He is not in the House at the moment, and I am not quite sure what he did say.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, to clear up one other point? I may have got it wrong. In the earlier stages of this debate I understood that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, assented to the proposition that if a noble Lord came, not having had time to withdraw his leave of absence, he would have to sit on the steps of the Throne. Later the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said he could come and sit and we should be glad to hear what he said. If a noble Lord can give other reasons for attendance, not having given a month's notice, I cannot see the object of adopting this Standing Order.
  LORD WINSTER: May I ask a question, further to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn? The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has just said that nothing is being done by this Standing Order to impair the rights of a Peer. But surely, if there is a question before the House about which the Peer feels very strongly indeed and is anxious to speak and vote, if he has leave of absence he is prevented from doing so, because he may not come here without giving a month's notice that he wishes to do so.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I said that there was no attempt to prevent a Peer from exercising his right to sit. We cannot do so and are not trying to do so. If a Peer feels impelled to come back and talk in debate at no notice at all, he will do so, and nobody can stop him.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: And sit in the House?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I have no doubt that the House will accept his explanation as to why he felt impelled to come back before the normal notice.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Earl did not say vote, but to attend and speak.
  THE EARL OF HOME: He would.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But someone will get up and say, "Your name is in
  946
  the book in the Prince's Chamber. What are you doing here?".
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think noble Lords do respect the wishes of this House, and a noble Lord who felt himself compelled to come back would give an explanation in the normal way in a few sentences, and no doubt the House would accept it.
  LORD WINSTER: In view of that, the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was unjustified and does not represent the views of the Government.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I framed the Standing Order after hearing all views, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and I myself came clown against Lord Teynham's view. I think we have a right to expect that. Peers should do their best to enable this House to pursue its business in the most seemly way.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: There is still a very important outstanding point which has not been cleared up. I am sorry, but it is vital. This situation is most likely to arise at a time of intense Party feeling in some political crisis. What happens if the House of Lords, with a large Party preponderance, declines to accept the explanation of a Member who has come back because he has an urgent feeling that he has a constitutional duty to act as a Member of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF HOME: The House could not decline to accept it in that sense, because the Peer has a perfect right to come and speak and vote.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Then what is the use of it?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I am coming to what is the use of it, because I think it is worth reminding my noble friends, and indeed all Members of this House, that there are 300 and more Peers whom no crisis, either external or internal, has ever induced to come near the place. Therefore I think perhaps this scheme is worth trying. No doubt we shall have to proceed over the months and years by trial and error, giving them a chance to regularise their position. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asks, "What would happen in the event of a national crisis?" Let us take the case of a war. Then, inevitably, I think, there would be

  947
  consultation between the Leaders of the Parties in the House; and the House would, I suggest, in that case, suspend the Standing Order altogether. I think that would be the way to deal with an international crisis of that kind. In the normal domestic situation a Peer would have to decide for himself.
  The final point I would make is that there is nothing irrevocable about this scheme. We have proceeded through the centuries by trial and error. We have used that procedure which is useful to us and helpful to our Business, and have discarded that which is not. But I think that, after two inquiries by authoritative Committees of the House (I am, after all, only taking their advice, and commending it in the most suitable form, as I think, to your Lordships), we might try this Standing Order to see how it works; and my forecast is that it will work for the general convenience of the whole House.
  LORD SILKIN: I should not have intervened in order to reply to the noble Earl but for his last remarks. He speaks of two inquiries which have been held. I want to emphasise—I was on both of them—that we did not, and we were not asked to, accept the principle that these inquiries were on the hypothesis that if the House wanted to do something this was the way to do it. The first question we considered was: what could it do, assuming that it wanted to do something? We then had a general Report. Then, on the second occasion, still on the same assumption, never accepting the principle at all—
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: With great respect, the noble Lord is wrong—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is most rude to interrupt in a middle of a sentence.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: This is a question of fact. On the second occasion the Merthyr Committee met after the House had passed a formal Resolution approving the Swinton Committee's proposals and directing the Merthyr Committee to prepare a Standing Order.
  LORD SILKIN: We were not committed on either occasion. I think it is quite wrong to suggest that this Committee sat with the principle settled for
  948
  it. We were doing a drafting job on the second occasion; on the first we were indicating how the thing should be run. I should not have intervened at all except that I felt perfectly free, and I think that every Member who served on the Committee is perfectly free at this stage to express his views about the desirability or otherwise of this Standing Order.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think that this is a Standing Order which the House should try, and then we shall see if it works. Of course, if it does not work, the House is a realistic body, and we can do away with it.
  LORD SILKIN: I want to make it quite clear that I hope that we shall not regard ourselves as having been committed because we took some part in drafting the Standing Order.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like to recall the Committee to the actual Amendment which is before us. We seem to be getting a long way away from it. I venture to speak, not having taken part in any of these discussions upon any occasion before. As I understand it, no serious objection has been raised to the first paragraph of this Standing Order which is the vital part of it; and I suggest to the House that the paragraph we are now considering must be interpreted in the light of paragraph (1), which says:
  "Lords are to attend the Sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence …"—
  not ask for leave of absence, if they do not choose to attend or do not like attending"; they are to attend or, if they are unable to attend, then they are to ask for leave of absence. That is the operative part of this Standing Order.
  I think that Lord Morton of Henryton is correct in the interpretation he has placed upon paragraph (4): that it is merely a statement of expectation based upon the fact that the Member has already stated that he cannot attend. If he cannot attend, then surely nobody expects him to be here. If the circumstances change, it is within the power of the House to revoke the leave of absence which has been given to him—not, with all respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, a matter to be dealt with by the Supervisory Committee, which has no

  949
  power of any kind to deal with any matter of that sort. It is a power which resides in the House itself and in no other body, and it cannot be believed that this House would deprive somebody whose circumstances had changed, and who became able, contrary to his expectation, to attend, of the right of sitting, voting and taking part in these proceedings.
  VISCOUNT SIMONDS: I believe that it is in order for the mover of an Amendment to be allowed a few words in reply, and in accordance with the tradition of this House (this is what one always says at this late hour) I do not propose to keep the Committee for long. I have only one thing to say: that I have been left in complete doubt, both by the Leader of the House and by the Lord Chancellor, whether, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury holds, and as I, and many others, hold, there will be a moral stigma—those are the words which he used and which I have adopted—attaching to a noble Lord who, having obtained leave of absence, comes back to the House before that leave of absence has expired. On that point, I am left in absolute doubt. If there will not, then there is no reason in the world for putting in the Standing Order. On the other hand, if there will, then equally it ought not to be there, because it imposes a sort of deterrent upon a noble Lord who is willing and able to do his duty. There is no escape from that dilemma. Either it is meaningless, yet may have a meaning which it ought not to bear; or it has a
  meaning and, if it has that meaning, it should not be there. This really is the most wanton attempt to give a person the best of both worlds. I am happy to think that it may be resolved to-night.
  There is only one other thing I want to say. The noble and learned Viscount has returned to his old analogy of proxy voting, and has suggested that, because in a certain year this House required the surrender of what was described as the "inalienable right" of a Peer to vote by proxy, therefore it can deprive him of the right to vote altogether for three months, or whatever the period may be. The one is defining a method by which the vote may be given and the other is a denial of the vote altogether. It really is, in my respectful submission, a most deceptive analogy and one which I had hoped, in vain, that he would not again trail before this House. I shall press my Amendment as I think this is an important constitutional question. We have listened to what I may call the ancient wisdom of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I have listened to it with the greatest possible pleasure, because I concur in every word he said with regard to the practical difficulties which will ensue, apart from what I conceive to be the theoretical lack of constitutionality of the proposal.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 53.

  CONTENTS

  Albemarle, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Meston, L.

  Howe, E.

  Dowdling, L.

  Milne, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Fraser of North Cape, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Morley, E.

  Grantchester, L.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  Hankey, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Sinha, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Somers, L.

  Simonds, V.

  Killearn, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Stansgate, V. [Teller.]

  Latham, L.

  Lawson, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Layton, L.

  Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

  Brocket, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Winster, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bessborough, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

  Donoughmore, E.

  Swinton, E.

  Gosford, E.

  Woolton, E.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Home, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Onslow, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Ormonde, M.

  Perth, E.

  Davidson, V.

  Radnor, E.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Congleton, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Soulbury, V.

  Denham, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Alberdare, L.

  Dovercourt, L.

  Mills, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Gifford, L. [Teller.]

  Morrison, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Savile, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Strathalmond, L.

  Cohen, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Conesford, L.

  McCorquodale of Newton, L.

  Teymham, L. [Teller.]

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  VISCOUNT SIMONDS VISCOUNT SIMONDS had given notice of his intention to move to omit paragraph (5). The noble and learned Viscount said: I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I am bound to say that I do not see any point in moving to omit paragraph (5) if paragraph (4) stands. Therefore, although I fear I disappoint Viscount Stansgate, I do not propose to move that Amendment.
  House resumed.
  7.31 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I ask the leave of the House to move that this debate be now adjourned. It is obvious, I think, from the general feeling in the House and the very close decisions in the vote in Committee, that there is a great deal more yet to be said about the matter in regard to the general proposition (which has still to be carried) of the Standing Order and the second Motion on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. So far as I know, there is not much opportunity of getting any food in this House tonight, and we are already at the hour when we usually adjourn, at any rate for food. But I think it is very desirable, before we come to deal with the main proposition of the Standing Order, that we all should have the chance to read the Hansard report to-mororw. We should have the opportunity of looking very carefully indeed at the various explanations which have been given and the different views from quite learned persons as to what the particular words in a particular line in the proposed Standing Order actually mean. We can then see how far we are going to be able to rely in the future upon what is merely a Government Minister's expression of opinion at this stage of the matter in this House, as governing the future action, when it
  952
  comes into question, of how the Standing Orders should be interpreted. Noble and learned Lords will be able to get up and will be able to quote that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, or the Leader of the House, said this and said that; but it will be merely a sort of calling-up of support for a particular view, and it will certainly have no binding effect upon what may have been thought to be the actual meaning of the Order.
  I think that, having regard to the kind of crises and situations of a Parliamentary character in which we might quite properly find ourselves, it is essential that we have the opportunity now of reading very carefully the expressions which have been made both from the Government Bench and from learned authorities in the House, and that we should consider the matter as a whole before we go on to the main vote. For that purpose, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
  THE EARL OF HOME: I hope the noble Viscount will not press this suggestion. I know he has never liked this Standing Order, or any part of it, but we have had I do not know how many debates now—it might be three or four—covering or re-covering the same ground.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF HOME: After all, we are doing something important but something which is not irrevocable. If, after experience, we find that this does not work, as practical people we can vary the Standing Order. Of course, if it is the wish of the House to adjourn we shall do so, but I do not think it really is. I think the House feels that we have had a great many discussions about this matter. Therefore, I would propose that the noble Viscount should let us get on with it and see how it works.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I just ask this question? Does the noble Earl intend to go through with the other two Motions? Because on the question of the constitution of this Select Committee some points may arise.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I should hope to be able to meet the noble Viscount on that.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am going to support my noble Leader in his Motion that the House do now adjourn. It seems to me that it is a most important thing that the House should be now adjourned in order that we may consider what is, after all, a very important constitutional change which is being made in a most unorthodox and curious way. The fact of the matter is that the effect of the votes taken here on these Motions, which purport to be merely resolutions concerning Standing Orders of the House, will be to alter completely the Constitution of the House of Peers.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Rubbish!
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says "Rubbish", but the fact is that a large number of people will feel morally bound net to exercise their constitutional rights in the time of national crises, and that is a very important constitutional change. The Government have really, throughout this business, never brought forward any cogent reasons for making this great change. They probably have their reasons, but they certainly have not publicly stated
  them. We have had advice from some of the most distinguished lawyers available to us—conflicting advice. With conflicting advice it is all the more difficult for laymen to know exactly what is best to be done. We have not only had conflicting advice from the legal Members, but we have had really conflicting statements from members of the Government: as to the interpretation which they put upon the words of this Standing Order. It seems to me that we ought to have a little time to find out what is really being done.
  I am not clear now whether in fact the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is going to seek to induce Peers to sign some kind of undertaking that they will not come to the House. He is going to write to everybody at the beginning of Parliament, even though they have been most regular attenders, and say: "Would you like to 'contract out' of your obligations? Would you like to stay? "If they do not reply, it is possible that they will be deemed to have replied and to have applied for leave of absence. They have then to go through a peculiar procedure, on which nobody seems able to agree, in order to have the right to do their duty as Members of this House. I suggest that in those circumstances we should have a chance to read what has been said and to consider what has been done.
  On Question, Whether the debate shall be now adjourned?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 49.

  CONTENTS

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Ebury, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Hankey, L.

  Silkan, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Wilmot of Selmeston, L. [Teller.]

  Killearn, L.

  Brocket, L.

  Latham, L.

  Winster, L.

  Burden, L.

  Morton of Henryton, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor)

  Home, E.

  Davidson, V.

  Morley, E.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Haikham, V. (L. President.)

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Goschen, V.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Perth, E.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Radnor, E.

  Soulbury, V.

  Ormonde, M.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Swinton, E.

  Auckland, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Woolton, E.

  Birdwood, L.

  Donoughmore, E.

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  Gosford, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Conesford, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Denham, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Savile, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Somers, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Gifford, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  7.50 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that the Standing Order, as amended, be agreed to. I think that every point on it has been considered time and again, and therefore I will leave it to your Lordships to ask any questions about it which you may wish to ask. All I can say is that I think that, after much discussion, this is the best form of Standing Order we can devise, and I hope your Lordships will agree to give it a trial.
  Moved to resolve, That the Standing Orders of the House for the conduct of Public Business be amended by leaving out Standing Order 21 and inserting the proposed new Standing Order, as amended.—(The Earl of Home.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I did not vote for the Government on the recent Amendment, and I shall not vote for the Government if there is a Division on this Motion. I think it is right that in a few words I should explain to your Lordships my reasons. At any time since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, if agreement could be obtained between the Parties, I think there was no Member of the House who was not perfectly ready to discuss its powers and Constitution with a completely free and open mind. For a very large part of the time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, there was a large body of your Lordships who would have been willing, if agreement could have been obtained between the Parties, to discuss the Constitution of the House, without any reference to powers. Both those efforts failed, against the hostility of the Socialist Party generally and particularly of noble Lords opposite, who never failed to express complete and unutterable hostility to any hereditary Chamber.
  So far as I am aware, outside your Lordships' House nobody is very much interested in us or in our composition. You never hear it discussed politically or anywhere in any circle of society. Yet
  956
  the Government, with their flair for starting hares that no one in the world wants to chase, have pressed on with unilateral modifications of your Lordships' House. We dealt with a relevant Bill the other day, and now we have this scheme. I am bound to say that if your Lordships think this will have a good effect—and the majority clearly do—I am perfectly willing to let it have a run, and I shall not vote against it. I must say, too, that the modifications I asked for when the matter was last discussed, and the explanations given in to-day's debate, have largely changed my attitude to this proposed Standing Order. The principal point is this. If these Standing Orders become simply a dead letter, then I think we must reckon that they have failed in their object. But I am bound to say that my own attitude is that all this business is not worth while. It is said that Napoleon condemned manœuvring before a fixed position. Noble Lords opposite clearly constitute a fixed position, and if I am going to be shot at dawn, I have a great deal of more useful things to do than to waste my time getting my face lifted—and that is precisely what I understand this matter to be.
  LORD WINSTER: I certainly did not feel capable of taking part in the proceedings on the Amendments, which were almost entirely occupied with legal and constitutional matters upon which I am a complete layman. I should, however, like to say one or two words on the general issue. What has been occupying my mind the whole time and puzzling me is this: what exactly is the object of the Standing Order which is now before the House? The noble Earl, Lord Home, speaking upon the proposal, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1005]:
  "… we … should be seen to be an efficient and workmanlike House".
  From that statement I draw the inference that that has not been our appearance heretofore. But in what way does the passing of this Standing Order create that appearance? What is there in it which will make us appear to the public to be what the noble Earl called (col. 1009):
  "a House of recognisable working Peers"?

  957
  That is the question I should like to put to the noble Earl. What is there in this Standing Order which will give us that appearance?
  THE EARL OF HOME: I used that phrase, if I may say so, not in relation to this Standing Order, but, I believe, in relation to the Life Peerages Bill, which was taken in conjunction with this matter.
  LORD WINSTER: Very well. At any rate, it is the wish of the noble Earl that we should appear to be "an efficient and workmanlike House," and that we should appear to be a "House of recognisable working Peers." That is the noble Earl's ambition, and I ask him what there is in this Standing Order to create that appearance which he is so anxious the House should present to the public.
  Then the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who is not now here, said that all we do by this Standing Order is to enable those Peers who cannot discharge their duty to regularise their position—that we make honest men of them. But I think that what many of us are concerned about is the very large number of Peers who could discharge their duty if they chose to do so, but who do not choose to discharge it and have no intention of doing so. Again I ask: What does the Standing Order do to meet that situation? The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor spoke, I think, more than once about the "scheme" and about entering into this "scheme"; but what precisely is the "scheme"? What is the object of the "scheme", exactly and precisely? I am not trying to deal with the legal and constitutional points at all; what I am trying to get at is this: what is the object of the Standing Order and what purpose is it hoped that it will serve in the conduct of the work of this House?
  Surely, what we want is that Peers should attend; that is what we are concerned about. Even an occasional attendance, a very rare attendance, is still a good thing from that point of view. I have noticed very often in your Lordships' House what great satisfaction there is when a noble Lord with an unfamiliar face turns up to take part in a debate. The noble Earl, Lord Home, was at pains to say to-day that there was not a Party Whip on and that the vote was not a Party matter. But I am bound to say that I saw quite a number of faces in the
  958
  Division Lobby which I have rarely, if ever, seen in your Lordships' House before.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if the noble Lord had looked in the Lobby, he would have found a number of people who did not obey the Whip, if there was one.
  LORD WINSTER: At any rate, it is a fact that a few unfamiliar faces did turn up; and their very unfamiliarity, I would say, made them all the more welcome. I imagine that what I will describe as the chronic non-attender will not care very much whether or not he has leave of absence. But is it the object of this Standing Order to save such a Peer an occasional twinge of conscience by regularising his position, or is the object to show the country at large that we are so virtuous that, rather than be shocked by the sight of Peers not doing their duty, we have decided to make it legal for them not to perform their duty? Headmasters could apply the same system to truancy by making truancy legal. We might make absenteeism legal in the same way.
  May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any habitual nonattender has consulted him and said that he felt uncomfortable because he is not doing his duty and knows that he ought to be doing it? Has any non-attending Peer ever said that to the noble and learned Viscount? I feel that when this letter is sent out and received (and may I say here that I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston said this afternoon?) there will be many Peers who will not greatly appreciate receiving that letter, asking them whether or not they intend to do their duty, especially when they have been doing their duty to the best of their abilities. I feel that non-attending Peers might well either not reply to that letter or reply to say that they do not want leave of absence. Because, as a matter of human nature, people are reluctant to surrender a right, even if they are not in the habit of exercising that right.
  Another point occurred to me during the debate. Paragraph (1) of the Standing Order speaks of leave of absence "which the House may grant at pleasure." I take it from that that what the House "may grant at pleasure" it

  959
  may rescind at pleasure. The House may, decide that for a time the Standing Order is not in force. Suppose, looking into the future, we get a Bill which does not commend itself to the Conservative Party—for example, a Bill for the re-nationalisation of steel. Is the Standing Order then going to be rescinded—because what the Government give the Government can take away—in order to suit Party convenience of that sort?
  If we want Peers to attend the House, why put any obstacle of any sort whatsoever in the way of attending? As a result of passing this Standing Order, what difference is there going to be in the appearance of the House, in the attendance at the House or in the working of the House? Precisely in what way will the Standing Order affect attendance or the performance of duties in the House? I am sure that many of my noble friends would be grateful if we could have a clear and precise answer to these questions, more especially to the main question—namely, what object have the Government in mind in putting forward this Standing Order?
  8.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me the privilege of making a pocket edition of a maiden speech, but perhaps it is a good moment for me to say something, as I should like to say a few words in direct answer to some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said. I came here with a beautifully prepared maiden speech, but having heard the debate, I think that it would be quite inappropriate for me to deliver it. I have to make up another one.
  The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said he wondered whether any noble Lord felt guilty about not attending. I confess that, since I read the debates last year, I have had a feeling of guilt. I did not have one before because I did not know that I had a real obligation to attend. I did not read the Writ with the care with which evidently a great many noble Lords read theirs. But since then I have had a certain feeling of guilt, and I think it is right that those, like myself, who do not attend should be told either to take leave of absence or to come to the House. I do not see how this applies
  960
  from the legal side, but the fact that the House voted in favour of this principle is quite enough for me. In spite of the fact that noble Lords may be reluctant to attend, I hope that they will feel, as I do, that they should either come more often or accept leave of absence. I have made up my mind to come more often. I was cheered in that decision by the comments of my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that if a Peer managed to come two or three times a year, he would "make the grade". That is what I should like to try to do.
  I feel that the way this Standing Order is drawn is extraordinarily fair, because it indicates to those who cannot come often—and I am one of those who cannot possibly attend regularly, unless your Lordships' House is moved to the plains of Tipperary—that they should come when they reasonably can. That puts it straight into the court of the individual Peer. I feel, and I think that probably other noble Lords will feel, that this puts them on their honour either to come to the House or to apply for leave of absence to try to make the scheme work. It may be that, from the legal point of view, this scheme seems, to use a slang phrase, singularly "half-baked"; but from the practical point of view I think it will work, and I would advise the House to give it a trial.
  8.9 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord on his first speech in your Lordships' House? When he says that it would be difficult to move your Lordships' House to Tipperary, I hope that the noble Lord will frequently move himself from Tipperary to here so that we may hear him speak more often. I think that what he said was both wise and sensible.
  If I may turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, mine was one of the strange faces he saw in the Lobby. He has not seen me in that Lobby for eleven years, and he is not likely to see me in that Lobby again for the next eleven years. I should like to say a word about the reason I was there, and also about why I propose to vote in favour of the Standing Order. I am one of those who believe in this House and would like to see its influence and power increased. I do not normally vote with noble Lords

  961
  opposite because I think they want exactly the opposite, and therefore I hesitate to accept with any great confidence their assurances as to the welfare of this House. I believe that if the power of this House is going to be increased we have to get rid of the greatest stone thrown against us, which is this miserable business of the "backwoodsmen" Peers. I am a far more radical reformer than many of your Lordships, and I should like to see the House with a number of hereditary Peers and a similar number of Life Peers. The Government would not go to that extreme. I am sorry that they did not; and, if I may say with all humility, I think that, by not doing so, they may have landed themselves in some of the legal difficulties which induced me to vote against them on the last Amendment, because I felt that legally the position was impossible.
  The reason I wish to say what I am going to say is this. I voted for this scheme originally, and that is why I shall vote for this Resolution. Whilst I do not think it goes far enough, I believe that it is on the right lines. Although personally that particular bit of the Resolution seemed to me not entirely to make sense, what is trying to be done is absolutely right. What we are trying to do is to enhance the reputation of this House in the future, and therefore its influence, which believe to be one of the best things in the Constitution of this country. Therefore, although, for the first time in my political life, I voted on the last Amendment against my own Party, I propose to vote for the Resolution, and I do not regard my action as inconsistent.
  8.12 p.m.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I think I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said: that the most cheerful thing about to-day's debate has been the appearance of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, to grace it, and I hope that he will come here often. This debate has taken a long and somewhat curious course, and I cannot help thinking that at the end of this day nobody is very happy about it. I think that at this time, of all times, when Parliamentary Government is threatened from many sources, this country has a peculiarly important and historical mission to justify, maintain
  962
  and present Parliamentary institutions in all their brightness and rightness and glory, and anything which is done which causes people to feel that discreditable arrangements are being made goes right to the root of the survival of Parliamentary Government.
  I think that to-day's debate and the whole consideration of this proposal is rather a miserable piece of business. Why have the Government brought it forward? Are they not satisfied with the working of the House of Peers as it is? If they are not, then presumably they do not like the feeling that there is a large number of Members who normally do not come, but who can come if they wish to. That is a charge which has been brought against the House of Lords by many people. To me, it does not seem to do a great deal of harm in the ordinary working of Parliament, but there may be inherent in it a potential menace. If that be the case, surely the proper thing to do is to reform the whole Constitution of the Second House of Parliament; and proposals to that end should have been brought forward in the proper way and legislation presented to both Houses in the constitutional manner for the alteration of the Second House of Parliament.
  We have the inestimable advantage that we have no written Constitution, and I beg the Government at this time not to take any steps in the direction of a written Constitution, with all is perils and difficulties. I should hope that before this Standing Order is finally adopted the Government will have second thoughts on the whole problem. I speak for myself, perhaps, when I say that I do not think the hereditary principle in some form in the Second Chamber is inconsistent with a good Parliamentary system. I think that in some ways it is fine, and that the Government should devote themselves to finding a way in which the Virtues inherent in that part of our system can be blended into a modern Parliamentary democracy. But they have chosen to try to avoid that issue; and by a peculiar and, I think, slightly discreditable attempt to amend the Constitution by way of Standing Orders of this House, they not only have really forfeited an opportunity, but have declined a duty which I think history has put upon them. I sincerely hope that the House, upon reflection, will not approve of this Standing Order.
  8.15 p.m.
  LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I wish to make only two or three remarks. Rather like my noble friend Lord Lloyd, I am not in the habit of voting against my own Party, but on this issue I have always voted against my Party whenever I have had the opportunity. I have found only one really convincing argument in favour of these Standing Orders, and that is that the threat of a Writ has brought the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, from County Tipperary to your Lordships' House. I do not intend to go into the arguments, but I may say that I am unconvinced by the speeches from this side of the House. I should, however, like to make a protest that, if this change is to take place, so few Members of your Lordships' House are present. In the last Division sixty-seven Peers voted. The Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, was defeated by a majority of only sixteen. I feel that on such an important matter, with such a small proportion of less than one-twelfth of the total Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the final stages of passing this Standing Order, it would have been much better to accept the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and adjourn.
  8.18 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, this debate, if it has done nothing else, has proved the case that we have tried to make. Look at the history of this affair. How does it arise? It arises because about two years ago there was a great deal of public comment on the absenteeism from this House, and it was doing harm to the reputation of the House. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, then came forward with a perfectly logical scheme. I think it was his idea that a college of Peers should elect other Peers; in any case, it did preserve the hereditary principle. But it was rejected. Why was it rejected? Not primarily because of us. It was rejected because the Conservative Party will not give up the privileges of the succession. Therefore the Government thought up this extraordinary scheme, produced by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, by which there was going to be a letter sent round which would shame Peers into coming here—that is really what it amounts to. There was a great deal of humbug in
  964
  the whole thing. We do not force them; there is not any obligation; yet somehow, if they do not come—of course, if they do not come the whole scheme is defeated—they are under some sort of slur. That is the plan, and that is why I object to it.
  I should never follow the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, into the Lobby on his constitutional view that the Writ of Summons can in the present circumstances be the proper basis for a Second Chamber. But I do follow him in his view that to attempt to substitute for the Writ of Summons this ramshackle scheme, by which you send a Peer a letter, and another letter, or write his name in a book, and when you have done so he has a perfect right, so we are told late in the debate, to turn up and vote, is quite wrong. That is where we are. And this is an effort to cure absenteeism in the House of Lords!
  The House of Lords at the present moment, omitting the Peers of Royal blood, consists of 2 Archbishops, 21 Dukes, 27 Marquesses, 132 Earls, 108 Viscounts, 24 Bishops and 535 Barons. That is a grand total of 749 persons. This change, which we are warned by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, has constitutional implications, is carried by 52 votes in a House of 749 members. If ever there was a thing that could expose the weakness of the House, that people will not come under this system, it would be this vote tonight.
  Then we had from the Liberal Benches something which gave me a terrific shock, from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. He said you must not consider leave of absence as a bar to attendance, because there may come a time when there is an economic crisis, and then you will want all the Peers here. That is the time when all the Peers come here. If you get an "economic crisis"—by which, of course, is always meant the advent of a Labour Government—I do not want the Peers here. Therefore the weakness of this scheme is that it does not give a presentable House, although a distinguished assembly is present now. It does not give a House of numerical strength, but it does preserve the right of a body of Peers to come at the right moment and prevent the electors from having their way. I do not know whether my noble Leader intends to have a vote. We have

  965
  had a lot of voting tonight, in very peculiar company.
  8.23 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, as I have sat here as a humble Back-Bencher of average intelligence for the last four hours, listening to speeches, perhaps I may be permitted to waste two or three minutes of your Lordships' time in following the prevalent fashion and summing up my impressions of the debate. I started this afternoon perfectly clear in my mind as to what these Standing Orders meant, and in spite of listening to every speech my mind is still clear on the subject. Perhaps that is a severe handicap. As a Back-Bencher, I have other things to do. I protest at having to listen again and again to the same request for an explanation. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has now once more asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House to give a clear explanation of what they are trying to do. I have heard the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, give him that answer at least twice this afternoon, and nobody takes the faintest notice.
  LORD WINSTER: Would it be asking too much of the noble Lord's kindness to ask him if he would repeat what the object is?
  LORD MILVERTON: I would never dream of attempting, even at this late hour and under the confusion of mind induced by this debate, to try to usurp the privilege of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, whose patience is still apparently unexhausted; I have no doubt he will make a last forlorn attempt to get noble Lords opposite to understand what he has been saying all the afternoon. I knew quite well when I came here that if I had asked for leave for three months and some special occasion had occurred, or if I had suddenly come back from where I went, I would have no doubt of my right to come to this House. I would get up, just as I would if I had a financial interest in some subject of debate; I would declare that financial interest, or in the same way, why I had come although I was supposed to be on leave, and ask for the indulgence of the House; and I have no doubt it would be given. So we have wasted about three hours on that subject.
  Now the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, says the number here now is a proof of the fact that this subject has
  966
  not been sufficiently debated. It is proof of the fact that Members of this House are sick and tired of it. We have had this subject again and again and again. I can only say that it will be a merciful thing if we can finish with it tonight. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has told us that this is an attempt to streamline, or whatever you like to call it, the procedure of the House and it does not alter the Constitution in any conceivable way. Why not try it, as he said? And if it does not work satisfactorily it will be open to noble Lords opposite or any other noble Lords to suggest Amendments.
  8.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has really saved me the necessity of making a third despairing attempt to get understanding, but I will do my best in two minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, said that our procedure has been unorthodox. If he can think of anything more orthodox than the Reports of two Committees followed by three debates, I should like to know what it is. He seemed to suggest that there might be something discreditable about it on the grounds that if we wanted to do anything we ought to have gone for total reform of the House of Lords. We are willing to do so. I noticed some words of his which I took down, but I will study them tomorrow with greater attention and perhaps approach the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, seemed to hint that he would be content to see the hereditary clement blended into the House.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Earl will remember that I said I was speaking for myself.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The plan of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was rejected by his Party.
  THE EARL OF HOME: If enough people speak for themselves on the Front Bench that may make it official. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, we hope this Standing Order may help in two ways: first, in regard to the 300 Peers who have never taken the Oath and the 100 who have taken the Oath and never done anything else. That is one negative advantage. The other is that it will encourage people like the noble Earl,

  967
  Lord Donoughmore, to take their duties more seriously. It is "a long way to Tipperary", but it is one of those odd mathematical things that it is not so far from Tipperary when you come here. It will be very nice to know that every hereditary Peer so stimulated will receive the warmest welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I repeat what I said, that I think the House would be well advised to try this Standing Order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I beg to move the second Resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which deals with the letters which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will send out and which he has said he will report to the House.
  Moved, That, for the purpose of giving effect to the above Standing Order during the present Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall forthwith send a copy of the Standing Order to every Lord to whom he has issued a Writ of Summons to this Parliament and who has not during this session attended a sitting of the House (except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) or a sitting of a Committee of the House, and shall request every such Lord to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence for the next session of this Parliament or for the remainder of this Parliament or whether he does not wish so to apply. If a Lord fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being required to do so, he may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  THE EARL OF HOME: The next deals with the Committee. I think it will be necessary to have a Committee of Members of all Parties, because we cannot foresee how this Standing Order will work out and what difficulties will arise. Therefore, I suggest that the appropriate form of Committee is one we have used before—that is, the three Whips of the Parties—and I shall in due course, after consideration, propose a name in place of the late noble Earl, Lord Fortescue. I hope the House will think it suitable to have a Committee in being to which we can refer various questions as they arise
  968
  as we experience the working of the Standing Order.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—
  E. Lucan
  L. Amulree.
  —(The Earl of Home.)
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, after "absence" to insert:
  "and shall report to the House fully as to its proceedings and in particular, following ancient precedent, the reason advanced for absence".
  The noble Viscount said: What the noble Earl proposes seems a reasonable piece of machinery. What interests noble Lords more is what they are going to learn from the Committee. It was rather alarming to-day when the Lord Chancellor told us that he would not tell us the terms of a perfectly simple letter that he is going to write. He said that it was private between him and the Committee, and that until the Committee had seen it he could not let us have it. Are they going to work in secret? Are we not going to know? I do not know, but I understand that there is to be appended to the Minutes of Proceedings a list of Members who have leave of absence. Is there to be another list of Members who do not attend and have no leave of absence? Are we to have any record at all of what replies the Lord Chancellor receives? These are important questions.
  Although I may be quite wrong, it is possible that this new arrangement may be challenged. To give an example, I myself have from time to time felt most incensed at articles in the newspapers. There are at least two Members of this House who received their Peerages originally because of their services to the Press. Clearly their duty under the Writ is to come here and expound and defend their policy. But that is not what they do. They hire a journalist to write an article and put it about and they have no responsibility for it; and they can apply for leave of absence here. Supposing. as I have often thought of doing, a Motion were put on the Order Paper requiring the presence of Lord So-and-So to explain this or that because he was a Press Lord,

  969
  what would be the position then? What would the Committee do? Of course, it may be said that we never have defiance. That may be so—I do not know. It is not sufficient to say "We will appoint the three Whips" and for the Lord Chancollor to say "We cannot tell you what we are doing: we will tell you later on." We want a proper report. I hope the noble Earl will accept it as a practice of the House that Members may address questions to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
  Amendment moved—
  After ("absence") insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  8.32 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount was speaking to his Amendment, but I think we may take it that he was. If he wishes to have a report, or that the Committee should make a Report to the House, I should be agreeable. I think perhaps to put in the word "fully" is rather superfluous. I do not know what sort of language the Whips use when they talk to each other: we probably do not want a whole record of their conversation. But if the noble Viscount will move his Amendment so that it reads "and shall report to the House from time to time" I shall be perfectly agreeable to accepting that.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Can the noble Earl tell us whether it would be in order to put down a Parliamentary Question to the Chairman? If so then I shall be perfectly satisfied.
  THE EARL, OF HOME: Of course, if we leave out the last part.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, certainly. I thought we should get some of the robust quality of Lord Eldon into the present occupant of the Woolsack, but that is impossible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  Line 2, after ("absence") to insert ("and shall report to the House from time to time").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand the position, the noble Earl, Lord Home, has moved the Resolution and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has moved his Amendment, which is now
  970
  amended by the omission of the word "fully". Did the noble Earl make any other suggestion?
  THE EARL OF HOME: The words are:
  "and shall report to the House from time to time".
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is an interrogation, not a speech. Did the noble Earl tell me that it has been possible in the past to address a Parliamentary Question to the Chairman of a Committee of this kind?
  THE EARL OF HOME: This will be subject to the same rules as apply to all Committees of the House. There are appropriate opportunities for interrogation. Certainly I think it will be perfectly proper through some channel, whatever the appropriate channel is, to question them.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In that case, I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Home; and if the Lord Chancellor knows what the Amendment is I am prepared to accept it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Lord Chancellor understands that the Amendment was to add to the Motion, after the word "absence":
  "and shall report to the House from time to time".
  The Question I have to put now is that the Motion, as amended, be agreed to.
  On Question, Whether the Motion, as amended, shall be agreed to?
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I judge from a statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Home, on April 24, that one of the questions for this Committee will be the facilities to be given within these buildings to Peers who have been granted leave of absence. In those circumstances, I should hope that the noble Earl may answer the following three questions, of which I have given him private notice. The first is: Is it proposed to withdraw from Peers who are granted leave of absence certain facilities in these buildings now available to all Peers? If so, what are the buildings or parts thereof, and do they include the Library, the Dining Room and the Guest Room? Is it proposed to restrict the privileges now enjoyed by the wife of a Peer who has been granted leave of absence? If so, which and how?
  THE EARL OF HOME: Is that all? The noble Lord took me by surprise. The Merthyr Committee proposed that noble Lords who had obtained leave of absence should retain the right to use the facilities of the building, and also that there should be no restriction placed on their wives, as the privilege is one which they enjoy. It is possible that some questions other than those which the noble Lord has asked might arise, and I think that they will be appropriately dealt with by the Committee I have proposed.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will an absentee Lord and his wife be allowed to come to the Opening of Parliament?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that is just the sort of question which might well be referred to the Committee. But I think it was felt that people who attend the House—I rather think that Lord Silkin thought this—might have some kind of precedence and priority. However, I think that is a question for the Committee to advise on.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION BILL
  8.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this Bill is designed to rectify an anomaly in the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. The 1937 Act gave power to a local authority to contribute towards the expenditure incurred by any local authority or by a voluntary organisation in providing or maintaining within the area of the contributing authority, or on a site where it will benefit any of the inhabitants of that area, such amenities as village halls, gymnasiums, playing fields, swimming baths and other facilities having athletic, social or educational objects.
  Since that Act was passed, a considerable number of contributions have been made every year, but there have been a certain number of cases where it has not been thought by the Council fair to make a grant of money. These cases have been where the proposed amenity will benefit only a small percentage of
  972
  the taxpayers or, in other cases, where the organisation which runs the proposed amenity is paying its way. In that connection it is thought not fair to give a grant of money. But very often in both these cases the local authority would desire, and would think it right, to make a loan. The operative word in Section 4 (4) of the 1937 Act is, "contribute". There is some legal doubt as to whether a loan from a local authority is a "contribution" within the meaning of this subsection. There has been no test case on this point, but in practice it is impossible for a local authority to give a loan.
  Subsection (1) of the first clause of this Bill gives power to the local authority definitely to make a loan, with the proviso that such a loan can be given only for capital and not for current expenditure. Clause 1 (2) enables the authority to lay down conditions on which such a loan should be made. Subsection (3) was inserted by a Standing Committee in another place at the request of the Scottish Home Department, and enables the Scottish district councils incurring expenditure to raise the district rate to meet it. Clause 2 enables expenditure by the local authority to rank for equalisation grant. Clauses 3 and 4 are formal and relate this Bill in scope and sense to the 1937 Act.
  This Bill has the support of the National Association of Parish Councils, the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils' Association, the Rural District Councils' Association, the National Playing Fields Association, the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, and the District Councils' Association for Scotland. During its passage through another place the Bill was supported on all sides. May I ask your Lordships to give it similar support here? I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denham.)
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, this Bill, as the mover has indicated, is designed to remove doubts as to whether local authorities, in addition to having power to make grants for purposes comprehended within physical training and recreation, also have the power to make loans. That is the main purpose of the Bill. I could, in parenthesis, say that I regret that the

  973
  expense of promoting physical training and recreation is now dealt with on the basis of the percentage grant and will be merged, on the passing of the Local Government Bill, in the general block grant. That is not a defect which relates only to this Bill, and we shall support the Second Reading, wishing it a speedy passage on to the Statute Book.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE) BILL
  8.43 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is known as the Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Bill. The Bill gives effect, with some modifications, to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce with regard to the maintenance and property rights of husband and wife. I think that I may pass on to deal with the Bill at once.
  Clause 1 deals with a small though important point of procedure. At the present time a court has power to make or order for maintenance on any decree of divorce or nullity of marriage. The word "on" does not mean forthwith or immediately, but within a reasonable time. The practice of the court is to require a wife to obtain leave to file her application for maintenance if more than two months have elapsed from the date when the decree nisi was made absolute. In any event, the court has always the power to take into consideration any delays which may have occurred in making an application. It is really unnecessary that there should be this limitation on the power of the court, and Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the court may make an order for maintenance in pronouncing the decree or at any time thereafter. It is only correct to say that the doctrine of the law will still obtain—that is to say, although an application may be made for maintenance at any time after the decree is made absolute, nevertheless, if there has been delay, that is a matter which the court may take into consideration.
  974
  Clause 2 of the Bill enables a wife who has applied in matrimonial proceedings for financial relief against her husband to ask the High Court to set aside a disposition of property made by him within the previous three years with the intention of defeating her claim. As a matter of procedure, it is not necessary for a maintenance order actually to be made before such a disposition can be set aside. The Bill enables a wife to make an application to set aside such a disposition in the course of maintenance proceedings and not necessarily when an order is actually made. There is, however, protection for a bona fide purchaser for value who has no notice of the husband's intention to defeat the wife's claim for financial relief. It should be noted that "valuable consideration" does not include marriage. A husband should not be able to defeat his first wife's claim to maintenance by transferring all his property to his second wife. Subsection (4) of Clause 2 deals with voluntary dispositions. The Bill adopts the rule established under Section 172 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by providing that if the effect of the disposition was to defeat the wife's claim it shall be presumed to have been made by the husband with that intention.
  Clause 3 of the Bill enables provision to be made for a former wife out of the estate of a deceased former husband. At the present time if a marriage has been dissolved or annulled, the former wife loses at once and for ever her rights under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938. For example, if a woman has been married to a man for twenty years and has borne him children, and some unhappy dispute arises and she divorces her husband on the ground of infidelity, from that moment she loses any right she may possess against her husband's estate under the provisions of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938.
  Clause 3 goes on to provide that where a man dies domiciled in England without having made reasonable provision for a former wife, the latter may, if she has not remarried, apply to the High Court for provision to be made for her out of his estate. These provisions are limited to cases in which the deceased died domiciled in this country. Only a former wife whose marriage was dissolved or annulled by the High Court in England

  975
  will be able to apply under this Bill. The Bill excludes a former wife who has remarried. An application to the High Court must be made within six months of the date when a grant of representation was first made; nevertheless, with the permission of the court, an application may be made after that time, but before the administration and distribution of the estate has been completed.
  Clause 4 of the Bill empowers the court, on application, to discharge or vary or suspend temporarily any order made for a former wife out of her deceased husband's estate. The court will be required to take into account all the circumstances of the case, including any change in the circumstances to which the court was required to have regard in determining the application for the original order. In passing, it is satisfactory to note that the husband is not left out of the picture. Clause 5 provides in effect that a husband or former husband shall have the same right as a wife to apply to the court to set aside a disposition made to defeat the applicant's right to maintenance, or for financial relief against the estate of a deceased wife under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938.
  Some explanation is required here, as one does not normally talk about a husband obtaining maintenance against his wife. But there is one case where this can be done. A husband can obtain an order for maintenance against his wife where she has divorced him on the ground of his insanity. A husband can also obtain an order for a settlement of his wife's property only where he has divorced her on the ground of her adultery, cruelty, or desertion. As for a former husband being able to apply for maintenance out of his deceased wife's estate, this will apply only where the marriage was dissolved or annulled by the High Court in England.
  Clause 6 contains a number of supplementary provisions, among other important matters, as to orders under Clauses 3 and 4, which enable the personal representatives to distribute the estate after six months from the date on which representation was first taken out. Clause 7 of the Bill extends the operation of Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, which deals with disputes between husband and wife as to property. No
  976
  order under Section 17 can be made where the respondent has parted with the property in dispute and there is no identifiable fund in his hands representing the proceeds.
  I hope I may mention a case which is no longer sub judice. A husband, with a certain amount of justifiable exasperation, took all his wife's dresses and threw them out of the window into an adjoining canal. The husband and wife owned a house adjoining a canal, and if they wished to throw anything out of the window it landed in the canal. When the summons came on for hearing under Section 17 of the 1882 Act, there was no doubt that the husband had had his wife's property, but it no longer existed, and therefore no order could be made concerning her property. Furthermore, there was no jurisdiction under the Act to make any financial order.
  Clause 7 provides, in effect, that the court is able to order one spouse to pay the other compensation for the loss of an interest in property to which the other spouse has been able to establish title. Moreover, if the wife makes a claim alleging that the husband has had in his possession a sum of money belonging to her and she does not know whether it is still in his possession or not, the court can, if it transpires that the husband has bought goods (say a motor car) with the money, order the husband to deliver up the car. Clause 7 also clears up a doubt which has existed in the past as to whether or not the court has power under Section 17 of the 1882 Act to order a sale of the property in question. Clause 7 makes it perfectly clear that the court now has that power.
  Clause 8 is the interpretation clause. Clause 9 provides that the Bill will come into operation on the day the Lord Chancellor may appoint. This is to allow necessary time for alterations to be made in the Rules of Court before the Bill comes into operation. The Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. My Lords, I have the permission of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to say that he agrees with the Bill. I cannot imagine a better recommendation; and with that view I have no hesitation in commending it at this extremely late hour to your Lordships' House. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Meston.)
  LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, I wish to say a few words in support of this Bill, but at this hour they will be very short. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, explained at the end of his speech the provisions relating to Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act which enable courts (High Court or county court) to deal with disputes between husband and Wife. I am not going to repeat the reasons which he gave why the present scheme is unsatisfactory. It is enough to say that this amendment will be an extremely useful amendment.
  With regard to Clause 1, I should like to express my own gratitude to the Royal Commission for adopting or recommending the reform which is embedded in it. When I gave evidence before the Commission, I pressed for an Amendment on this particular point. I can explain the matter in one sentence. According to the Act of Parliament, the application for maintenance by a wife must be made on the decree. Some time ago the Court of Appeal said that that meant "on or within a reasonable time after"; but at the same time they said that seven years could not possibly be "within a reasonable time." More recently the Court of Appeal has said that it is by no means proper to rule out an application made even after eighteen years. That is the reason why I support this Amendment, because it makes it so easy for Judges to know what they are to do, and in future we shall have a much simpler task than we have had in the past.
  My Lords, the real reason why I have come down to take part in this debate is because it seemed to me that, owing to the course the Bill took in another place, there was a grave danger of a misapprehension of the point of Clause 3, which provides for a former wife out of the estate of a deceased former husband. It was argued in another place on the basis that this was, so to speak, a charter for guilty wives. In the Bill we are providing that, in addition to obtaining maintenance from a husband during his life, a wife in a proper case may obtain it from the estate of a deceased husband. If that is right in the case of an ordinary wife against whom nothing can be said, there is no reason really why it should not be open to a wife who can be described as a guilty wife. The application
  978
  for maintenance in any case is open to any wife by the Act of Parliament.
  I have made a point of ascertaining how often in practice anybody who can be described as a guilty wife applies for maintenance at all. I am assured by the Senior Registrar at the Principal Probate Registry—who has, of course, experience over many, many years of these matters—that the number of applications by a guilty wife for maintenance is negligible. If that is so, as things stand at present it necessarily follows that applications by wives in that same condition for this relief out of the husband's estate will also be negligible. I wanted to make it clear that we are not in this Bill opening the door wide to disruption of the inheritance to estates by allowing unfounded claims to be brought in in a proportion that has never been in fact reached as the law is at present. My Lords, this is a thoroughly good Bill, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, for his speech. We all know the very high position which he occupies in the judicial system, and I think that when he, out of his wealth of experience, states that a Bill is a good Bill, then indeed no justifiable criticism can be levelled at it.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to inform your Lordships that the debate on the Park Lane Improvement Bill will not be continued this evening but will be taken after the Business on the Paper to-morrow afternoon.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL PENYBONT MAIN SEWERAGE BILL SHELL (STANLOW TO PARTINGTON PIPELINE) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.